webmaster
© Copyright DEHAI-Eritrea OnLine, 1993-2011
All rights reserved
From: wolda002@umn.edu
Date: Sat Apr 09 2011 - 18:28:06 EDT
The Puppetmasters Behind the Military Action in
Libya<http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/foreign-policy/6845-the-puppetmasters-behind-the-military-action-in-libya>
Written by Raven Clabough Friday, 25 March 2011 19:28
President Obama’s actions in Libya were already suspicious
<http://washingtonexaminer.com/politics/2011/03/led-war-president-who-cant-be-trusted>for
a number of reasons. First, during Obama’s presidential campaign, he
asserted that his priority was to get America out of the two wars it was
already fighting. Second, Obama was a staunch critic of the Bush
administration for unconstitutionally embarking on a war without
congressional approval — an action of which President Obama is now guilty.
Finally, as the economy is teetering on collapse, one would assume the last
thing the President would want is to have to fund a third war.
And yet here we are. However, once we delve into some of the key players
behind the President’s ultimate decision to embark on military action in
Libya, things become clearer, and more frustrating.
President Obama cited the “Responsibility to
Protect<http://www.crisisgroup.org/en/key-issues/responsibility-to-protect.aspx>”
doctrine as a justification for bombing Libya. The initiative is a doctrine
of the Global Centre for the Responsibility to Protect. *The American
Thinker *explains<http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2011/03/soros_heavily_involved_in_the.html>
:
There is one influential group that has been in the forefront of efforts to
promote the idea that the international community is obligated to take
measures (including military ones) to protect civilians. That group is the
Global Center for the Responsibility to Protect.
The Global Centre was created in February 2008, according to its
website<http://globalr2p.org/about/index.php>,
“to catalyze action to move the 2005 World Summit agreement on the
responsibility to protect populations from genocide, ethnic cleansing, war
crimes and crimes against humanity from principle into practice.”
On Thursday’s Glenn Beck program, Beck explains that the International
Coalition for the Responsibility to Protect and the Global Centre are both
advocates use of the R2P doctrine, which contends that once a government no
longer protects its people from any of those evils, it is the role of the
international community to take steps against the government. Those steps
can range from sanctions, to prosecutions in the International Criminal
Court, to military action.
Board members of the Global Centre include former UN Secretary Kofi Annan,
former Ireland President Mary Robinson, and South African activist Desmond
Tutu. Robinson and Tutu have made a number of visits to the Hamas-controlled
Gaza Strip.
The doctrine of the R2P is also often drawn upon by the International Crisis
Group<http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/obamas-one-stop-shop-for-foreign-policy-advisers/>,
a group whose major donor is none other than Leftist billionaire George
Soros, who serves on the board and executive committee.
*WND *reports that the ICG has “been petitioning for the U.S. to normalize
ties with the Muslim Brotherhood,” and includes on its board Egyptian
opposition leader Mohamed ElBaradei, as well as others who “champion
dialogue with Hamas.” The group has also “petitioned for the Algerian
government to cease ‘excessive’ military activities against Al-Qaida-linked
groups.
Soros’s Open Society Institute has funded a number of opposition groups
across the Middle East including those involved in the current Libyan
crisis.
According to Beck, the idea for the Responsibility to Protect came directly
out of a book called *The Problem from Hell*, written by a woman named
Samantha Power, which focused on the United States’ inability or
unwillingness to respond effectively to genocide and mass atrocity.
Power’s book is heavily anti-Israel. *Discover the Networks*
explains<http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=2379>,
“Power has a long record of antipathy towards Israel. In 2001, she attended
the United Nations’ World Conference against Racism, even after the U.S. had
withdrawn most of its diplomatic participation once it became apparent that
the gathering would give prominence to anti-American, anti-Israel, and
anti-Semitic perspectives.”
During a 2002 interview with Harry Kreisler, director of the Institute for
International Studies at UC Berkeley, Power said that “alienating a domestic
constituency of tremendous political and financial import” (Jewish
Americans) should not prevent the United States from investing money “In the
new state of Palestine” rather than in “servicing Israel’s military.”
It’s worth noting that Power is now President Obama’s influential foreign
policy adviser and one of the key people responsible for Obama’s decision to
attack Libya under the Responsibility to Protect policy.
Leftist billionaire George Soros was so heavily influenced by Power’s book
that his Open Society Institute became one of the two foundations that is
funding the Global Centre for the Responsibility to Protect; the other
funding source is the John D. and Catherine MacArthur foundation.
*WND *best sums <http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=278685>up the convoluted trail
that led the United States into Libya:
“Activist Gareth Evans <http://www.gevans.org/speeches/speech235.html>, who
sits on the global group's advisory board, is widely regarded as the founder
of the Responsibility to Protect principle.
The activist who founded and coined the name of the doctrine,
"Responsibility to Protect," sits on several key organizations alongside
Soros.
Also, the Soros-funded global group that promotes Responsibility to Protect
is closely tied to Samantha Power, the National Security Council special
adviser to Obama on human rights.
Power has been a champion of the doctrine and is, herself, deeply tied to
the doctrine's founder.
According to reports, Power was instrumental in convincing Obama to act
against Libya.”
Ironically, up until relatively recently, George Soros believed Qadhafi to
be misunderstood, and even convinced the London School of Economics to
accept Libyan money, on the grounds that Qadhafi’s son, Saif, appeared to be
a believer in an open society and claimed to be working to move Libya in
that direction.” A spokesman for Soros later indicated that Soros viewed his
advice to LSE as “a mistake in judgment, which he now greatly regrets.”
Furthermore, a number of others worked on a campaign
<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/02/23/how-to-make-gadhafi-look-good-lobbyists_n_827210.html>to
improve Muammar Qadhafi’s image in the world. An organization called the
Monitor Group leaked a 2007 memo that named prominent figures that would
travel to Libya and meet with Qadhafi “as part of the ‘Project to Enhance
the Profile of Libya and Muammar Qadhafi.” The campaign was ultimately
cancelled in 2009 after Libyan leaders gave a “hero’s welcome” to the
convicted Lockerbie bomber upon his release from a Scottish prison in August
2009.
However, it is worth mentioning that one of those prominent figures who
worked to improve Qadhafi’s reputation and Libya’s relations with the United
States is Cass Sunstein, President Obama’s current regulatory czar and
husband of none other than Samantha Power.
So we have George Soros, who is disappointed in Libya’s rejection of an open
society, and who is now funding some of the opposition groups in Libya. We
have the anti-Israeli Samantha Power and Cass Sustein supporting the R2P and
encouraging President Obama to embark on military action in Libya under that
doctrine.
What is so dangerous about the Responsibility to Protect, advocated by
Soros, Power, Obama, and Sunstein, is how the doctrine can be used against
Israel in calls for international intervention in the conflict between
Israel and Palestine.
For example, Dr. Richard Falk of the UNHRC, the UN Representative for the
Palestinian people, recently spoke at a UN Human Rights Council as it
prepared a resolution to condemn Israel for its occupation of East Jerusalem
and the West Bank. Falk said that “the continued pattern of settlement
expansion in East Jerusalem combined with the forcible eviction of
long-residing Palestinians are creating an intolerable situation” that Falk
contends “can only be described in its cumulative impact as a form of ethnic
cleansing.”
Falk now seeks to use R2P against Israel. *CNS News*
writes<http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/if-un-has-responsibility-protect-libyans>
:
As the United Nations-backed concept known as ‘responsibility to protect’
enjoys renewed prominence because of the crisis in Libya, a critic of Israel
has launched a fresh bid to make a case for outside intervention on behalf
of the Palestinians.
Richard Falk, the U.N.’s ‘special rapporteur on human rights in the occupied
Palestinian territories,’ said in a report delivered to the Human Rights
Council in Geneva on Monday that Israeli policies amount to “ethnic
cleansing<http://morallowground.com/2011/03/22/top-u-n-investigator-accuses-israel-of-ethnic-cleansing/>”
and “crimes against humanity.”
It’s no coincidence that Falk happened to refer to two of the four criteria
specified in his report to advocate using the concept and argued that
intervention under the doctrine is necessary against Israel’s actions in
Gaza.
Falk said, “An urgent effort should be made at the United Nations to
implement the agreed norm of a ‘responsibility to protect’ a civilian
population being collectively punished by policies that amount to a crime
against community.”
Falk is not the first to call for this. The Deputy Prime Minister of Turkey,
Bulent Arinc, has called
<http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2011/03/turkeys_deputy_prime_minister.html>for
the use of the R2P against Israel, and even called for the bombing of
Israel.
Addressing the military action in Libya, Arinc said, “We wish that the
United Nations had made such resolutions and countries had taken action in
the face of incidents in Gaza, Palestine, and other regions.”
As the *American Thinker* predicted, “It is not hard to envision that this
R2P concept, swirling through the United Nations and in international
foreign policy circles, can one day be applied against Israel when that
nation is forced to respond from attacks coming from the West Bank, Gaza,
and Lebanon.”
Not only does America’s military action in Libya under R2P bear the risk of
justifying all sorts of potential military endeavors in the future, but it
bears the fingerprints of anti-Israeli, anti-American proponents like
Samantha Power and George Soros.
The situation begs the questions, where will this lead the United States,
and how will Israel be impacted?
Related articles:
Rep. Ron Paul on
Libya<http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/usnews/foreign-policy/6833-rep-ron-paul-on-libya>
Where Gingrich and Romney Stand on
Libya<http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/usnews/politics/6841-where-gop-presidential-hopefuls-gingrich-and-romney-stand-on-libya>
Libya Costs Will Undermine GOP
Savings<http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/economy/economics-mainmenu-44/6828-libya-costs-will-undermine-gops-savings>
Paul, Kucinich Seek to Defund "Impeachable" War on
Libya<http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/usnews/foreign-policy/6826-paul-kucinich-seek-to-defund-impeachable-war-on-libya>
Democrat Calls Obama's Actions in Libya
"Impeachable"<http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/usnews/foreign-policy/6797-democrat-calls-obamas-actions-in-libya-qimpeachableq>
Obama, Clinton, and Biden Agree: War on Libya Is
Unconstitutional<http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/usnews/foreign-policy/6791-obama-clinton-and-biden-agree-war-on-libya-is-unconstitutional>
UN Trumps Constitution, Congress in President's Undeclared War on
Libya<http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/usnews/foreign-policy/6782-un-trumps-constitution-congress-in-presidents-undeclared-war-on-libya>
Rep. Amash Calls Libya Action
Unconstitutional<http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/usnews/constitution/6766-rep-amash-calls-libya-action-unconstitutional>
A Real Cost/Benefit Analysis of Libyan
Intervention<http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/world-mainmenu-26/africa-mainmenu-27/6761-a-real-costbenefit-analysis-of-libyan-intervention>
Libya: One Quagmire Too
Far?<http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/world-mainmenu-26/africa-mainmenu-27/6752-libya-one-quagmire-too-far>
On Libya, It's the Beltway Interventionists vs. Ron Paul and the
Founders<http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/usnews/foreign-policy/6741-on-libya-its-the-beltway-interventionists-vs-ron-paul-and-the-founders>
Proper Use of the U.S.
Military<http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/usnews/foreign-policy/3836-proper-use-of-the-us-military>
----[This List to be used for Eritrea Related News Only]----