webmaster
© Copyright DEHAI-Eritrea OnLine, 1993-2011
All rights reserved
From: Haile Beyene (hbeyene@gmail.com)
Date: Mon Apr 18 2011 - 23:05:57 EDT
Middle East and North Africa: Revolution and Counter-Revolutionby Johan
GaltungApril 19, 2011
Transcend Media
Service<http://www.transcend.org/tms/2011/04/mena-revolution-and-counter-revolution/>
—
Chandra Muzaffar, in his superb*JUST Commentary* for March 2011, argues for
Gaddafi to step down, and adds that if he does, he may be remembered “for
some of his outstanding accomplishments in the first decades of his rule –
accomplishments such as the closure of the huge American air base in Libya
in 1970; his nationalization of oil; the pivotal role he played in the
reorganization of OPEC that enabled it to emerge as a powerful cartel
challenging Western dominance over the oil industry; his massive man-made
river project to irrigate desert land; his housing schemes for the
low-income segment of society; and other infra-structure programmes.” All
are absent from mainstream media today.
[image: U.S. military command
zones]<http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/800px-Unified_Combatant_Commands_map.png>Add
to the above Gaddafi’s role in shaping the Arab League, thwarted by the
US-backed international military venture code-named Operation “Odysseus
Dawn” (March 19–31, 2011) to enforce United Nations Security Council
Resolution 1973; thereafter, it became Operation “Unified Protector” under
NATO command. Add also Gaddafi’s role in the African Union, which he chaired
from 2009 to 2010. He turned his attention south rather than east (Egypt,
Saudi Arabia etc). And you have an answer to why the West, not only the USA,
hated him from the very beginning. But then he became a victim of his own
success – a dictator seeing himself as indispensable.
The recent pan-Arab revolt, described as the Arab Spring, has five
characteristics. It is anti-autocratic, anti-kleptocratic (against greedy,
corrupt governments), anti-imperialist, for youth and for women. Gaddafi’s
profile is mixed, but not like Mubarak of Egypt or Ben-Ali of Tunisia, the
two recently fallen rulers. Nor like for the Saudi Royal House and the
Bahraini and Yemeni leaderships. Macro history (characterizing big,
long-term historical trends) moves slowly. Nasser and Gaddafi set the
course, but few would expect them to succeed immediately. They will both be
remembered when the present Western dwarfs are forgotten.
The counter-revolution was planned a long time ago. The CIA set up the
“National Front for the Salvation of Libya” (NFSL) way back in 1981,
followed by the “Libyan National Army” (LNA), now known as the Benghazi
rebels. On November 2, 2010, the Anglo-French agreement to attack Libya no
later than January 30, 2011 was signed – for the first time since the attack
on Egypt in October 1956. In all likelihood, the attack on Libya is equally
ill-fated. We sense already that Obama is distancing himself from the
French-led attack, transferring some of the imperial role on a France that
exacted a high price for rejoining NATO as a full member (French demands
included America’s acceptance of an independent European defense and a
leading French role in NATO’s command structure). Is Sarkozy, *le petit
Napoléon*, hoping to take over as the USA gets increasingly bankrupt,
already servicing debt with 41 cents of every federal dollar spent? Well, we
shall soon find out, but NATO is still under US command and the EU is still
unable to formulate a joint independent policy.
The West sacrificed dispensable figures like Ben-Ali and Mubarak, and then
used Libya to create a humanitarian emergency of their own making. Who kills
more civilians with cluster bombs or depleted uranium? But in cities
re-conquered by Gaddafi, no massacre has taken place so far, as Stephen M.
Walt points out in*Foreign Policy* (See “Is America Addicted to War? The Top
5 Reasons Why We Keep Getting Into Foolish Fights,” April 4, 2011).
The alliance mobilized by the deeply Christian-Zionist Hillary Clinton to
fight Gaddafi got “Yes” from 10 out of 15 UN Security Council members, while
half of humanity (Brazil, Russia, India, China, and Germany) abstained.
These member-states are neither against saving civilians nor for selective
humanitarianism. In the Arab League, only 11 of 22 members voted – 9 in
favor and Syria and Algeria against (Syria may be the next US target). Only
Qatar and the United Arab Emirates participate militarily in the operation
against Gaddafi. Qatar is displaying its usual ambiguity, and the UAE is
totally unambiguous – pro-US.
This is NATO’s first African invasion (it has to be called as such) after
several in Asia.
There was no attack on a NATO member-state. No common enemy, no real
discussion, no vote, and no consensus within the Western alliance. Germany
and Turkey are opposed and refuse any combat role. Turkey is involved in
complex mediation, with Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan focusing his
efforts on Gaddafi, and Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu on the rebel-held
Benghazi. Other factors in the background:Gaddafi seems to have wanted to
switch from Western oil companies to Russian, Indian and Chinese companies,
just as Saddam Hussein of Iraq had moved from dollars to euros; anti-Gaddafi
forces in Benghazi say that when they have won, oil contracts will be
awarded to those who helped them.
The key to this whole exercise is control of Africa, which in 1956 was still
mainly owned by Britain and France. Libya had become an Italian colony way
back in 1911. Now, Africa’s union is posing a threat. African nations are
asserting their independence, and developing ties with China. NATO wants to
control Africa through the United States African Command (AFRICOM) and
European Command (EUCOM) – all synonyms for the Pentagon. This is where
Libya enters, in rejecting AFRICOM, with Sudan, Eritrea, Zimbabwe and the
Ivory Coast. These countries are to be subdued for not allowing US bases.
The Libyan action may put Africa on fire. Watch Turkey and Africans
mediating, Libya eventually democratizing and Gaddafi stepping down to an
honorary position, but staying in the country. Of course, Benghazi has
rejected this, as has the NATO secretary general, Anders Fogh Rasmussen, who
wants Gaddafi in the International Criminal Court.
Johan Galtung is a distinguished scholar, founder of the discipline of peace
and conflict studies and of TRANSCEND International (www.transcend.org), a
conflict resolution network. Read more articles by Johan
Galtung<http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/author/johan-galtung/>
.
*http://www.transcend.org* <http://www.transcend.org/>
----[This List to be used for Eritrea Related News Only]----