CPC(M-L) HOME TML Daily Archive Le Marxiste-Léniniste quotidien

February 28, 2011 - No. 28

UN Security Council Imposes Sanctions on Libyan Authorities

Oppose the Threats to Use Force Against Libya!
Oppose the Use of Force to Resolve Conflicts Within and Between Nations!

Oppose the Threats to Use Force Against Libya! Oppose the Use of Force to Resolve Conflicts Within and Between Nations! - CPC(M-L)
Sanctions Are and Remain Acts of War and Intervention Against Sovereign Nations -- Hands Off Libya!
The Cynical Danse Macabre - Fidel Castro
An Invasion of Libya Will Be an Act of War - Nathan J. Freeman
The Oil Humanitarianism - Radio Havana Cuba
The Unreliable Sources of the Imperialists' "Reliable" Information
Canadian Government Hypocrisy to Justify Sanctions Against Libya

For Your Information
Chapter VII of the UN Charter
Imperialist "Responsibility to Protect" Doctrine
Prime Minister's Statement on Implementing Sanctions Against Libya

UN Security Council Imposes Sanctions on Libyan Authorities

Oppose the Threats to Use Force Against Libya!
Oppose the Use of Force to Resolve Conflicts Within and Between Nations!

The Communist Party of Canada (Marxist-Leninist) opposes the decision of the UN Security Council to impose sanctions on Libya under Chapter VII, Article 41 of the UN Charter.

CPC(M-L) urges all Canadians to remain apprised of the quickly unfolding events in North Africa and West Asia and oppose the manipulation of the events by the U.S., NATO and others who do not have the interests of the peoples of their countries and the world at heart. CPC(M-L) specifically calls on the Canadian working class and youth to lead the anti-war and peace movements to take unequivocal stands against the preparations to carry out an invasion of Libya and to oppose the attempt to get Canadians to join a bandwagon to call for the invocation of the imperialist "Responsibility to Protect" doctrine in the name of "stopping the killings" in Libya. Take an unequivocal stand against jumping on the bandwagon of providing unsubstantiated claims as a pretext to invade Libya and achieve the self-serving aims of the U.S. and other enemies of the peoples!

The use of force in settling conflicts between nations hurts the peoples and helps those who are either merchants of death or who live off the plunder of other countries, or both. How can the peoples protect their interests within this situation? A prerequisite is to oppose the use of force which is leading to the danger of a Third World War and a great catastrophe for humankind. We can avert such dangers if we involve ourselves in creating an anti-war government in Canada and we support all those who are working to establish the same in their own countries.

Oppose the Use of Force to Resolve Conflicts Within and Between Nations!

Return to top

Sanctions Are and Remain Acts of War and
Intervention Against Sovereign Nations --
Hands Off Libya!

On Friday, February 25 and early Saturday, February 26, the U.S. Canada and Australia imposed unilateral sanctions (outside the official authority of the UN) to freeze Libyan government financial assets held in financial institutions of their countries. Following this, the United Nations Security Council on late Saturday night, acting under the authority of Article 41 of Chapter VII of the UN Charter, unanimously approved sanctions on Libya with respect to the "complete or partial interruption of economic relations and of rail, sea, air, postal, telegraphic, radio, and other means of communication, and the severance of diplomatic relations." (Chapter VII of the UN Charter is appended below.) Subsequent to this, on Sunday, February 27, Canada imposed an enhanced sanction regime on Libya. (See article below.)

Past experience shows the dangerous course the Security Council decision sets. Sanctions played a murderous role in Iraq. Their aim was to get Saddam Hussein to hand over state power to the U.S. imperialists and, failing that, to create a "failed state" and then invoke the necessity to invade to allegedly protect the people. The UN Security Council's decision opens the door for military intervention against Libya in the name of enforcing the sanctions and the pretext that Libya is a "failed state."

UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon's explanation of the significance of the Security Council resolution corroborates that the aim of the sanctions is "regime change."

"The text sends a strong message that gross violations of basic human rights will not be tolerated, and that those responsible for grave crimes will be held accountable, " the UN News Centre quotes Ban saying. "... The sanctions you have imposed are a necessary step to speed the transition to a new system of governance that will have the consent and participation of the people," the Secretary-General added.

What is clear from these remarks is that what is called the "international community" is working towards "a new system of governance" in Libya. One has to ask, what right do the UN Security Council and the likes of the U.S., Britain, Germany, France and other former colonial powers and their appendages such as Canada and Australia have to decide what type of governance a country has?

In this regard, the U.S. is spearheading the drive to create a failed state in Libya and Canada has joined it. On Sunday, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said the U.S. was prepared to offer "any kind of assistance" to Libyans seeking to overthrow the regime in Libya as they set up a transitional body.

"We are just at the beginning of what will follow Gaddafi," she said. "First we have to see the end of his regime and with no further bloodshed," she said. Washington is eager for his ouster "as soon as possible," she added. "We want him to leave," she said.

Regardless of the attempt to provide sanctions with legitimacy by giving them the authority of the UN Security Council, sanctions are and remain acts of war and intervention in the affairs of a sovereign people. It seems that besides having no actual corroboration for the accusations of genocide, the only element absent from the situation that would have enabled an immediate military intervention was any pretext of Libyan forces mobilizing against neighbouring countries. The situation remains dangerous and highly fraught regardless, as the U.S. and its main allies have mobilized their spokespersons and the monopoly media to create hysteria to stampede an intervention to "stop the killing" of Libyans by forces still loyal to Col. Gaddafi. The Sunday morning edition of the New York Times (February 26) set the tone for this saying:

"Unlike neighbouring Egypt and Tunisia, Libya lacks the steadying hand of a military to buttress a collapsing government. It has no Parliament, no trade unions, no political parties, no civil society, no nongovernmental agencies. Its only strong ministry is the state oil company. The fact that some experts think the next government might be built atop the oil ministry underscores the paucity of options.

"The worst-case scenario should the rebellion topple him, and one that concerns American counterterrorism officials, is that of Afghanistan or Somalia -- a failed state where Al Qaeda or other radical groups could exploit the chaos and operate with impunity."

Further evidence of the continuing threat of serious military intervention by the imperialist and former colonial powers comes in the form of the news of the "successful" British "rescue" of nationals working on oil rigs in the Libyan desert by an SAS team (i.e., a British special forces unit) and the Royal Air Force on Friday night, and the further news that the French armed forces are planning a similar manoeuvre to save their personnel in the oil fields. No report has yet surfaced as to whether the British SAS, which is highly trained in conducting assassinations of political figures, has actually departed Libyan territory.

NATO bombs rain down on Belgrade, Yugoslavia,
March 24, 1999, the first day of a 78-day criminal campaign of bombing carried out in the name of "human security."

The script for what the imperialists are planning in Libya was first written in 1991 when the so-called Coalition of the Willing invaded Iraq through Operation Desert Storm. At that time the American secret services created a pretext concerning atrocities allegedly committed by Saddam Hussein's forces in Kuwaiti orphanages to arouse international opinion in favour of invasion. Lies were subsequently used to commit the crime of aggression against several sovereign nations in the name of high ideals. The principled stand upheld by the UN Charter to sort out problems within nations and between nations through negotiations and to refrain from using force was abandoned. The same script was enacted prior to the NATO bombing and subsequent dismemberment of Yugoslavia. Those forces which called themselves supporters of human rights promoted the lie of a genocide against the Kosovars which would then be codified in their imperialist "Responsibility to Protect" doctrine (see below). After 911, the UN Charter was regularly trampled in the mud as crimes against the peace and crimes against humanity are carried out by the U.S. and its allies in the name of the "war on terror."

In the case of Libya we are once again witnessing the same scenario of invasion on the basis of fabricated evidence. Unsubstantiated accusations of genocide and mass killings on the part of the Libyan government against its own people are repeated as if there is no tomorrow. The anti-war movement has fought every single step of the way to expose the fraud of the pretexts, up to and including the alleged weapons of mass destruction of Saddam Hussein and the crimes against the peace and humanity committed by the invading forces in Iraq, Afghanistan and now Pakistan as well, not to speak of the pretexts used by the Israeli Zionists and their backers to commit crimes against the Palestinian people on a daily basis in Gaza and the West Bank.

No matter what the pretext, the Canadian Marxist-Leninists vigorously oppose the use of violence to smash the creation of a public opinion which favours the solution of problems on a peaceful basis. Such violence serves to smash political movements which strive to take up nation-building in a manner which favours the interests of the peoples concerned.

Return to top

The Cynical Danse Macabre

The politics of plunder imposed by the United States and its NATO allies in the Middle East is in crisis. This was inevitably unleashed with the high cost of grain, the effects of which are being felt with more force in the Arab nations where, despite their enormous oil resources, the shortage of water, arid areas and generalized poverty of the people contrast with the vast resources derived from oil possessed by the privileged sectors.

While food prices triple, the real estate fortunes and wealth of the aristocratic minority rise to billions of dollars.

The Arab world, with its Islamic culture and beliefs, has seen itself additionally humiliated by the brutal imposition of a state which was not capable of meeting the elemental obligations which brought about its creation, based on the colonial order in existence since the end of World War II, which allowed the victorious powers to create the United Nations and impose world trade and economy.

Thanks to Mubarak's betrayal at Camp David, the Palestinian Arab State has not come into existence, despite the United Nations agreements of November 1947, and Israel has become a powerful nuclear force allied with the United States and NATO.

The U.S. military-industrial complex supplies tens of billions of dollars every year to Israel and to the very Arab states that it subjugates and humiliates.

The genie is out of the bottle and NATO doesn't know how to control it. They are going to try and take maximum advantage of the lamentable events in Libya. No one is capable of knowing at this time what is happening there. All of the figures and versions, even the most improbable, have been disseminated by the empire through the mass media, sowing chaos and misinformation.

It is evident that a civil war is developing in Libya. Why and how was this unleashed? Who will suffer the consequences? The Reuters news agency, repeating the opinion of the well-known Nomura Japanese bank, said that the price of oil could surpass all limits:

"'If Libya and Algeria were to halt oil production together, prices could peak above US$220/bbl and OPEC spare capacity will be reduced to 2.1mmbbl/d, similar to levels seen during the Gulf war and when prices hit U.S.$147/bbl in 2008,' the bank stated in a note."

Who could pay this price today? What will be the consequences for the food crisis?

The principal NATO leaders are exalted. British Prime Minister David Cameron, reported ANSA, "admitted in a speech in Kuwait that the Western countries made a mistake in supporting non-democratic governments in the Arab world." He should be congratulated for his frankness.

His French colleague Nicolas Sarkozy declared, "The prolonged brutal and bloody repression of the Libyan civilian population is repugnant."

Italian Foreign Minister Franco Frattini declared "'believable' the figure of one thousand dead in Tripoli […] 'the tragic figure will be a bloodbath.'"

Ban Ki-moon added, "The use of violence in the country is absolutely unacceptable."

"…the Security Council will act in accordance with what the international community decides."

What Ban Ki-moon is really waiting for is that Obama give the last word.

The President of the United States spoke Wednesday afternoon [February 23] and stated that the Secretary of State would leave for Europe in order to reach an agreement with the NATO European allies as to what measures to take. Noticeable on his face was his readiness to take on the right-wing Republican John McCain; Joseph Lieberman, the pro-Israel Senator from Connecticut; and Tea Party leaders, in order to guarantee his nomination by the Democratic Party.

The empire's mass media have prepared the ground for action. There would be nothing strange about a military intervention in Libya, which would, additionally, guarantee Europe almost two million barrels of light oil a day, if events do not occur beforehand to put an end to the presidency or life of Gaddafi.

In any event, Obama's role is complicated enough. What would the Arab and Islamic world's reaction be if much blood is spilt in this country in such an adventure? Would the revolutionary wave unleashed in Egypt stop a NATO intervention?

In Iraq the innocent blood of more than a million Arab citizens was shed when this country was invaded on false pretenses. Mission accomplished, George W. Bush proclaimed.

No one in the world will ever be in favor of the deaths of defenseless civilians in Libya or anywhere else. I ask myself, would the United States and NATO apply that principle to the defenseless civilians killed by yankee drones, and this organization's soldiers, every day in Afghanistan and Pakistan?

It is cynicism's danse macabre.

Fidel Castro Ruz
February 23, 2011.
7:42 p.m.

Return to top

An Invasion of Libya Will Be an Act of War

On Friday, February 25, Prime Minister Stephen Harper announced to reporters in the foyer of the House of Commons that Canada was preparing to join a sanctions regime aimed at ending the rule of Libyan Col. Muammar Gaddafi. He made this announcement no sooner the U.S. made theirs. He said that the government would look into adding further sanctions of its own to those on the U.S. list.

Joining sanctions, whether authorized by the UN Security Council or initiated by the U.S. imperialists, is an act of war against the sovereign Libyan people. All such forms of interference constitute an attack on their right to settle their internal affairs without foreign interference. Contrary to the doctrine of "responsibility to protect" that U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton calls "universally accepted principles of the international community," there is no "international community" worthy of the name without upholding this principle of non-interference. Furthermore, without also defending the right of nations and peoples to self-determination, this "international community" itself is reduced to nothing but a jungle of predators and those upon whom they prey.

Harper's announcement followed U.S. President Obama's signing an order of unilateral sanctions, including the freezing of all Libyan government assets in U.S. financial institutions, as a prelude to pushing for a fuller sanctions regime at a UN Security Council session scheduled for Saturday, February 26. The bulk of these government assets is comprised of royalties collected on vending the nation's vast oil wealth to the foreign oil majors such as Italy's ENI, the Anglo-U.S. BP monopoly and the Anglo-Dutch monster Shell. Libya is the world's fourth largest exporter of crude oil, currently said to be pumping 1.8 million barrels a day, accounting for about 20 per cent of the requirements of member states of the European Union. Who then is actually helped by such sanctions? The U.S. administration under Jimmy Carter froze Iranian government assets 32 years ago as the regime of the Shah was collapsing. Yet, from the time a successor government was definitively established in Tehran to date -- not a penny has been returned. Disguised as a measure that punishes the Gaddafi regime's alleged resort to military force against protesters and tightens the noose around his family and the interests of those in the Libyan oligarchy still supporting him, it looks like this asset freeze could be the prelude to Big Oil taking its cut.

Echoing the campaign taken up four days earlier by former British Foreign Secretary Lord David Owen, Liberal Opposition leader Michael Ignatieff responded to Harper's announcement by demanding the imposition of a "no-fly zone" over Libyan airspace as a "stronger" response. NDP foreign affairs critic Paul Dewar concurred, giving the stamp of approval of the so-called left-wing of the Opposition to promote an invasion of Libya in the name of high ideals.

The CBC sound-bytes and internet tweets of "what to do" about the Libyan crisis have become trial balloons floated by the imperialist forces. What is the aim? Amid the creation of a vast international propaganda hysteria focused on a regime which is allegedly murdering its own citizens, the real aim can only be to stampede Canadians into accepting what amounts to acts of war by their government against the government and people of another sovereign state. If they do not succeed in getting Canadians to actively accept, they aim to get a vocal lobby which allegedly represents them. The creation of the hysteria then has the desired effect of keeping Canadians inactive in the face of the situation. The method is designed to generate the appearance of a "consensus" without having to go through an unpredictable and potentially divisive parliamentary debate. All of it serves to legitimate the Prime Minister's prerogative to unilaterally take foreign policy decisions on questions of war and peace which are seriously harmful to the interests of the Canadian working class and people and the peoples of the world.

The essence of the approach of the Canadian government supported by the Liberal and NDP Opposition is, once again, to defend the U.S. imperialists in their striving for domination over sources of raw materials, zones for export of capital and spheres of influence.

However, Libya is not the only concern of the U.S. imperialists at this moment. The central U.S. concerns regarding the wave of upsurges across North Africa and the Middle East have been focused primarily on Egypt, where they moved heaven and earth earlier this month to rescue their domination by engineering a so-called peaceful transition to a military regime that would continue Hosni Mubarak's system of rule and policies without Mubarak. Even more recently, the U.S. imperialists have become additionally acutely concerned about the uprising in Bahrain, the home of the U.S. Fifth Fleet inside the Persian Gulf and an important base from which to threaten the Islamic Republic of Iran. Finally, the U.S. is deeply concerned about the delicate condition of the Saleh regime that it has been propping up for the last several decades in Yemen. Among other things, it depends increasingly on Yemen as a base from which to keep a close and menacing eye on rising shipments of oil to China from Saudi Arabia and Sudan. As concerns Saudi Arabia, the ailing monarch is said to have returned to his homeland from the U.S. with his purse strings opened to the tune of $37 billion in a desperate attempt to stave off any demonstration of the people in the Saudi kingdom.

Even though the imperialist cabal of states has centred its attention on Libya and is fashioning some form of intervention in the region through Libya at this time, there is no guarantee that war would necessarily be centred on, or even confined to, Libya. Throughout all these developments, the central preoccupations of the U.S. have remained what they were before the peoples' movements surged, namely:

1. What interests control the oil.

2. How to continue to address and protect the concerns and requirements of the State of Israel as an occupier of Arab lands and as pretorian guard over the Suez Canal on behalf of the world imperialist system of states.

Return to top

The Oil Humanitarianism

There is nothing like 47 billion barrels of high quality oil to awaken the "humanity" of the Western powers, which are ready to intervene in Libya supposedly to protect the lives and safety of that people.

The African nation owns these proven reserves, which are actually much larger because most of its territory is still unexplored.

In addition, the cost of oil extraction there is very low, up to a dollar per barrel in some fields, and its lightness is remarkably worthy because it is very cheap to refine it.

All these are arguments that immediately mobilize the "noblest sentiments" of those governments that have been committing atrocious outrages in various parts of the planet, barely flinching.

Just to give you an idea, the French Minister of Foreign Affairs, Michele Alliot-Marie, announced that her country and Britain prepared a draft to demand that Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi be tried in the International Criminal Court for "Crimes Against Humanity."

Alliot-Marie was careful to use impolite language against former Tunisia's President Ben Ali because an entrepreneur very close to the tyrant generously lent her his private plane for her and her family during her vacation, when social protests had already begun in that country.

It's also useful to remember that for over 25 years France gave official refuge to former Haitian dictator Jean Claude Duvalier, responsible for the deaths, disappearances, abductions and torture of thousands of Haitians but never thought to send him to the International Court, or judge him themselves, even though his serious offenses are of global scope.

But since Haiti has no oil but only many poor people, that does not raise the humanitarian sentiments of the United States or Europe, a sad reality that is perfectly verifiable from the continuing delays in delivering the promised humanitarian aid for its reconstruction after the devastating earthquake last year, or the reluctance to grant the requested emergency funds to contain the cholera epidemic in the impoverished Caribbean nation.

However, only a fraction of those promised funds has arrived and there are more than a million human beings living in the most disgraceful conditions without stirring up any positive feeling from Washington and Brussels.

Any unnecessary death, whether in Tripoli or in Port au Prince, is equally sad because as the Irish poet John Donne once said, "one man's death diminishes all of humanity," but the key point is that the Caribbean nation already lost nearly 300,000 of its best sons and daughters in the earthquake and over 4,500 due to cholera so far.

Leader of the Cuban Revolution Fidel Castro has warned that an intervention by U.S. and NATO forces is imminent in Libya, and no one has denied this fact; on the contrary, unfortunately steps are being taken in that direction.

Therefore, we all find ourselves at the door of a new crime committed in the name of humanity, nothing new or strange coming from those who invented absurd conceptions as unlikely as waging a war to prevent a war, or to let students and teachers go armed to the universities, to avoid gunfire.

As we said at the outset, it remains to be seen what sort of feelings are capable of lubricating a huge sea full of good, cheap and easy to reach oil.

Return to top

The Unreliable Sources of the
Imperialists' "Reliable" Information

The world has not forgotten the debacle of Colin's Powell's reliable "weapons of mass destruction" information. But the matter of the use of "weapons of mass deception" is as serious today as it was then. Simply put, if the information is not reliable, how can you pass an international sanctions regime and all but declare a failed state which warrants foreign intervention on the basis of that information?

According to Liberal and Conservative Senators Romeo Dallaire and Hugh Siegel, writing in the Montreal Gazette, February 24: "Reliable information has been difficult to acquire because much of Libya remains under an information blackout, with Internet access choked off and only limited and intermittent phone service. However, reports from International Crisis Group and Human Rights Watch suggest more than 300 civilians have been killed indiscriminately by the regime's military aircraft, armed forces and hired mercenaries. Italy's foreign minister, Franco Frattini, even stated that 'estimates of about 1,000 killed are credible.'"

In fact, the knowledge available about the sources of the so-called information is very reliable. The International Crisis Group is a non-governmental organization (NGO) with an annual budget of over $15 million. It was co-founded by Mark Malloch Brown, former World Bank Vice-President, Former U.S. Ambassador Morton Abramowitz and U.S. Senator George Mitchel, the Obama administration's current envoy for Middle East Peace. The Group is bankrolled by the Carnegie Foundation, the Ford Foundation, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, as well as George Soros' Open Society Institute. Former U.S. Secretary of State Zbigniew Brzezinski, former Deputy U.S. Secretary of State Richard Armitage, and current Israeli President Shimon Peres, among others, are senior advisors.

The current CEO of the International Crisis Group is former Supreme Court of Canada Justice Louise Arbour who rendered valuable services to the imperialists following the NATO bombing of Yugoslavia. As head of the International Criminal Court for the Former Yugoslavia, she did not even consider the need to prosecute the U.S., Germany or any other NATO country for crimes against the peace and war crimes. Arbour's name is also linked with behind the scenes unofficial advice for Daniel Bellemare, the chief prosecutor of the Special Tribunal on Lebanon, on how to set up trials in absentia of Hezbollah members expected to be indicted for the assassination of Rafik Hariri.It can thus be safely concluded that the International Crisis Group is not a disinterested party and that its information is highly suspect.

Another source of the unsubstantiated twitter about the atrocities the Libyan regime is allegedly committing against its own people is Mohammed Ali Abdalla of the National Front for the Salvation of Libya (NFSL). Abdalla is Deputy to Ibrahim Abdulaziz Sahad, General Secretary of the Executive Committee. According to its Wikipedia entry, the NFSL was established on October 7, 1981 at a press conference held in Khartoum, Sudan. Its original leader was Muhammad Yusuf al-Magariaf, formerly Libya's ambassador to India. Currently, the NFSL is led by Ibrahim Abdulaziz Sahad, a former Libyan military officer and diplomat. The most recent National Congress of the NFSL was held in the U.S. in July 2007. The "NFSL was based in Sudan until 1985 when the regime of Colonel Nimeiry fell. It opposed military and dictatorial rule in Libya, and called for a democratic government with constitutional guarantees, free elections, a free press, and separation of powers among the executive, legislative, and judicial branches. NFSL launched a wide campaign to topple Gaddafi in Libya, establishing a short-wave radio station, a commando military training camp and also published a bi-monthly newsletter, Al Inqadh (Salvation). According to various sources, the United States Central Intelligence Agency had trained and financed the NFSL.

Another source says the NFSL was one of seven other Libyan opposition groups that formed the National Conference for the Libyan Opposition (NCLO) in June 2005 at the first NCLO conference in London, England. The NFSL and three other organizations are said to have withdrawn from this alliance in February 2008 citing differences of opinion. The NFSL is reported to have continued its media campaigns, primarily utilizing online mediums. "Though relatively weaker than before, and without a clear method of carrying out its objective of topling the Gaddafi regime in Libya, the NFSL continues to be recognized as the leading opposition movement to Col. Gaddafi's regime in Libya." (Left Source)

It is also reported that the Libyan "Opposition" is literally "running protests from Washington, DC." Irish writer Tony Cartalucci in a February 23 item states:

"Unbelievable revelations have been discovered regarding the unrest in Libya. The leader of Libya's opposition group organizing the protests both inside and outside of Libya, is currently in Washington, DC as he and his organization direct the upheaval and bedlam consuming the North African nation.

"An interview with Ibrahim Sahad of the National Front for the Salvation of Libya (NFSL) on ABC Australia, features every talking point covered by the mainstream corporate media from over the past week, all with the White House and Washington Monument looming over him in the background.

"Sahad echoes the Soros/Brzezinski International Crisis Group's calls for the UNSC to convene and discuss intervening in Qaddafi's defiance.

"Ibrahim Sahad and his NFLS formed the National Conference of the Libyan Opposition (NCLO) in London in 2005. This group specifically went out of its way to appear not to be influenced or supported by the United States. [...]

"Sahad's NCLO began organizing the February 17th 'Day of Rage' right on cue as Egypt fell so the mainstream media apparatus could swing around and put the focus on Libya. Conveniently, the media needs only move from Cairo to Egypt's western border and wait for Sahad's men on the ground to secure them a base of operations, presumably in Libya's eastern city of Benghazi. [...]

"It turns out that both the corporate owned news and the U.S. State Department/corporate funded Movements.org are getting their reports entirely from Sahad's NCLO in Washington, who claims to be in contact with "first hand" reports out of Libya. Other NFSL members including one in Dubai, are also supplying the media with this 'first hand' information. These reports have become the basis for accusations of 'genocide,' the convening of the UNSC, economic sanctions, threats directed toward Libyan security forces that attempt to quell protesters, and NATO enforced no-fly zones.

"The Neo-Con infested National Endowment for Democracy and its army of U.S. funded NGOs recently made an official statement urging the U.S. and EU to confront the Libyan 'massacres' in the UNSC and Human Rights Council. This is still amidst reports BBC admits are 'impossible to verify,' based on

EnoughGaddafi.com's webmaster is listed on the U.S. State Department's Movements.org as the
"Twitter" to follow.

information coming from Movements.org and a Washington based Libyan protester leader.

"It should also be noted that a Ghonim-esque Libyan blogger is being reported by U.S. corporate funded Movements.org as a 'Twitter user to follow.' He goes by the name "EnoughGaddafi" and is the webmaster of LibyaFeb17.com. EnoughGaddafi's work can also be found archived on Washington based Ibrahim Sahad's NFSL site [...]

"Again we are told the protests are spontaneous, inspired by the Tunisian and Egyptian uprisings. Again we are told it is the youth yearning for freedom and 'democracy.' But when we look behind the curtain, we see yet another old man from Washington pulling the levers, blowing the smoke, and flashing the lights. [...]"

Return to top

Canadian Government Hypocrisy to
Justify Sanctions Against Libya

It would seem that there is no limit to the hypocrisy, duplicity, and arrogance of the Harper government, the Canadian ruling class and the so-called Official Opposition.

On February 21, Prime Minister Harper said, among other things: "We find the actions of the [Libyan] government, firing upon its own citizens, to be outrageous and unacceptable and we call on the government to cease this violence immediately." "Canada urges Libyan forces to respect the human rights of demonstrators, including their right to freedom of expression and assembly," Harper added. "We encourage the government of Libya to engage in peaceful dialogue with its people, towards political and economic reform, and on behalf of our Government, I would like to express my condolences to the families of those who have been killed during the demonstrations," Harper said.

Clearly, the detention of more than 1,000 people in a protest of the G8 and G20 meetings in Toronto and their abusive treatment, in many cases outrightly brutal and inhuman, are not a problem for Harper because, presumably, he considers it a just cause. But more important is the question of where Harper gets his information about the abuses of the Gaddafi regime which even the media which promote the twitter about the abuses admit is unsubstantiated.

Similarly, Minister of Foreign Affairs Lawrence Cannon also on February 21 noted: "Canada strongly condemns the violent crackdowns on innocent protesters that have resulted in many injured and killed. We call on the Libyan security forces to respect the human rights of demonstrators and uphold their commitment to freedom of speech and the right to assembly. The Libyan authorities must show restraint and stop the use of lethal force against protesters."


Despite not freezing the assets of former Tunisian President Zine El Abidine Ben Ali and his family as requested by the current Tunisian government, on February 27 Harper announced Canadian sanctions against Libya in addition to those imposed by the UN Security Council. He stated: "Canada has decided to go beyond the Security Council Sanctions. Our Government will impose an asset freeze on, and a prohibition of financial transactions with the Government of Libya, its institutions and agencies, including the Libyan Central Bank."

"A government's first and most fundamental responsibility is to protect the safety and security of its citizens. Mr. Qadhafi has blatantly violated this most basic trust. Far from protecting the Libyan people against peril, he is the root cause of the dangers they face. It is clear that the only acceptable course of action for him is to halt the bloodshed and to immediately vacate his position and authority," he added.

Why Libya "yes" and Tunisia "no"? When it comes to Tunisia, we are informed that "efforts to freeze the money while police investigate allegations that it was looted have hit a Catch-22 snag -- the RCMP says it can't act until it gets more evidence from Tunisia, but the North African nation needs Canada's help to gather that information."

In an interview, a senior RCMP commander said the force doesn't have enough proof under strict Canadian laws on proceeds of crime to persuade a judge to order the blocking of assets of former president Zine El Abidine Ben Ali's clan.

"We have not yet received the evidence," said Bob Paulson, the RCMP Deputy Commissioner in charge of federal and international policing. "To the extent that the Tunisians produce evidence of a substantive offence that links to the money, we can make restraints and forfeiture through the Criminal Code."

"...Tunisia, however, needs Canadian judicial assistance and forensic expertise to dig into the murky world of money-laundering and plundered assets, Ambassador Mouldi Sakri said. "We need Canada's help to find out the source of the money. They have the means to do it here," he added.

Return to top

For Your Information
Chapter VII of the UN Charter

Action with Respect to Threats to the Peace, Breaches of the Peace, and Acts of Aggression

Article 39

The Security Council shall determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression and shall make recommendations, or decide what measures shall be taken in accordance with Articles 41 and 42, to maintain or restore international peace and security.

Article 40

In order to prevent an aggravation of the situation, the Security Council may, before making the recommendations or deciding upon the measures provided for in Article 39, call upon the parties concerned to comply with such provisional measures as it deems necessary or desirable. Such provisional measures shall be without prejudice to the rights, claims, or position of the parties concerned. The Security Council shall duly take account of failure to comply with such provisional measures.

Article 41

The Security Council may decide what measures not involving the use of armed force are to be employed to give effect to its decisions, and it may call upon the Members of the United Nations to apply such measures. These may include complete or partial interruption of economic relations and of rail, sea, air, postal, telegraphic, radio, and other means of communication, and the severance of diplomatic relations.

Article 42

Should the Security Council consider that measures provided for in Article 41 would be inadequate or have proved to be inadequate, it may take such action by air, sea, or land forces as may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security. Such action may include demonstrations, blockade, and other operations by air, sea, or land forces of Members of the United Nations.

Return to top

Imperialist "Responsibility to Protect" Doctrine

The origins of the Responsibility to Protect Doctrine go back to September of 2000 when the Canadian government launched the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty with the aim to: "work on building a new global consensus on a human protection role for the international community." The Commission came on the heels of the NATO-led war on Yugoslavia in which Canada championed the "Human Security Agenda" as a justification for the "Humanitarian Intervention" carried out by NATO.

The Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty's final report, The Responsibility to Protect or R2P, was presented to the UN in December 2001 and again in 2005 at the World Summit. The Doctrine asserts a notion of state sovereignty and intervention, much different from that in the UN Charter:

"State sovereignty implies responsibility, and the primary responsibility for the protection of its people lies with the state itself. Where a population is suffering serious harm, as a result of internal war, insurgency, repression or state failure, and the state in question is unwilling or unable to halt or avert it, the principle of non-intervention yields to the international responsibility to protect."

Heads of state and governments passed the following text on the R2P as part of the Outcome Document of the High-level Plenary Meeting of the General Assembly, also known as the World Summit held in September 2005:

"138. Each individual State has the responsibility to protect its populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity. This responsibility entails the prevention of such crimes, including their incitement, through appropriate and necessary means. We accept that responsibility and will act in accordance with it. The international community should, as appropriate, encourage and help States to exercise this responsibility and support the United Nations in establishing an early warning capability.

"139. The international community, through the United Nations, also has the responsibility to use appropriate diplomatic, humanitarian and other peaceful means, in accordance with Chapters VI and VIII of the Charter, to help protect populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity. In this context, we are prepared to take collective action, in a timely and decisive manner, through the Security Council, in accordance with the Charter, including Chapter VII, on a case-by-case basis and in cooperation with relevant regional organizations as appropriate, should peaceful means be inadequate and national authorities manifestly fail to protect their populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity. We stress the need for the General Assembly to continue consideration of the responsibility to protect populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity and its implications, bearing in mind the principles of the Charter and international law. We also intend to commit ourselves, as necessary and appropriate, to helping States build capacity to protect their populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity and to assisting those which are under stress before crises and conflicts break out.

"140. We fully support the mission of the Special Adviser of the Secretary-General on the Prevention of Genocide."

"Military Intervention and R2P

The R2P Doctrine as outlined by the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty established the following criteria for when military intervention should be invoked:

"Military intervention for human protection purposes is an exceptional and extraordinary measure. To be warranted, there must be serious and irreparable harm occurring to human beings, or imminently likely to occur, of the following kind:

"- large scale loss of life, actual or apprehended, with genocidal intent or not, which is the product either of deliberate state action, or state neglect or inability to act, or a failed state situation; or

"- large scale 'ethnic cleansing,' actual or apprehended, whether carried out by killing, forced expulsion, acts of terror or rape.

"(2) The Precautionary Principles

"Right intention: The primary purpose of the intervention, whatever other motives intervening states may have, must be to halt or avert human suffering. Right intention is better assured with multilateral operations, clearly supported by regional opinion and the victims concerned.

"Last resort: Military intervention can only be justified when every non-military option for the prevention or peaceful resolution of the crisis has been explored, with reasonable grounds for believing lesser measures would not have succeeded.

"Proportional means: The scale, duration and intensity of the planned military intervention should be the minimum necessary to secure the defined human protection objective.

"Reasonable prospects: There must be a reasonable chance of success in halting or averting the suffering which has justified the intervention, with the consequences of action not likely to be worse than the consequences of inaction."

Return to top

Prime Minister's Statement on
Implementing Sanctions Against Libya

Prime Minister Stephen Harper today made the following remarks announcing Canada's implementation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 1970 adopting sanctions on Libya:

"Once again, I want to take this opportunity to update you on Canada's actions regarding the situation in Libya.

"Our priority remains the safe evacuation of Canadians from that country.

"To date, Canada has facilitated the evacuation of more than 230 Canadians on a number of flights and vessels.

"Work to evacuate remaining Canadians continues around the clock in close cooperation with the British and our other allies.

"A second C-17 has now arrived in Malta. The Canadian Armed Forces, in coordination with our allies, will deploy these aircraft, as circumstances permit, to evacuate Canadian citizens and those of allied countries.

"We are also deploying two C130J Hercules aircraft to the region to provide additional and more flexible capacity.

"The Emergency Operations Centre of the Department of Foreign Affairs is continuing to contact registered Canadians by phone, where possible, regarding opportunities to leave the country by any means possible. Consular advice is also available through travel.gc.ca.

"Meanwhile, our Government continues to work with key allies and the international community to intensify pressure on the Libyan regime.

"Canada had called for the Security Council to act and we are pleased that it has done so. The unanimous passing of United Nations Security Council Resolution 1970 yesterday sends a very clear message: the murder of its own citizens by the Libyan regime, and the gross violations of the population's human rights will not be tolerated by the international community, and will carry serious consequences.

"Therefore, Canada earlier today implemented the following binding sanctions contained in the Resolution:

* An arms embargo requiring all states to prevent the sale or supply of arms into Libya, or the export of arms from Libya;
* The inspection of cargo going into Libya;
* A travel ban on Muammar Qadhafi and 15 individuals closely associated with him; and
* An asset freeze against Muammar Qadhafi and members of his family.

"Canada also welcomes the creation of a Security Council sanctions committee that will monitor implementation of Resolution measures, designate additional individuals under the travel ban and asset freeze, if warranted; and will report within 30 days to the Security Council on its work.

"In addition, Canada has decided to go beyond the Security Council Sanctions. Our Government will impose an asset freeze on, and a prohibition of financial transactions with the Government of Libya, its institutions and agencies, including the Libyan Central Bank.

"These actions will help restrict the movement of, and access to money and weapons for those responsible for violence against the Libyan people.

"As you know, Canada also called for the referral of the situation in Libya to the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court to help ensure that those responsible for ordering and carrying out atrocities are held accountable. I am pleased that the Security Council has taken action on this.

"The Resolution clearly expresses the will of the international community that the Libyan regime put an end to violence, act with restraint, provide immediate access for international human rights monitors, ensure the safety of foreigners, allow safe passage of humanitarian and medical supplies and lift restrictions on the media.

"Canada demands that the Libyan regime comply with all aspects of this resolution immediately, and that it respect its human rights obligations as well as the will of the Libyan people.

"A government's first and most fundamental responsibility is to protect the safety and security of its citizens. Mr. Qadhafi has blatantly violated this most basic trust. Far from protecting the Libyan people against peril, he is the root cause of the dangers they face. It is clear that the only acceptable course of action for him is to halt the bloodshed and to immediately vacate his position and authority."

Legislative Background for New Regulations

On February 26, 2011, the United Nations Security Council unanimously passed Resolution 1970 in response to the violence, use of force and systematic human rights violations being perpetrated against the people of Libya by the current regime.

The four principal measures under the Resolution are the following:

1. An arms embargo. This requires all Member states to:

* prevent the supply, sale or transfer of arms into Libya;
* prevent the export of arms from Libya;
* seize and dispose of arms that meet the criteria in the Resolution; and,
* authorise inspection of cargo going into Libya.

2. A travel ban. This requires all Members states to:

* prevent the entry into or transit through their territories of Muammar Qadhafi and 15 individuals closely associated with him -- his sons, daughter and other loyalists.

3. An asset freeze. This requires all Members states to:

* freeze without delay all funds, other financial assets and economic resources which are on their territories, which are owned or controlled by Muammar Qadhafi and his sons and daughter; and, ensure that any funds, financial assets or economic resources are prevented from being made available by their nationals, or by any individuals or entities within their territories to Muammar Qadhafi and his sons and daughter.

The United Nations Security Council also expressed its intention to ensure that the assets frozen be made available to and for the benefit of the people of Libya.

4. The establishment of a new Sanctions Committee of the Security Council. The Committee will, among other things:

* monitor implementation of Resolution measures;
* if warranted, designate additional individuals under the travel ban and asset freeze; and,
* report within 30 days to the Security Council on its work for the First Report and thereafter, report as deemed necessary by the Committee.

Additional Canadian Measures:

In addition to the measures imposed by the United Nations Security Council, the Government of Canada has decided to impose an asset freeze and prohibit financial transactions with the Government of Libya, its institutions and agencies, and the Libyan Central Bank.

These additional measures, which are under the authority of the Special Economic Measures Act, are consistent with initiatives taken by like-minded states, including the United States.

Due to the fact that the present Regulations operate so as to both implement a United Nations Security Council Resolution and a measure not addressed by the Council, they are made pursuant to the legislative authority of both the United Nations Act and the Special Economic Measures Act.

Return to top

Website:  www.cpcml.ca   Email:  editor@cpcml.ca