March 22, 2011 - No. 44
In the Parliament
Disgraceful All-Party Agreement in
Canadian Military Action Against Libya
In the Parliament
• Disgraceful All-Party Agreement in Support of
Canadian Military Action Against Libya
• Canadians Want an Anti-War Government
• Parliamentary Take-Note Debate
• Motion Endorsing UN Security Council
Resolution 1973 on Libya
• Libyan Authorities Advocate for Peaceful
• France Proposes New "Political Steering
Committee Outside of NATO"
• U.S. Aim to Get Rid of Gadhafi
• China and India Oppose Military Intervention
In the Parliament
Disgraceful All-Party Agreement in Support of Canadian
Military Action Against Libya
On Monday March 21, 2011 the political parties in the
House of Commons put on a disgraceful performance as they outdid each
other to support the military action against Libya and then voted
unanimously in favour of a motion endorsing UN Security Council
Resolution 1973 on Libya.
The take-note debate in the Parliament supported
Canada's involvement in the military action which has been given a
legal stamp of approval by the UN Security Council despite its
violation of the UN Charter.
The chorus of disgraceful
praise for the so-called responsibility to protect doctrine led the Globe
and Mail's John Ibbitson to write: "As Canadian fighter jets flew
over hostile Libyan air space, all four political parties put aside
pre-election posturing for a few hours Monday to support Canada's role
in the mission to contain Libyan strongman Moammar Gadhafi."
It would be funny if the consequences were not so tragic
to hear Opposition parties support the Conservatives who they accuse of
violating all their moral and ethical duties in the House of Commons of
being "moral" and "ethical" for invading Libya.
Canadians Want an Anti-War Government
"Canadians want an anti-war
government," a reader in Cambridge, Ontario wrote to TML in
response to the position adopted by the government of Canada and
supported by the so-called Opposition parties. We quote the letter in
"The Canadian state, represented in part by the current
government in power, has once again shown its violent nature in its
support of, and participation in, 'Operation Odyssey Dawn.' It is
another example that the powers that be in the U.S. and backed by those
in Canada cannot solve their own problems and
instead stoop to the lowest levels of human existence to create chaos,
confusion and instability so that nobody else can find their bearings.
It is all to serve their narrow self-interest to seek to maintain the
old in light of the demands of the people for the new.
"The government which portrays itself as representing
Canadians is participating in a criminal act against the innocent
people of Libya, using the hoax that they seek to protect them. It is
hypocrisy at its worst. It comes just nine months after the same
Canadian state used violent force against its own people at
the G8 and G20 protests and citing that it was 'bad protestors' that
were to blame. Now we are supposed to believe that the same state
military will participate in bombing Libya to protect civilians in that
country and that it is because of some 'bad dictator.' The actions and
results are the same: create an atmosphere
of violence, terror and instability, sow doubt and confusion and keep
the people from sorting out their own problems and finding solutions.
How can Canadians and the peoples of the world live under such
"Canadians do not want a pro-war government. It goes
against all of their instincts and experiences as people who work every
day in their communities to feed and protect their loved ones. The idea
of waging aggressive acts against any people, Canadian or otherwise, is
not acceptable and must be condemned.
However, this is not the agenda of the Harper government which goes
along with the U.S. and European powers that are all manoeuvring for
their own sphere of interests that have nothing to do with protecting
civilians. Meanwhile, the other political parties in parliament do not
pose any opposition and simply argue
the details of foreign interference.
"Canadians are being pressured
into accepting that their genuine concerns for people in other parts of
the world should be demonstrated by the use of force. It is an
ideological attack captured in the 'Obama doctrine' in the U.S. and
represented in Canada by the idea of 'the responsibility to protect.'
is a double-standard used only when the interests of money and power
are at stake. Canadians must resist these pressures by demanding that
their government not participate in these acts of aggression. Only then
will they create the space they need to discuss within their own
communities the type of society and world
they want to live in."
Parliamentary Take-Note Debate
Speaking during the debate, Canada's Minister of
National Defence, Peter MacKay admitted that for some time Canada has
been playing an aggressive role:
"This is a sizeable
operation, but certainly not one without precedence. The House will
recall that Canadian CF-18 pilots enforced a similar no-fly zone during
the Kosovo air campaign of 1999. In that mission, as part of NATO's
Operation Allied Force, Canadian aircrews flew 678 sorties and logged
flying hours from March to June of that year. They carried out a full
10% of NATO's strike missions against the Federal Republic of
Yugoslavia during that campaign," MacKay said.
"It is safe to say the Canadian Forces are experiencing
a similar challenge, but bring to task the experience having conducted
this type of operation in the past, one similar to that which they are
about to join. In fact, they already have very much established the
reputation for conducting these types of operations
extremely well," he added.
MacKay lied outright by portraying Canada as a
peacemaker, not an aggressor, saying: "Canada is not a country that
seeks out violent confrontation. In fact, we have never invaded or
attacked another nation in anger or without provocation. Canadians
certainly do not like to see their sons and daughters put in
harm's way. However, this government, along with the international
community, cannot stand idly by, even now."
He then toed the line of the aggressors claiming that
the extension of the mission is warranted to stop Gadhafi's "brutal
campaign" and that "nearly the entire world" is against him.
"With nearly the entire world turning on him, Gadhafi
continues to boast of his intent to continue his brutal campaign and
his regime is simply not through, labelling any opponents as traitors
and directing his forces to bomb and shell civilian population centres
without mercy," MacKay said.
This, in sum, is all the government of Canada thinks it
has to say to establish the morality of its cause.
"In this situation, we are compelled to intervene, both
in a moral duty and by duty of NATO and the United Nations, which, as
members would know, are two institutions that we helped found. In this
situation, deploying the Canadian Forces is the right thing to do and I
expect that Canadians and members of
the House clearly recognize that fact," MacKay said.
MacKay then put in a plug for making sure the military
gets the equipment the U.S. and NATO require of it:
"Canada is very fortunate to
be in a position to be able to respond. We are fortunate to have a
well-equipped navy that can assemble the necessary crews, such as the Charlottetown, and set sail the day
after it is called. We are fortunate to have an air force with
capabilities at CFB Bagotville, Trenton, Cold Lake
and others, and an air force that takes mere hours to deploy six
highly-sophisticated fighter aircraft and the necessary support to
depart for a theatre of operations nearly 7,000 kilometres away," he
"However, we are certainly fortunate, first and
foremost, to have the dedicated professional men and women in uniform
who are prepared to step forward and to step up, inspiring all
Canadians. These individuals receive official notice of their
deployment in many cases just hours before departure. It is their
and their sense of duty," he added.
He then called for "a very inclusive and informed debate
here," saying, "I want to thank our men and women in uniform, of
course, and wish them a safe return. No one wants to see our personnel
in harm's way any longer than necessary. Therefore, as this operation
continues in the future, we will do our best
to support them in every way possible.
"We ask all parties of the House to support the Canadian
Forces in this mission and join us in pursuing all measures necessary
to ensure a quick resolution of the current crisis. [...]"
Liberal Critic for Foreign
Affairs Bob Rae
On behalf of the Liberal Party, Liberal critic for
Foreign Affairs Bob Rae did his level though pathetic best to establish
the alleged legality of the aggression.
Referring to the so-called
responsibility to protect doctrine, Rae said: "This transformation of
international law has not been speedy and it has not been without
problems and challenges, but its significance cannot be underestimated.
The Security Council, in passing the two resolutions, one which called
freezing of assets of Gadhafi and his family and taking other economic
sanctions against Libya and, second, the agreement I think many people
found to be surprising, given the membership on the Security Council,
to establish a no-fly zone, is only really imaginable if we realize the
point, which I will emphasize
once more. What happens to people within states and around the world is
every bit as important, indeed more important, than what happens to
states and governments."
This double-talk that "what happens to people is more
important than what happens to states and governments" is of course
unadulterated balderdash but this bothers the Liberals not a whit. The
fact is that the likes of the U.S., Canada and European powers which
are facing deep constitutional crises of their own
are trying to provide themselves with a refurbished raison
d'état to justify their betrayal of the UN Charter
established so as to prohibit Hitlerite aggressions which caused such
suffering during World War II.
Opposition to Hitler's version of the responsibility to
protect is precisely what was enshrined in the UN Charter when it
upheld as the supreme principle the right of nations to
self-determination and the sanctity of their sovereignty. It was Adolf
Hitler's infamous version of the "responsibility to protect" doctrine
announced the outbreak of the War. In 1939, Hitler invaded
Czechoslovakia and Poland using the pretext of "protecting" the
Germanic citizens of those countries from the "repression" of their own
governments. As a direct counter to this doctrine, and to protect the
sovereignty of nation states, the UN, after the war,
enshrined in its resolutions the principle of "non-interference."
Today, the aggressor states require a new raison
d'état to justify their striving for domination in the name
of high ideals. To say it is citizens versus states when citizens only
exist as members of states is balderdash.
In this vein Rae admitted that states are now providing
themselves with a new reason of state which no longer upholds the right
to sovereignty. The fact that this is being done through sleight of
hand, by putting boots on the ground à la Hitler,
should not obscure the fact that the peoples of the world
defeated those boots already once and will do so again.
Rae addressed the need for a new raison
d'état as follows:
"The so-called convention of 1648, the Westphalia
convention, which says that sovereignty trumps everything, that
national governments are the end game and that reasons of state will
always prevail over other considerations, is, as we used to say in law
school, no longer good law. That just is not the way it
works. The way it works is that governments have responsibilities to
their citizens and that the citizens of the world have some degree of
responsibility for one another in the challenges they face."
"This is not a loosey-goosey concept," he declared,
perhaps to justify the goose-step in his concept. "This is not a
concept that has no parameters or no particular meaning. I am very
proud of the fact that the Liberal leader, the member for
Etobicoke-Lakeshore, participated in the discussion that was led by the
former foreign minister of Australia, Gareth Evans, in advising
initially the Canadian government and then the United Nations on how to
begin to create some new rules of the game, some new procedures which
would give this responsibility to protect some real meaning.
"It is important to emphasize that the responsibility to
protect, which was ultimately adopted by the General Assembly in 2005
and which was, despite considerable controversy and debate that it
might not persist for very long, reaffirmed by the General Assembly in
2009, really comprises several different elements.
It is, first, a responsibility to prevent crises and harm, to do
whatever we can within our means to prevent crises from happening. It
is also a responsibility to react to crises as they take place and then
it is a responsibility to rebuild."
All of this reeks of Rae's liberal/fascist hypocrisy
because there are many ways to prevent crises on a peaceful basis which
he totally ignores. Rae says: "The first thing it means is that we
expect governments to protect their citizens." Is this what the
Bahraini and Yemeni governments are doing when they open
fire on their citizens and even what the Harper government did at the
G20 protests in Toronto, Mr. Rae? Is this what the Israeli government
does when it kills Palestinians and imprisons children?
Sophistry is to argue in a self-serving way so as to
prove the point one started with in the first place. It has nothing to
do with seeking truth from facts. A sophism is "a deliberately invalid
argument displaying ingenuity in reasoning in the hope of deceiving
someone"; "plausible but fallacious argumentation";
"subtle, tricky, superficially plausible, but generally fallacious
method of reasoning." Bob Rae's pretentious discourse exudes this
definition through and through.
"This is the test that Colonel Gadhafi has failed. Not
only has Colonel Gadhafi failed to protect his citizens, but after 45
years in power we have had many opportunities over the years to see
Colonel Gadhafi in action," Rae continues.
Mr. Rae repeatedly seems to forget that Canadians have
had many years to see him in action also and it is not a pretty sight.
But to divert from his own delusions of grandeur he waxes eloquent
about what "we know" about Gadhafi.
"We have had an opportunity to see the damage and harm
that he can bring. We know that he was certainly an instigator of the
Lockerbie bombing. We know that he was actively participating in the
creation of Libya as a nuclear power. We know that he responded to
certain pressures from the international community
and agreed to change his ways in certain instances. He abandoned,
apparently to the satisfaction of the IAEA, any nuclear ambitions which
he may have. We also know full well that he took certain measures with
respect to directly sponsoring terrorist activities in other countries."
What else do we know, Mr. Rae, that you are not telling?
What deals did the heads of state make to serve the monopolies like
Canada's SNC Lavalin which stood to make billions of dollars from their
projects in Libya?
At this point Mr. Rae reveals his czarist soul. His real
complaint about the "dictator Gadhafi" emerges, which is that he
overthrew the monarchy!!!
"But the fact is that Colonel Gadhafi is still a
dictator, meaning that he was not elected and he took power illegally
by destroying the monarchy in Libya. He has been in power for over 40
years with the support of the Libyan army and, like any dictator, he
rules by oppressing the population, killing anyone who
opposes him, torturing people who have different points of view and
insisting on as much power as possible for himself and his family. That
is an absolutely corrupt way to run a country [...]"
Then to cover all his bases of why he opposes some
dictators but supports others, he says: "[...] but as we say, the world
is not a perfect place. We know that there are dictators in the world
who do not honour their moral, political and humanitarian obligations.
It is difficult to say, but there are heads of state
and situations that we do not like, that we want to change and that the
world has tried to change. That is the case with Colonel Gadhafi. [...]"
He then tries to recover his senses and says: "Our own
view is that this mission cannot be endless. It has to be focused. I am
a little troubled by what I heard from the minister today about the
ambiguity with respect to what the overall purpose of the mission is. I
can say to the government that we will support
the motion. We will support the determination. In fact we have
supported for a considerable time the need for the world to be able to
respond to situations such as the one we are facing in Libya."
This is followed by the "hard power is necessary for
soft power to work" argument. It is the "no carrot without the stick"
logic according to which the likes of Mr. Rae get to ride the donkey he
takes the world's people to be. His "carrot and stick"/"hard and soft
power" nonsense tells us a lot about the kind of diplomacy
Mr. Rae believes in -- the racist, chauvinist superpower kind.
"I do not think any of us feels there is a military
solution to this conflict," Mr. Rae intonates so as to again thoroughly
confuse his fellow illuminati in the Parliament that the aim of war is
peace. "We obviously have to use hard power, which we are now using, in
an effort to create the space for soft power to
do some of its work. We need to continue to encourage negotiations. We
need to encourage back channels. We need to encourage a political
"I would say very strongly that we encourage the
government in increasing its diplomatic capacity and diplomatic
engagement in its effort to bring peace to a region which has not known
a great deal of peace. In fact the peace that it has known is the peace
of repression. The peace we would like to see is the
peace of justice, the peace of democracy. That continues to be a major
objective of foreign policy. [...]"
Québécois Critic for Foreign Affairs Jean Dorion
Bloc Québécois critic for Foreign Affairs
Jean Dorion unabashedly betrayed the anti-war stand of the Quebec
people, citing the high ideal that so long as aggression has the UN
Security Council stamp of approval, that is all that is required to
"The Bloc Québécois supports Canada's
armed participation in the multilateral intervention in Libya. We
support the troops who have been called on to participate in it. It is
a perfectly legitimate operation since it is being carried out as a
multilateral effort and its purpose is to protect the civilian
He then cried crocodile tears typical of those who have
no shame: "While the Bloc Québécois supports Canada's
military intervention within this international undertaking in Libya,
it also calls for extreme caution on Canada's part. This intervention
must not lead to human losses among Libyan civilians. That
would be a gross violation of Security Council resolution 1973, which
specifically provided that protection of civilians had to be the
primary objective of the intervention," Dorion said.
Dorion has a delusional
picture of the nuclear armed war machine of the U.S./Britain/France and
other countries firing bread and roses from their cannons to protect
civilians. Dorion and Arab League Secretary General Amr Moussa seem to
share the same problem of being in denial
that the aim of a no-fly zone is to protect civilians. Ask the families
of the hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqi civilians how they died, Mr.
Dorion, before claiming to speak on behalf of Quebeckers.
Dorion then also joins the worn out litany about the
need to consult Parliament if the mission is extended. "We reiterate
our belief that the federal government must consult parliamentarians
concerning any deployment of troops abroad. Moreover, we condemn the
immoral use of force by the Gadhafi regime against
innocent people, and we believe that President Gadhafi's abuses of
power must end. There must be an immediate ceasefire by the Gadhafi
regime in relation to civilians and it must be honoured, as was not the
case when the regime announced a ceasefire."
How does Dorion know? Where is he getting his
"We have supported the measures taken by Canada to
implement the two Security Council resolutions on Libya, including the
asset freeze. We also applaud the decision by the prosecutor at the
International Criminal Court to investigate actions committed in Libya
that look like crimes against humanity," he
The Bloc critic seems to be so concerned about crimes
against humanity we wonder if he ever tried to get George W. Bush
prosecuted? Of course not!
"As well, we believe that Canada must pursue its
discussions with the National Transition Council that the opposition
has established in Libya. And we express our compassion for all our
citizens of Libyan origin who are living through a troubled time, in
view of the situation in their country of origin, and we
stand with them," Dorion said.
We are certain that Mr. Dorion is as utterly ignorant
about both the ICC and the Transition Council as he is about most
things, but his greatest crime is to declare that the
Québécois support immoral actions because they have the
legal stamp of approval of the UN Security Council.
"We support the sending of CF-18s to Libya because that
intervention is consistent with a value that is fundamental to
Quebeckers: that military intervention must be carried out in a
multilateral framework. The Bloc Québécois believes that
military interventions should be undertaken with the approval of the
the organization that has the specific duty to ensure that alternative
solutions are found to war. We are opposed to any unilateral action,
that is, any action decided on by a single country or a small number of
countries," Dorion said.
Then, to justify supporting the "responsibility to
protect" doctrine Mr. Dorion declares: "The Bloc is also against the
notion of preventive war, in other words, a war instigated against
another country because we suspect it of intending to wage war. Of
course, in the absence of an established and imminent threat,
a country cannot go to war against another country merely because it
harbours misgivings in respect of that country."
How the Bloc can support intervention in a sovereign
country's civil war but not a preventive war is anyone's guess but Mr.
Dorion calls this a guiding principle!
"Two principles that guide our position on any conflict
in which Canada is called upon to participate are our opposition to any
and all unilateral action and our disapproval of preventive wars."
"Multilateralism is, quite logically, in Quebec's best
interests. Moreover, it is in the best interests of nations that are
not superpowers, such as Canada and any future sovereign Quebec, that
there be a multilateral organization to manage conflicts. [...]"
NDP Foreign Affairs Critic
The NDP's hypocrisy stands
second to none. NDP Foreign Affairs critic Paul Dewar said: "New
Democrats will be supporting UN Resolution 1973 and obviously the
debate we are having here is how that will be done in Canada. [...]"
"We had welcomed the sanctions with regard to the
Gadhafi regime at the time on February 26, but we were also very
concerned and remain concerned about the response of the Canadian
government, frankly, when it came to evacuation and the missed
opportunity for humanitarian support. We believed at the
time, and said so publicly, that Canada should advocate not only for
the UN no-fly provision but also to help refugees on the borders of
both Egypt and Tunisia. We also believed in the need to refer Gadhafi
and the members of his regime to the Hague, the International Criminal
Court, and that is something that
has been put forward through the UN," Dewar added.
"It was also noted at that time that the UN and the Arab
League had been calling for a ceasefire. That was something we believed
was important to note," he said.
"At the time, as was mentioned by some of my colleagues,
other institutions were also speaking out. We heard from members the
African Union, which is important to put that on the record. They were
condemning the violence of Gadhafi. We also heard from the Organization
of the Islamic Conference and,
as we have already noted, the Arab League," he said.
Now that these same forces are condemning the
aggression, what will he say?
He then calls for not only a "military engagement" but
also "humanitarian support" which is strange to say the least given the
insistence that the military engagement is the humanitarian engagement.
"As we debate this motion, we must remember that it is
not just a military engagement. We believe that there needs to be
humanitarian support. We have heard from at least one minister that
there is contemplation for humanitarian support. We would certainly
encourage the government to make concrete plans
and to let Canadians and the international community know those plans.
We have lift capacity in situ," Dewar said.
He then clarified that by humanitarian he means sending
"Canadian Libyan doctors" to Libya.
"We also believe there is an opportunity to engage with
the Diaspora here. As has been noted before, we have had fundraising
done primarily but not exclusively by Libyan Canadians. We have had
Canadian Libyan doctors offer their support to help with a humanitarian
mission. We think they need to be engaged.
They have offered and we should take them up on that offer," Dewar said.
Speaking about the need "to be clear about the goals of
this mission" he said: "I have already mentioned the need to be very
clear about what Canada's commitment to UN resolution 1973 is and what
it is not. We have certainly let the government know this today. I will
say publicly for the record that we will
hold the government to account that this is not about deploying ground
troops, that this is about supporting the no-fly zone and that there is
no contemplation by the government to deploy ground troops. There is a
provision for humanitarian efforts and rescue, which has been noted and
is obvious, and that is something
"Everyone needs to see and understand what we are
committing to in the motion. We want the government to say that we will
engage in all aspects of the UN resolution, such as the establishment
of a ceasefire, finding a political solution that addresses the
legitimate demands of the Libyan people, and ensuring
Libyan authorities comply with all obligations under international law."
"We would also like to see the motion highlight the role
of the UN," he said. Presumably this is to rescue the U.S. which wants
to be in charge but shift compliance onto others. "The resolution puts
the UN General Secretary in a coordinating role, which is very
important," Dewar said. "Canada's involvement
should always honour that part of the resolution, that we are under the
auspice and the coordination, ultimately, of the UN, not other
organizations," he added. Here also the NDP is in total denial because
it was France which led the charge with the U.S. and Britain in hot
pursuit, not the UN or Ban Ki-moon whose
primary role has been to play Chicken Little running around the
barnyard declaring that Gadhafi is killing his people by the thousands
and a military intervention is required to stop him.
According to Dewar, "that is the only way to maintain
confidence in this UN resolution, which means working with the UN and
with the Arab League."
This can only underscore that he himself admits there is
no confidence in the military action since the support of the Arab
League itself is in question.
"We also want to see parliamentary oversight of this
mission, which the government has accepted," he said. "We in the NDP
wanted to see that done by both the committees of foreign affairs and
defence. We want to see a short timeline for this mission, along the
lines of a couple of months. If there is any need
for further engagement, it must come back to this House so we can
debate and vote on that," Dewar said, adding remarks about doing "more
Motion Endorsing UN Security Council
Resolution 1973 on Libya
"That, in standing in solidarity with those seeking
freedom in Libya, the House welcomes United Nations Security Council
"that the House deplores the ongoing use of violence by
the Libyan regime against the Libyan people;
"acknowledges the demonstrable need, regional support
and clear legal basis for urgent action to protect the people of Libya;
"consequently, the government shall work with our
allies, partners and the United Nations to promote and support all
aspects of UNSC Resolution 1973, which includes the taking of all
necessary measures to protect civilians and civilian populated areas
under threat of attack in Libya and to enforce the no-fly
zone, including the use of the Canadian Forces and military assets in
accordance with UNSC Resolution 1973;
"that the House requests that the Standing Committee on
Foreign Affairs and International Development and the Standing
Committee on National Defence remain seized of Canada's activities
under UNSC Resolution 1973;
"that should the government require an extension to the
involvement of the Canadian Forces for more than three months from the
passage of this motion, the government shall return to the House at its
earliest opportunity to debate and seek the consent of the House for
such an extension;
"and that the House offers its wholehearted support to
the men and women of the Canadian Forces."
Libyan Authorities Advocate for Peaceful Solution
The Libyan Armed Forces ordered an immediate cease fire,
in accordance with a request by the African Unity Organization, so as
to prevent more deaths after the indiscriminate bombings of the western
powers, Radio Havana Cuba reported.
A military spokesperson, during a short appearance at a
press conference in Tripoli, said that "The Libyan Armed Forces have
issued an order to all military units to assure an immediate cease fire
starting at 21:00 hours local time, that is 19:00 hours UTC, tonight."
The measure, he explained, was aimed at preventing the
spilling of civilian blood as a consequence of the attacks by the
aircraft and warships of a coalition of nations of the North Atlantic
Treaty Organization (NATO) supported by the United Nations.
The announcement was made less than 24 hours after the
Pentagon confirmed the launching of more than 110 cruise type missiles
from ships in the Mediterranean Sea against several supposedly military
targets in that nation, causing 64 deaths and 150 wounded, according to
the Libyan government
In a similar vein, Libya requested a meeting of the UN
Security Council to discuss the attacks launched against it. "The UN
Security Council held a closed-door meeting Monday on the situation in
Libya as a coalition of countries implementing the no-fly zone was
being formed," DPA reported.
"The 15-nation council met at the request of Tripoli,
which accused allied forces of killing civilians during airstrikes that
began [March 19] and were aimed at Libyan military installations. The
meeting ended after 45 minutes without immediate reaction from council
In his letter requesting the meeting Libyan Foreign
Minister Musa Kusa accused the council of paving the way for "military
aggression" against Libyan territory. Kusa said allied airstrikes were
aimed at several civilian sites and therefore violated international
"Libya's actions are a legitimate response against
terrorism as it seeks to defend itself and to prevent terrorism from
spreading in the Mediterranean region and Al Qaeda from infiltrating
Europe, in accordance with the counterterrorism instruments to which it
is a party," Kusa said.
"Kusa directly requested the council meeting as
Tripoli's new ambassador has not yet arrived in New York," DPA says,
adding that "Tripoli fired its ambassador and the deputy ambassador at
the Libyan mission to the UN in New York after they denounced the
repression of civilians in Libya last month."
France Proposes New "Political Steering Committee
Outside of NATO"
Al Jazeera reports that "France proposed that a new
political steering committee outside of NATO be responsible for
overseeing military operations over Libya to enforce a UN-backed no-fly
"The announcement came after Turkey, a member of NATO,
warned on Tuesday that it could not agree to the military alliance
taking over the enforcement of the no-fly zone if their mission went
"outside the framework" of the UN decision," the news agency said.
Alain Juppé, the French foreign minister, said
the new body would bring together foreign ministers from participating
states, including Britain, France and the U.S., as well as the Arab
League. It is expected to meet in the coming days, either in Brussels,
London or Paris.
Juppé said not all members of the military
coalition are members of NATO so "this is therefore not a NATO
operation." However, he said the coalition would use NATO's "planning
and intervention capabilities."
In related news, U.S. President Barack Obama said that
"Washington would transfer its leading role on Libya 'within days' to
ensure the burden of enforcing the no-fly zone was shared."
Obama spoke to Turkey's Prime Minister Recep Tayyip
Erdogan and they agreed to seek a "broad" global effort on Libya, the
White House said.
Erdogan has publicly denounced the military campaign
against Libyan leader Muammer Gaddafi as counter-productive, news
Nonetheless, Obama and Erdogan "reaffirmed their support
for the full implementation" of recent UN Security Council resolutions
"in order to protect the Libyan people," a White House statement said.
In a speech to his ruling AK party on Tuesday, Erdogan
said that Turkey "will never point a gun at the Libyan people" and
would explain its position to NATO allies.
U.S. Aim to Get Rid of Gadhafi
Al Arabiya reports that, "After coming under pressure
for not spelling out its war aims in Libya, the White House said that
the Obama administration's goal is to see Muammar Gadhafi removed from
power." "We're trying to convince Colonel Gadhafi and his regime, and
his associates, that they need to step down
from power," said state department spokesman Mark Toner. "That remains
our ultimate goal here."
"Our military actions are supported by the United
Nations Security Council, which approved a humanitarian mission in that
country," Obama said in Santiago de Chile, adding that Libyan leader
Muammar Gadhafi "must leave" power.
Obama said the United States "will not show compassion
towards someone who kills and murders his people" and stressed the
importance of applying bilateral and international sanctions against
the Libyan government, Xinhua reported.
Obama said the intervention in Libya was based on "an
international agreement against Gadhafi and to support the military
actions in Libya" which even included a request by the Arab League for
the creation of a no-fly zone over Libya in order to defend the
civilian population, Xinhua writes.
"I want to say that we are working with our
international partners and we have neutralized Gadhafi's air forces and
we have a large coalition, formed even by the Arab League," he said.
"We have for two days been stopping Gadhafi's forces and
we continue to evaluate the situation in the land, as the Pentagon will
report on the evolution of these operations," he said.
"When there is a humanitarian crisis and a leader who
has lost the confidence of his people, and uses weapons against them,
we have to take action," Obama said and added that it is not only the
United States carrying out the raids but an international coalition.
"I am proud of our armed forces' development in Libya.
Our army has a lot of work all over the world and now we must receive
help from other countries, so we will have an international mission,"
The coalition is now taking control of the air zone in
order to support the civilian population, he added.
U.S. Defence Secretary Robert Gates said that
"international forces were trying to minimize civilian casualties in
Libya" and that "significant military fighting that has been going on
should recede in the next few days," news agencies say.
"I think as we are successful at suppressing the air
defences the level of kinetic activity should decline," he told
journalists travelling with him in Moscow where he is meeting with his
counterpart Anatoly Serdyukov.
Russian President Dmitry Medvedev expressed concern to
Gates about the "indiscriminate" use of force by foreign powers in
Libya, the press reports.
They say that on Monday, Medvedev had appeared to rebuke
Vladimir Putin, the country's prime minister, for comparing Western
calls for action on Libya with the crusades.
Putin told workers at a missile factory that the UN
Security Council resolution authorizing the use of force against
Gadhafi "resembles medieval calls for crusades." Shortly afterwards,
Medvedev said the use of such terms was unacceptable and could stir up
more violence. "Medvedev did not mention Putin by
name, but the comments amounted to his sharpest ever public criticism
of his mentor and raised concerns of discord between the two leaders
ahead of the 2012 presidential election," Al Jazeera said.
On Tuesday, Putin dismissed the allegations. "As for the
agreement or disagreement of the Russian leadership's views on the
events taking place in Libya, in our country, the Russian president
heads foreign policy, and there can be no divergence" of views, news
agencies quoted Putin as saying while on a visit
to Ljubljana, the capital of Slovenia.
China and India Oppose Military Intervention
Jiang Yu, a spokeswoman for China's foreign ministry,
said on Tuesday that the government opposed "the wanton use of armed
force leading to more civilian casualties and more humanitarian
disasters." China had already called for a ceasefire.
S.M. Krishna, the Indian foreign minister, called for a
"cessation of armed conflict." His office had previously issued a
statement on Monday expressing "regret" for the military intervention.
Pranab Mukherjee, India's foreign minister, said in a
speech to parliament that "no external powers" should interfere in
"Nobody, not a couple of countries, can take that
decision to change a particular regime," he said.