Prévisions pour le 21 Septembre 2018

 Adrar Min 27 °C Max 38 °C
23
 Laghouat Min 16 °C Max 28 °C
34
 Batna Min 13 °C Max 23 °C
30
 Biskra Min 20 °C Max 33 °C
32
 Tamanrasset Min 20 °C Max 28 °C
30
 Tlemcen Min 16 °C Max 25 °C
32
 Alger Min 18 °C Max 26 °C
30
 Saïda Min 16 °C Max 25 °C
30
 Annaba Min 21 °C Max 27 °C
47
 Mascara Min 15 °C Max 26 °C
30
 Ouargla Min 25 °C Max 33 °C
30
 Oran Min 21 °C Max 25 °C
34
 Illizi Min 22 °C Max 35 °C
32
 Tindouf Min 23 °C Max 34 °C
34
 Khenchela Min 14 °C Max 22 °C
30
 Mila Min 17 °C Max 24 °C
39
 Ghardaïa Min 21 °C Max 30 °C
30
Accueil |Autres | Contributions |

USAGE DE LA FORCE CONTRE LA LIBYE

«Responsabilité de protéger» ou «droit d'ingérence?»

Par
Taille du texte : Decrease font Enlarge font
Le cas libyen démontre comment une idée noble, défendue par la communauté internationale, peut être dévoyéeLe cas libyen démontre comment une idée noble, défendue par la communauté internationale, peut être dévoyée

La multiplication des conflits entraîna celle des implications de l'ONU qui fut sollicitée au-delà de ses possibilités et enregistra de graves défaillances.

Lorsque le Sommet mondial de 2005 a finalement entériné le principe de la «responsabilité de protéger», après plusieurs années de discussions mettant aux prises les pays du Nord et du Sud, certains ont nourri l'espoir de voir la communauté internationale redresser une situation mondiale devenue chaotique après la Guerre froide qui a libéré des forces contenues durant de longues décennies. C'était ignorer la volonté de domination de certains pays du Nord qui s'estiment investis du «droit d'ingérence», -peu importe le qualificatif dont on l'affuble-, qui a toujours été l'apanage du fort pour soumettre et dominer le faible à des fins d'intérêts propres. Le colonialisme en fut la forme la plus brutale. La question de l'ingérence, telle que le monde la connaît depuis quelques décennies, a commencé à se poser à la fin de cette période historique. L'émergence des pays du Sud à la vie internationale a contraint les pays du Nord à chercher des justifications à la poursuite de leurs immixtions dans les affaires intérieures de leurs anciennes colonies.
Le monde bipolaire dont a accouché la Seconde Guerre mondiale, connut des conflits régionaux et fut marqué par la Guerre froide. Ce fut aussi la période de reflux généralisé du colonialisme. Devenu unipolaire dans les années 90, avec à sa tête les Etats-Unis qualifiés d'hyperpuissance, suggérant l'idée d'Etat impérial, il fut secoué par des conflits internes (guerres civiles, génocides, épurations ethniques...), y compris en Europe. Ils firent plus de cinq millions de morts et mirent en péril la paix et la sécurité internationales. Le «droit d'ingérence humanitaire», une question controversée défendue par les pays du Nord, connut une nouvelle vigueur.

Le rapport Brahimi
La multiplication des conflits entraîna celle des implications de l'ONU qui fut sollicitée au-delà de ses possibilités et enregistra de graves défaillances. Les actions étaient chaotiques comme en Somalie (1993), au Rwanda (1994) ou lors du massacre de Srebrenica (1995) ou illégales car non autorisées par l'ONU comme au Kosovo (1999). Un «Groupe d'étude sur les opérations de maintien de la paix» fut créé en mars 2000 par le Secrétaire général, Kofi Annan, et sa direction confiée au diplomate algérien Lakhdar Brahimi. Il lui fut assigné pour mission de faire des recommandations afin d'améliorer la pratique de l'ONU dans ce domaine. Le Rapport Brahimi, remis en août 2000, met l'accent sur les limites politiques, financières et administratives de l'ONU pour gérer les crises de plus en plus nombreuses et complexes et fait un certain nombre de recommandations pour redresser la situation en appelant, notamment les Etats à prendre leurs responsabilités dans l'intérêt de tous.

La défense collective de la dignité humaine
Toujours en 2000, mettant à profit cette date symbole, l'Assemblée générale de l'ONU se réunit en Sommet du Millénaire, du 6 au 8 septembre, et adopta la «Déclaration du Millénaire». Les Etats membres se déclarèrent «collectivement tenus de défendre, au niveau mondial, les principes de la dignité humaine» et décidèrent «d'élargir et de renforcer la protection des civils dans les situations d'urgence complexes, conformément au droit international» tout en réitérant les «principes d'égalité souveraine de tous les Etats, de respect de leur intégrité territoriale, de règlement des différends par des voies pacifiques et de non-ingérence dans les affaires intérieures des Etats». Le texte est un compromis fragile entre les pays du Nord partisans de l'interventionnisme et ceux du Sud attachés au respect des principes onusiens.
Dans le rapport présenté à cette occasion par le Secrétaire général de l'ONU, intitulé: «Nous, les peuples; le rôle des Nations unies au XXIe siècle», M Kofi Annan exhortait la communauté internationale à «dégager un consensus sur les modalités d'intervention pour protéger les populations victimes de violations massives et répétées des droits humanitaires».

Le Canada comme facilitateur
Pour aider le Secrétaire général de l'ONU à forger le consensus recherché, le Canada annonça devant le Sommet du Millénaire la mise en place de la «Commission internationale de l'intervention et de la souveraineté» des Etats (CIIS). Coprésidée par Gareth Evans, ancien ministre des Affaires étrangères de l'Australie et président de l'International Crisis Group, et Mohamed Sahnoun, ancien ambassadeur algérien, elle reçut pour mandat de promouvoir un débat exhaustif sur «le rapport entre intervention et souveraineté des États». Il s'agissait d'essayer de concilier deux questions qui paraissaient inconciliables ou au moins contradictoires afin de rendre impossible la répétition de massacres de populations. En décembre 2001, la CIIS remit un rapport au Secrétaire général de l'ONU intitulé
«La responsabilité de protéger». L'idée de base était que les Etats, ont la responsabilité de protéger leurs propres citoyens, mais lorsqu'ils ne sont pas en mesure de le faire, cette responsabilité doit être assumée par la communauté internationale.

Les pays du Sud contre le «droit d'ingérence»
Le débat qui s'ensuivit donna lieu au traditionnel clivage entre le Nord et le Sud. Le concept proposé rappelait trop le «droit d'ingérence humanitaire». Il avait été rejeté à l'avance par le Sommet du Sud du Groupe des 77 (G.77), réuni à La Havane, du 10 au 14 avril 2000, qui l'estima incompatible avec les principes de la Charte des Nations unies, soulignant que la vraie menace venait de la situation socioéconomique déplorable de milliards d'êtres humains et que les principes du respect de la souveraineté nationale et de l'intégrité territoriale des Etats constituaient le fondement des relations internationales. La même position fut reconduite par le Sommet des pays non-alignés qui eut lieu à Kuala Lumpur, du 20 au 25 février 2003, quelques jours avant l'invasion de l'Irak par les Etats-Unis. Il réaffirma en outre l'importance du multilatéralisme avec pour centre les Nations unies et rejeta les actions unilatérales(1).

L'ONU adopte une nouvelle notion juridique
Quelques semaines après le Sommet des pays non-alignés, M. Kofi Annan désigna un «Groupe de personnalités de haut niveau sur les menaces, les défis et le changement» pour «recommander des mesures propres à donner à l'ONU les moyens de pourvoir à la sécurité collective au XXIe siècle». Dans un rapport intitulé «Un monde plus sûr, notre affaire à tous», remis en décembre 2004, le Groupe estima que la sécurité collective était «au premier chef l'affaire d'Etats compétents et responsables», s'entendit sur une «nouvelle norme prescrivant une obligation collective internationale de protection» et recommanda des «critères servant à déterminer quand l'emploi de la force se justifie».
En mars 2005, le Secrétaire général présenta devant l'Assemblée générale un rapport sur la mise en oeuvre des Objectifs du Millénaire intitulé «Dans une liberté plus grande: vers le développement, la sécurité et le respect des droits de l'homme pour tous» dans lequel il proposait des «priorités absolues» à l'adoption par le Sommet mondial de 2005 qui eut lieu du 14 au 16 septembre. Suivant les recommandations faites par le CIIS, le Groupe de personnalités et le Secrétaire général, ledit Sommet adopta un «Document final» avalisant une nouvelle notion, la «Responsabilité de protéger les populations contre le génocide, les crimes de guerre, le nettoyage ethnique et les crimes contre l'humanité». Cette stratégie repose sur trois piliers: les responsabilités de l'État; l'assistance internationale et le renforcement des capacités de prévention des Etats et de l'ONU; et une réaction résolue en temps voulu. Ce système accorde la priorité aux moyens préventifs, mais prévoit le recours aux moyens coercitifs, ordonnés par le Conseil de sécurité, y compris l'utilisation de la force armée. Le «droit d'intervention humanitaire» devint par la magie de la rhétorique la «responsabilité de protéger»(2).
Les chefs d'Etat et de gouvernement ont pris plusieurs précautions pour tempérer l'ardeur des interventionnistes tous azimuts: assistance à apporter aux Etats pour les aider à faire face à leurs obligations, mise en place d'un dispositif d'alerte rapide par l'ONU, priorité donnée aux moyens pacifiques pour résoudre les différends, gradation dans les actions coercitives et recours à l'usage de la force en phase ultime uniquement avec l'autorisation du Conseil de sécurité et lorsqu'il est justifié par l'intérêt collectif (chapitres VI, VII et VIII de la Charte). Enfin, comme pour souligner que le débat restait ouvert, l'Assemblée générale fut chargée de «poursuivre l'examen de la responsabilité de protéger». La nouvelle notion juridique devait être précisée dans plusieurs de ses aspects, principalement le plus délicat d'entre eux: les modalités de recours à l'utilisation de la force armée.

Face à l'unilatéralisme américain, la «vieille Europe» se rebiffe
Les attentats du 11/09/2001 contre les tours du World Trade Center, à New York, et le Pentagone, à Washington, furent considérés comme un «acte de guerre» par le président Bush et bouleversèrent les politiques américaines de sécurité intérieure et internationale. En septembre 2002, ce dernier publia sa première Stratégie de sécurité nationale (SSN) qui se distingue des précédentes par le droit d'attaque préventive contre les groupes terroristes et les Etats «voyous», surtout ceux cherchant à se doter d'armes de destruction massive. L'invasion illégale de l'Irak le 20 mars 2003 fut la première mise en oeuvre de cette doctrine. La seconde version de la SSN, publiée en mars 2006, reconduisit la doctrine d'attaque préventive et proclama l'ambition des Etats-Unis de faire de la lutte contre le terrorisme et de la diffusion de la démocratie dans le monde l'axe principal de la politique étrangère et de sécurité américaine.
La SSN est l'aboutissement d'une réflexion initiée par les néoconservateurs (3) au lendemain de la fin de la Guerre froide en vue d'assurer la suprématie militaire des Etats-Unis et rendre incontestable leur leadership mondial en recourant à l'usage massif de la force, -qui fait le droit-, pour susciter la crainte et la soumission des autres nations. C'était un document d'orientation politique qui affichait une volonté interventionniste claire et ouvrait une nouvelle page dans les relations internationales.
La politique unilatérale des Etats-Unis, concrétisée par l'invasion illégale de l'Irak le 20 mars 2003, sonna le glas de la sympathie que suscita ce pays dans le monde après les attentats du 11septembre. Elle divisa gravement la communauté internationale sur l'opportunité de faire usage de la force pour contrer les menaces. Même les principaux alliés de Washington dans la «vieille Europe», comme l'Allemagne et la France, se déclarèrent attachés au respect du droit international et à une vision multipolaire du monde. Ils contestèrent publiquement l'unilatéralisme guerrier américain en Irak, y compris devant le Conseil de sécurité dont ils empêchèrent l'instrumentalisation par Washington.

L'OTAN, bras armé de l'Occident
Les frictions entre l'Europe et les Etats-Unis se traduisirent au niveau de l'Otan qui avait perdu sa raison fondamentale d'exister après la Guerre froide et se cherchait une nouvelle mission. Certaines voix s'étaient même élevées pour demander sa dissolution, mais elle survécut aux bouleversements géopolitiques induits par la disparition du bloc soviétique sur fond d'opposition entre les Etats-Unis, où les néoconservateurs voulaient en faire le «gendarme du monde», et l'Europe qui restait attachée à la centralité de l'ONU dans les relations internationales. La «Guerre de l'ex-Yougoslavie» (4), entre 1991 et 2001, mit en lumière l'impuissance de l'Europe à stabiliser seule sa région et démontra la nécessité de recourir aux services de l'Otan. En outre, cette dernière entreprit de prendre sous son aile les anciens alliés de l'Urss en s'élargissant à l'Est. Elle profita aussi des faiblesses de l'ONU. Son intervention en Afghanistan marqua de façon décisive l'élargissement de ses missions et de ses champs d'intervention dans un environnement sécuritaire bouleversé et changeant.
Au sommet de Prague, le 21 novembre 2002, le premier à se tenir derrière l'ancien rideau de fer, l'Alliance prit acte des nouvelles menaces et des nouveaux défis du XXIe siècle, en particulier le terrorisme, et décida de se doter de nouvelles capacités pour y répondre collectivement. Cependant, de grands pays européens rejetaient toujours l'unilatéralisme américain ainsi que l'extension du champ de compétence de l'Otan à des domaines civils qu'induit la lutte contre le terrorisme. L'invasion de l'Irak en mars 2003 fut l'apogée de la crise entre les deux rives de l'Atlantique. Le Sommet de l'Alliance, qui s'est tenu à Lisbonne les 19 et 20 novembre 2010, adopta finalement un nouveau Concept de l'Otan, définissant ainsi sa nouvelle mission pour la première fois depuis 1999. La centralité de la défense collective à l'origine de la création de l'Alliance, fut réaffirmée et le rôle de l'Otan actualisé à la lumière des nouvelles menaces, notamment celles asymétriques provenant d'acteurs non étatiques, la prolifération nucléaire et balistique, les attaques cybernétiques, la piraterie, la sécurité énergétique. Le nouveau Concept conforta l'Otan dans un rôle planétaire (5) pour en faire la seule puissance globale dans le monde au service des seuls intérêts occidentaux. A cette fin, il a été décidé de la doter de capacités expéditionnaires ayant pour vocation d'intervenir dans n'importe quel point du globe. Elle est progressivement introduite comme un bras universel armé au service du Conseil de Sécurité. D'instrument de défense collective, elle tente de devenir un instrument de sécurité collective, avec le risque de supplanter l'ONU.

France-Otan et France-Grande-Bretagne
Le général de Gaulle a décidé de retirer la France de l'Otan en 1966 pour mettre fin à l'influence de Washington sur le commandement militaire français. Il a aussi doté la France d'une force nucléaire de dissuasion qui est la seule dont dispose le «Vieux continent» si on exclut celle de la Grande-Bretagne étroitement liée aux Etats-Unis. Paris a aussi essayé de mettre en place des structures européennes de sécurité et de défense susceptibles d'être activées de façon autonome. Mais l'Europe n'a pas pu émerger comme réalité militaire.
La France commença à se rapprocher de l'Otan dès la fin de la Guerre froide en soutenant l'élargissement de ses compétences aux missions de gestion des crises (Balkans dès 1992) et en participant activement aux opérations militaires (Kosovo, Afghanistan), devenant le quatrième contributeur en hommes et au budget (6). Elle réintégra le Conseil des ministres de la Défense et le Comité militaire le 5 décembre 1995. En mars 2009, Sarkozy franchit le dernier pas: 43 ans après la décision du général de Gaulle, il annonça le retour de la France dans les structures militaires intégrées (comité des plans de défense, comité militaire et état-major international), à l'exception du groupe de planification nucléaire pour garder l'indépendance de la force de dissuasion française.
L'étape suivante fut le lancement d'une coopération militaire de grande ampleur avec la Grande-Bretagne (7). Le Sommet franco-britannique de Londres, le 2 novembre 2010, à la veille de celui de l'Alliance atlantique à Lisbonne, accoucha de deux accords et d'une déclaration commune. On peut y voir un grand pas dans la construction de la politique européenne de défense et de sécurité, -comme décidé lors du Sommet franco-britannique de Saint-Malo en 1998-, ou la volonté de deux pays contraints financièrement de mutualiser leurs moyens militaires pour se donner des possibilités d'intervenir sur la scène internationale. La seconde hypothèse n'est pas à écarter lorsqu'on sait que Londres et Paris ont décidé de créer une «force expéditionnaire conjointe», combattante de plusieurs milliers d'hommes devant être opérationnelle dès 2011 et de développer leurs capacités de projection, se situant ainsi dans une logique interventionniste. Le rôle de pointe que ces deux capitales jouent dans la crise qui secoue la Libye depuis le début 2011, est la concrétisation de cette coopération militaire franco-britannique. Paris et Londres ne semblent pas avoir les moyens de leurs ambitions puisque les opérations en cours depuis cinq mois sont menées par l'Otan.
Sarkozy a tourné le dos à l'héritage gaulliste concernant les rapports entre la France et les Etats-Unis et l'Otan. Après le retour dans les structures intégrées de l'Organisation atlantique, la signature des accords de coopération militaire avec la Grande-Bretagne, qui incluent un volet nucléaire, mettent la touche finale au réalignement de la France sur la politique atlantiste.

La «responsabilité de protéger» appliquée à la Libye
Depuis la fin de la Guerre froide, l'Occident s'est patiemment doté des moyens d'intervention nécessaires pour perpétuer sa domination. La «responsabilité de protéger» était sensée lui fournir une couverture juridique. Ce principe, au demeurant généreux, s'est voulu un mariage entre deux conceptions du système international. -La première, ancienne, considère que l'Etat en est l'unité de base et la seconde, prenant prétexte des crises humanitaires, insiste sur le rôle que doivent jouer les institutions internationales et le droit international public pour peser sur le comportement des entités étatiques-. Il a été foulé aux pieds par les pays du Nord à la première occasion.
Les résolutions 1970 et 1973 du Conseil de sécurité sur la Libye, les premières à être prises en vertu de la «responsabilité de protéger» (8), sont interprétées de façon fantaisiste, notamment par la France qui essaye de justifier l'injustifiable. Comme l'a déclaré le ministre russe des Affaires étrangères, ces résolutions ne permettent pas «à n'importe qui de faire n'importe quoi, n'importe quand». Certes, chaque pays a «l'obligation morale» de s'opposer aux crimes contre l'humanité, mais tout recours à la force doit être autorisé par le Conseil de sécurité qui fixe avec précision les limites et le contrôle des actions à mener. Or, la France ne semble respecter aucune limite. Elle a été jusqu'à livrer des armes aux rebelles libyens, violant allègrement l'embargo décrété par le Conseil de sécurité. En agissant ainsi, Paris ne contribue pas à l'apaisement mais alimente la guerre civile dont elle devient partie prenante, ainsi que le terrorisme au Maghreb et dans la région sahélo-saharienne. Elle pratique aujourd'hui une politique unilatérale (qu'elle dénonçait hier,-Irak) sous couvert de légalité internationale qu'elle viole de façon grossière, relançant ainsi le débat sur la «responsabilité de protéger» qu'elle confond avec «droit d'ingérence».

Le travail normatif sera-t-il complété?
Ce n'est pas le principe en lui-même qui est en cause puisque les pays du Sud ont avalisé la «responsabilité de protéger» au Sommet mondial de 2005, mais sa mise en oeuvre à toutes les étapes allant de l'instrumentalisation du Conseil de sécurité et de la Cour pénale internationale en passant par la propagande et la désinformation à travers la mobilisation des médias, jusqu'à l'absence de bonne foi dans la mise en oeuvre des résolutions. A ce propos, le cas libyen fera sûrement école. Il démontre comment une idée noble, qui a mobilisé la communauté internationale pendant des années, peut être dévoyée. Les pays du Nord qui ont soutenu avec beaucoup de vigueur le principe de la «responsabilité de protéger» et l'ont imposé à ceux qui craignaient ses dérives -à juste titre, peut-on dire aujourd'hui-, auront été ses fossoyeurs en raison d'une politique de force dictée par leurs seuls intérêts nationaux. Cette crainte est d'autant plus justifiée que le débat n'est pas encore terminé. Celui qui a eu lieu à l'Assemblée générale de l'ONU en juillet 2009, a révélé la persistance de profondes divergences entre les Occidentaux et les pays non-alignés sur la question des mesures militaires. Le 14 septembre 2009, l'Assemblée générale a adopté par consensus une résolution pour décider «de continuer d'examiner la question de la responsabilité de protéger». Quant au Secrétaire général, il a estimé que l'approfondissement de la réflexion était le meilleur moyen de mettre en oeuvre ce principe et a invité ses conseillers à poursuivre le dialogue avec les Etats membres et toutes les autres parties intéressées.
Les pays du Nord présentent abusivement la «responsabilité de protéger» comme une nouvelle norme juridique alors qu'elle n'est qu'une notion encore sujette à discussion au moins dans son mode opératoire. En effet, on peut soutenir que le consensus normatif n'est pas encore complet ne serait-ce que parce que les moyens de traduire ce principe en action (recours à la force armée), sont loin d'être clairs. Les dépassements enregistrés en Libye le décrédibilisent et risquent de donner un coup fatal aux acquis enregistrés depuis la fin des années 90. La Chine et la Russie, pour ne citer que deux membres permanents du Conseil de Sécurité, ont tiré la leçon de l'expérience libyenne et refusent de soutenir un projet de résolution occidental sur la Syrie.
L'adoption de la «responsabilité de protéger» par le Sommet mondial de 2005 aura-t-elle été une supercherie de plus dont les victimes sont les pays du Sud? En effet, le monde est mu par des rapports de forces politiques et militaires. Le droit international est invoqué ou ignoré selon les intérêts bien compris des grandes puissances qui ne tiennent pas les engagements non conformes aux dits intérêts (9). Le Conseil de sécurité apparaît de plus en plus comme un espace où les membres permanents essayent dd'harmoniser leurs intérêts. Rappelons, à titre d'exemple, qu'en 2010 l'Occident a proclamé l'indépendance du Kosovo en se substituant à la légalité internationale incarnée par l'ONU. Au Sud-Soudan, il a plié la légalité onusienne à sa volonté et divisé le pays. En Libye, il reconnaît, sans base légale, un pouvoir de fait comme «autorité gouvernementale légitime». Ce faisant, l'Occident s'est érigé en source du droit international et légifère pour la planète, se substituant aux peuples.
Bien que la Charte proclame «l'égalité des nations, grandes et petites» (10), ce sont les Etats les plus puissants qui se sont arrogé la responsabilité de veiller sur la paix et la sécurité internationales en instrumentalisant les structures de l'ONU, particulièrement le Conseil de sécurité dont la réforme de la composition et des modalités de fonctionnement est indispensable à sa légitimité. En attendant une telle réforme, il serait avisé de respecter la Charte dans toutes ses dispositions, comme par exemple la mise en oeuvre du chapitre VIII (articles 52 et 53) qui donne aux accords ou organismes régionaux la priorité en matière de règlement des crises locales. A ce propos, la marginalisation de l'Union africaine dans le traitement du conflit libyen constitue une autre entorse à la légalité internationale et un clou supplémentaire dans le cercueil de la «responsabilité de protéger».

(1) A propos des Etats-Unis, le Premier ministre de Malaisie, Mohamad Mahatir, déclara «Ce n'est plus seulement une guerre contre le terrorisme, c'est une guerre pour dominer le monde». Il ajouta: «Après les attentats du 11 septembre, les Etats-Unis ont trouvé un argument pour une fois encore conquérir le monde.»
(2) Dans sa déclaration devant le Sommet mondial de 2005, le Président Abdelaziz Bouteflika préféra l'expression «obligation morale» à «responsabilité de protéger».
(3) Francis Fukuyama: article intitulé «La fin de l'Histoire» (1989) transformé en livre paru sous le titre «La fin de l'histoire et le dernier homme» (1992); Paul Wolfowitz: «Mémorandum sur le maintien de la suprématie militaire des Etats-Unis» (1992); Samuel Huntington: «Le choc des civilisations», un livre basé sur un article sur le même thème publié en 1993; Robert Kagan: «Power and Weakness» (Policy Rewiew, juin-juillet 2002), un article qui a inspiré un livre intitulé «Of Paradise and Power: America Vs. Europe in the New World Order» (2003) et d'autres encore.
(4) La guerre de l'ex-Yougoslavie fut une série de conflits locaux qui opposèrent différents groupes ethniques ou nationaux de l'ancienne République fédérale. Le massacre de Srebrenica en juillet 1995 symbolise le caractère génocidaire de ces conflits et constitue une première en Europe depuis la Seconde Guerre mondiale.
(5) Cf. «Le Sommet de Lisbonne conforte l'Otan dans son rôle planétaire», in L'Expression du 21 novembre 2010.
(6) Avec un total de 84 avions engagés au Kosovo, la France a été le principal partenaire des Etats-Unis lors des sorties aériennes, devant l'Italie, le Royaume-Uni et l'Allemagne.
(7) Cf. «Défense: rapprochement spectaculaire entre la France et la Grande Bretagne», in L'Expression du dimanche 07 novembre 2010.
(8) Cf. «Intervention militaire en Libye, entre légalité et légitimité», in L'Expression du 28 mars 2011.
(9) Que sont devenus les engagements pris par les pays du Nord dans les textes suivants: Déclaration du Millénaire adoptée par le Sommet du Millénaire de 2000 (OMD); Consensus de Monterrey issu de la Conférence internationale sur le financement du développement de 2003; «Déclaration finale» du Sommet mondial de 2005; Conférence internationale de suivi sur le financement du développement chargée d'examiner la mise en oeuvre du Consensus de Monterrey (Doha, 29 novembre-2 décembre 2008) et Déclaration de Doha sur le financement du développement; Plan de mise en oeuvre du Sommet mondial pour le développement durable de Johannesburg?
(10) En 1946, la Cour internationale de justice (CIJ) fut saisie de «l'incident du détroit de Corfou opposant la Grande-Bretagne et l'Albanie. Dans l'arrêt rendu en 1949, elle se déclare contre toute ingérence dans ces termes: «Le prétendu droit d'intervention ne peut être envisagé que comme la manifestation d'une politique de force qui ne saurait trouver aucune place dans le droit international». Elle poursuit:
«Entre Etats indépendants, le respect de la souveraineté nationale est l'une des bases essentielles des rapports internationaux».

Suivez ces commentaire via le flux RSS Réactions (4)

aghioul - roma 30/07/2011 21:51:43
si le crétin de omar el bachir n'avait pas appliqué la charia à des chretiens le sud soudan ne se serait
pas coupé du nord soudan integriste
si sadam avait respecté les droits élementaires des kurdes etc etc
alors la vielle chanson de l'ingerence et etc
1
Spin Doctor - Bullshitistan 31/07/2011 18:27:00
"Justice et Force" (Blaise Pascal)

"Il est juste que ce qui est juste soit suivi ; il est nécessaire que ce qui est le plus fort soit suivi.
La justice sans la force est impuissante ; la force sans la justice est tyrannique.
La justice sans force est contredite, parce qu'il y a toujours des méchants. La force sans la justice est accusée. Il faut donc mettre ensemble la justice et la force, et pour cela faire que ce qui est juste soit fort ou que ce qui est fort soit juste.
La justice est sujette à dispute. La force est très reconnaissable et sans dispute. Aussi on n'a pu donner la force à la justice, parce que la force a contredit la justice et a dit qu'elle était injuste, et a dit que c'était elle qui était juste.
Et ainsi, ne pouvant faire que ce qui est juste fût fort, on a fait que ce qui est fort fût juste. "

Un article de fond, très documenté avec une analyse pour initiés...
Et en-dessous 4 lignes de commentaire de qq1 qui porte bien son pseudonyme.
1
joseph cachia - Malte 03/08/2011 08:55:54
Subject: AREN'T WE ALL HYPOCRITES ?

Contribution
(for publication)
________________________________________
With compliments and regards,
Joe
Malta Freelance Journalist

UNBELIEVABLE!!…NOT SO LONG AGO…SUCH A SMILING HAPPY FAMILY!!
WHERE ARE THEY NOW ??

"I have known a vast quantity of nonsense talked about bad men not looking you in the face. Don't trust that conventional idea. Dishonesty will stare honesty out of countenance any day in the week, if there is anything to be got by it."
Charles Dickens

I'm getting really sick and tired of the biased news reports on the current situation in Libya. Of course, you will see a lot of media opera¬tives persuading you to think this is a good and justif¬ied war aimed at helping Libyans, but the facts and ev¬ents just don’t add up to that.

To say that "Gaddafi's security forces cracked down ferociousl¬y when thousands of Libyans rebelled against his rule." is just a repetition of the western party line, which has no basis in fact.

The Libya War was sold to the public as a humanitarian intervention, but very quickly evolved into an effort to overthrow a government, using drones that bomb civilians, and ignoring pleas for peace. The so called "rebellion against his rule" was a covert CIA operation. Both CIA agents and MI6 agents from the UK were already on the ground at the start of this so-called spontaneou¬s rebellion. This I find too coincident¬al, given both agencies precedents¬, and given the strategic importance of Libyan oil, to accept at face value. Both agencies, as well as the compliant western media, used the ruse that what had happened in Tunisia and Egypt was what was happening in Libya. However, they knew full well that they could sell it because of the basic ignorance of most Americans and West Europeans concerning world affairs, not to mention the fact that those who control this media also want Gaddafi removed because he's been a thorn in their side for decades, As an example of this you will recall that not long after the start up of what in actual fact became a civil war, the Italian Foreign Minister stated categorica¬lly that over 10,000 civilians had lost their lives. In actual fact, all internatio¬nal agencies who normally track this sort of phenomenon had a body count of less than 3,000 and the majority of them were either rebel combatants or Libyan army troops.

Fundamentally, if anyone really wants to know why the west decided to finally attack Libya, go to this website (www.algathafi.org/html-english/index.htm) and download the speech Ghaddafi made at the UN on 23rd Sept 2009.

Ghaddafi knows well enough, as we all need to admit, that NATO's interventi¬on was not about the protection of civilians. The main objective, ab-initio, was to get him out of power.

Resolution 1973 was just a ploy to strip Libya of its sovereignt¬y to enable those that have, through the years, been looking for his head on a platter to have their ways. This is the chance of a life time to be rid of him and none of the countries involved is willing to let this golden opportunit¬y slip by.

He should therefore save his breath, they have him and no offer or observance of ceasefire will sway NATO and the Coalition. They are so happy blasting away a people who have no means of retaliation, including the Ghaddafi family compound. Does bombing his family compound, knowing that his small grandchild¬ren were living there, make NATO any better? And, of course, under the UN pretext of ‘humanitarian aid’. That’s NATO courage! Just shooting sitting ducks! SHAMEFUL!! Perhaps it would have been better had Ghaddafi purchased a few anti-warship missiles and hit a French aircraft carrier. Crusaders need to pay for their actions!

Who can explain how the dropping of over 3000 $400,000 missiles on Western Libya is about saving lives? There is no free lunch. Libya, after Ghaddafi, must re-reimbur¬se, with profit! Forget about the loss of innocent human lives!! What counts is that the more NATO blasts up and destroys the better, as finally the West will be restructuring, at a high price, of course!
Until Ghaddafi is out, NATO will continue bombing civilians to protect civilians. What cheek!

Concern for the Libyan people? Empathy for the poor people being bombed and murdered on both sides? Concern about what will happen to the Libyan people in the future? No, nothing of that sort. Just smiling and hugging each other and thinking how it would serve our own selfish benefits. That’s all it’s about. What a phony and conceited attitude!

Pay close attention to the details, and you will see Western powers moving towards a resolution only when they've figured out how to privatize the Libyan oil.

The simple fact of the matter is that the oil industry was controlled by the Libyan state oil company National Oil, which renegotiat¬e profit sharing terms with globalist oil companies. Gaddafi was threatenin¬g to go even further and dismantle National Oil and distribute oil revenue directly to the people.

I'll take a wild guess and say that once the rebels are in power, the oil industry of Libya will be privatized and end the 40 years of nationaliz¬ation. But what am I saying; the Libyan rebels well NEVER be in power! They will be minions serving the interests of the foreign multinational corporations. They have served their purpose! Now, we should stop calling them rebels; they are just armed insurgents¬ who may one day even turn against their new occupiers. The Afghan example would fit in perfectly.

But really, who are the so-called ‘rebels’? Who are they promoting to put in power? The ‘rebels’ broke the first cease-fire by attacking Libyan troops. Why are they so dead set against any cease fire? Instead of asking these questions we just go ahead and believe everything that NATO and the Coalition tell us like the blind sheep that we are.

To most informed people with a sense of history, the Libyan story is no different to the colonial wars of the eighteenth and nineteenth century.
None can deny that fact. Notwithstanding it being so blatantly obvious, I am convinced that there is little hope for America with this level of blissful ignorance among its citizens to realize the conspiracy worked out over their heads.

Wake up, this is a war, Obama and Company War. He started it by firing 200 Tomahawk missiles into Libya at a cost of $1.5 million each. The U.S. is the backbone of NATO which was set up to defend a country that might be attacked. Take away US participat¬ion, and NATO would fold its tent and go home today. As bad as Ghaddafi could be depicted, he was not a threat to any country. He had given up his nuclear ambitions. Despite all, NATO and its Coalition are still bombing; it is a war for regime change.

The U.S. military intervention in Libya was never authorized by the U.S. Congress, and thus violates U.S. law and the U.S. Constitution. When the 60 day limit expired, Jack Goldsmith, a Harvard law professor who led the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel in 2003 and 2004, said: "This appears to be the first time that any president has violated the War Powers Resolution's requirement either to terminate the use of armed forces within 60 days after the initiation of hostilities or get Congress's support". President Obama has become the new puppet of imperialis¬m.

Ghaddafi consented to a ceasefire and to democratic elections in the African Union negotiatio¬ns. Obama, the ‘Nobel Peace Prize’ winner, has utterly ignored that deal, and will no doubt refuse to seek a peaceful solution. Obama, NATO, and the ‘Coalition¬’ flagrantly refused to show up at the talks.

There's something very rotten about all of this! Aren’t elections the goal? Why would the West reject elections in an agreement establishe¬d through the African Union? The goal, as stated by Robert Gates, the U.S. Secretary of Defence, is to ‘kill Ghaddafi and the Libyan military’.
Marc Ginsberg, former U.S. Jewish-American ambassador and ex-Presidential advisor gave it all away. He asserted that “the U.S. should not stand in Sarkozy’s way in Libya”. “After all, isn’t it in America’s strategic interest to accommodate French designs in Libya? Messr. Sarkozy is actually using France’s aggressive role in Libya to resurrect his long cherished goal of creating a French dominated "Union of the Mediterranean".

What else is there to say than this overt account? All the hidden motives for this aggression are laid bare for those who want to see. And I sorrowfully note the lack of any mention of and concern for the Libyan people!
Real protesters of any cause have disappeare¬d from the streets in this country, and are only to be found on the Web (where their effect is zero or possibly less).

“We have to live today by what truth we can get today and be ready tomorrow to call it falsehood.”
William James




Joseph M. Cachia 2011
jmcachia@maltanet.net
31, St. Lawrence Street
Vittoriosa – Malta
ID. No. 698736 (M)
Tel: 21807566 – 99866151




MALTA PEACE COUNCIL
LIBYA - Behind the phony ICC 'rape' charges: ARE NATO FORCES PREPARING A GROUND ATTACK?
by Sara Flounders
International Action Center
Without presenting a shred of reliable evidence, NATO and International Criminal Court conspirators are charging the Libyan government with conspiracy to rape -- not only rape as the "collateral damage" of war, but rape as a political weapon.
This charge of an orchestrated future campaign of rapes was made at a major press conference called by the lead prosecutor of the International Criminal Court on June 8, 2011. The even wilder unsubstantiated ICC charge that Libya plans to mass distribute Viagra to its troops confirms this as the most tawdry and threadbare form of war propaganda.
It is important to understand that NATO countries with the full complicity of the corporate media and the ICC are spreading this Big Lie in order to win support for and close down all opposition to a ground assault of Libya, something that would otherwise be unpopular both in Europe and the United States. This wild charge adds to the evidence of a massive escalation in bombing urban targets in Libya, the use of British and French helicopters that give close support to ground troops and the positioning in the Mediterranean off Libya of U.S. warships that can quickly land troops. The NATO alliance is desperate to put Libya beyond all discussion or defense and raise the NATO war to the level of a Holy Crusade to defend women.
The charge of rape as a political weapon was spread -- without evidence -- against Serb forces to justify U.S. plans for the first NATO bombing campaign in the history of the military alliance in 1994 in Bosnia and was used again in 1999 in Serbia in the first NATO occupation. The rape charge was used to soften up the U.S. and European population for the criminal war against Yugoslavia. Now a similar plan is in the works for Libya.
All too often widely fabricated lies are spread to justify imperialist wars. In 1991 the first war against Iraq was justified by outrageous charges that the Iraqi army had grabbed Kuwaiti babies from incubators and smashed the babies to the floor. This was presented as reliable “testimony” to in the U.S. Congress and in the UN. Months later it was confirmed as a total fabrication. But the lie had served its purpose. In 2001 the corporate media and U.S. politicians claimed that they had to bomb and then massively occupy Afghanistan to win rights for women that the Taliban taken away. The situation for women in Afghanistan and for the entire population has deteriorated further under U.S. / NATO occupation.
Despite video and photo evidence that the entire world has seen through WikiLeaks, the International Criminal Court has never considered for a moment filing criminal charges against U.S. British, French or German troops.
The pictures, videos and reports in major newspapers of sexual torture and humiliation at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq by U.S. soldiers, the testimony by the U.S. soldiers involved in rapes, tortures, mutilations and executions in Iraq and Afghanistan confirms the brutal reality of U.S. wars. These wars have never been to ‘save’ women.
As an African country, Libya can hardly expect a fair hearing or any form of justice from the ICC. The International Criminal Court created with high hopes of international justice in 2002 has been used against 7 countries – all in Africa. Meanwhile, the ICC has never examined U.S. drone attacks on defenseless civilians in at least 8 African, Arab and South Asian countries. Nor has it even touched U.S. invasions and occupations. Israeli bombing of the Palestinian people is “off limits”.
This is an essential time to remind all people concerned about the rights of women that U.S. intervention or any imperialist intervention has never protected women. Even women serving within the U.S. military machine are not “safe”. According to a study published by the Journal of Military Medicine, 71 per cent of women soldiers have been sexually assaulted or raped while serving in the U.S. military. Women who have been assaulted consistently report poor medical treatment, lack of counseling, incomplete criminal investigations and threats of punishment for reporting the assaults. In 2009 the Pentagon admitted that approximately 80 per cent of rapes are never reported – making it the most under-documented crime in the military. In addition U.S. military bases are all too often surrounded by an entire sex industry of abused women forced by hunger, dislocation and lost families into work in bars and clubs.
Rape in every society has little connection news.leader@northeast-press.co.ukto sexuality and desire. It has always been about imposing power and domination.
The "political rape" charge in this case makes no sense and has no basis beyond the U.S.-NATO desire to justify expanding the war against Libya.
Stop U.S.-NATO intervention in Libya.




MORE AND MORE HYPOCRISY !


‘US backs Bahrain due to military base’





WHITHER NOW EGYPT ?

“Where facts are few, experts are many.”

Donald R. Gannon

For those who thought the Egyptian revolution is done and past, think again. The Egyptians did not go home. They are out there again if things do not turn out the way they had hoped.

There’s no question that the unrest in Egypt is of paramount world concern. Opinions vary about how this situation will work out, but many analysts think, or rather hope, that this situation could actually have a positive outcome for Egypt.

One must keep in mind that Egypt’s standing in the Arab and Islamic world is partly linked to its role as a patron of the Palestinian cause in the era of Nasser.

There is talk about America's worries that a government less friendly to the USA will be installed. That is secondary, as long as it is a government that cares for its own people. And maybe if the US doesn't interfere, there is a chance of that happening. Hopefully the Egyptians would not swallow the bait of falling in the same gutter that they managed to escape from, enticed by the hypocritical words of Obama; “We stand ready to provide assistance that is necessary to help the Egyptian people as they manage the aftermath of these protests.” In her statement, U.S. Secretary of State Hilary Clinton claimed that Washington’s concern in relation to Egypt was to bring about a “real democracy” and not a “so-called democracy that then leads to what we saw in Iran.” Sometimes the argument comes in the form of "I support democracy, but only if I agree with the results." In other words, her sole criterion for a democracy is not the will of the people, but subordination to US interests or perhaps an imperialist ‘pax americana’.
The fear really is an Egypt that no one can predict. Will it continue in its former alliances? What good are its former alliances if they have to be maintained by a brutal and corrupt police force in the streets of Cairo?

The young activists who had organised the protests are still very optimistic but would not give up the pressure on the army to fulfil all its reform pledges, including the release of thousands of political prisoners. The leadership of the Coalition for change is still divided over the extent to which the army can be trusted.

If the Egyptian masses were allowed to express their genuine aspirations at the ballot box it would spell an end to the country’s role as a servile client of Washington and Israel. The issue that worries the US is that when people are free, they try to be independent. They will not accept living in the custody of the US.

Many western leaders are worried that the failure of the Egyptian regime could see the Muslim Brotherhood, the most well-organised opposition party, take control. The Mubarak regime has historically used the Muslim Brotherhood as a bogeyman to frighten the people and the Western countries. However, it's not radical Islam that worries the US – it's the independence. The nature of any regime it backs in the Arab world is secondary to control. Subjects are ignored until they break their chains. The US and its allies have regularly supported radical Islamists, sometimes to prevent the threat of secular nationalism.
There was a sense among reformists in Cairo that the army has been true to its word so far. Indeed, the Army has unequivocally stated that "it will not be an alternative to the legitimacy approved by the people". But concerns have mounted in the last days. Secular democratic parties are not involved in the dialogue the Army currently has with the Muslim Brotherhood. The process for reforming the constitution is far too quick and is not inclusive. Representatives of the old regime are there but there are no women. The question here is this: ‘Is the army more representative of the people, or more representative of the old status quo?’ It boggles the mind to think that, after all the sacrifices the country made to unseat a dictatorship, a new one seems to lurk in the shadows of this promising new era.
The pledge that elections would take place within six months was welcomed, but a faster timetable was then introduced, making it impossible for the impoverished liberal parties like Wafd ('Delegation') or El Ghad ('Tomorrow) to organise. The Muslim Brotherhood gets huge financial support from the Gulf States and is experienced in fighting elections. While the Brotherhood will not put up a presidential candidate, it will fight across the country for parliamentary seats. Alternatively, the hugely-popular Wael Ghoneim - a Google manager who was held and beaten up during the recent violence - has already been drawn into talks with the administration. Political groups would be able to accept unlimited funding from individuals, corporations or even foreign powers interested in influencing the presidential elections. This will leave the Egyptian political system ripe for corruption.
The young demonstrators are determined that the future political make-up of Egypt should reflect their role in the revolution. Nevertheless, getting rid of the dictators was only the first step of a process in which ordinary people will fight for their rights, notably better wages and public services, In a country of 80 million with 40% that live below the World Bank poverty level of $2 a day, it’s doubtful that the ‘youth element’ would hold the voting majority.
"All Egyptians now think they are Che Guevara, Castro or something," says Essam el-Erian, a senior leader of the Muslim Brotherhood, bursting into laughter. "This is democracy."
Foreign governments, especially those in Europe and the US, have to make major reassessments as the Arab world makes up its own mind at last.

"Peoples of Egypt, you will be told that I have come to destroy your religion. Do not believe it! Reply that I have come to restore your rights!"
Napoleon Bonaparte, 1798

Joseph M. Cachia 2011
jmcachia@maltanet.net
31, St. Lawrence Street
Vittoriosa – Malta
ID. No. 698736 (M)
Tel: 21807566 - 99866151
-1
joseph cachia - Malte 03/08/2011 08:56:58
Subject: AREN'T WE ALL HYPOCRITES ?

Contribution
(for publication)
________________________________________
With compliments and regards,
Joe
Malta Freelance Journalist

UNBELIEVABLE!!…NOT SO LONG AGO…SUCH A SMILING HAPPY FAMILY!!
WHERE ARE THEY NOW ??

"I have known a vast quantity of nonsense talked about bad men not looking you in the face. Don't trust that conventional idea. Dishonesty will stare honesty out of countenance any day in the week, if there is anything to be got by it."
Charles Dickens

I'm getting really sick and tired of the biased news reports on the current situation in Libya. Of course, you will see a lot of media opera¬tives persuading you to think this is a good and justif¬ied war aimed at helping Libyans, but the facts and ev¬ents just don’t add up to that.

To say that "Gaddafi's security forces cracked down ferociousl¬y when thousands of Libyans rebelled against his rule." is just a repetition of the western party line, which has no basis in fact.

The Libya War was sold to the public as a humanitarian intervention, but very quickly evolved into an effort to overthrow a government, using drones that bomb civilians, and ignoring pleas for peace. The so called "rebellion against his rule" was a covert CIA operation. Both CIA agents and MI6 agents from the UK were already on the ground at the start of this so-called spontaneou¬s rebellion. This I find too coincident¬al, given both agencies precedents¬, and given the strategic importance of Libyan oil, to accept at face value. Both agencies, as well as the compliant western media, used the ruse that what had happened in Tunisia and Egypt was what was happening in Libya. However, they knew full well that they could sell it because of the basic ignorance of most Americans and West Europeans concerning world affairs, not to mention the fact that those who control this media also want Gaddafi removed because he's been a thorn in their side for decades, As an example of this you will recall that not long after the start up of what in actual fact became a civil war, the Italian Foreign Minister stated categorica¬lly that over 10,000 civilians had lost their lives. In actual fact, all internatio¬nal agencies who normally track this sort of phenomenon had a body count of less than 3,000 and the majority of them were either rebel combatants or Libyan army troops.

Fundamentally, if anyone really wants to know why the west decided to finally attack Libya, go to this website (www.algathafi.org/html-english/index.htm) and download the speech Ghaddafi made at the UN on 23rd Sept 2009.

Ghaddafi knows well enough, as we all need to admit, that NATO's interventi¬on was not about the protection of civilians. The main objective, ab-initio, was to get him out of power.

Resolution 1973 was just a ploy to strip Libya of its sovereignt¬y to enable those that have, through the years, been looking for his head on a platter to have their ways. This is the chance of a life time to be rid of him and none of the countries involved is willing to let this golden opportunit¬y slip by.

He should therefore save his breath, they have him and no offer or observance of ceasefire will sway NATO and the Coalition. They are so happy blasting away a people who have no means of retaliation, including the Ghaddafi family compound. Does bombing his family compound, knowing that his small grandchild¬ren were living there, make NATO any better? And, of course, under the UN pretext of ‘humanitarian aid’. That’s NATO courage! Just shooting sitting ducks! SHAMEFUL!! Perhaps it would have been better had Ghaddafi purchased a few anti-warship missiles and hit a French aircraft carrier. Crusaders need to pay for their actions!

Who can explain how the dropping of over 3000 $400,000 missiles on Western Libya is about saving lives? There is no free lunch. Libya, after Ghaddafi, must re-reimbur¬se, with profit! Forget about the loss of innocent human lives!! What counts is that the more NATO blasts up and destroys the better, as finally the West will be restructuring, at a high price, of course!
Until Ghaddafi is out, NATO will continue bombing civilians to protect civilians. What cheek!

Concern for the Libyan people? Empathy for the poor people being bombed and murdered on both sides? Concern about what will happen to the Libyan people in the future? No, nothing of that sort. Just smiling and hugging each other and thinking how it would serve our own selfish benefits. That’s all it’s about. What a phony and conceited attitude!

Pay close attention to the details, and you will see Western powers moving towards a resolution only when they've figured out how to privatize the Libyan oil.

The simple fact of the matter is that the oil industry was controlled by the Libyan state oil company National Oil, which renegotiat¬e profit sharing terms with globalist oil companies. Gaddafi was threatenin¬g to go even further and dismantle National Oil and distribute oil revenue directly to the people.

I'll take a wild guess and say that once the rebels are in power, the oil industry of Libya will be privatized and end the 40 years of nationaliz¬ation. But what am I saying; the Libyan rebels well NEVER be in power! They will be minions serving the interests of the foreign multinational corporations. They have served their purpose! Now, we should stop calling them rebels; they are just armed insurgents¬ who may one day even turn against their new occupiers. The Afghan example would fit in perfectly.

But really, who are the so-called ‘rebels’? Who are they promoting to put in power? The ‘rebels’ broke the first cease-fire by attacking Libyan troops. Why are they so dead set against any cease fire? Instead of asking these questions we just go ahead and believe everything that NATO and the Coalition tell us like the blind sheep that we are.

To most informed people with a sense of history, the Libyan story is no different to the colonial wars of the eighteenth and nineteenth century.
None can deny that fact. Notwithstanding it being so blatantly obvious, I am convinced that there is little hope for America with this level of blissful ignorance among its citizens to realize the conspiracy worked out over their heads.

Wake up, this is a war, Obama and Company War. He started it by firing 200 Tomahawk missiles into Libya at a cost of $1.5 million each. The U.S. is the backbone of NATO which was set up to defend a country that might be attacked. Take away US participat¬ion, and NATO would fold its tent and go home today. As bad as Ghaddafi could be depicted, he was not a threat to any country. He had given up his nuclear ambitions. Despite all, NATO and its Coalition are still bombing; it is a war for regime change.

The U.S. military intervention in Libya was never authorized by the U.S. Congress, and thus violates U.S. law and the U.S. Constitution. When the 60 day limit expired, Jack Goldsmith, a Harvard law professor who led the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel in 2003 and 2004, said: "This appears to be the first time that any president has violated the War Powers Resolution's requirement either to terminate the use of armed forces within 60 days after the initiation of hostilities or get Congress's support". President Obama has become the new puppet of imperialis¬m.

Ghaddafi consented to a ceasefire and to democratic elections in the African Union negotiatio¬ns. Obama, the ‘Nobel Peace Prize’ winner, has utterly ignored that deal, and will no doubt refuse to seek a peaceful solution. Obama, NATO, and the ‘Coalition¬’ flagrantly refused to show up at the talks.

There's something very rotten about all of this! Aren’t elections the goal? Why would the West reject elections in an agreement establishe¬d through the African Union? The goal, as stated by Robert Gates, the U.S. Secretary of Defence, is to ‘kill Ghaddafi and the Libyan military’.
Marc Ginsberg, former U.S. Jewish-American ambassador and ex-Presidential advisor gave it all away. He asserted that “the U.S. should not stand in Sarkozy’s way in Libya”. “After all, isn’t it in America’s strategic interest to accommodate French designs in Libya? Messr. Sarkozy is actually using France’s aggressive role in Libya to resurrect his long cherished goal of creating a French dominated "Union of the Mediterranean".

What else is there to say than this overt account? All the hidden motives for this aggression are laid bare for those who want to see. And I sorrowfully note the lack of any mention of and concern for the Libyan people!
Real protesters of any cause have disappeare¬d from the streets in this country, and are only to be found on the Web (where their effect is zero or possibly less).

“We have to live today by what truth we can get today and be ready tomorrow to call it falsehood.”
William James




Joseph M. Cachia 2011
jmcachia@maltanet.net
31, St. Lawrence Street
Vittoriosa – Malta
ID. No. 698736 (M)
Tel: 21807566 – 99866151




MALTA PEACE COUNCIL
LIBYA - Behind the phony ICC 'rape' charges: ARE NATO FORCES PREPARING A GROUND ATTACK?
by Sara Flounders
International Action Center
Without presenting a shred of reliable evidence, NATO and International Criminal Court conspirators are charging the Libyan government with conspiracy to rape -- not only rape as the "collateral damage" of war, but rape as a political weapon.
This charge of an orchestrated future campaign of rapes was made at a major press conference called by the lead prosecutor of the International Criminal Court on June 8, 2011. The even wilder unsubstantiated ICC charge that Libya plans to mass distribute Viagra to its troops confirms this as the most tawdry and threadbare form of war propaganda.
It is important to understand that NATO countries with the full complicity of the corporate media and the ICC are spreading this Big Lie in order to win support for and close down all opposition to a ground assault of Libya, something that would otherwise be unpopular both in Europe and the United States. This wild charge adds to the evidence of a massive escalation in bombing urban targets in Libya, the use of British and French helicopters that give close support to ground troops and the positioning in the Mediterranean off Libya of U.S. warships that can quickly land troops. The NATO alliance is desperate to put Libya beyond all discussion or defense and raise the NATO war to the level of a Holy Crusade to defend women.
The charge of rape as a political weapon was spread -- without evidence -- against Serb forces to justify U.S. plans for the first NATO bombing campaign in the history of the military alliance in 1994 in Bosnia and was used again in 1999 in Serbia in the first NATO occupation. The rape charge was used to soften up the U.S. and European population for the criminal war against Yugoslavia. Now a similar plan is in the works for Libya.
All too often widely fabricated lies are spread to justify imperialist wars. In 1991 the first war against Iraq was justified by outrageous charges that the Iraqi army had grabbed Kuwaiti babies from incubators and smashed the babies to the floor. This was presented as reliable “testimony” to in the U.S. Congress and in the UN. Months later it was confirmed as a total fabrication. But the lie had served its purpose. In 2001 the corporate media and U.S. politicians claimed that they had to bomb and then massively occupy Afghanistan to win rights for women that the Taliban taken away. The situation for women in Afghanistan and for the entire population has deteriorated further under U.S. / NATO occupation.
Despite video and photo evidence that the entire world has seen through WikiLeaks, the International Criminal Court has never considered for a moment filing criminal charges against U.S. British, French or German troops.
The pictures, videos and reports in major newspapers of sexual torture and humiliation at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq by U.S. soldiers, the testimony by the U.S. soldiers involved in rapes, tortures, mutilations and executions in Iraq and Afghanistan confirms the brutal reality of U.S. wars. These wars have never been to ‘save’ women.
As an African country, Libya can hardly expect a fair hearing or any form of justice from the ICC. The International Criminal Court created with high hopes of international justice in 2002 has been used against 7 countries – all in Africa. Meanwhile, the ICC has never examined U.S. drone attacks on defenseless civilians in at least 8 African, Arab and South Asian countries. Nor has it even touched U.S. invasions and occupations. Israeli bombing of the Palestinian people is “off limits”.
This is an essential time to remind all people concerned about the rights of women that U.S. intervention or any imperialist intervention has never protected women. Even women serving within the U.S. military machine are not “safe”. According to a study published by the Journal of Military Medicine, 71 per cent of women soldiers have been sexually assaulted or raped while serving in the U.S. military. Women who have been assaulted consistently report poor medical treatment, lack of counseling, incomplete criminal investigations and threats of punishment for reporting the assaults. In 2009 the Pentagon admitted that approximately 80 per cent of rapes are never reported – making it the most under-documented crime in the military. In addition U.S. military bases are all too often surrounded by an entire sex industry of abused women forced by hunger, dislocation and lost families into work in bars and clubs.
Rape in every society has little connection news.leader@northeast-press.co.ukto sexuality and desire. It has always been about imposing power and domination.
The "political rape" charge in this case makes no sense and has no basis beyond the U.S.-NATO desire to justify expanding the war against Libya.
Stop U.S.-NATO intervention in Libya.




MORE AND MORE HYPOCRISY !


‘US backs Bahrain due to military base’





WHITHER NOW EGYPT ?

“Where facts are few, experts are many.”

Donald R. Gannon

For those who thought the Egyptian revolution is done and past, think again. The Egyptians did not go home. They are out there again if things do not turn out the way they had hoped.

There’s no question that the unrest in Egypt is of paramount world concern. Opinions vary about how this situation will work out, but many analysts think, or rather hope, that this situation could actually have a positive outcome for Egypt.

One must keep in mind that Egypt’s standing in the Arab and Islamic world is partly linked to its role as a patron of the Palestinian cause in the era of Nasser.

There is talk about America's worries that a government less friendly to the USA will be installed. That is secondary, as long as it is a government that cares for its own people. And maybe if the US doesn't interfere, there is a chance of that happening. Hopefully the Egyptians would not swallow the bait of falling in the same gutter that they managed to escape from, enticed by the hypocritical words of Obama; “We stand ready to provide assistance that is necessary to help the Egyptian people as they manage the aftermath of these protests.” In her statement, U.S. Secretary of State Hilary Clinton claimed that Washington’s concern in relation to Egypt was to bring about a “real democracy” and not a “so-called democracy that then leads to what we saw in Iran.” Sometimes the argument comes in the form of "I support democracy, but only if I agree with the results." In other words, her sole criterion for a democracy is not the will of the people, but subordination to US interests or perhaps an imperialist ‘pax americana’.
The fear really is an Egypt that no one can predict. Will it continue in its former alliances? What good are its former alliances if they have to be maintained by a brutal and corrupt police force in the streets of Cairo?

The young activists who had organised the protests are still very optimistic but would not give up the pressure on the army to fulfil all its reform pledges, including the release of thousands of political prisoners. The leadership of the Coalition for change is still divided over the extent to which the army can be trusted.

If the Egyptian masses were allowed to express their genuine aspirations at the ballot box it would spell an end to the country’s role as a servile client of Washington and Israel. The issue that worries the US is that when people are free, they try to be independent. They will not accept living in the custody of the US.

Many western leaders are worried that the failure of the Egyptian regime could see the Muslim Brotherhood, the most well-organised opposition party, take control. The Mubarak regime has historically used the Muslim Brotherhood as a bogeyman to frighten the people and the Western countries. However, it's not radical Islam that worries the US – it's the independence. The nature of any regime it backs in the Arab world is secondary to control. Subjects are ignored until they break their chains. The US and its allies have regularly supported radical Islamists, sometimes to prevent the threat of secular nationalism.
There was a sense among reformists in Cairo that the army has been true to its word so far. Indeed, the Army has unequivocally stated that "it will not be an alternative to the legitimacy approved by the people". But concerns have mounted in the last days. Secular democratic parties are not involved in the dialogue the Army currently has with the Muslim Brotherhood. The process for reforming the constitution is far too quick and is not inclusive. Representatives of the old regime are there but there are no women. The question here is this: ‘Is the army more representative of the people, or more representative of the old status quo?’ It boggles the mind to think that, after all the sacrifices the country made to unseat a dictatorship, a new one seems to lurk in the shadows of this promising new era.
The pledge that elections would take place within six months was welcomed, but a faster timetable was then introduced, making it impossible for the impoverished liberal parties like Wafd ('Delegation') or El Ghad ('Tomorrow) to organise. The Muslim Brotherhood gets huge financial support from the Gulf States and is experienced in fighting elections. While the Brotherhood will not put up a presidential candidate, it will fight across the country for parliamentary seats. Alternatively, the hugely-popular Wael Ghoneim - a Google manager who was held and beaten up during the recent violence - has already been drawn into talks with the administration. Political groups would be able to accept unlimited funding from individuals, corporations or even foreign powers interested in influencing the presidential elections. This will leave the Egyptian political system ripe for corruption.
The young demonstrators are determined that the future political make-up of Egypt should reflect their role in the revolution. Nevertheless, getting rid of the dictators was only the first step of a process in which ordinary people will fight for their rights, notably better wages and public services, In a country of 80 million with 40% that live below the World Bank poverty level of $2 a day, it’s doubtful that the ‘youth element’ would hold the voting majority.
"All Egyptians now think they are Che Guevara, Castro or something," says Essam el-Erian, a senior leader of the Muslim Brotherhood, bursting into laughter. "This is democracy."
Foreign governments, especially those in Europe and the US, have to make major reassessments as the Arab world makes up its own mind at last.

"Peoples of Egypt, you will be told that I have come to destroy your religion. Do not believe it! Reply that I have come to restore your rights!"
Napoleon Bonaparte, 1798

Joseph M. Cachia 2011
jmcachia@maltanet.net
31, St. Lawrence Street
Vittoriosa – Malta
ID. No. 698736 (M)
Tel: 21807566 - 99866151
1
total :4| Affiché :1 - 4

Réagir à cet article

Entrez le code que vous voyez dans l'image s'il vous plait:

Captcha