Some 19 civilians were claimed to have been killed in that airstrike, which came only a day after another errant airstrike from NATO killed 9 civilians. NATO insists that they hit a military target on Monday. MORE via elderofziyon.blogspot.com
The Obama administration has begun seeking a country, most likely in Africa, that might be willing to provide shelter to Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi if he were forced out of Libya, even as a new wave of intelligence reports suggest that no rebel leader has emerged as a credible successor to the Libyan dictator.
The intense search for a country to accept Colonel Qaddafi has been conducted quietly by the United States and its allies, even though the Libyan leader has shown defiance in recent days, declaring that he has no intention of yielding to demands that he leave his country, and intensifying his bombardment of the rebel city of Misurata.
The effort is complicated by the likelihood that he would be indicted by the International Criminal Court in The Hague for the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 over Scotland in 1988, and atrocities inside Libya.
One possibility, according to three administration officials, is to find a country that is not a signatory to the treaty that requires countries to turn over anyone under indictment for trial by the court, perhaps giving Colonel Qaddafi an incentive to abandon his stronghold in Tripoli.
The move by the United States to find a haven for Colonel Qaddafi may help explain how the White House is trying to enforce President Obama’s declaration that the Libyan leader must leave the country but without violating Mr. Obama’s refusal to put troops on the ground.
The United Nations Security Council has authorized military strikes to protect the Libyan population, but not to oust the leadership. But Mr. Obama and the leaders of Britain and France, among others, have declared that to be their goals, apart from the military campaign.
“We learned some lessons from Iraq, and one of the biggest is that Libyans have to be responsible for regime change, not us,” one senior administration official said on Saturday. “What we’re simply trying to do is find some peaceful way to organize an exit, if the opportunity arises.”
About half of the countries in Africa have not signed or ratified the Rome Statute, which requires nations to abide by commands from the international court. (The United States has also not ratified the statute, because of concerns about the potential indictment of its soldiers or intelligence agents.) Italy’s foreign minister, Franco Frattini, suggested late last month that several African countries could offer Colonel Qaddafi a haven, but he did not identify them.
here is to friendship in Africa
Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez can be counted on always to stand on the side of radicals and dictatorships. After defending the Libyan regime, Chavez is now trying to save Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad. The Venezuelan leadership is openly supporting the Syrian regime, accusing Western countries of using a “new imperialist format” to topple his friend, Assad. According to Chavez, it is the West that foments revolts in the Arab world to loot Arab resources. “The attack on Syria has begun, there have been some supposedly peaceful protests and some deaths (…) and they are accusing the president [Assad] of killing his people (…) And then the Yankees come in to bomb the people in order to save them. What cynicism on the empire’s part,” the Venezuelan President said.
Chavez depicted Assad as a “socialist Arab leader, a humanist and a brother,” “with a great human sensibility,” and who is “in no way an extremist.” Chavez made also a comparison between what is happening in Syria and the situation in Libya: “It’s the same format … They generate violent conflicts, bloodshed in a country, and subsequently they under take military intervention, in order to take possession of its natural resources and convert it into a colony.”
In a recent press release by the Venezuelan press agency (AVN), Chavez said he is convinced that the US wants to generate a revolt in Venezuela similar to those that are taking place in Arab world. In that case, Chavez said, the Venezuelan regime will not keep “its arms crossed;” it will use — as Assad and Gaddafi are doing — military weapons, to repress any threat against the Venezuelan regime.
From the press:
- Chavez: “Old, mad imperialism, your days are numbered!”
- Chavez :The US is plotting to topple Assad to loot the resources of the Arab state
- Chavez calls Assad a “humanist”
- Venezuelan FM: Colonial powers have only one objective and it is to take ownership of the oil
March 28, 2011
Chavez: “Old, mad imperialism, your days are numbered!”
Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez said […] that the colonialist invasion of NATO and the United States against Libya “will turn back against them. I’ve said this even before the madness of the bombing began.” Chavez stated that imperialism’s attitude is cynical, since [the Western countries] say that the bombing against the Libyan people does not mean intervention. “How cynical can they be? How much disrespect for the world! They believe they are the Almighty. The world will turn back against them. Note it down.” […]
According to Chavez, NATO maintains a plan to bomb Venezuela, but – the Venezuelan President says – imperialism won’t have nor time neither the circumstances to carry out a military attack against Venezuela. […] “Old, mad imperialism, your days are numbered!” said President Chavez, adding that when this century ends, Imperialism will disappear and the sovereign will of the people will prevail. AVN (Venezuela)
March 27, 2011
Chavez :The US is plotting to topple Assad to loot the resources of the Arab state
Syria has been hit with a fresh wave of anti-government protests during the past week that left scores of people dead. “The attack on Syria has begun; there have been some supposed peaceful protests and some deaths (…), and they are accusing the president [Assad] of killing his people,” AFP quoted Chavez as saying on Saturday at a political event. “And then the Yankees come in to bomb the people in order to save them. What cynicism on the empire’s part,” he noted. […]
Comparing the Syrian situation to the crisis in Libya, Chavez said, “It’s the same model.” A NATO-led coalition is enforcing a UN-approved no-fly zone over troubled Libya by striking forces loyal to Libyan ruler Muammar Gaddafi. “Generate internal conflicts, bloodshed, in a country in order to then step in, seize its natural resources and make it a colony. It is a new model they have come up with,” Chavez said. The Venezuelan president also said that he had spoken with Assad by phone. […] Press TV (Iran)
March 27, 2011
Chavez calls Assad a “humanist”
[…] Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez said the United States and other nations are seeking to intervene militarily in Syria using the same strategy as in Libya. “The supposedly peaceful movements have already begun, and then there will be some deaths and they’ll be accusing the Syrian president of killing his people. Later, the Yankees come and want to bomb the people in order to save them, imagine that,” said President Chavez.
“What shameless cynicism! It’s a new strategy they’ve invented, to generate violent armed conflicts and spill blood in a country in order to then bomb it and intervene and take ownership of its natural resources and convert it into a colony,” Chavez said. […] Chavez also defended Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad, calling him a “humanist” and pointing out that he is “a doctor educated in London; he is no extremist.” […]
Venezuelan FM: Colonial powers have only one objective and it is to take ownership of the oil
Meanwhile, Venezuela continues to denounce the international military operation in Libya, which has now been taken over by NATO commanders. “These colonial powers have only one objective and it is to take ownership of the oil and riches of our brotherly people of Libya,” Venezuelan Foreign Minister Nicolas Maduro told a state-owned radio program.
Venezuela supports the African Union’s proposal for a plan for peaceful mediation, Maduro said. “The empire desperately bombs the Libyan people every night. They want to destroy Libya before arriving at a peace accord,” he said.
“All the world is seeing lessons we are learning about the way the former colonial power act desperately when presented with an opportunity. They speak of democracy and human rights, but until yesterday they flattered Gaddafi, they were really courting the oil,” Maduro said.
Before the military intervention in Libya began, Chavez proposed a multi-national commission to mediate the conflict between Gaddafi and the rebels and forge a peaceful solution. The Chavez administration has forged unprecedented diplomatic and economic ties with Middle East and African countries to form what Chavez calls a “multi-polar world,” not subject to domination by any superpower. Venezuelan Analysis
Gerald Steinberg and Anne Herzberg March 10, 2011 Jerusalem Post
To read the original article, click here.
In 2009, Sarah Leah Whitson, director of the Middle East and North Africa division at Human Rights Watch (HRW), visited Libya, where she claimed to have discovered a “Tripoli spring,” led by Muammar Gaddafi’s son Saif al-Islam. In two articles, she praised him for creating an “expanded space for discussion and debate.”
As a top official of a prominent human rights watchdog, Whitson’s endorsement gave credibility to this fictitious reform movement. Two years later, and weeks after the rebellion began and the Gaddafi regime had killed hundreds, if not thousands, Whitson belatedly reversed course, and in a February 24 Los Angeles Times op-ed acknowledged the façade of Saif’s human rights “reforms.”
In contrast to her earlier praise, Whitson wrote that “most Libyans we spoke with never had much faith that Muammar Gaddafi would learn new tricks, or that the announced reforms were anything more than an endless loop of promises made and broken.”
Clearly, this reversal came far too late to help the Libyans, and reflects the wider moral failure of HRW in the Middle East. In her wildly misnamed “Tripoli Spring,” (Foreign Policy, May 27, 2009), Whitson extolled Saif – who has since vowed to “fight until the last man, the last woman, the last bullet” against the Libyan protesters – as “the real impetus for transformation” via his Gaddafi Foundation and two semi-private papers.
Her embrace continued after a second visit in December 2009, when she referred to Gaddafi’s heir-apparent as one of the “forces of reform,” comparing his foundation to HRW (“Postcard from… Tripoli,” Foreign Policy in Focus, February, 11, 2010). Although HRW officials were placed under constant surveillance, and its press conference was cut short by government agents and ended in “pandemonium,” Whitson still spun her trip in a positive light.
In January 2010, when the regime imposed censorship on the Internet and blocked access to YouTube, Whitson was silent. At the same time, the government established a body to monitor journalists, and closed the two semi-private papers lauded by Whitson in “Tripoli Spring.”
But no correction was issued by HRW.
Whitson’s blindness was further reflected in the case of Fathi Eljahmi, Libya’s most prominent dissident, imprisoned, tortured and killed in 2009. His brother condemned both Amnesty International and HRW for hesitating “to advocate publicly for Fathi’s case” for fear they would “antagonize Gaddafi.”
He reserved special condemnation for Whitson’s reference to Saif ’s charity as a “spring,” observing that the foundation “is actively menacing my brother’s family. Some family members continue to endure interrogation, denial of citizenship papers and passports, round-the- clock surveillance and threats of rape and physical liquidation.”
But Whitson and HRW chose to remain silent.
In contrast to Whitson’s promotion of the “reformer” façade, others were not taken in. Journalist Michael Totten, who also visited Libya, compared the country to North Korea and Turkmenistan, pointedly noting that Saif “is ideologically committed to preserving his father’s prison state system… Gullible diplomats and journalists may sincerely believe he’s a reformer, but a close look at his own statements proves that he’s lying when he passes himself off as moderate.”
Whitson’s endorsement of Gaddafi’s son is not the only example of her cozying up to repressive regimes. In May 2009, Whitson led a fund-raising trip to Saudi Arabia where she marketed HRW’s work combating pro- Israel “pressure groups” to solicit funds from “prominent members of Saudi society” including the ruling Shura Council (the religious police).
In May 2010, Whitson had a meeting with Hamas Minister of Justice Faraj Alghoul. As in the Libyan and Saudi cases, Whitson took the soft approach to massive human-rights violations. Instead, she assured Alghoul that she was visiting Gaza “to listen to all parties directly so she will prepare more objective and impartial reports,” and promised that HRW’s next report would allege Israeli violations of international law.
Beirut was next on Whitson’s itinerary, and during a November 2010 trip she praised “the Lebanese sophistication for human rights.”
In contrast, HRW Lebanon director Nadim Houry condemned the lack of effectual and accountable state institutions, and the absence of political will to implement change. Two months after Whitson’s proclamation of support, Hezbollah took control of the government to block cooperation with the UN tribunal investigating the murder of prime minister Rafik Hariri in 2006.
In each of these cases – Libya, Saudi Arabia, Gaza and Lebanon – Whitson has displayed behavior completely lacking in moral leadership required for any organization claiming to support human rights. In addition, copying the strategy of the Arab dictatorships, year after year HRW has maintained an obsessive focus on allegations directed at Israel. Its website includes only 10 pages on Libya, but more than 40 on Israel.
As HRW founder Robert Bernstein stressed, the “plight of 350 million people” ruled by the most “brutal, closed and autocratic” regimes, “who would most benefit from the kind of attention a large and well-financed international human-rights organization can provide is being ignored as Human Rights Watch’s Middle East division prepares report after report on Israel.”
As long as ideologues like Whitson are responsible for HRW’s agenda in the Middle East, the spin will continue, at the expense of universal human rights.
Gerald Steinberg is on the faculty of Bar-Ilan University and president of NGO Monitor, the Jerusalem-based research organization. Anne Herzberg is NGO Monitor’s legal adviser.
NGO Monitor has called on Sarah Leah Whitson, the head of ‘Human Rights Watch’s Mideast and North Africa division, to resign, on the grounds that she misled the public regarding the nature of the Gadhafi regime in Libya and the intentions of Gadhafi’s son, Seif al-Islam.
Following Human Rights Watch’s (HRW) neglect of brutal human rights violations in Libya and false claims and cover-ups about prospects for reforms there, NGO Monitor today called for the immediate resignation of Sarah Leah Whitson, HRW’s director of its Middle East and North Africa (MENA) division. HRW’s MENA division failed to devote the necessary resources to speaking out against human rights violations by oppressive Middle East regimes, including Saudi Arabia, Hamas, Lebanon, and most notably, Libya. Recent statements by Whitson regarding Seif Islam, a son of Moammar Qaddafi, demonstrate that she consistently whitewashed the reality in Libya and further embarrassed her organization.
“Human Rights Watch, and specifically MENA director Sarah Leah Whitson, has soft-peddled Qaddafi’s oppressive acts and offered no help to the Libyan people,” says Anne Herzberg, legal advisor for NGO Monitor, a research institution that tracks NGOs. “Whitson was well aware of the atrocities committed by the Qaddafi regime, but she chose to present the façade that Qaddafi’s son was prepared to implement ‘reforms.’ The events in Libya over the past weeks reveal Whitson’s gross incompetence. She has failed to retract her previously misleading statements. She cannot continue to head the MENA division, and we call for her immediate resignation.”
NGO Monitor notes that Whitson held a press conference last year in Libya that was abruptly halted and ended in “pandemonium.” Yet, Whitson spun her trip and the event in a positive light in her 2010 “Postcard from Tripoli,” in which she said that Libya had a “moment of opportunity.” Even more egregious is Whitson’s enthusiastic marketing of the Qaddafi regime from 2009’s Tripoli Spring (published in Foreign Policy):
For the first time in memory, change is in the air in Libya. The brittle atmosphere of repression has started to fracture, giving way to expanded space for discussion and debate, proposals for legislative reform, and even financial compensation for families of the hundreds of men killed in a prison riot a decade ago.
Many Libyans say the changes were unavoidable in the face of the open satellite and Internet access of the past decade.
These assessments differ sharply from the Libya Whitson now admits she saw, as part of her attempts to rewrite the record. In contrast to the earlier fiction, she recently wrote “most Libyans we spoke with never had much faith that Moammar Qaddafi would learn new tricks, or that the announced reforms were anything more than an endless loop of promises made and broken.”
“What Sarah Leah Whitson admits she knew about the Qaddafi family’s fraudulent reform agenda completely contradicts statements during her Tripoli trip,” says Prof. Gerald Steinberg, president of NGO Monitor. “Reform was never on the horizon and Seif Islam was simply seeking to validate the eventual transfer of power to his hands, using allies like Whitson. Her attempts to give a facelift to MENA’s treatment of Libya is indicative of the division’s approach to many of the repressive regimes in the region, including Saudi Arabia, Syria, Hamas, and others.”
Another Feminist BITES THE DUST!