5 April 2011 — Stop NATO
- Rebel Commander: NATO Forces Coordinate Air Strikes From Benghazi
- Britain Deploys More Fighter-Bombers For Libyan War
- Drive To World War III: War On Libya, U.S.-NATO Agenda And Next Great War
- Video And Text: After Libya, Syria And Iran?
- Libya: “Kinetic Military Action” Means War
- Libyan War: Testing Ground For AFRICOM, Neo-Colonialism
- African Union Must Save Libya From Imperialist Aggression
- India: Students Protest Killing Of Libyan Civilians
Rebel Commander: NATO Forces Coordinate Air Strikes From Benghazi
Wall Street Journal
April 5, 2011
Rebel Chief Asks for Timely Strikes, Helicopters
By Charles Levinson
-Gen. Younis said a team of Western NATO personnel were helping coordinate airstrikes out of a rebel command center somewhere outside of Benghazi.
BENGHAZI, Libya: The top military commander of Libya’s rebels said opposition fighters are unlikely to make significant gains against Col. Moammar Gadhafi’s forces unless the North Atlantic Treaty Organization responds more quickly to requests for airstrikes, and gives the rebels advanced weapons, including helicopters.
“If NATO listens to us and takes our requests seriously, this war won’t last long,” said rebel Chief-of-Staff Gen. Abdel Fattah Younis, in an interview at a safe house in a rural suburb of Benghazi. “If they don’t give us what we are asking for, I don’t know how long it will last.”
Gen. Younis said NATO needed to provide advanced long-range weaponry to rebel forces, and allow rebel forces to acquire and fly helicopters against Col. Gadahfi’s forces…
“The international community needs to send us weapons we can confront Gadhafi with,” Gen. Younis said. “At least we need weapons equal to Gadhafi’s.”
In addition, a leadership dispute has emerged between Gen. Younis and Col. Khalifa Hiftar, a decorated ex-Libyan army officer who returned to Libya last month from exile in the U.S.
Mr. Hiftar was named commander of the rebel forces after returning home, but rebel leaders later backtracked, saying Gen. Younis was the sole commander and that Mr. Hiftar had no official position.
Gen. Younis said a team of Western NATO personnel were helping coordinate airstrikes out of a rebel command center somewhere outside of Benghazi.
NATO officials have said the alliance has no ground forces in Libya. The U.S. has said it has Central Intelligence Agency operatives aiding the rebels.
“NATO is doing a good job, but they’re slow,” Gen. Younis said. “When we ask for an airstrike we wait anywhere from six to 10 hours. We asked to use our fighter jets, but NATO hasn’t give us clearance.”
At the top of the list of rebel weapons demands are long-range artillery and rocket systems that would allow the rebel forces to stand back and pummel Col. Gadhafi’s positions.
Gen. Younis said the rebels had received some shipments of light weapons from other countries, but wouldn’t specify which countries had supplied them.
He said rebel diplomacy had succeeded in convincing the Dubai government to step in at the last minute and block a shipment of 500 Toyota Land Cruisers ordered by Mr. Gadhafi’s forces.
—Nathan Hodge in Washington contributed to this article.
Britain Deploys More Fighter-Bombers For Libyan War
April 5, 2011
RAF strikes at Libya with four extra Tornado fighter jets
More British warplanes are being sent to Libya amid concerns that many of Colonel Muammar Gaddafi’s forces have survived air strikes
By James Kirkup
Gioia del Colle: David Cameron announced that four more Tornado fighter-bombers were being deployed to the Libyan mission, taking the total for the operation to 12.
It is understood the Tornados, from RAF Marham in Norfolk, will help fill gaps left by US forces, which are reducing their operations in Libya.
William Hague, the Foreign Secretary, also told MPs that Britain would supply the rebels with equipment, including communications kit.
Officials said it would “primarily” allow rebel commanders to contact the front line, but could also be used to call in coalition air strikes…
The extra Tornados, which increase Britain’s ground-attack capability by 50 per cent, have been deployed despite repeated claims that Col Gaddafi’s forces have been weakened. Even after almost three weeks of Western attacks, pro-Gaddafi forces have still prevented rebels from advancing on Tripoli.
On his flight to the Gioia del Colle airbase in southern Italy, the Prime Minister said British forces destroyed 10 armoured vehicles and three tanks over the weekend. “They have been extremely successful in holding back Gaddafi’s forces,” Mr Cameron said.
The increase in the Government’s commitment may raise fears that Britain is being sucked into a prolonged conflict that will drain resources.
Drive To World War III: War On Libya, U.S.-NATO Agenda And Next Great War
April 4, 2011
World War III Scenario? The War on Libya, the US-NATO Agenda and the Next Great War
by Paul Craig Roberts
In the 1930s the US, Great Britain, and the Netherlands set a course for World War II in the Pacific by conspiring against Japan. The three governments seized Japan’s bank accounts in their countries that Japan used to pay for imports and cut Japan off from oil, rubber, tin, iron and other vital materials. Was Pearl Harbor Japan’s response?
Now Washington and its NATO puppets are employing the same strategy against China.
Protests in Tunisia, Egypt, Bahrain, and Yemen arose from the people protesting against Washington’s tyrannical puppet governments. However, the protests against Gaddafi, who is not a Western puppet, appear to have been organized by the CIA in the eastern part of Libya where the oil is and where China has substantial energy investments.
Eighty percent of Libya’s oil reserves are believed to be in the Sirte Basin in eastern Libya now controlled by rebels supported by Washington. As seventy percent of Libya’s GDP is produced by oil, a successful partitioning of Libya would leave Gaddafi’s Tripoli-based regime impoverished. www.energyinsights.net
The People’s Daily Online (March 23) reported that China has 50 large-scale projects in Libya. The outbreak of hostilities has halted these projects and resulted in 30,000 Chinese workers being evacuated from Libya. Chinese companies report that they expect to lose hundreds of millions of yuan.
China is relying on Africa, principally Libya, Angola, and Nigeria, for future energy needs. In response to China’s economic engagement with Africa, Washington is engaging the continent militarily with the US Africa Command (AFRICOM) created by President George W. Bush in 2007. Forty-nine African countries agreed to participate with Washington in AFRICOM, but Gaddafi refused, thus creating a second reason for Washington to target Libya for takeover.
A third reason for targeting Libya is that Libya and Syria are the only two countries with Mediterranean sea coasts that are not under the control or influence of Washington. Suggestively, protests also have broken out in Syria. Whatever Syrians might think of their government, after watching Iraq’s fate and now Libya’s it is unlikely that Syrians would set themselves up for US military intervention. Both the CIA and Mossad are known to use social networking sites to foment protests and to spread disinformation. These intelligence services are the likely conspirators that the Syrian and Libyan governments blame for the protests.
Caught off guard by protests in Tunisia and Egypt, Washington realized that protests could be used to remove Gaddafi and Assad. The humanitarian excuse for intervening in Libya is not credible considering Washington’s go-ahead to the Saudi military to crush the protests in Bahrain, the home base for the US Fifth Fleet.
If Washington succeeds in overthrowing the Assad government in Syria, Russia would lose its Mediterranean naval base at the Syrian port of Tartus. Thus, Washington has much to gain if it can use the cloak of popular rebellion to eject both China and Russia from the Mediterranean. Rome’s mare nostrum (”our sea”) would become Washington’s mare nostrum.
“Gaddafi must go,” declared Obama. How long before we also hear, “Assad must go?”
The American captive press is at work demonizing both Gaddafi and Assad, an eye doctor who returned to Syria from London to head the government after his father’s death.
The hypocrisy passes unremarked when Obama calls Gaddafi and Assad dictators. Since the beginning of the 21st century, the American president has been a Caesar. Based on nothing more than a Justice Department memo, George W. Bush was declared to be above US statutory law, international law, and the power of Congress as long as he was acting in his role as commander-in-chief in the “war on terror.”
Caesar Obama has done Bush one step better. Caesar Obama has taken the US to war against Libya without even the pretense of asking Congress for authorization. This is an impeachable offense, but an impotent Congress is unable to protect its power. By accepting the claims of executive authority, Congress has acquiesced to Caesarism. The American people have no more control over their government than do people in countries ruled by dictators.
Washington’s quest for world hegemony is driving the world toward World War III. China is no less proud than was Japan in the 1930s and is unlikely to submit to being bullied and governed by what China regards as the decadent West. Russia’s resentment to its military encirclement is rising. Washington’s hubris can lead to fatal miscalculation.
Video And Text: After Libya, Syria And Iran?
April 5, 2011
Libya on fire, who’s next?
As fighting for control over the cities of Brega and Misrata continues in Libya, RT looks at how the military operation could just be the start of Washington’s wider goals in the region.
With no official death toll available, international estimates put the number of civilians killed at close to a thousand after almost two months of clashes.
Meanwhile, the US is stepping away from the frontline, encouraging other NATO countries to increase their military contribution.
As waves of public rage sweep through North Africa and the Middle East, world powers are jumping on them, many analysts say, in an attempt to direct the waves of unrest in a way that is most favorable for them. In Libya, this means forging a relationship with the opposition, so that if Gaddafi goes there will be people there to do business with.
As Syrian popular wrath gathers steam, some experts say western powers might see the advantages of getting involved there too.
“These three countries, Libya, Syria, Iran are the main countries that will not align themselves automatically with global power elites or the western powers’ interests in the North of Africa and the Middle East, as, for example Egypt, Saudi Arabia or Kuwait will do,” believes political researcher Adrian Salbuchi.
Syria is Iran’s closest ally in the region. And the calls to support the revolt in Syria often come with mentions of Iran.
“Syria is a strategic ally in the region. Without Syria, Iran loses its bridges to Lebanon and the Hezbollah forces. If the Syrian regime falls that would destabilize Iran and weaken its power in the region, which will be an obvious benefit to the Anglo-American forces,” says international journalist James Corbett.
Some experts believe that destabilization is part of a strategy the West pursues in the region.
“We see a strategy, which includes, among other things, weakening of sovereign regimes in the Arab world in order to try to isolate Iran and leave it with few friends in the region, which will facilitate further turmoil inside Iran,” Salbuchi says.
Although the US Secretary of State has ruled out America’s involvement in Syria for now, the country’s Defense Secretary called for the Syrian army to “empower a revolution” and follow the example of Egypt’s military.
“Syria and Iran are next on America’s list. At some point they will rise to the head of the queue just the way Libya did,” says radio host and author Stephen Lendman.
Many say Iran, though, would be a tough call, and no matter how much Washington would want the regime there to fall, for now it’s seen as a “mission impossible.”
“There are forces in the US who would like to attack Iran or take over the Iranian opposition, but I think they know Iranian opposition are not so fond of the US. People have a long memory in the US,” the director of the New Internationalism Project at IPS, Phyllis Bennis says, adding: “So I don’t see that the US would be welcomed there, and they know that in Washington.”
?In the meantime, the Deputy Foreign Minister of Iran, Muhammad Ali Fathollahi, told RT that Afghanistan is a strong example of how international intervention in the region only deepens a crisis.
“Countries from outside the region that have military bases here are intervening in our affairs. They try to change the interaction between governments and people in the region. And the changes that are taking place in the Arab world are in the reaction to that. The West under US leadership is trying to use these changes for their own purposes,” Fathollahi stated.
“In Afghanistan for example, the interference of NATO has been unsuccessful: they failed to bring security, drug production is now forty times bigger than before, and extremism is on the rise. But the US is planning to create permanent bases in the region and that only boosts radicalism, as many Afghans are against this,” he concluded.
Libya: “Kinetic Military Action” Means War
April 5, 2011
Good intentions in Libya not sufficient
A NATO airstrike this past weekend, aimed at forces loyal to Libyan dictator Col. Moammar Gadhafi, instead killed 13 Libyan rebels and injured several others. That single incident encapsulates the dangerous and uncertain course of U.S. involvement in what is essentially a civil war in which the U.S. has few, if any, vital national interests.
A spokesman for the rebels expressed “understanding” of the deaths, telling the Associated Press that such sacrifices are in the nature of a war where “the lines are so fluid going back and forth.”
We wish that President Obama and his apologists were equally forthright in recognizing this nation’s intervention in Libya for what it is: a war.
Enforcing a United Nation’s resolution for a no-fly zone may be a legal gray area that permits a president to commit U.S. forces to military action for a limited time and limited purposes. But the U.S. military role in Libya has already gone well beyond such enforcement, and includes attacks against Mr. Gadhafi’s infantry columns, tanks, supply lines and other installations. To pretend that the U.S. has not chosen sides, and done so empathically, is to deny reality.
Handing over the lead role in Libya to NATO makes no real difference. NATO’s supreme commander is required to be an American — Navy Admiral James G. Stavridis currently holds that position. And NATO does not undertake any significant military operations without the knowledge, cooperation and resources of the United States.
Moreover, a change of command brings no additional clarity to either the military or diplomatic situation in Libya, where neither Mr. Gadhafi nor the rebels appears capable of achieving a decisive victory.
Amid such uncertainties, Mr. Obama has still not sought the approval of Congress for involving U.S. forces in what he has called “kinetic military action” in support of humanitarian goals.
Well, humanitarian crises abound elsewhere in Africa and the Middle East, with mass killings of civilians reported in Ivory Coast, and pro-government snipers gunning down unarmed protestors in Yemen.
Mr. Obama’s instinct to intervene on behalf of oppressed peoples and to protect civilians is laudable. But good intentions and high-flown rhetoric do not satisfy his obligations under the Constitution.
What imminent threat to U.S. interests did Libya pose that could justify the launching of 212 Tomahawk missiles? What legal nicety stays our hand in Ivory Coast, Yemen and elsewhere? And when will Congress summon the courage to hold the executive branch to account?
Libyan War: Testing Ground For AFRICOM, Neo-Colonialism
Mshale African Community Newspaper
April 4, 2011
Toward African freedom in Libya and beyond
Molefi Kente Asante
-With the fall of Tunisia, Libya and possibly Morocco and Algeria, France will have succeeded in its major plan to bring those states, especially oil-producing Libya, into a grand Mediterranean Basin clique. In such a scenario, the northern part of Africa will be declared the southern ridge of the European nation to the north. Gaddafi has been one of the major opponents of this neo-hegemony over African territory.
-The great danger of the attacks on Libya is that they are being used by the U.S. to test the effectiveness of AFRICOM, the African Command, and this adventure will open the door to direct military intervention in Africa. We already know that the U.S. and the former colonial powers of France and England are re-inventing Cold War policies to enlarge and protect their economic interests on the continent.
The attack on Libya is also a challenge to Brazil, Venezuela, China, Iran and Russia for influence on the continent.
The fundamental stimulus of the attack on Libya is greed, not the protection of the Libyan people. In fact, the people of Libya have suffered more during this bombardment by Western powers and their allies than during the entire 41 years of the leadership of Muammar al-Gaddafi.
There are several rationales that have been advanced in the public for the reason for the assault on Libya. The attackers have said that Gaddafi has used force against his own people. They say that they are trying to prevent revenge attacks on the people who have risen against the leader of Libya. They also say that Gaddafi’s government has lost its legitimacy.
None of these arguments make much sense in reality, and they conceal the attempt at exploitation, appropriation of Libyan petroleum and colonial incursion to demonstrate the will of the West in Africa.
We have yet to have a clear view of the attacks made upon the Libyan people by their government. If anything, the actions of the Libyan government in Tripoli appear restrained despite the agitation caused by a vocal minority. In the United States in 1965, when I was a young college student, I witnessed the actions of the National Guard on the streets of South Central Los Angeles. Nearly 40 people were killed in a confrontation with American government authorities.
Governments fight to maintain their legitimacy; this is the law of sustaining power. When President Bush reached the lowest point of his popularity among the American people, he was still considered the president. Gaddafi has not lost any legitimacy because groups of his people, influenced by social media, went to the streets to demonstrate against him. Popularity has rarely been the standard by which governments must be overthrown.
Furthermore, there were no African mercenaries fighting against the people of Libya as reported by the media; the Black people that the Western media experts saw were Libyans.
Although we can and should argue about the need for what Ron Daniels calls the “act of internal criticism” in African governments, there can be no argument about the necessity for Africans to solve their own problems. We must be clear that the attack on Libya is an attack on Africa.
One of the reasons that the French, the Americans and the British could not reach an agreement with the African Union to bomb Libya is because the political intelligence of African leaders has grown tremendously since the crises in Sudan, Côte d’Ivoire, Tunisia and Egypt. The African Union knows that Gaddafi’s leadership on questions of African unity is among the most prominent.
Few African leaders have been as active in assisting the continent economically and administratively as Gaddafi. He has used his country’s wealth to create a strong economy in Libya as well as to support civil servants in other African nations. We must not be beguiled by the Western media in its rush to remove one of the strongest African leaders from his post.
Gaddafi has minced no words about his support for and belief in the United States of Africa. Indeed, he knows that if Africa is divided between Northern and Southern states, or if Africa keeps existing as 54 independent states, the Western nations and the North American nations of Canada and United States will eat each part of Africa alive. They will not be able to swallow a continent that is united, firm in its convictions and dedicated to the liberty of its territory.
No one has shouted any louder than Gaddafi that Africa must be for the Africans. In this he reminds us of the clarion voice of Marcus Garvey.
With the fall of Tunisia, Libya and possibly Morocco and Algeria, France will have succeeded in its major plan to bring those states, especially oil-producing Libya, into a grand Mediterranean Basin clique. In such a scenario, the northern part of Africa will be declared the southern ridge of the European nation to the north. Gaddafi has been one of the major opponents of this neo-hegemony over African territory.
A United Africa would be a step toward overcoming disease, transportation problems, famine and land disputes. In our judgment we should not be so fast to criticize Gaddafi just because Western governments call for such an action. If they say that he is punishing his people, denying them free speech and keeping them from education, this must be proven.
Furthermore, why hasn’t the Western world rolled into Israel or the West Bank and saved the Palestinian people who suffer true slaughter and discrimination at the hands of Israel? What is Gaza, if not the pits of hell? When shall we hear high-sounding words from the leaders of the Western world in support of those Arabs? Africans must beware of the gifts of Europe.
Since Kwame Nkrumah, Africa has rarely had a visionary as broad in thinking and as dedicated in commitment as Gaddafi. Perhaps in his desire to strengthen the continent and to make Africa powerful he went too far with his donations to the governments of Senegal, Chad, Burkina Faso and Zimbabwe and did not do enough for the Libyan people.
No African nation was among those who came out to attack Libya on March 19. President Sarkozy of France has reported that some Arab nations supported the campaign against Libya, but even if that proves to be so, one must not read too much into this without some appreciation of the Arab distress with Gaddafi’s pro-African stance.
Transformations are produced by those who are focused on long-term goals, not by those who make convenient alliances with the enemies of their people. As Nkrumah was fond of saying, “We face neither East nor West; we face forward.”
It has been Gaddafi who has made Nkrumah’s mantra his own: “Africa must unite or perish.” Why would this language threaten the West? The Libyan leader has encountered, and continues to encounter, attempted setbacks and hurdles.
The work of the Brother Leader, as he is sometimes called, has been to raise African consciousness to the point that some of the nations on the continent of Africa begin to reject the loyalty they hold for their colonial masters. Some African leaders seem to fear other Africans.
Gaddafi has proposed that Africa do away with travel restrictions, create a common currency and ease trade tariffs and barriers. This African solidarity is not only a threat to the West – some who identify as Arabs have a difficult time accepting the Africanity promoted by Gaddafi.
With the proper safeguards and cooperation of the African world, the Libyan people can sort out their own internal squabbles. The great danger of the attacks on Libya is that they are being used by the U.S. to test the effectiveness of AFRICOM, the African Command, and this adventure will open the door to direct military intervention in Africa. We already know that the U.S. and the former colonial powers of France and England are re-inventing Cold War policies to enlarge and protect their economic interests on the continent.
The attack on Libya is also a challenge to Brazil, Venezuela, China, Iran and Russia for influence on the continent. However, beyond the economic argument is the moral argument for African people.
Why should a group of dissidents be able to challenge their state and cause international hegemonic forces to invade their land? Who is to blame for this political folly? We do not see the collapse of the Libyan government, and we support the masses of Libyan people against the tyranny of a minority.
When Africa needed Gaddafi, he was always present. Now that Libya needs Africa, let it be said that Africa will be present on the side of the legitimate government of the people of Libya.
African Union Must Save Libya From Imperialist Aggression
New Vision (Uganda)
April 4, 2011
AU should save Libya from imperialists
Libya was a colony of Italy. Colonialism is a higher socio-economic stage of imperialism while imperialism is a higher socio-economic stage of capitalism.
Each one of these socio-economic formations is a result of one minority class owning economic means of production vis-à-vis another majority class of non-owners, but working under and for that minority class which employs the majority.
In all these countries which use this economic system, there has never been economic democracy. But they call themselves democratic.
Up to the year 1969 when Libya was independent of Italy, it was being ruled by a king who in that year was overthrown by Col Muammar Gadaffi through a coup d’etat.
Since colonisation is economic, political and military, the Libyan territory had an Italian military base which Col. Gadaffi threw out after taking over state power.
Gadaffi loved the anti-imperialist outlook of President Gamal Abdel Nasser of Egypt.
Imperialism created the state of Israel which is now: (i) satellite state (ii) client state (iii) extended territory of US imperialism terrorising the Palestinian people for the control of the Middle East for oil. Libya has been opposed to this.
Imperialism attacked Iraq under the pretext of looking for arms of mass destruction which were not found there, only to attack Iraq with the aim of stealing oil there.
Devilin, a highly placed agent of the US Central Intelligence Agency (C.I.A.) was in possession of poisoned tooth-paste to be handed over to Patrice Lumumba of Congo, in 1960, to kill him through the same. They eventually killed him through their agents – Mobutu, Kasavubu and Tshombe.
Imperialism fought against Gamal Abdel Nasser of Egypt as to who should possess and control the Suez Canal.
Dr. Moume of Cameron was poisoned due to the struggle for the independence of Cameron.
Dr. Kwame Nkrumah was overthrown by young military officers in 1965 hired by British and US imperialism.
Dr. Allende’s Socialist Party won the Chilean election of 1973…Dr. Allende was overthrown through a coup with 16 bullets in his mouth organised by US imperialism.
Nelson Mandela’s name was deleted from the US list of those considered terrorists in May 2008 and his considered crime was that he declared apartheid an incorrect socio-economic arrangement for South Africa. Today Guantanamo, a territory of Cuba, is a territorial property of US imperialism.
Killing people in Palestine by Israel is alright, but fighting against the Bengazi rebellion in Libya is unacceptable and evil. Why? Because of the struggle to rob oil from Libya by imperialism of the US and rich European capitalist classes. Imperialists have no permanent friends.
Imperialism has a permanent, well-calculated socio-economic interest. Any leader in Asia, Africa or Latin America who will be found failing to rhyme with the economic aims of imperialism will be got rid of.
This can be done through opposition groups who claim that elections were cheated, that the country where they are has no democracy, so that they get arms or money to undermine a pro-people organisation on the national ground.
Imperialism can operate through imported teachers, lecturers, doctors, administrators of non-governmental organisations, religious leaders, military officers, tourists and all sorts of organisations.
The capitalist classes of the US and Western Europe can only afford to dominate the world militarily and economically, but are never in a position to guide the world. This is because they are spiritually and morally the most backward as robbers, thieves, treacherous liars, grabbers and crooks.
US imperialism pays $1.9b dollars per year to the Egyptian Army to neutralise Egypt against the negative behaviour of Israel against Arabs. This was why they did not support the uprising against Hosni Mubarak.
It is necessary for the countries of Asia, Africa and Latin America to form big socio-economic blocs within which they can economically produce jointly, trade, develop and create military alliances to safeguard the social security of their own people.
They should unite their respective Trade Unions, Farmers Organisations, Youth, Students, Women’s Organisations, the progressive pro-people elite, so that the masses are enlightened concerning their common interests in the economic bases of their respective countries.
They should have joint military training accompanied by pro-people political education that can assist in running society and the state.
The main point to make now is that with imperialism militarily mightier and able to violate the sovereignty of other countries, what is the solution?
The answer lies in organising the masses of Asia, Africa and Latin America for global togetherness on the basis of a search for friendship and mutual cooperation in all social fields of operation.
People very much matter in all fields of social operations. Imagine US imperialism in Vietnam. 460,000 troops in Vietnam, 1948-1975, 40,000 troops in Cambodia, 1948-1975, were all defeated. This is the meaning of the people factor.
People must be organised against their own enemy. While in South Vietnam as foreigners the US killed one million people and now they talk of Gadaffi killing Libyans when they are the ones bombing Libya.
Any authority foisted upon a people by a foreign power will not last. Let people decide as they are the only factor that determines their own history. It is US and Western European imperialism which is the global axis of evil.
Each and every national leadership in Asia, Africa and Latin America should know how correctly they can negotiate with the capitalist classes of US and Western Europe knowing well that no leopard is willing to change its spots.
Let the AU seriously work on saving Libya from imperialist aggression.
The problem will be if some of the African leaders are also pro-imperialist. May our Pan-African spirit forbid?
The author is a lecturer at Kyankwanzi National Leadership Institute
India: Students Protest Killing Of Libyan Civilians
Times of India
April 4, 2011
Students protest against killing of civilians in Libya
ALLAHABAD: Libyan students studying here along with members of the Civil Society on Monday protested against the killing of civilians in Libya. They however thanked the Indian government for lending support to the people of Libya.
The protesters said war won’t offer a solution and efforts should be made for establishing peace in Libya. The students said Nato forces are killing innocent people in Libya and there is gross violation of human rights there.
The students said if Nato forces are really protecting humanity, then why are they not taking any action in Bahrain, Yemen and Syria where too the people have risen against their rulers. The students said the foreign powers are only eyeing the oil wells in Libya.
The students have urged the international community to initiate efforts to establish peace in the war ravaged country.
Meanwhile, a meeting of Antarrashtriya Manavadhikar Association was also organised in which the members expressed concern over the bombings in Libya and killing of innocent people.