7 April 2011 — Stop NATO
- Libyan War Prepared For Months In Advance, Prelude To Larger War
- Report: NATO Air Strike Hits Major Libyan Oil Field
- Libyan War: Canada Adds Troops, Increases Bombing Raids
- NATO Steps Up Air Attacks; U.S., Italy Discuss Arming Libyan Rebels
- Turkey’s Role In Libyan War, NATO Missile Shield Linked: EU Envoy
Libyan War Prepared For Months In Advance, Prelude To Larger War
[Information on Southern Mistral 2011 follows the article]
Voice of Russia
April 6, 2011
There is no rule to intervene militarily for humanitarian reasons
Interview with Giulietto Chiesa, former member of the European Parliament and Italian journalist covering international relations.
The subject of today’s program would be the legitimacy of decisions of international organizations and their role in today’s political environment, so to say. For instance the official representative of the French government said that the only reason why French troops had been engaged in combat in Cote d’Ivoire was that the French government was asked by Mr. Ban Ki-moon about that, so the whole picture does seem a little bit sinister to me. But perhaps I am wrong. So how do you see that, how legitimate have been the recent decisions of the United Nations and international organizations in general?
In this case I believe that you are right that you believe that it is a little bit sinister, this kind of declaration, because it demonstrates that at this moment there is no legitimacy at all from the international community about the acts and decisions they take, this is clearly illegal, because Mr. Ban Ki-moon has no juridical possibility to ask personally the chief of a state or the government to intervene in another country, he has no legitimacy, and if it is true, it is a completely illegal act.
But I would like to remind you that some weeks ago we assisted in another very serious and much more important violation of all the rules of international law when the Security Council of the United Nations approved by a majority, with the abstention of China, Germany and Russia, a resolution giving the right to intervene militarily on the territory of a sovereign state like Libya; this was a clear, evident violation of the same Charter of the United Nations, as in the 3rd paragraph of this Charter it is written clearly that such a military intervention would be acceptable, would be legal, only if this state violates peace and international security which never happened, because Libya did not menace any international security and certainly not international peace; this means that the Security Council voted for the resolution canceling completely the fundamentals of the Charter of the United Nations. That means that you are fully right when you say that it is a threatening situation when all the rules of international law are violated by the international community.
Mr. Chiesa, but is there any clause in any international law which envisages intervention to protect the civil population, like the pretext that was used in case of Libya?
Now we know that it was a pretext, because many documents are appearing now in the last days that show that there was no mass killing in Libya, and the first information that was given by Al-Jazeera for instance, speaking of 10,000 dead, was absolutely false, and mass graves in Libya have never been shown, and many other things we know now.
I would like to add that now we know that France and Great Britain organized, signed a pact in November 2010, which means several months before the beginning of that war, signed a pact to defend themselves – there is more or less an official formulation which has been published on the Internet, and it is possible to see it on the Internet – calling for such a kind of a military exercise, named Southern Mistral 2011, and in this document it is written that the military action from the part of France and Great Britain should be done between March 21st and 25th.
It means that we have in this military exercise the full description of the aggression against Libya; it means all the argumentation according to which the intervention is done for humanitarian reasons is completely false, and it was a pretext. But I would like to add that there is no rule in international law giving authorization to intervene militarily against a state for humanitarian reasons. Probably someone would want to have this rule, but till now this rule doesn’t exist, and probably it would be very good and very interesting if the General Assembly of the United Nations would discuss the introduction of this rule, but this has to be very seriously examined and approved, and we have no approval of this kind.
Mr. Chiesa, now you have just mentioned the United Nations, but if we remember the role of the United Nations in the war against Iraq, if we remember what we have just seen now in the case of Libya – doesn’t it seem to you that the role of international legislation and respect for the decisions of international bodies as well as their own stance are in a crisis so to say?
It was evident at that time, but in the case of the intervention in Iraq, the one side that decided about the intervention was the United States, and it was clear at that moment, and many in Europe and all over the world understood, that it was a violation of the law.
But I would like to come back to another situation which was the decision to intervene into Afghanistan. This decision was taken under the approval of the Security Council, but now we know that this approval was concocted, was not honestly and really taken; this decision, because the United Nations was given a false interpretation of the events.
Officially, immediately after 9/11 2001 the government of the United States said that they had proof of the participation of Osama bin Laden in the operation against the United States, but this proof has never been shown. There was a meeting at the beginning of October at NATO headquarters and in that meeting we know that no proof was shown, there was a declaration saying that the United States had proof, but no proof had been shown, that means that the United Nations gave the legitimation for intervention in Afghanistan having been given false information.
That means that we are now in front of – it is clear but nobody wants to clearly speak about it publicly – we are in confronted with a clear violation, which means that all that happened in the last 10 years including the so-called international war against terrorism has been based on falsification, on violation of rules. We have lived these years in full, complete international illegality.
If we analyze what the United Nations has been doing as well as the International Monetary Fund, for instance, as well as the World Bank, it seems to be quite clear that those bodies are acting in the best interests of their major shareholder which is the United States. What is to be done? Is there anything to be done to restore the international law and order?
I believe this is a very difficult task, because at this moment we are in a particular situation which I should describe this way: we are in a situation where the main shareholders are those organizing and producing dollars, which means that we are under the domination of one currency, which became the world currency.
And this is the situation which has been accepted by the whole international community for many, many years after the Bretton Woods agreement. But this situation has already changed, and from this point we are in a very serious and dangerous situation, because this situation has the condition where the dollar is dominating the world market, and that means that the United States is dominating the world market, but this picture is not corresponding to reality; for instance China has a very large and decisive role in the international situation, the euro has a very large and decisive role, and the dollar, it means, is not in the condition – and we know that it is not in the condition – to dominate the world.
We have a situation where the political power of the country – the United States – does not correspond anymore to the real situation of the international community, and we are for that reason in a big danger because the United States is the most powerful and armed nation in the world, and that means that this nation would have to accept the idea of dividing its own power with other protagonists, but they do not do that, they continue to push in the old situation, that is the origin, I believe, of the turmoil we are undergoing now.
What is your forecast?
I believe that for as long as the rest of the world will not be able to compel the United States to accept the new situation, the situation will become more and more unstable. For that reason I believe that the danger of war is growing – not a little war, but a big war – because the situation is absolutely untenable for a long time; we can leave it for 5, 7, 10 years maximum, not more.
Remember that in 5 years we will have in front of our house not one China, but one and a half Chinas, and at that moment that means in 5 years we will have a situation that clearly will not be tenable for a serious peace situation.
Air Defence and Air Operations Command
March 4, 2011
March 4, 2011
Southern Mistral 2011
On November 02 2010, France and Great Britain signed an unprecedented agreement on defence and security.
The Franco-British exercise Southern Mistral falls within the scope of this treaty. It is scheduled to take place from 21 to 25 March 2011 on several French air bases.
On this occasion, the French and British forces will perform Composite Air Operations and a specific air raid (Southern Storm), delivering very long range conventional strike. Over 500 personnel will contribute to this bilateral exercise.
Six Royal Air Force Tornado GR4s, one tanker Vickers VC-10 and one Boeing E3D will be deployed together with French Air force Mirage 2000Ds, 2000Ns and 2000Cs operating with a fleet of around thirty aircraft including helicopters, Boeing tankers and Awacs radar aircraft.
Air Raid Southern Storm will be commanded and controlled by the National Air Operations Centre (CNOA) of Lyon Mont-Verdun air base (BA 942).
An Air Operations Cell deployed at Nancy air base (BA 133) will follow in real time all the air missions and reproduce the air raids.
Simultaneously, Paratrooper Commando Air 20 (CPA20) will receive its British counterpart in Dijon: the RAF Regiment. Together they will train for air base protection missions on operational theatres in compliance with what is achieved today in Afghanistan.
Furthermore, RAF Regiment members will train in Captieux to helicopters’ air policing measures. These specific procedures are implemented on a daily basis by the Quick reaction Alert FAF air defence helicopters to intervene against “slow movers.”
On March 24, commando paratroopers and pilots will meet in Nancy-Ochey to present the product of their cooperation to the French and British Ministers of defence during a one-day display featuring the future alliance.
Report: NATO Air Strike Hits Major Libyan Oil Field
April 6, 2011
Libya says NATO air strike hits major oil field
By Maria Golovnina
TRIPOLI: Libya said a U.N.-mandated British air strike had hit its major Sarir oilfield killing three guards and damaging a pipeline connecting the field to a Mediterranean port.
“British warplanes have attacked, have carried out an air strike against the Sarir oilfield which killed three oilfield guards and other employees at the field were also injured,” Deputy Foreign Minister Khaled Kaim told reporters.
There was no immediate official comment from Britain’s Ministry of Defence on Kaim’s comments about the field.
Libyan War: Canada Adds Troops, Increases Bombing Raids
April 6, 2011
Canada adds personnel to NATO mission
By Jessica Murphy
OTTAWA: Canada has boosted the number of personnel involved in the NATO-led mission in Libya by nearly 200, the military said Wednesday.
There are now 570 Canadian army and navy personnel taking part in international efforts to crack down on Libyan despot Moammar Gaddafi.
That’s compared to the 380 personnel originally posted when Canada joined the mission in March.
Brig.-Gen Richard Blanchette made the comments during a media briefing on the mission.
He also said Canadian CF-18 fighter jets had been on 14 flights since last week, targeting a number of ammunitions depots and military bunkers in Libya.
Canada also has navy frigate HMCS Charlottetown patrolling the waters north of Libya and CP-140 Aurora aircrafts flying the coastline.
The NATO mission is headed by Canadian Lt.-Gen Charles Bouchard.
NATO Steps Up Air Attacks; U.S., Italy Discuss Arming Libyan Rebels
April 6, 2011
NATO Raises Libya Tempo as U.S., Italy Discuss Arming Rebels
By Patrick Donahue and Indira A.R. Lakshmanan
NATO increased the number of warplanes over Libya as U.S. and Italian officials in Washington privately discussed whether to provide some weapons sought by the rebels.
North Atlantic Treaty Organization jets planned to fly 198 missions over Libya yesterday, an increase from 155 on April 5, NATO chief spokeswoman Oana Lungescu said in a statement. The “operational tempo has increased,” she said…
As a former U.S. congressman arrived in Tripoli on an unofficial visit to press Muammar Qaddafi to step aside, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Italian Foreign Minister Franco Frattini reached no conclusion about whether to arm the rebels, according to an official who wasn’t authorized to talk publicly about their Washington meeting. The rebels have asked for arms, and U.S. officials have interpreted the resolution approved March 17 by the United Nations Security Council as exempting the rebels from the arms embargo imposed on Libya.
NATO didn’t specify how many of yesterday’s sorties were tasked for ground targets, such as tanks, multiple-rocket launchers and armored fighting vehicles. There were 66 “strike sorties” April 5 – including 12 U.K. attacks on Qaddafi’s tanks and armored vehicles – up from 58 on April 4, according to NATO and U.K government reports.
Britain said yesterday that it has shifted four Typhoon jets from no-fly-zone duties to ground-attack missions, following the addition April 5 of four ground-attack Eurofighter Tornado jets. The U.K. “currently has 16 ground-attack aircraft under NATO command,” the statement said. “This meets present operational requirements.”
NATO’s Lungescu said yesterday in a BBC television interview that a third of Qaddafi’s military assets “have been destroyed”…
The weapons question may be discussed further at a NATO foreign ministers meeting April 14 and 15 in Berlin. Those sessions likely will be followed by a meeting in Qatar of the foreign ministers from the Libya “contact group,” which includes the U.S., Canada, European nations, some Persian Gulf Arab states…
Turkey’s Role In Libyan War, NATO Missile Shield Linked: EU Envoy
Hürriyet Daily News
April 6, 2011
Turkish mission in Libya, NATO’s missile defense program ‘inter-linked’
ANKARA: While a European Union diplomat has linked Turkey’s involvement in Libya operation and the proposed missile defense shield for NATO, Turkish diplomats deny such a link, saying they are ‘two different concepts’
NATO’s deliberations over the Libya mission and Turkey’s involvement witnessed tough bargaining over recent weeks as a Western diplomatic source said the Turkish role and its contributions were loosely linked to the proposed missile defense system being debated by the trans-Atlantic alliance.
“I think they are two inter-connected issues,” a European Union ambassador told the Hürriyet Daily News & Economic Review, requesting anonymity.
He said Turkey was pressing hard for NATO, not the United States, to take command of the missile defense system set out in the alliance’s strategic concept adopted at last year’s Lisbon summit.
About the Libya operation, Ankara, which was initially reluctant for NATO to be involved, changed its approach and provided one of the two NATO headquarters for monitoring the no-fly zone in the crisis-hit North African country. The Turkish base in ?zmir was one of the two headquarters that NATO was planning to shut down last year.
A senior Turkish Foreign Ministry diplomat, however, denied such a link, saying that they were “two different concepts.”
“We have said from the very beginning that the missile shield should be under NATO’s command. This is nothing new. We defended the same argument even before the Libya operation,” the diplomat told the Daily News, speaking on condition of anonymity.
The unnamed diplomat said Turkey wanted NATO’s air base in Aegean province of ?zmir to remain functional but denied any links between Turkish requests and NATO’s missile defense program.
“?zmir is close to the eastern Mediterranean basin where the incident is taking place. What happened in Libya proved that Turkey was right,” he said.
Another Western source said: “Turkey’s hosting of so many NATO assets –and desire to continue hosting them – and involvement in NATO operations in Libya is clear evidence of their important, central role as a NATO ally.”
NATO’s Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen visited Turkey on Monday for meetings with Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdo?an as well as the foreign and defense ministers. Diplomats said it was a brief stopover and the secretary-general excused himself to make a public appearance for the press. However, behind-the-scenes meetings also focused on the new strategic concept of the alliance and new command and control system as well as the missile defense system, according to sources.
Turkey’s insistence on keeping the NATO base in ?zmir open despite pressure for its closure due to financial reasons also appeared on the agenda of the talks, they added.
Turkey, a NATO member since 1952, was the subject of discussions over a potential NATO missile defense system originally proposed by the United States during the Bush administration. It is unclear whether Turkey will actively participate in the proposed system directed against Iran, which much of the international community considers a threat due to its controversial nuclear program.
In previous statements, Foreign Minister Ahmet Davuto?lu had laid down Turkish principles saying that Turkey was at the center of NATO; NATO should take into account “indivisible security,” meaning that the alliance should preserve each and every member state’s security; and Turkey does not perceive any threat in its neighborhood and does not plan to be a frontier country as it was during the Cold War era.
The United States has often portrayed the missile defense system as a safeguard against a possible ballistic strike from Iran. At the time of the discussions about the strategic concept, Ankara was concerned that such a perception could damage its growing relationship with its neighbor. To Turkey’s favor, NATO’s new strategic concept eventually avoided identifying any specific neighboring country, whether it be Iran or Syria. But it is still unclear if Turkey will allow the deployment of such a system in its soil and who will be in the command of this system.