The New Dark Age

27 August 2011 — Stop NATO

• Reintegrated Into NATO, France Takes On Ivory Coast, Libya…Syria
• Lesson Of Libyan War: Completely Capitulate As Soon As Possible Or Develop Sophisticated Weapons
• Pentagon’s Horn Of Africa Task Force Hosts 11-Nation Gathering
• Britain Boosts Military Ties With Azerbaijan Versus Armenia, Iran
• Canada Expands Military Role In Arctic For Local, Global Missions

Reintegrated Into NATO, France Takes On Ivory Coast, Libya…Syria

http://euobserver.com/13/113408

EUobserver
August 26, 2011

Libya victory summit, warns Syria
By Andrew Rettman

French President Nicolas Sarkozy has called a high-level meeting on Libya’s post-Gaddafi future and promised support – but no military action – for opposition forces in Syria.

The event is to take place in Paris on 1 September – the 42nd anniversary of the coup which brought Colonel Gaddafi to power.

It is to be co-hosted by British Prime Minister David Cameron and to include rebel leaders Mahmoud Jibril and Abdel Jalil, delegates from the 28-country-strong anti-Gaddafi coalition, the Libya Contact Group, as well as states hostile to Western intervention in Libya – China, India, Russia and South Africa.

Speaking with Jibril in the French capital on Wednesday (24 August), Sarkozy said Gaddafi’s defeat has brought the Western and Arab worlds closer and that he was right to put France fully back into Nato in 2009.

…

‘The reintegration of France into the principle organs of Nato did nothing to weaken French independnce – on the contrary, since France was, naturally, in the front lines during the military operations [in Libya].’

Sarkozy ruled out military intervention in Syria due to the lack of a UN mandate. But he warned President Bashar Assad to draw lessons from Libya and the Ivory Coast, where France also used force this year.

…’We now have precedents – the Ivory Coast and Libya. This is not to say we will get involved in more conflicts. But we will not give up on our principles. Syrian people have the right to freedom.’

…

The TNC has asked the UN to unfreeze $5 billion out of the $110 billion of Gaddafi assets reportedly held in banks round the world. The US has so far drafted a UN text allowing for the unfreezing of $1.5 billion, with a vote at the UN Security Council expected by the weekend.

With Gaddafi still at large, Sarkozy pledged to keep up military support for the TNC…

Nato spokeswoman Oana Lugnescu told the AP news agency on Wednesday that an options paper for a potential joint UN-Nato mission will come up for discussion next week.

‘The council provided Nato military authorities with a set of political guidelines for a possible future Nato supporting role in Libya … in support of wider international efforts,’ she said, referring to the North Atlantic Council, the alliance’s political governing body.

====

Lesson Of Libyan War: Completely Capitulate As Soon As Possible Or Develop Sophisticated Weapons

http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/90780/7580138.html

People’s Daily
August 25, 2011

Reflect on negative effects of Libya war

-The war seems to be a conflict between Libyan rebels and the governmental forces but is actually manipulated by the Western powers. Without NATO’s large-scale, long-lasting air strike, the war would not have lasted more than five months.
-The war has sent a strong signal to anti-West state leaders: once they become the enemies of the West, they should either completely capitulate as soon as possible, or develop sophisticated weapons to ensure their own safety.

The civil war in Libya will come to an end now that the opposition forces have entered into Libya’s capital Tripoli. However, the five-month regional war will pose a long-term impact on the situation in West Asia and North Africa.

…

The unexpected civil war cannot just be viewed as the democratic fight against tyranny and the suppression of freedom but a resistance against the unfair distribution of political and economic interests within the context of a ‘tribal war.’ Tribal wars are characterized by their winner-take-all nature. As the opposition forces have incited deep hatred of Qaddafi’s tribes during the war, whether or not they can properly treat the pro-Qaddafi tribes after coming into power is still unknown. Some Western countries that have participated in the military operations against Qaddafi have also shown their concerns.

The end of the war does not necessarily mean that Libya will enter into a new era of democracy and freedom. Afterward, the country will face a very difficult test of how to avoid tribal retaliations and internal rivalries among opposition forces. Furthermore, issues such as restoring the infrastructure damaged by the war and dealing with the increasing number of refugees cannot be addressed without strong external support. History never repeats itself in a linear way, and it is still uncertain what is next in Libya’s next round of political changes.

The Libyan war forcibly changed many factors influencing the situation in West Asia and North Africa. The turmoil in West Asia and North Africa at the beginning of this year was mainly caused by internal factors: people there seek democracy and improvement of people’s livelihood as well as oppose dictatorship and unfair distribution.

The war cannot fully meet the demands of the Libyan people with Western interference, and the opposition is nothing more than a bargaining chip picked up by the Western countries to achieve their own strategic goals. For a considerably long period of time, NATO has had no idea of the constitution and political views of the rebels that they support, which did not stop NATO providing various kinds of assistances for the war-torn country. The external causes of the Libyan war have made the instability in West Asia and North Africa even more complicated.

The spillover effect of this war is more negative than positive. The proper operation of the international community needs all countries to abide by basic game rules, and the bottom-line rule refers to basic norms of international law. The Libyan war started under the banner of U.N. Resolution 1973, but whether NATO’s air strike has exceeded the power granted by the resolution has long been questioned by all parties. The war seems to be a conflict between Libyan rebels and the governmental forces but is actually manipulated by the Western powers. Without NATO’s large-scale, long-lasting air strike, the war would not have lasted more than five months.

Gaddafi gave up his weapons of mass destruction program and surrendered to the West in political and economic areas in 2003, but Libya still suffered military attacks from Western countries. Iran’s supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei recently said publicly that it has proved to be a right decision for Iran not to abandon its nuclear program.

Russia’s Prime Minister Vladimir Putin has also said publicly that the Libya war shows it is absolutely necessary for Russia to build up its military forces and to enhance national security. The two leaders’ remarks have shown the negative effects of the war in Libya. The war has sent a strong signal to anti-West state leaders: once they become the enemies of the West, they should either completely capitulate as soon as possible, or develop sophisticated weapons to ensure their own safety. As more and more anti-West leaders preferring to the latter choice, the world is facing larger risk of re-entering a ‘political jungle.’

All parties involved should draw a lesson from the negative outcome of the Libya war. According to media reports, NATO is using the term ‘catastrophic success’ to describe the victory against the Qaddafi regime. It would be much better to avoid the war than to achieve such ‘catastrophic success.’

Greater attention should have been paid to the political solution and other peaceful means that certain countries had suggested before and during the Libya crisis. Although history cannot be rewritten, a rethink is definitely necessary because it can prevent some Western countries from making the same mistakes when similar tough issues arise.

====

Pentagon’s Horn Of Africa Task Force Hosts 11-Nation Gathering

http://www.africom.mil/getArticle.asp?art=7117&lang=0

U.S. Africa Command
August 26, 2011

Building Esprit de Corps – CJTF-HOA Hosts Senior NCO Symposium
By U.S. Air Force Senior Airman Jarad A. Denton
CJTF-HOA Public Affairs

CAMP LEMONNIER, Djibouti: For the first time in its nine-year history, the Combined Joint Task Force – Horn of Africa hosted a senior enlisted conference, August 22 to 24, 2011, bringing together service members from 11 countries, spanning four continents, to enhance regional and international partnerships…

The CJTF-HOA 2011 Senior Non-Commissioned Symposium hosted representatives from Djibouti, Rwanda, Japan, Ethiopia, Kenya, Spain, Seychelles, Mauritius, Burundi, Uganda and the United States…

…

In addition to a familiarization with the mission and processes of CJTF-HOA, the conference focused on the importance of a unified military presence in the Horn of Africa.

…

With roughly 30,000 cargo ships and 11 percent of the world’s oil passing through the waters off the Horn of Africa every year, an increase in piracy has become a primary concern for the region’s military forces, said Mykoo.

…

Mykoo said CJTF-HOA is branching out into the region with a whole of government approach, utilizing the 3-D process, which is diplomacy, development and defense.

The goal is to create a unity among partner nations before strategic decisions are made by higher leadership. This is designed to foster collaboration, coordination and cooperation…

U.S. Army Sergeant Major Samuel Metzger, U.S. Africa Command East Africa Regional Engagements senior enlisted leader, said the discussions and questions raised during this symposium will serve to strengthen ties between enlisted service members, their commanders and partners from other nations.

…

====

Britain Boosts Military Ties With Azerbaijan Versus Armenia, Iran

http://www.news.az/articles/politics/43022

AzerTAc
August 23, 2011

Azerbaijan, Great Britain boost military cooperation

It is time to sign an agreement on military cooperation, the Assistant Chief of the Defense Staff of Great Britain says.

Azerbaijan`s defence minister, colonel-general Safar Abiyev, met Mr. Graham Howard, Air Vice Marshall, Assistant Chief of the Defense Staff (Logistic Operations) of Great Britain.

Mr. Abiyev briefed the guest on the military-political situation in the Southern Caucasus and the 20-year occupation of Azerbaijani lands by Armenia. He said talks carried out by the OSCE Minsk group didn`t yield any results and four resolutions of UN Security Council were not fulfilled.

Boosting cooperation in military sphere was also discussed at the meeting. Mr. Howard said it is time to sign an agreement on military cooperation.

====

Canada Expands Military Role In Arctic For Local, Global Missions

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/canada-in-afghanistan/military+gone+north/5297447/story.html

Ottawa Citizen
August 24, 2011

Why the military has gone north
By Peter McKenna*

-Canada’s elite Special Operations Regiment…were engaging in specialized expeditionary training with their own equipment – testing their performance capability in austere conditions and rugged terrain (where it could come in handy in other parts of the world).
-[T]he senior military leadership views the Arctic (especially in a post-Afghanistan milieu) as a means of further justifying its reason for being…This is critical because it allows the military to make the case to political masters that the defence budget should be insulated from any deep cuts in the rush to balance the federal books….[T]he Canadian military is perfectly content to play around in the Arctic just as long as the money taps stay open and they can utilize their training there for other ‘hot spots’ around the world.

Having just returned from Operation Nanook 11 – which involves roughly 1,100 Canadian Forces personnel from the navy, air force, army and even special forces in Resolute Bay, Nunavut – as an invited observer, it’s not hard to tell that both the Canadian government and the military are preparing for a larger presence in the North…

Canada’s elite Special Operations Regiment (probably a handful or so) in their tan berets could be spotted around the Resolute camp. Since they were basically operating on their own, not much was said about what exactly they were doing there. We were told that they were engaging in specialized expeditionary training with their own equipment – testing their performance capability in austere conditions and rugged terrain (where it could come in handy in other parts of the world).

While we didn’t actually observe the unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) in action, a Gagetown, N.B., regiment was gearing them up (five U.S.-manufactured ScanEagles and one nighttime version) for their first-time deployment in the windy North…

The UAVs (at a cost of roughly $200,000 each) were going to be used as part of the larger operation’s search and rescue simulation – feeding back video images of the mock disaster scene. But their chief functions or missions involve surveilling convoy and troop movements, detecting improvised explosive devices (IEDs) and observing harbours (looking for fuel re-supply).

This raises an obvious question: Why is there this burgeoning military presence in Canada’s High Arctic – especially since, unofficially at least, many in the military dread a posting to the North?

Yes, there is the whole sovereignty question and symbolism, nationalistic Canadian sentiments about the Arctic and its domestic political import for federal politicians. Of course, it is also important to be sending out the right signals to our Arctic neighbours like the Americans, the Danes, the Norwegians and the Russians.

More significant, one could argue that the senior military leadership views the Arctic (especially in a post-Afghanistan milieu) as a means of further justifying its reason for being. Stated differently, it gives them a mission priority that has the firm backing of the Conservative government in Ottawa.

This is critical because it allows the military to make the case to political masters that the defence budget should be insulated from any deep cuts in the rush to balance the federal books. If anything, they will argue that military resources should be bolstered if the Harperites want the Canadian Forces to be meaningfully engaged in the Arctic, properly equipped for northern conditions, and operationally/strategically robust.

Indeed, the one thing that the Department of National Defence does not want to see happen is additional resources going to the Coast Guard instead of them. It would be better for the military to wrap itself in an Arctic mission (and to secure the requisite procurement) rather than have the Coast Guard squeeze out more money for sovereignty patrols, scientific investigation and a polarclass icebreaker.

In short, the Canadian military is perfectly content to play around in the Arctic just as long as the money taps stay open and they can utilize their training there for other ‘hot spots’ around the world. And if this is the case, you can look for the CF. to deepen its military footprint in the Arctic going forward.

*Peter McKenna is professor of political studies at the University of Prince Edward Island in Charlottetown.