An old proverb says: “It takes a crook to know a crook“, another one is about smelling the proverbial “rat“. The ICC has managed to combine both when declaring that it needs forensic evidence before it will drop it´s manufactured charges for a show trial against Muammar Ghadafi, Saif Al-Islam Ghadafi, and Abdullah Al Sanussi. NATO declares an end to operation Unified Protector by 31 October. As previously reported, the fact that Libya will continue to experience fighting and destabilization for months if not years while under governance of a proxy government may very well have been the agenda of NATO all along. The global consequences of NATO´s end of operation Unified Protector as well as the legal after-play remain to be seen. By Dr. Christof Lehmann
According to “The Guardian” the ICC has declared that it would not withdraw it´s charges against Muammar Ghadafi before it has received forensic evidence for his death. It takes good understanding of a criminal mind to understand a criminal, and as many other observers who discuss the purported death of Muammar Ghadafi, the ICC may be smelling a “rat“. So far, no other evidence than shaky videos and dubious photos, blended with contradictory statements by “rebels” are the only evidence that have been presented to the world. So far, there have not been any loud public demands by either Russia or China for an independent investigation into Muammar Ghadafi´s purported death. Should the videos and statements concerning his murder be true, the ICC would most certainly have more solid evidence for war crimes against Barak Hussein Obama, Hillary Clinton, Anders Fogh Rasmussen, and other functionaries than it ever had in the preliminary charges laid out against Muammar Ghadafi, Saif Al-Islam Ghadafi, and Abdullah Al-Sanussi. The death or disappearance of Ghadafi would certainly spare a number of governments the embarrassment of Ghadafi having a platform where he could discredit the dirty doings of the U.K., USA, E.U., France, and the African Union, and that includes detailed knowledge about Lockerbie.
Even though Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov is repeating the “Ghadafi had lost his legitimacy” narrative, he complained about the purported murder, stating that Ghadafi should not have been killed. Lavrov´s statement is a continuation of Russia´s political line on Libya. While complaining, and at times complaining in the strongest possible terms acceptable in diplomatic parleur, it´s stand is ambivalent, and reflects the fact that Russia is considering the USA and NATO as rogue states, from whom they can not expect anything good. Russia is threatened along all it´s borders with the exception of those to Mongolia and China, and it´s foreign policy reflects Russian leaders worries when challenging NATO´s aggressions. The question that needs to be asked, and that urgently needs to be answered is, “when has a head of state lost legitimacy to a degree that it justifies foreign intervention“.
When Obama´s approval ratings drop to 43 %, has he lost legitimacy? Or when Obama is responsible for the murder of tens of thousands of Libyans, does he have lost legitimacy and should Russia “liberate the Americans“. What about George Bush and his approval ratings, that were below 30 %. What about the plans of George Bush and Cheney to deploy US Military against US Citizens on US Soil. Have they lost legitimacy, and should Chinese troops come and “liberate the Americans“. Lavrov and the Russian government would be wise to stop buying into the narratives that legitimate heads of state have lost legitimacy, and Russia does in deed oppose this form of interventionism with respect to Syria and Bashar Al-Assad while using the same narrative against Ghadafi.
Is Russia drawing a line in the Syrian Sand, while realizing that it is yet to weak to oppose NATO in Africa. Russia knows that the war in Libya, with or without Ghadafi is bound to last for months or years before the country may become stabilized again. An evaluation of the Libyan situation by the head of the Russian State Duma Committee on International Relations, Konstantin Kosachev, that the tension in Libya was not directed along the people-regime line, but rather on the lines of interaction between various ethnic lines of interaction and political groups is by many analysts understood as a sign, that Russia very well may be asserting it´s influence in Libya to prolong the battle for the government. If the analysis is correct, both Russia and NATO have a common interest in prolonging the period of destabilization of Libya, all though for entirely different reasons.
If NATO discontinues operation “Unified Protector” on 31 October, it leaves behind a Libya with a transitional government that is bound to fight a prolonged war against the majority of Libyans, the Libyan Military, Tribal Militia from Libya, Algeria, and from throughout the Sahara. A transitional government that will be utterly dependent on continued support by foreign fighters that are controlled by NATO. A country which finances and resources are open for plunder. A country that ceases to resist the establishment of the Mediterranean Alliance. A country that ceases to inspire other African leaders, like Laurent Gbagbo of Ivory Coast, to leave the CFA and establish a Pan-African Currency. A country that ceases to call for African Unity. The long term destabilization of Libya is in deed a significant victory for France, the USA, the E.U. and NATO.
The fact that NATO had significant resources tied to Libya for months may very well be perceived as partial victory by Russia, all though it can not state it openly. NATO plans for an aggression against Syria have been stalled not only by the fact that both Russia and China cast a veto against a resolution against Syria. What may be even more significant is, that the continuation of the war in Libya will continue to tie down massive amounts of NATO mercenaries that other wise would have been re-deployed to Syria in the Libyan theater. The ones that pay the price for the protection of Syria and Russian interests there are the people of Libya.
In both Russia and China the tension due to concerns about global security are tangible. After the recent meeting of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization in Kazakhstan, the Chief Editor of 4Th Media, Professor Kiyul Chung announced on RT, that the world is at a crossroad where Russia, China, Pakistan, Iran and other recognize the urgency of ending the uni-polar world dominated by the USA. Chung´s analysis of the SCO meeting was, that the world is either about to be subdued, that the NATO intervention in Libya may be followed up by an intervention in Syria or even Iran. Professor Chung elicits the transpiring hope that the Shanghai Cooperation Organization may develop into an international force that balances NATO´s dominance. After the collapse of the USSR, the opening of the Chinese market, NATO succeeded at engage Russia, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, Ukraine, Georgia, and numerous other countries into it´s “Partnership for Peace” program, or Individual Partnership Plans. This Partnership for Peace is increasingly recognized as the Trojan Horse it is designed to be. Both countries are now confronted with a geopolitical and security problem of truly gargantuan proportions. The realization that there is little time to mount a significant response to NATO´s aggression is becoming urgently evident. The Shanghai Cooperation Organization, originally established with focus on combating terrorism may slowly develop into a cooperation on security and defense against NATO, but in it´s current format it seems far from reaching that point.
Fact is, that the Libyan Military has resisted NATO for months, and it has the potential to continue the resistance against the NATO proxy Government in Tripoli for months or years. Today´s fighting inside Tripoli, Sirte, and numerous other cities signal that the resistance continues with or without Muammar Ghadafi, while non of the nations that have the privilege to act decisively at the United nations Security Counsel seem to have the interest, the political will to end the murder of Libyans and the plundering of it´s resources.