Over the weeks since the start of the Libyan conflict we have heard about the savagery and inhumanity being inflicted by Muammar Gaddafi on his people. During this time allied forces tried to hold the moral higher ground by arguing they were the defenders of democracy.
Last night a bomb killed Gaddafi’s son and with his death the allies lost all credibility as a force for reason. According to reports, Said-al-Arab Gaddafi was not firing on rebel forces, he was not laying siege to towns, he was playing with his family. An innocent student caught up in a conflict that was nothing to do with him other than by the fact his father is leader of a country.
The UN mandate allowed the allies to do everything to preserve human life and defend the citizens of Libya against oppression. How an assassination attempt on Gaddafi can be construed as a legitimate defence of the people remains to be seen.
No father should lose a son or daughter before they die. Already Gaddafi has lost an adopted daughter. In 1988, American missiles killed his adopted daughter. Now, 29-years on and tragically, the age of Said-al-Arab Gaddafi, he has lost hi son as well. The action was cruel, heartless and unnecessary and socialists and those opposed to the attacks by allied forces on Libya should condemn this death vociferously.
Today, my thoughts and prayers as a father myself go to Muammar Gaddafi and his family. May you find peace in your faith and in the knowledge that many people in Europe share your sadness today.
Showing posts with label Libya. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Libya. Show all posts
Saturday, 30 April 2011
Saturday, 26 March 2011
Libya - an expensive price for Tory jingoism
Every day the government tell us the country was close to collapse when Labour left power. They insist the only way out of this ‘mess’ was the introduction of some of the most stringent cuts the country has seen since the days of Margaret Thatcher.
Already thousands have been affected and have either been reduced to short time or worse, have been made redundant as companies try to cope with a changing economic climate where the rate of inflation is now beyond the estimates the government made and a number of skill sectors find themselves either stagnant or in decline.
Meanwhile, unemployment exceeds 2.5m and more are likely as the year progresses. The Tories keep saying there isn’t enough money, so they cut essential services like Sure Start; they take away essential financial support for college students and they increase the cost of going to university threefold. In case that wasn’t enough, they sell off our beloved NHS and allow private enterprise to cream off profits from our sickness and ill-health.
They say we have no money in the coffers, but we have the funds to fire missiles on the people of Libya. The Ministry of Defence, in marked contrast to the Pentagon and the French armed forces, declines to say how many bombs or missiles have been fired from RAF Tornados or how many Tomahawk cruise missiles have been fired from HMS Triumph (a Trafalgar-class submarine which the MoD declined to identify until David Cameron named her in the Commons). However, defence sources say a total of seven Tomahawk cruise missiles have been fired from Triumph, compared to at least 168 fired from US submarines and ships.
Liam Fox, the defence secretary, said Tornado aircraft on Thursday launched “a number of guided Brimstone missiles at Libyan armoured vehicles which were threatening the civilian population of Ajdabiya”. He described Brimstone as a “high-precision, low collateral damage weapon optimised against demanding and mobile targets”. This was the first time the Tornados had fired weapons at Libyan targets since Saturday, the first night of the campaign.
Four Tornados were involved, probably firing no more than two bombs or Storm Shadow missiles each. The following night, the Tornados’ bombing run was aborted because a number of civilians, later identified as including western journalists, were found to be in the “intended target area”, the MoD has said. It is possible that no more than about eight bombs or missiles had been fired from RAF Tornados before the Brimstone attacks on Thursday night.
William Hague, the foreign secretary, said on Thursday that the RAF had flown 59 missions over Libya. The large majority have been reconnaissance missions. They have also included what the MoD emphasizes were the first Eurofighter/Typhoon aircraft deployed in what it described as “hostile airspace”. The 10 Typhoons are only suitable for air-to-air combat, according to the MoD. The ground attack version apparently is not ready to take over the Tornados’ role – though defence sources point out that the high profile the Tornados are enjoying will make it much harder for the government to scrap them as soon as it would otherwise like to.
Now, if we take these estimates of weapon use – and they seem reliable, if not rather conservative, this would imply 15 Tomahawk cruise missiles have been fired at a total cost of £15m, four Storm Shadow cruise missiles costing £750,000 each – a total cost of £18m in missile use. Add to this the estimated 60 to 150 fly hours used by our aircraft for the 59 missions they have flown and this adds at least a further £4m to the cost.
Then you have our naval involvement. The Ministry of Defence has been reluctant to reveal how many ships are engaged in military activity, but we know of at least one submarine and there are almost certainly going to be others. Assuming only two ships are involved and only one of these is a submarine, then this increases the cost so far by a further £32m.
In other words, we have probably already spent betwee£25m and £60m on fighting this war in Libya. Looking at the situation over there logically, it is probable that our forces will be engaged in military activity for a few more weeks, because Gaddafi has made it abundantly clear he will not stand down. This could involve the use of our land forces to quell any resistance he might offer – all at an extra cost to the UK tax payer.
Now, before readers accuse me of over-exaggerating the costs, these figures are extremely conservative estimates, based on the very small amount of information coming from the MoD. The actual cost could be much higher.
You might ask why we are doing it – why are we spending so much of our money at a time when we are so hard up? It’s a good question. Fundamentally, the answer has nothing to do with humanitarianism, or the upholding of democratic principles. Since when have the Tories developed a penchant for supporting popular uprisings? They were silent when Castro fought Batista and they said little to support Ho Chi Minh when he took on the might of the US military. Similarly, Cameron and his cronies have never offered any kind of encouragement to ETA and the Basque separatists, or the IRA and their opposition to British colonialism.
No, the answer lies in oil! Osborne needs that to flow again so he can count on the UK economy growing again. If it doesn’t, inflation will increase and unemployment will rise. Indeed, without oil flows starting again there is a very real danger Labour could be proven right and we could slip into a double dip recession. Already Greece, Ireland and Portugal have become vulnerable and other countries could also fall.
The bottom line is this. We need to pull out of our involvement in Libya – we simply can’t afford it. If we can’t give our pensioners a decent income and offer them a robust health service, then we surely can’t afford the luxury of a jingoistic foray in the deserts of Libya.
Unfortunately, as always, the UK ignores the please from the left – until the body bags start coming back. We saw them coming from Iraq and we see still coming from Afghanistan. There is a very real danger we will soon see them coming from Libya.
We must do all we can to prevent another serviceman or woman dying on foreign soil.
Already thousands have been affected and have either been reduced to short time or worse, have been made redundant as companies try to cope with a changing economic climate where the rate of inflation is now beyond the estimates the government made and a number of skill sectors find themselves either stagnant or in decline.
Meanwhile, unemployment exceeds 2.5m and more are likely as the year progresses. The Tories keep saying there isn’t enough money, so they cut essential services like Sure Start; they take away essential financial support for college students and they increase the cost of going to university threefold. In case that wasn’t enough, they sell off our beloved NHS and allow private enterprise to cream off profits from our sickness and ill-health.
They say we have no money in the coffers, but we have the funds to fire missiles on the people of Libya. The Ministry of Defence, in marked contrast to the Pentagon and the French armed forces, declines to say how many bombs or missiles have been fired from RAF Tornados or how many Tomahawk cruise missiles have been fired from HMS Triumph (a Trafalgar-class submarine which the MoD declined to identify until David Cameron named her in the Commons). However, defence sources say a total of seven Tomahawk cruise missiles have been fired from Triumph, compared to at least 168 fired from US submarines and ships.
Liam Fox, the defence secretary, said Tornado aircraft on Thursday launched “a number of guided Brimstone missiles at Libyan armoured vehicles which were threatening the civilian population of Ajdabiya”. He described Brimstone as a “high-precision, low collateral damage weapon optimised against demanding and mobile targets”. This was the first time the Tornados had fired weapons at Libyan targets since Saturday, the first night of the campaign.
Four Tornados were involved, probably firing no more than two bombs or Storm Shadow missiles each. The following night, the Tornados’ bombing run was aborted because a number of civilians, later identified as including western journalists, were found to be in the “intended target area”, the MoD has said. It is possible that no more than about eight bombs or missiles had been fired from RAF Tornados before the Brimstone attacks on Thursday night.
William Hague, the foreign secretary, said on Thursday that the RAF had flown 59 missions over Libya. The large majority have been reconnaissance missions. They have also included what the MoD emphasizes were the first Eurofighter/Typhoon aircraft deployed in what it described as “hostile airspace”. The 10 Typhoons are only suitable for air-to-air combat, according to the MoD. The ground attack version apparently is not ready to take over the Tornados’ role – though defence sources point out that the high profile the Tornados are enjoying will make it much harder for the government to scrap them as soon as it would otherwise like to.
Now, if we take these estimates of weapon use – and they seem reliable, if not rather conservative, this would imply 15 Tomahawk cruise missiles have been fired at a total cost of £15m, four Storm Shadow cruise missiles costing £750,000 each – a total cost of £18m in missile use. Add to this the estimated 60 to 150 fly hours used by our aircraft for the 59 missions they have flown and this adds at least a further £4m to the cost.
Then you have our naval involvement. The Ministry of Defence has been reluctant to reveal how many ships are engaged in military activity, but we know of at least one submarine and there are almost certainly going to be others. Assuming only two ships are involved and only one of these is a submarine, then this increases the cost so far by a further £32m.
In other words, we have probably already spent betwee£25m and £60m on fighting this war in Libya. Looking at the situation over there logically, it is probable that our forces will be engaged in military activity for a few more weeks, because Gaddafi has made it abundantly clear he will not stand down. This could involve the use of our land forces to quell any resistance he might offer – all at an extra cost to the UK tax payer.
Now, before readers accuse me of over-exaggerating the costs, these figures are extremely conservative estimates, based on the very small amount of information coming from the MoD. The actual cost could be much higher.
You might ask why we are doing it – why are we spending so much of our money at a time when we are so hard up? It’s a good question. Fundamentally, the answer has nothing to do with humanitarianism, or the upholding of democratic principles. Since when have the Tories developed a penchant for supporting popular uprisings? They were silent when Castro fought Batista and they said little to support Ho Chi Minh when he took on the might of the US military. Similarly, Cameron and his cronies have never offered any kind of encouragement to ETA and the Basque separatists, or the IRA and their opposition to British colonialism.
No, the answer lies in oil! Osborne needs that to flow again so he can count on the UK economy growing again. If it doesn’t, inflation will increase and unemployment will rise. Indeed, without oil flows starting again there is a very real danger Labour could be proven right and we could slip into a double dip recession. Already Greece, Ireland and Portugal have become vulnerable and other countries could also fall.
The bottom line is this. We need to pull out of our involvement in Libya – we simply can’t afford it. If we can’t give our pensioners a decent income and offer them a robust health service, then we surely can’t afford the luxury of a jingoistic foray in the deserts of Libya.
Unfortunately, as always, the UK ignores the please from the left – until the body bags start coming back. We saw them coming from Iraq and we see still coming from Afghanistan. There is a very real danger we will soon see them coming from Libya.
We must do all we can to prevent another serviceman or woman dying on foreign soil.
Sunday, 20 March 2011
A time to weep for Libya
Well it’s started and I am sure the xenophobes will be delighted. British aircraft are attacking Gaddafi’s forces in Libya and already (according to reports from the BBC) 110 missiles have been fired.
Now, don’t get me wrong, I am no apologist for Gaddafi – the man is a tyrant and so far removed from socialism it is untrue. Even worse, it is a disgrace that internationally, supposedly socialist states like Venezuela have continued to support his regime.
The rebels in Benghazi have legitimate claims and should be supported and encouraged – but not through gunship diplomacy. Far better that we had sent them humanitarian aid – doctors, nurses and medical supplies. Instead, the United Nations has determined we should intervene in the internal affairs of another country.
US President Barack Obama revealed the doubled standards of American foreign policy when speaking during a visit to Brazil. He said the US was taking "limited military action" as part of a "broad coalition … We cannot stand idly by when a tyrant tells his people there will be no mercy."
Oddly enough, the US, or the UK didn’t feel the same when Pinochet was massacring thousands in Chile, and they have remained silent about genocide in Uganda, Rwanda Zimbabwe, Darfur, or the Sudan. No offers here of sending in military support to protect civilians from the acts of oppression by a tyrant.
So, is this really about preserving a budding democracy? Of course not, it’s about two things. Firstly, it is about oil. In 2007, BP and its Libyan partner, the Libya Investment Corporation (LIC) signed a major exploration and production agreement with Libya's National Oil Company (NOC). The initial exploration commitment was set at a minimum of $900million, with significant additional appraisal and development expenditures upon exploration success.
Similarly, Royal Dutch Shell has an exploration programme in the country, started after sanctions were lifted in 2004.
The International Energy Agency (IEA) said last week that Libya's oil output had slumped to a "trickle" and this had helped to drive up the price of Brent crude by 20pc this year. The IEA also said exports from Libya, which are light, "sweet" oils favoured by refiners, may take "many months" to return to normal. International capitalism cannot afford to see these supplies dry up and if rebel forces continue to fight unopposed, Gaddafi will carry on his resistance. Fighting could go on for weeks, or even months before he could be finally able to reunite the country. Even then the marks of division will be transparent and ruling the country would become virtually impossible.
Military intervention will effectively end Gaddafi’s attacks on the rebels and international governments can reasonably assume that once the resistance has taken control of the country, they will be ‘friendly’ to Western pressure to resume oil supplies.
Secondly, Cameron recognises his position as prime minister is insecure. Opposition to his policies is running high and he is expecting matters to get worse. A similar situation occurred under the Thatcher regime – until she sent the warships in to support the Falkland Islands. Suddenly opinion polls started to swing the other ways and Maggie found herself running on the crest of a wave.
It was a strategy John Major tried with some considerable success in 1991 and kept him in power for another six years. His approach was repeated by Tony Blair in the second Iraq War, but this time the British people were less enthused as they watched the dead returning from the battle front.
Now Cameron is repeating the same mistakes – using military forces to stimulate our own xenophobia and prop up his government. The trouble is that Gaddafi is not like Hussein. He will not walk away quietly, or hide in a bunker. He will arm civilians … and that will stimulate a bloody civil war between pro- and anti-government forces.
In sending in fighter planes and warships, the West has effectively guaranteed that the military action in this sad country will increase and as a result thousands will die as brother and sister fight each other. As the “Stop the War” Coalition has argued – this is not our war. If the rebels fail, it is sad and they will have to fight another day.
CND stated it far more clearly than I and I reproduce it in full.
“CND regrets the British government’s decision to pursue military intervention in Libya and opposes the current attacks taking place on Libya. CND urges a political and diplomatic response to the Libyan regime's ceasefire declaration.
Intervention is difficult and dangerous and runs the risk not only of major civilian casualties - and some have already been reported - but also escalation into a major war in Libya and even further afield. The lessons of the last decade’s interventionist wars have not been learnt: military intervention is not the answer to the just demands of the Libyan people for freedom and democracy.
CND urges political solutions including increased sanctions on the Libyan regime and calls on the British government to guarantee that civilian life will be protected and depleted uranium munitions will not be used in any attacks.”
If we are to avoid a repeat of the Afghanistan problem, we must stand down from all future military engagements in Libya.
Now, don’t get me wrong, I am no apologist for Gaddafi – the man is a tyrant and so far removed from socialism it is untrue. Even worse, it is a disgrace that internationally, supposedly socialist states like Venezuela have continued to support his regime.
The rebels in Benghazi have legitimate claims and should be supported and encouraged – but not through gunship diplomacy. Far better that we had sent them humanitarian aid – doctors, nurses and medical supplies. Instead, the United Nations has determined we should intervene in the internal affairs of another country.
US President Barack Obama revealed the doubled standards of American foreign policy when speaking during a visit to Brazil. He said the US was taking "limited military action" as part of a "broad coalition … We cannot stand idly by when a tyrant tells his people there will be no mercy."
Oddly enough, the US, or the UK didn’t feel the same when Pinochet was massacring thousands in Chile, and they have remained silent about genocide in Uganda, Rwanda Zimbabwe, Darfur, or the Sudan. No offers here of sending in military support to protect civilians from the acts of oppression by a tyrant.
So, is this really about preserving a budding democracy? Of course not, it’s about two things. Firstly, it is about oil. In 2007, BP and its Libyan partner, the Libya Investment Corporation (LIC) signed a major exploration and production agreement with Libya's National Oil Company (NOC). The initial exploration commitment was set at a minimum of $900million, with significant additional appraisal and development expenditures upon exploration success.
Similarly, Royal Dutch Shell has an exploration programme in the country, started after sanctions were lifted in 2004.
The International Energy Agency (IEA) said last week that Libya's oil output had slumped to a "trickle" and this had helped to drive up the price of Brent crude by 20pc this year. The IEA also said exports from Libya, which are light, "sweet" oils favoured by refiners, may take "many months" to return to normal. International capitalism cannot afford to see these supplies dry up and if rebel forces continue to fight unopposed, Gaddafi will carry on his resistance. Fighting could go on for weeks, or even months before he could be finally able to reunite the country. Even then the marks of division will be transparent and ruling the country would become virtually impossible.
Military intervention will effectively end Gaddafi’s attacks on the rebels and international governments can reasonably assume that once the resistance has taken control of the country, they will be ‘friendly’ to Western pressure to resume oil supplies.
Secondly, Cameron recognises his position as prime minister is insecure. Opposition to his policies is running high and he is expecting matters to get worse. A similar situation occurred under the Thatcher regime – until she sent the warships in to support the Falkland Islands. Suddenly opinion polls started to swing the other ways and Maggie found herself running on the crest of a wave.
It was a strategy John Major tried with some considerable success in 1991 and kept him in power for another six years. His approach was repeated by Tony Blair in the second Iraq War, but this time the British people were less enthused as they watched the dead returning from the battle front.
Now Cameron is repeating the same mistakes – using military forces to stimulate our own xenophobia and prop up his government. The trouble is that Gaddafi is not like Hussein. He will not walk away quietly, or hide in a bunker. He will arm civilians … and that will stimulate a bloody civil war between pro- and anti-government forces.
In sending in fighter planes and warships, the West has effectively guaranteed that the military action in this sad country will increase and as a result thousands will die as brother and sister fight each other. As the “Stop the War” Coalition has argued – this is not our war. If the rebels fail, it is sad and they will have to fight another day.
CND stated it far more clearly than I and I reproduce it in full.
“CND regrets the British government’s decision to pursue military intervention in Libya and opposes the current attacks taking place on Libya. CND urges a political and diplomatic response to the Libyan regime's ceasefire declaration.
Intervention is difficult and dangerous and runs the risk not only of major civilian casualties - and some have already been reported - but also escalation into a major war in Libya and even further afield. The lessons of the last decade’s interventionist wars have not been learnt: military intervention is not the answer to the just demands of the Libyan people for freedom and democracy.
CND urges political solutions including increased sanctions on the Libyan regime and calls on the British government to guarantee that civilian life will be protected and depleted uranium munitions will not be used in any attacks.”
If we are to avoid a repeat of the Afghanistan problem, we must stand down from all future military engagements in Libya.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
