Wednesday 27th of November 2024
Home » Blogs » Gus Leonisky's blog

free medicine, free education, and financial aid for those wishing to study abroad……...

During the era of Muammar Gaddafi’s Libyan Jamahiriya, the country was openly admired by many countries in the region for the well-being and living conditions of Libyans, perhaps with the exception of the Gulf States. And this was justified, among other things, by the fact that there was free medicine, free education, and financial aid for those wishing to study abroad. Flats were given to young families for free. Some of the medicines in pharmacies were given to elderly people free of charge. Utility bills were ridiculously low.

The average Libyan earned $1,200 a month, an apparent luxury when compared to the rather poorer neighbors: in neighboring Egypt, salaries were around $200; in Tunisia, $300. At the end of the year, everyone in the Jamahiriya received a guaranteed “bonus” from the state on the country’s oil sales abroad of more than a thousand dollars. The country therefore preferred to buy only new foreign cars of a fairly high class, the cost of which for “veterans”, for example, was only about a thousand US dollars.

 

BY Vladimir Odintsov

 

A country of 6 million people was served by a million Egyptian and Filipino guest workers who cleaned the streets, drove taxis and washed dishes and worked as servants for Libyans. As a result, unemployment in Libya remained at 20 per cent and the Libyans preferred to live on guaranteed subsidies and not work for pennies, actively visiting Western countries with their families for tourism purposes.

However, the recalcitrant Gaddafi regime was a beam in the eye of Washington and its Western allies, with the result that these “color revolution” masterminds began to actively undermine Libyan society, thereby initiating the takeover of Benghazi in 2011 by “dissidents of Gaddafi policies”, multiple demonstrations that rocked the capital and several cities in Libya.

It is now more than eleven years since the UN Security Council resolution on airstrikes against Libya was passed under the pressure of a propaganda campaign by Washington (similar to the “Powell’s vial”). The resolution formally authorized “all necessary measures to protect civilians and civilian populated areas” from the “bloodthirsty regime of Muammar Gaddafi”, with the exception of the deployment of occupation troops. As a result, bombing by Western “reformers” led to the complete defeat of the Libyan armed forces. They were, incidentally, considered to be among the strongest in the region and for this reason Israel, appointed by the White House as “watchdog”, was particularly interested in their collapse. Then there was the summary execution of the “Leader and Guide of the Revolution” (as Gaddafi’s official title stated) on October 20, 2011.  In this massacre across Libya that followed the “protection of civilians”, 70,000 people died!

The current Libya is a pitiful spectacle, the civil war continues unabated, with thousands of people dying in constant fighting.

Even today, the US is trying to keep Libya under its power collar and has long made unceremonious interference in the internal affairs of other states, with the right to change power in “hostile” countries, the basis of its policy, with the UN and the international community remaining silent. This “right” to make plans to change political regimes “in authoritarian countries if they threaten US security” was recently stated by one of the most respected veterans of American politics, former US Secretary of State and National Security Adviser to the President Henry Kissinger, in an interview with the Financial Times. With this very unfortunate fact, there is no question either from the UN or from International Criminal Court (ICC) Prosecutor Karim Khan about the 2011 extrajudicial massacre of Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi, which was initiated by the West. Gennady Kuzmin, Russia’s Deputy Permanent Representative to the UN, in particular, drew attention to this recently at a meeting of the Security Council, but never received an answer… “According to the report, the ICC plans to put an end to the investigation into the events of 2011. So it turns out that, in the opinion of the prosecutor’s office, no one else is to blame for the disaster in Libya but the brutally murdered Muammar Gaddafi? Such an approach is simply astounding in its one-sidedness,” Kuzmin said. According to him, the principle of inevitability of punishment, so often referred to by Western states, ceases to work when it comes to themselves. According to the diplomat, “the hastily concocted case against Gaddafi by former ICC prosecutor Moreno-Ocampo was built on fabrications so clumsy and obvious that it began to fall apart even before the Libyan leader’s assassination”.

Kuzmin stated that the “Gaddafi case” at the ICC was clearly used to justify NATO’s unprovoked military aggression against Libya. “Western countries, in flagrant violation of the provisions of UNSC Resolution 1973, treated the imposition of a no-fly zone as carte blanche to carpet bomb the then sovereign and prosperous Libya. The result is known: civilian deaths, chaos and devastation in the country, and mass stream of refugees. Until today, Libya continues to suffer from the consequences of NATO’s actions in 2011,” he concluded.

Meanwhile, media close to the corridors of power in the US and Britain continue provocative campaigns to stir up controversy in Libyan society by publishing various fake and blatantly false articles on the situation in Libya. And a typical example of this, in particular, is a sleaze in The Times on May 3 about Libyan Prime Minister Fathi Bashagha’s attitude towards Russia. In its usual fake way, the publication published allegedly Libyan Prime Minister Fathi Bashagha’s statement that “Libya wants to stand with Britain against Russian aggression”. However, the Libyan Prime Minister himself, on his verified Twitter page, immediately went on record as saying that he had not said any such words and that the article was false.

As for Libya itself, the “democracy” brought there by the West has only brought terrible suffering to its people, greater even than the consequences of Italian colonialism. The never-ending crisis, the stream of refugees (some of whom die at sea trying to reach Europe), the slave markets, the areas under the control of jihadists imposing Sharia law, the loss of national sovereignty, the splitting of the country into fragments with different governments, etc. All this makes it impossible to maintain an adequate level of social and economic situation throughout Libya. Poverty and destitution provide fertile ground for the most extreme forms of Islam to flourish, providing ISIS and al-Qaeda in the Maghreb (both banned in the Russian Federation) terrorists with new recruits and neophytes. In fact, Libya has turned into a huge grey zone, where the population leads a miserable existence while the country is used for games by the US and its Western allies, cultivating terrorist groups with the possibility of exporting jihad to other countries in the region.

Given the particular importance of the country’s oil revenues to Libya’s national budget, the US is making every effort to deprive the country of these funds. In 2022, for example, Libya’s projected oil revenues could be around $39 billion. However, the new US-imposed oil revenue-sharing mechanism involves freezing all the money flowing into the Libyan National Oil Company’s accounts in foreign banks, after which only a small portion will be used to pay salaries and social obligations, with US approval. This policy by Washington, as well as its unilateral sanctions on Russia’s foreign assets, is blatant robbery. That said, it must not be forgotten that many Libyan citizens today cannot afford basic stuff.

The deteriorating situation in Libya is also directly linked to US citizen Stephanie Williams, who has been imposed by Washington on the UN Secretary-General as a “special advisor” whose job it is to resolve the Libyan crisis. However, at her behest, the political contradictions between the East and West of the country have only intensified.

As a result, Libya remains a country deprived of true sovereignty and territorial integrity, and the democracy declared by the US is nowhere near there. Interference by the US and the West in Libya’s internal affairs has turned it into a failed state, Russian sociologist Maksim Shugaley said in his Telegram channel.

Under these circumstances, it is very important for Libya today that the warring factions agree among themselves and regain control of the country, returning to the path of development from which Libya has descended since Gaddafi. Otherwise, one of the parties, backed by the West, will establish sole control of the country and deploy a regime of military autocracy, which will not benefit the people of that country, but only the “collective West”, to facilitate profits from Libya’s oil.

Vladimir Odintsov, political observer, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.

 

 

READ MORE:

https://journal-neo.org/2022/05/15/libya-suffers-a-permanent-humanitarian-catastrophe-under-the-dictate-of-us-interests/

 

FREE JULIAN ASSANGE NOW...............................

USA, illegal under international law…….

The West was prompt in condemning the invasion of Ukraine as illegal under international law. Reflecting on when this war actually began, however, takes a little longer. And it will take a little longer for the West to start thinking more about why “the rest” of the world – after all, the vast majority of the world’s population – is observing the war from a completely different perspective than “the West”.

 

Kishore Mahbubani is one of those who have been warning for years that the mentality of Western dominance leads to a dead end and that cooperation would be a far more intelligent way of approaching global problems and challenges. The sooner Western politics realises this, the fewer victims the unstoppable transition to a multipolar world will entail. However, a Western policy that still considers itself superior, unique, indispensable – and believes it is entitled to kill because it represents “the good” – will result in much suffering. The list of victims already runs into millions.

Erika Vögeli

 

-----------------------------------

by Kishore Mahbubani*, Singapore

 

 

The iron law of geopolitics

The Russian invasion of Ukraine is illegal and has to be condemned by the international community. And it has been condemned. As a former Ambassador to the United Nations, I fully understand and support the need to protect the principles of the UN Charter. Yet, in geopolitics we must always do two things simultaneously. We must moralise. And we must analyse. Since geopolitics is a cruel game and follows the cold and ruthless logic of power, we must be cold, dispassionate and hard-headed in our analysis. The only iron law of geopolitics is that it punishes those who are naïve and ignore its cold logic.

 


  So, could we have predicted this war in Ukraine? And could we have prevented it? The simple answer to both these questions is yes. Indeed, many leading statesmen in the West correctly predicted this disaster in Ukraine.
  Probably the greatest strategic thinker that the US produced in the 20th century was George Kennan. He fashioned the famous containment strategy which ultimately succeeded in defeating the Soviet Union. He passed away on 17 March 2005.

 

Despite clear warnings from leading US thinkers

On 21 February 2022, the famous "New York Times" correspondent, Tom Friedman, requoted at great length what George Kennan told him in 1998. When asked about the impact of the expansion of NATO into former areas of the Soviet Union, he said, very presciently, “I think it is the beginning of a new cold war. I think the Russians will gradually react quite adversely and it will affect their policies. I think it is a tragic mistake. There was no reason for this whatsoever. No one was threatening anybody else. This expansion would make the founding fathers of this country turn over in their graves.”
  So why did NATO continue expanding despite the clear warnings of George Kennan? In some ways, the correct answer was also endorsed by George Kennan. On 1 December 1997, the famous and legendary editor of the magazine The National Interest Owen Harries wrote an article explaining why NATO expansion was unwise and then gave the reasons why it was happening. He cited several reasons, but let me just quote the first two: “the strength of the Polish-American vote, as well as that of other Americans of Central and East European origin” and “the enormous vested interests–careers, contracts, consultancies, accumulated expertise–represented by the NATO establishment, which now needed a new reason and purpose to justify the organization’s continued existence”.
  In short, short-term domestic political interests of gaining voters and narrow economic interests trumped geopolitical wisdom. Immediately, after Owen Harries published this article, George Kennan immediately wrote a letter endorsing all the points made by Owen Harries. He said “It was in some respects a surprise because certain of your major arguments were ones I myself had made, or had wanted to make, but had not expected to see them so well expressed by the pen of anyone else.”
  What is striking about the project to expand NATO is that many leading American thinkers, both liberal and conservative, opposed it, including Paul Nitze, James Schlesinger, Fred Ikle, John Mearsheimer, Jack Matlock, William Perry, Stephen Cohen, Bill Burns, Vladimir Pozner, Bob Gates, Robert McNamara, Bill Bradley, Gary Hart, Pat Buchanan, Jeffrey Sachs, and Fiona Hill among others.

Kissinger: “To Russia, Ukraine can never be just a foreign country”

The greatest living strategic thinker in the US today is Henry Kissinger. He didn’t oppose the expansion of NATO to the former Warsaw Pact states of Eastern Europe. But he strongly counselled against admitting Ukraine into NATO. As a good student of history, Kissinger pointed out why Ukraine was viewed differently by Russians. In a 2014 article published in the Washington Post, this is what Kissinger said, “The West must understand that, to Russia, Ukraine can never be just a foreign country. Russian history began in what was called Keivan-Rus. The Russian religion spread from there. Ukraine has been part of Russia for centuries, and their histories were intertwined before then. Some of the most important battles for Russian freedom, starting with the Battle of Poltava in 1709, were fought on Ukrainian soil.”
  As a wise statesman, Kissinger proposed a sensible compromise solution. On the one hand, he said, “Ukraine should have the right to choose freely its economic and political associations, including with Europe.” On the other hand, he said (in 2014), “Ukraine should not join NATO, a position I took seven years ago, when it came up.”
  The real tragedy about Ukraine is that if the then American President, Barack Obama (a Nobel Peace Prize winner) had heeded the advice of Henry Kissinger, the war in Ukraine could have been avoided. Kissinger’s formula emphasised that the Ukrainians would be free to choose their own political system and regional associations.
  Indeed, the strong Ukrainian resistance to the Russian invasion was not anticipated. This strong resistance confirms their strong desire to join the European Union. And they should be allowed to do so. And, as advised by Kissinger, Ukraine can stay out of NATO and remain “neutral”. In the past ‘neutral’ states were allowed to join the European Union. Ukraine could follow that precedent. Such a win-win solution could have prevented a war. Indeed, two days after the Russian invasion of Ukraine, President Zelensky (who has emerged as a real hero after the invasion) said, “We are not afraid of Russia, we are not afraid of engaging in talks with Russia, we are not afraid of discussing anything, such as security guarantees for our state, we are not afraid of talking about neutral status.” If neutral status had been agreed to, the war could have been avoided.

The world needs globally respected statesmen as peacemakers

When future historians write about this Ukraine episode, one big question they will surely ask is why the clear and explicit warnings of leading Western statesmen, like Kennan and Kissinger, were ignored? They will also ask why our world doesn’t have distinguished peacemakers today who could have prevented the conflict.
  This may well be the most important lesson that the world should learn from the Ukraine episode. Wars are tragic, as they always have been. Peace must be preserved. And the world needs to develop a class of globally respected statesmen who could emerge as global peace-makers.
  Curiously, we used to have such globally respected statesmen, including people like Nelson Mandela, Kofi Annan and Desmond Tutu. Many of them were members of a council of “The Elders” which has tried to provide calm and sensible advice from time to time. Clearly, we seem to lack such distinguished statesmen today.

Provocative suggestions from the USA that could lead to another war

And the risks continue to grow. Recently, the former US Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo said in Taiwan that the US should “immediately take necessary, and long-overdue, steps to do the right and obvious thing, that is to offer the Republic of China (Taiwan) America’s diplomatic recognition as a free and sovereign country.” One doesn’t have to be a geopolitical genius to figure out that his prescription would lead to a war over Taiwan.
  Since his provocative suggestion could lead to a war, a war that could be even more destructive than the war in Ukraine, one would expect a global chorus of voices to emerge and condemn the reckless statement of Mike Pompeo which could lead to a war.
  So far, I have not heard any leading voice on our planet condemn his statement. And that’s the nub of our global problem. Where are the global peacemakers when we need them more than ever?  •

 

Quelle: https://ari.nus.edu.sg/app-essay-kishore-mahbubani-4/ (Reprint with friendly permission of the author.)

*  Kishore Mahbubani, a Distinguished Fellow at the Asia Research Institute, NUS, is the author of the book “Has China Won?”.

 

READ MORE:

https://www.zeit-fragen.ch/en/archives/2022/no-10-10-may-2022/where-are-the-peacemakers.html

 

READ FROM TOP.

 

It is to be noted here that the "war on Ukraine" by Russia started as a war on the rest of the world by the USA, around 1917 (1919) taking over from the British who had gone broke by 1919.... The rest is bits of history leading to Russia having to "defend the heartland".....

 

 

FREE JULIAN ASSANGE NOW ...........