Libyan War : Political and strategic aspects

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 22 Mar 2011 09:45

I believe it was a thawk launched by a british submarine if you are talking about the 1st strike on the qadhafi compound.

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 22 Mar 2011 09:47

Libya: Too Much, Too Late: Richard N. Haass

http://www.cfr.org/libya/libya-too-much-too-late/p24444

UBanerjee · Post by **UBanerjee** » 22 Mar 2011 09:57

shiv wrote: Colonialism lives on under some other name - with a large proportion of people dhimmified to believe that the actions of the colonialists are righteous.

From everything I see, this narrative does not get much play outside of Western domestic consumption. That is it's primary purpose anyway. Hardly anyone in the Indian street, let alone the Arab street, will swallow it whole. Surely some will support it for the reasons the UN has given for the action, but after all there is a grain of truth to it, so this is not so strange.

The application of power breeds resistance among the subject population, in the form of memes, stories, and worldview, which is why the talk of dhimmification is strange. People will view these actions through many filters, but one filter will include resistance to Western power. After all, this is what ultimately brought down the Western hegemons, and really any power before them; dominance sows the seeds of decline. Only the intellectual class can remain dhimmified after the direct domination is removed, and I think the extent of this is a little overstated in India.

Regardless, on the second point, the issue of righteousness is applied incorrectly I believe. The righteousness is in how you fight. The righteousness is not in why you fight. Force will be applied in the service of state/nation/empire, and it should be; while virtue in the means begets moderation in the ends. Thus instead of asking "Was it righteous for the Western powers to intervene against Qaddafi?" we should ask "Was the intervention carried out with a degree of decency befitting righteous warfare?"

Well my thinking on that in any case. One may think that the purpose of force should also be moral and pure, but this is a self-paralyzing anxiety that history mostly ignores anyway. Perhaps the purpose should not be nightmarish or deranged, as extremes are always dangerous and dehumanizing. But aiming for purity, you give way to those who are not so timid, and are happy to use your obsessions against you. I think it is a weakness.

Theo_Fidel · Post by **Theo_Fidel** » 22 Mar 2011 10:23

Singha wrote:he will pull back his forces to safer non-threatening positions and try to wait this out...if he doesnt attack, the UN mandate does not cover NATO supporting rebel attacks technically.

Singha,

I don't think NATO gives a damn. If they can take out Gaddafi they will. Honestly it will save a lot of peoples lives.

There are all kinds of ways to help the rebels. Right now NATO is asking the rebels to hold while they take out the defenses around Ajdabiya. It will take some time to plan and coordinate. They can always claim, truthfully, that Gaddafi was killing the civilians there. Gaddafi is a monster, no getting around it. Destroying his forces will save civilian lives.

Aditya_V · Post by **Aditya_V** » 22 Mar 2011 10:37

What I am wondering considering the uneasy links with EU diplomats, Oberservors, Amnesty International with Maoists, Kashmir Terrorists and ULFA. Were they trying somthing similiar in India but the plan failed to take off.

What worries me is that they still have not given up, hence the propping up of A.Roy's and her ilk, explains who funds these JNU Pow-Wows.

Aditya_V · Post by **Aditya_V** » 22 Mar 2011 10:42

Theo_Fidel wrote:
Singha wrote:he will pull back his forces to safer non-threatening positions and try to wait this out...if he doesnt attack, the UN mandate does not cover NATO supporting rebel attacks technically.
Singha,

I don't think NATO gives a damn. If they can take out Gaddafi they will. Honestly it will save a lot of peoples lives.

There are all kinds of ways to help the rebels. Right now NATO is asking the rebels to hold while they take out the defenses around Ajdabiya. It will take some time to plan and coordinate. They can always claim, truthfully, that Gaddafi was killing the civilians there. Gaddafi is a monster, no getting around it. Destroying his forces will save civilian lives.

Both Qadafi and Saddam Hussein are and were monsters, but in what way are they worse than Musharaf, Paki Army, Saudi Arbian Monarchy, Kuwait Monarchy, - Why these regimes are favoured and given such benevalent coverage?

Why was the Tunisian and Hosni Mubarak tolerated for so long, are they any better?

What regime will they replace Qadhafi with, someone who is pro western Oil companies and a Tyrant as well.

What right do the EU US have to Bomb Qadafi's forces?. If the west is sincere take out the Pak Army and House of Al-Saud first then act against the less dangerous regimes.

Ambar · Post by **Ambar** » 22 Mar 2011 10:44

If i were Adm Mullen, i'd play cat and mouse with Gadhafi. Take out the defenses, allow rebels to gain more ground,wait for Gadhafi's response, and take out his defenses again. At a certain point,Gadhafi will have to keep up public appearances to maintain the morale of his supporters, that should give allied forces enough clues about his whereabouts to take him out for good. Who knows, it may all end like the Iraq war but with better consequences.

AKalam · Post by **AKalam** » 22 Mar 2011 10:46

http://www.cnbc.com/id/42201551

BRIC Abstention on 'No-Fly Zone' Sets Tone: Analysts

Published: Monday, 21 Mar 2011 | 6:16 PM ET
Text Size
By: Simon Hobbs
CNBC Anchor

Analysts are warning that the decision of the BRIC nations not to support the no-fly zone in Libya is an indication that in years to come Gaddafi-like dictators will find it easier to wage war on their people without external intervention.

"It’s clear that the bar for military action is getting higher and higher," says Ian Bremmer, President of New York-based consultancy Eurasia. "Right now Gaddafi has no friends on the world stage, except Chavez. Libya is even an oil-producing nation, but it’s taken weeks to get some action."

Investors believe Brazil, Russia, India and China will be the new economic Titans, but so far BRIC nations either cannot or will not provide leadership.

Each of these four nations is currently sitting on the U.N. Security Council, yet each abstained from voting on Resolution 1973 that opened the way for military intervention.

Russia and China

Vladamir Putin says the resolution was a "medieval call for crusades." China says it abstained at the request of its friends in the Middle East and Africa (presumably the ones that supply oil and commodities), and it’s true both have sought to establish positions of non-interference.

But they also occupy two of the five permanent seats on the Security Council, which means each has an absolute veto. They could have destroyed plans for the no-fly zone, but they chose not to.

"Vetoing is an expression of leadership," says Ian Bremmer, "but they’d rather have no responsibility, sit on the sidelines, and complain if or when something goes wrong."

Brazil and India

Brazil and India currently hold rotating Security Council seats of two years duration. Both are campaigning for permanent ones. Critics say they might have abstained in order demonstrate to the U.N. General Assembly what great counterweights they could be against the West.

But the more charitable suggestion is that India and Brazil are still struggling to develop their diplomatic positioning on the world stage.

India knows it’s non-interventionist. Brazil however is so new to even G8 conferences it may not have thought past projecting a "honeyed" image of itself.

Plus it’s a brave nation that publically stands out against military action by the United States, particularly when your vote is not a veto.

UK, France and Germany

In Europe it's a widely held view that the Obama administration is only taking action against Libya because the UK and France said they would.

"The US was late to the game," says Daniel Gros at the Center for European Policy Studies in Brussels. "Washington was shamed into action by Paris and London."

It’s no great surprise the UK and France so readily jumped to action. Europe has more skin in the game than America. Its colonial past riddles North Africa. It’s oil companies have assets in Libya that risk being nationalized. And geography dictates that North Africa's refugees easily become Europe's humanitarian problem.

After Tony Blair’s "success" in Bosnia, David Cameron is only the latest British Prime Minister to believe it’s the West's duty to protect and intervene.

The current President of France also believes in spreading democracy. Nicolas Sarkozy also hopes a swashbuckling performance by its military at his decree will turn around his poll ratings in advance of next year’s Presidential Election.

"Also bear in mind that the French elite is heavily connected to and invested in France’s former colonies of Tunisia, Algeria and Morocco," says Daniel Gros. "So Libya is the one place it can be seen to intervene without loss of national interest."

In fact two weeks ago Sarkozy sacked his Foreign Minister, Michèle Alliot-Marie, for not only vacationing in Tunisia at the height of the protests but apparently offering its ruling elite French expertise in riot control.

Germany also remains absent from the action over Libya after it too abstained at the U.N. Chancellor Angela Merkel’s foreign minister had quickly ruled out action in the belief that voters — still shamed by its Nazi Era — did not want to see its army operating outside its borders. But that may have proven to be a major political mistake. Merkel was backtracking today, increasingly isolated in Europe.
© 2011 CNBC.com

Klaus · Post by **Klaus** » 22 Mar 2011 11:11

Reports coming in that Gaddafi's son has been killed in a blue-on-blue attack: Link.

It was claimed Khamis — leader of the feared Khamis Brigade that has been attacking rebel-held areas — died in the same compound hit by RAP cruise missiles hit by coalition forces last night.

Today Gaddafi's Tripoli compound was again rocked by blasts, his southern strongholds targeted and a navy base bombed as international criticism mounted over the assault on Libya.

Rebels, meanwhile, said they were under intense attack by Gaddafi's forces in the city of Misrata near Tripoli and an AFP reporter saw them beaten back from a frail attempt to retake the eastern key town of Ajdabiya.

AKalam · Post by **AKalam** » 22 Mar 2011 11:37

As far as insane monsters go, Saddam, Yahya Khan (along with then Pakistan Army leadership and ZA Bhutto) and Qaddafi are in the same league, but not any other regional monarch or dictator, so far. It is only these that have unleashed heavy military weapons and forces on their own population, engaging in indiscriminate large scale killings and massacre. If any other dictator/monarch graduate to that level of wanton disregard for the lives of their own people, then IMHO similar UN mandated action should be taken as well to protect civilian lives. I believe it is a sign of progress for humanity, which we have not seen in 1971 or in 1991.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Searchlight
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1991_uprisings_in_Iraq

It is hoped that the new govt. in Libya will be democratic as democracy was the demand of the opposition to begin with, if I remember correctly. EU and US gets the right to bomb Qaddafi's forces engaged in attacks on civilians, because of the UN resolution 1973, which states that all necessary measure can be taken to protect civilians from armed forces assault, whether that is on the ground or on the air. So far the term "civilian" is understood to include unarmed civilians as well as people armed with AK47 type light arms to protect their family or kins, but not people armed with machine guns installed on pickup trucks, also called "technicals".

India, as a mature democracy, and a country with increasingly higher standards of internal conduct, should have little to worry about such UN resolutions. This, however, cannot be said about Russia and China who have a history of brutally suppressing their minorities and separatists/"splittists".

chetak · Post by **chetak** » 22 Mar 2011 12:05

Aditya_V wrote:
Theo_Fidel wrote: quote="Singha" he will pull back his forces to safer non-threatening positions and try to wait this out...if he doesnt attack, the UN mandate does not cover NATO supporting rebel attacks technically.

Singha,

I don't think NATO gives a damn. If they can take out Gaddafi they will. Honestly it will save a lot of peoples lives.

There are all kinds of ways to help the rebels. Right now NATO is asking the rebels to hold while they take out the defenses around Ajdabiya. It will take some time to plan and coordinate. They can always claim, truthfully, that Gaddafi was killing the civilians there. Gaddafi is a monster, no getting around it. Destroying his forces will save civilian lives.

Both Qadafi and Saddam Hussein are and were monsters, but in what way are they worse than Musharaf, Paki Army, Saudi Arbian Monarchy, Kuwait Monarchy, - Why these regimes are favoured and given such benevalent coverage?

Why was the Tunisian and Hosni Mubarak tolerated for so long, are they any better?

What regime will they replace Qadhafi with, someone who is pro western Oil companies and a Tyrant as well.

What right do the EU US have to Bomb Qadafi's forces?. If the west is sincere take out the Pak Army and House of Al-Saud first then act against the less dangerous regimes.

I agree with what you say.

The replacement will be a "democratic" fundamentalist government spewing chaos and animosity and sitting on a big pool of oil to destabilize the international oil markets for some time to come.

The french seem to be specially courageous when subduing the natives!

Piddly UK also seems raring to go.

I wonder what's really up?

Arjun · Post by **Arjun** » 22 Mar 2011 12:17

AKalam wrote:India, as a mature democracy, and a country with increasingly higher standards of internal conduct, should have little to worry about such UN resolutions. This, however, cannot be said about Russia and China who have a history of brutally suppressing their minorities and separatists/"splittists".

That is true, but India has still not completely resolved the issues of separatism in certain parts of the country - and inspite of the known Indian sensitivity to human rights (in comparison to Russia or China) - there is no shortage of Indian jholawalas and sellouts who would dress up any innocuous army activity as a 'brutal suppression of minorities'. Presumably that's one factor responsible for India's position on Libya.

Secondly, if the intention is to promote democracy overseas - given this is an 'international' thread I will be somewhat charitable and say only that India's democracy is a WIP. Once India manages to remove dynasty-ism and blatant bribery of voters / parliament members - key features of the current India 'democratic' setup, India can be somewhat more credible in trying to promote democracy overseas. I would say set the house in order first.

UBanerjee · Post by **UBanerjee** » 22 Mar 2011 12:25

Aditya_V wrote:
Theo_Fidel wrote: Singha,

I don't think NATO gives a damn. If they can take out Gaddafi they will. Honestly it will save a lot of peoples lives.

There are all kinds of ways to help the rebels. Right now NATO is asking the rebels to hold while they take out the defenses around Ajdabiya. It will take some time to plan and coordinate. They can always claim, truthfully, that Gaddafi was killing the civilians there. Gaddafi is a monster, no getting around it. Destroying his forces will save civilian lives.
Both Qadafi and Saddam Hussein are and were monsters, but in what way are they worse than Musharaf, Paki Army, Saudi Arbian Monarchy, Kuwait Monarchy, - Why these regimes are favoured and given such benevalent coverage?

Why was the Tunisian and Hosni Mubarak tolerated for so long, are they any better?

A man doesn't go around killing monsters to please the heavens, a man kills a monster for revenge, glory, or treasure. Or all of the above. It is a lot of effort after all.

Aditya_V wrote: What right do the EU US have to Bomb Qadafi's forces?

This question is pointless, what right does Qaddafi have to rule Libya? I'm guessing because he can bomb his enemies into submission?

I wonder what's really up?

These nations probably realized the forces sweeping the Arab region are not something which can be suppressed anymore. So instead of damming the force, they are trying to channel it in some limited fashion. They really don't have the capacity to control events to their heart's content, they are just some nations.

abhischekcc · Post by **abhischekcc** » 22 Mar 2011 12:45

Arjun, nice sentiments about removing the influence of money in politics. Do you know how deeply corrupt even gram panchayat elections are? Every candidate has to spend on booze and a round of feast even at this low level. And these are normal guys spending this money. These candidates will stay humgy, and do not have access to a steady job, but they still spend 70k-100k rupees to win that low level seat, because they see it as a food coupon.

Give up the thought that corruption in India is still a upper class activity.

We are in a state of toxic corruption. The democratic state itself has decayed. Nothing can be changed until this system is replaced. Renewal is not possible.

Gaurav_S · Post by **Gaurav_S** » 22 Mar 2011 13:03

IMO, there is still lots of confusion about this operation by allied forces. If I remember the mission is to stop killing of innocent people in Libya by Gaddafi by demolishing his infrastructure and arms. Arabs first said they condemn the attacks on Libya now they re iterated that they support the attacks. Even unitentional killing of Gaddafi by allied forces will put them in situation where more ground troops will be required like in Iraq. BTW French, Brits and US gets another chance to test and develop their weaponary. But this seems to be the most hastily carried out mission in recent times.

Aditya_V · Post by **Aditya_V** » 22 Mar 2011 13:11

U Banerjee the question is not pointless, there is no relation between Qadafi ruling Libya and west right to Bomb Libya, then why don't they Bomb Saudi Arabia or Pakistan which are ruled by Tyrannts, it is because of thier Self Interest in money to be made. Mark my words the a western campaign supported regime will only lead to the outflow Libyan Oil money outside the country and will not make the lifes of ordinary Libiyans any better.

And in Egpt, Hosni Mubarak has left but has the rest of the Government been touched?

Samudragupta · Post by **Samudragupta** » 22 Mar 2011 13:20

abhischekcc wrote:Arjun, nice sentiments about removing the influence of money in politics. Do you know how deeply corrupt even gram panchayat elections are? Every candidate has to spend on booze and a round of feast even at this low level. And these are normal guys spending this money. These candidates will stay humgy, and do not have access to a steady job, but they still spend 70k-100k rupees to win that low level seat, because they see it as a food coupon.

Give up the thought that corruption in India is still a upper class activity.

We are in a state of toxic corruption. The democratic state itself has decayed. Nothing can be changed until this system is replaced. Renewal is not possible.

Actually OT for this thread but could not resist to respond to this point....actually i know of a person(considered a good person) who spent 200 Crore for LS seat, but lost because the money was not enough to buy out the local networks to make him win....

UBanerjee · Post by **UBanerjee** » 22 Mar 2011 13:55

Aditya_V wrote:U Banerjee the question is not pointless, there is no relation between Qadafi ruling Libya and west right to Bomb Libya

Of course there is. Qaddafi has no right to rule and the West has no right to bomb him. Ergo, no one has a right to do anything, but this pious moralizing is quite useless in altering that. No one is bowled over by suddenly learning the idea that there is no "right" to do this. Perhaps they will get a piece of paper giving them right to bomb Qaddafi? But they already did that, so I guess you are not satisfied by it.

Aditya_V wrote: , then why don't they Bomb Saudi Arabia or Pakistan which are ruled by Tyrannts, it is because of thier Self Interest in money to be made.

So if I slay a rabid dog that is troubling me, I must slay all other such dogs for your benefit before I can go to sleep tonight? Perhaps you might slay some as well? There's a saying that if you want something done right, you do it yourself. Well, it is very easy to give lectures about doing things right, and less easy to actually do anything. The GoI is prudent, but sometimes it is difficult to distinguish prudence from paralysis.

It is strange that you should expect America to decapitate Pakistan when it is their useful pet. You should also expect pet-owner #2 China to help do it, it is the righteous thing to do only.

Aditya_V wrote: Mark my words the a western campaign supported regime will only lead to the outflow Libyan Oil money outside the country and will not make the lifes of ordinary Libiyans any better.

I am sure life of ordinary Libyans will continue much as before, perhaps without a Mad Dog to improve things slightly.

Oil is the only reason anyone cares about these backwater desert nations at all, so in a sense it is all about the oil. And in another sense it is not about simplistic loot and plunder, this is a more sophisticated geopolitical operation than that. I am sure the US spent trillions of dollars trying to pacify Iraq to access several billion dollars worth of oil when they could have just lifted the sanctions instead- right? Of course the idea is complete nonsense but you have people today still parroting it because it is so very catchy and simple.

PratikDas · Post by **PratikDas** » 22 Mar 2011 15:31

Hindustan Times: India says no place for external powers in Libya

The US-led international coalition has no right to interfere in Libya's affairs, India said on Tuesday, stepping up its condemnation of the military strikes on Muammar Gaddafi's forces to establish a no-fly zone.

India, which abstained from a UN security council vote to authorise military action, followed fellow BRIC countries China and Russia in condemning the air strikes led by the US, UK and France that have severely weakened Libya's air defences.

"What is happening in a country, within their internal affairs, no external powers should interfere in it," Pranab Mukherjee, India's finance minister and leader of the lower house of parliament, told lawmakers on Tuesday.

China and Russia also abstained from the resolution.

"Nobody, not a couple of countries, can take that decision to change a particular regime," Mukherjee said. "Whether a regime will change or not will depend on the people of that particular country, not by any external forces."

India's Foreign Minister S.M. Krishna called for the "cessation of armed conflict" on Monday, a day after his ministry issued a statement expressing "regret" over the air strikes.

Asia's third-largest economy, which has followed a foreign policy of non-alignment, took its seat as a non-permanent member of the security council in January.

Local media on Tuesday criticised New Delhi for appearing "confused" and "naive" in its condemnation of military action after abstaining from the vote.

Dilbu · Post by **Dilbu** » 22 Mar 2011 17:17

I have a feeling India is sticking to this position based on our 'no role for external players' position regarding J&K. Now I am not saying Libya is like J&K issue but if GOI is least bothered about forming a response then the most basic and easiest option available is to stick to this stand. This will avoid damages of any kind but it also rules out possibilities for making any kind of gain.

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 22 Mar 2011 18:21

two things
1. India is waiting to see what happens, not just in libya, but across the arab world
2. yes, if a principle of intervention is established, then J&K interference needs to be pre-empted
not that it practically will ever come to that, but it removes fig leaves from the paquis

joshvajohn · Post by **joshvajohn** » 22 Mar 2011 18:53

If India joined the coalition it would have been easy for India to do similar things when any attack on India by the terror group from within Pakistan and no one will shout. India would even get a support to pass UN resolution for that. Thus flatten ISI offices.

Why isn’t the world intervening in Bahrain as it did in Libya?
http://globalpublicsquare.blogs.cnn.com ... -in-libya/

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 22 Mar 2011 19:13

The Simon Hobbs article is humbug. The BRIC countries did not prop up the dictators. It was the US and UK that did it. Now they want to get rid off them and are using UN cover to do that. To blame BRIC countries for dictators survival is typical of perfidious albion.

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 22 Mar 2011 20:14

well the R and C in BRIC did prop them up

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 22 Mar 2011 20:42

India in Africa: implications for the US [ pdf ]

http://j.mp/eQttBv

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 22 Mar 2011 20:55

Lalmohan wrote:well the R and C in BRIC did prop them up

Then why use the entire BRIC name for it. That is false creation of Image

chaanakya · Post by **chaanakya** » 22 Mar 2011 21:04

The question is , if Unkil would put boots on the ground and if so when and at what cost,and what exist strategy.
Nest in line seems Syria. Reports of trouble started coming in just now. Worth recalling that Syria opposed NFZ.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 22 Mar 2011 22:49

PRC condemns the destruction of the port of Tripoli! Looks like US using opportnity to bomb Libya to stone age and claim saving lives.

CBS radio Dave Martin(very conservative guy, father a security guy) was saying the pilots rescue shows there is contact between the bombing forces and rebels.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 22 Mar 2011 23:41

Anti-War Protests Grow As Deaths, Debt Pile Up

St. Paul, MN, March 19, 2011. As the US launches another military attack in Libya, America is getting war weary. The war Afghanistan is now grinding into its 10th year and Iraq casualties continue even as the US draws down. Disapproval polls keep creeping up and the Washington Post poll reported on March 16, 2011 that 64% of the public feel the Afghanistan war is, "Not worth it."

Organizers of the march invited marchers to bring old kitchen pots or pans, and spoons. They shouted about money going for war but not for health care or education. This protest was one of many held across the nation as part of a national day of protest against war. Coincidentally the protest happened the same day the US started launching missiles into Libya.

UBanerjee · Post by **UBanerjee** » 23 Mar 2011 00:00

Lalmohan wrote:well the R and C in BRIC did prop them up

Gaddafi is a Soviet creation after all.

Chinmayanand · Post by **Chinmayanand** » 23 Mar 2011 00:03

When is the turn of Syria?

jimmyray · Post by **jimmyray** » 23 Mar 2011 02:01

Here is an article about Libyan rebels having Jihadi and AQ elements in them. This might influence post Gadaffi political scenerio in Libya :

Eastern Libya’s Tribes, Jihadism: Did U.S. Consider Its Own Libya Intel?

Regards

paramu · Post by **paramu** » 23 Mar 2011 02:02

UBanerjee wrote:
Aditya_V wrote: , then why don't they Bomb Saudi Arabia or Pakistan which are ruled by Tyrannts, it is because of thier Self Interest in money to be made.
So if I slay a rabid dog that is troubling me, I must slay all other such dogs for your benefit before I can go to sleep tonight? Perhaps you might slay some as well?

Could you please educate us how Gaddafi was troubling US? As far as I knew, he was doing business deals with all western corporations and gave up WMD program.

jimmyray · Post by **jimmyray** » 23 Mar 2011 02:04

Chinmayanand wrote:When is the turn of Syria?

This is OT but Syrian scenario is also warming up : http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110322/ap_ ... a/ml_syria

Theo_Fidel · Post by **Theo_Fidel** » 23 Mar 2011 04:59

This is OT but..

As far as TSP this should be India's fight. No different from Chechnya or Ingushetia. If India sent in a couple of divisions and cleaned out the Norther Areas, the world may publicly murmur its disapproval but privately express their relief. It is our weakness as the only large state in the region that allows this instability in TSP to happen. This is our fight, no one else's.

There was a time when India was terrified of sticking it head up, you know the turtle position. But we are big enough and rich enough that we should not fear other countries, esp. in the UN. Take a stand for god sake. No hiding behind the skirts of others.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 23 Mar 2011 05:41

One thing from Libyan crisis is that UN has definite thresholds that dictators must not cross if they want to remain in power. IOW Yahaya Khan type massacring East Bengalis is a no-no. Will be difficult even for US to condone.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 23 Mar 2011 06:04

ramana wrote:PRC condemns the destruction of the port of Tripoli! Looks like US using opportnity to bomb Libya to stone age and claim saving lives.

32,000 Chinese from Libya were evacuated in Greek ships. They sure ain't gonna use Tripoli port to get back.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 23 Mar 2011 06:09

Libyan oil accounts for only about 3 percent of China's imports, but it won't be easy to replace. That's because Libya is one of only a few producers of "light sweet" or low-sulfur crude, which is highly prized for making gasoline. Global competition for limited remaining sources of light sweet crude will put upward pressure on prices, particularly if China decides to stockpile.

"If China starts buying and hoarding oil ... that means gasoline jumping above $4 a gallon" in the United States, said James DiGeorgia, editor of the Gold & Energy Advisor website. "You'd add another 30 cents to 40 cents a gallon to California."

Beijing also faces pressure at home. It must now choose whether to force its national oil companies to absorb the higher costs or pass them along to consumers. It's a decision fraught with risk. China is already battling the worst inflation in more than two years. Rising prices for food and fuel are seen as major threats to social stability.

"I've been making the same salary for the last 10 years, but everything else gets more expensive," said Yu Liyong, a veteran Beijing taxi driver complaining about a recent price hike that pushed gasoline to $4.28 a gallon. "What am I going to do?" said Yu, who earns about $600 monthly. "I still have to drive."

China's maturing oil fields are no match for the nation's surging demand. The country was a net importer of crude as recently as two decades ago.

China's manufacturing juggernaut needs fuel to keep cranking out exports. Rising living standards are boosting consumption as well; China is already the world's largest car market. China may be importing as much as 80 percent of its petroleum by 2030, according to the International Energy Agency. China alone will account for half of all new oil demand in the next five years, the agency estimated.

"Its urbanization and auto market have been creating hard demand that won't slow down anytime soon," said Li Zhoulei, an energy analyst for Shanghai CIFCO Futures.

With much of the world's easily accessible petroleum gone, China will continue to scour the globe for oil. But upheaval in Libya and other parts of Africa and the Middle East could force Beijing to weigh the political risks more carefully, experts said.

China is facing resentment in Africa for not hiring enough local labor; some Chinese workers there have been kidnapped and murdered. Angola, a major supplier to China, is courting other investors to reduce its dependence on China.

In a sign of a potential shift from its non-intervention policy, China used its position as one of five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council to support sanctions against the Libyan government for its violent repression of civilian demonstrators.

Read more: http://www.bellinghamherald.com/2011/03 ... z1HNfZ3l1C

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 23 Mar 2011 06:11

http://www.afriqueavenir.org/en/2010/10 ... operation/

Libya, China strengthen economic, cultural cooperation
October 4th, 2010 in News, World

APA - London (United Kingdom) Libya has indicated its readiness to further strengthen cooperation with China in the areas of trade, economy, culture and people-to-people exchanges.

In his second visit to China in almost three decades, Saif Al Islam Gaddafi, heir-apparent to the Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi stressed that his country firmly sticks to the one-China policy and supports the peaceful reunification of China.

Airavat · Post by **Airavat** » 23 Mar 2011 06:28

Pakistan terms military strikes on Libya regrettable

(copycat)

Previously when there was a revolt against Col Moammer Qaddafi and he tried ruthlessly to crush his own citizens, Pakistan had called for a ‘resolution’ from within. Foreign Secretary Salman Bashir said, "In Pakistan and Afghanistan we have tribal structures, similarly in Libya the tribal factor will play an important role in any outcome in the case of Libya. It is up to the Libyan society, its people, to reestablish their own equilibrium within a United Libya."

But this view of ‘neutrality’ from Pakistan has changed now that even more ruthless strikes have struck a fourth Muslim nation, this time, the hapless Libyan citizens because the view in the Foreign Office is that these very world powers were first beseeching Qaddafi to stop these strikes against his nationals, and now they themselves have taken over the role to kill even more Libyans.

All eyes will be on the address of President Asif Ali Zardari when he addresses the joint house of parliament particularly how he spells out Pak-US relations and the situation in the Middle East and Africa.