Halifax Media Co-op

News from Nova Scotia's Grassroots

More independent news:
Do you want free independent news delivered weekly? sign up now
Can you support independent journalists with $5? donate today!
Advertisement
Not reviewed by Halifax Media Co-op editors. copyeditedfact checked [?]

Nato is killing the arab revolution

Blog posts reflect the views of their authors.

It is crystal clear that Nato overstepped the mandate of SCR 1973 the moment they stated to bomb in lybia

SCR 1973 affirms that parties to armed conflicts bear the primary responsibility to take all feasible steps to ensure the protection of civilians. SCR19773 also affrims the disire of the U.N to protect the civilian poulation

If The U.N  was true to the cause of protecting civilians, they would of realized that civilians are better protected in times of peace then in times of war.. SCR 1973 made a De Facto obligation on the part of  the U.N to work sincirely to get the 2 warring sides to the negotiating table to discuss a peace deal, this was something that the U.N had no interested in. When Gadafi originally accepted the AU peace plan,the onus on the U.N was to get the rebels to agree to come to the table to discuss peace; this would have protected civilans. Not only would it have protected civilians,it would also have recpected the U.N charter that makes clear the desire of all member nations to respect the right of member nations to self-ditermination. the Charter states that "Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state"

 

If the reson for intervention in Lybia interfered in affairs within the jurisdiction of the Lybain state and it violated resolution 1973, then can it be said that nato's millitary assult of Lybia was legal? Was it even for ethical purposes.

 

In my opinion, the main porpose of the Nato bombing campagn in Lybia was to create the conditions that are conducive to an American lead occupation under the pretext of resolution 1973.

The U.N and the U.S in paticular, need to occupy Lybia if they are to attempt to contain the "contagion" of the Arab spring. When The U.S occupies Lybia, and they will, this will creat enough anti-americanism in the middle east that it will divert the peoples energy from overthrowing  their own despotic regimes.This will buy time for the despotic regimes of the region so they can do whatever is necessary to re-assert control over the people.

Such a senario will be a win-win situation for the capitalist class. Such an occupation of Lybia would create a mini arms race in the region, which would, among other things, allow the Despotic regimes in the middle east to re-arm themselves. Most importantly such an American occupation would both steal all the oil weath that belongs to Lybia and act as a pecedent in the region. Such a threat by Uncle Sam in the region is meant to kill the Arb spring/revolution

Natos intervetion in Lybia has nothing to do with humanitarian and everything to do with re-asserting American dominance.


Socialize:
Want more grassroots coverage?
Join the Media Co-op today.
477 words
Advertisement

User login


Google+
Subscribe to the Dominion $25/year

The Media Co-op's flagship publication features in-depth reporting, original art, and the best grassroots news from across Canada and beyond. Sign up now!