From: William Gladys <william.gladys@tiscali.co.uk>
Date: 2011/3/9
Subject: Fw: hizb.org.uk | Full Site
To: world_Politics@googlegroups.com
hizb.org.uk | Full Site |
- 5 reasons why Egyptian army should move and save people from Gadaffi
- Libya: The Hypocrisy of Western Intervention (Occupation)
- Muslims must reject Western interference
- Washington's war drums beat louder
- Afghanistan lets Blackwater stay despite shakeup of security contractors
- Egypt and Turkey, It's time to act
| 5 reasons why Egyptian army should move and save people from Gadaffi Posted: 08 Mar 2011 06:23 PM PST Western military intervention must be rejected. The Egyptian army must intervene in Libya to rescue people from the murderous Gadaffi regime. 1) Prevent western interference Obama and Cameron's talk of possible western intervention in the ongoing fighting in Libya must be absolutely rejected given the track record of Western governments intervening in Muslim lands. They only intervene for their interests. Since entering Afghanistan in 2001, countless civilians have been killed, and US drones continue to bomb Pakistan on an almost daily basis. Western interventions lead to Abu Ghraib, Bagram, the murder of Baha Mousa in UK custody in Iraq and countless other crimes. A few weeks ago, the UK was selling arms to Gadaffi and in 2009, the UK's SAS was training Gadaffi's special forces who may now be using those skills and weapons to devastating effect. 2) Egyptian army can defeat remaining pro-Gadaffi forces The 450,000 strong Egyptian army dwarfs the 25,000 forces that Gadaffi was reported to have before the fighting started. In addition to 450,000 active military personnel, Egypt has a modern air force and modern fighting equipment which would enable it to overrun the remaining pro-Gadaffi forces and save the people of Libya. This action would be undertaken in conjunction with the forces that have already managed to liberate Benghazi and other parts of Libya. 3) People of Libya, Tunisia and Egypt are one. They are Muslims The people of the region lived side by side for centuries before western colonialist including the UK, France and Italy drew up the existing artificial borders between Egypt and Libya, Libya and Tunisia and all across the Muslim world. Why should these colonial borders be an obstacle to the Egyptian army acting to save their brothers and sisters? The US and UK did not respect the Iraqi borders when they invaded in 2003. It is high time we stopped respecting these borders that divide us and reduce us to bystanders as our brothers and sisters are murdered next door! The region is witnessing an uprising of Muslim people who worship one Creator, follow one Qur'an, follow one Prophet, and follow one deen as can be witnessed from the uniform chants of "Lai ilaha ilallah, ash-shaeed habibullah, Allahu Akbar…." in Cairo, Tunis, Benghazi, Yemen and elsewhere. 4) Islam orders Muslim armies to intervene Not only are the above good enough reasons why the Egyptian army must intervene in Libya, Islam commands such intervention. وَمَا لَكُمْ لاَ تُقَاتِلُونَ فِي سَبِيلِ اللّهِ وَالْمُسْتَضْعَفِينَ مِنَ الرِّجَالِ وَالنِّسَاء وَالْوِلْدَانِ الَّذِينَ يَقُولُونَ رَبَّنَا أَخْرِجْنَا مِنْ هَـذِهِ الْقَرْيَةِ الظَّالِمِ أَهْلُهَا وَاجْعَل لَّنَا مِن لَّدُنكَ وَلِيًّا وَاجْعَل لَّنَا مِن لَّدُنكَ نَصِيرًا "And what is wrong with you that you fight not in the Cause of Allah, and for those weak, ill-treated and oppressed among men, women, and children, whose cry is: "Our Lord! Rescue us from this town whose people are oppressors; and raise for us from You one who will protect, and raise for us from You one who will help." [TMQ An-Nisa 4:75] "The believers, in their love, mutual kindness, and close ties, are like one body; when any part complains, the whole body responds to it with wakefulness and fever." [Muslim] With the uprisings in Tunisia, Egypt and elsewhere, we need to discard the thinking that Western powers have to come to our rescue or that international institutions like the United Nations must authorise our actions. Such thinking leaves us paralysed and beholden to carrying out the agendas of the West. 5) Ummah in Egypt demand action and feel unity Demonstrations outside the Libyan embassy in Cairo saw people demanding the liberation of Libya from Gadaffi. With these uprisings, we now need to act based on new thinking, that we are one ummah and must look to our deen instead of the idea that we are different nation states doing their own thing in Libya, Egypt or Tunisia. The Egyptian army must move to save our brothers and sisters in Libya, end the era of western intervention in our lands and herald a new dawn of Muslims looking after their own affairs. Taji Mustafa Media Representative of Hizb ut-Tahrir in Britain Twitter: @tajimustafa |
| Libya: The Hypocrisy of Western Intervention (Occupation) Posted: 08 Mar 2011 03:18 PM PST Western governments only intervene to further their own interests As Ghadaffi struggles to maintain his grip on Libya in the face of advancing forces, familiar calls for Western military intervention have grown louder. The US and UK governments continue to push the official line that all options are on the table and that military options are also being considered, at the same time that Ivo Daalder, Washington's NATO ambassador, said the alliance had already decided to increase flights by AWACS surveillance aircraft from 10 to 24 hours. The capture of British SAS forces with a junior diplomat who has now been confirmed to be an MI6 agent also shows that preparations for intervention may already be taking place on the ground in Libya. The case for intervention is gaining ground – similar to the case that was built for intervention in Iraq. As calls for Western intervention increase we make the following points:
If the West was really concerned about Ghadaffi killing his own people they would have spoken up years ago rather then sending their business elite to gain access to Libya's coveted oil fields. If the West were so concerned about people, they would have intervened a long time ago in North Korea, where the people languish in poverty or Zimbabwe where government backed militias have brutalised opposition supporters. The difference between Libya on one hand and North Korea and Zimbabwe on the other is that the latter nations have no oil fields. Whatever their stated reasons, Western governments only intervene to further their own economic, political and strategic interests and not the well being of the local population. All calls for intervention in Libya must be rejected and challenged. |
| Muslims must reject Western interference Posted: 08 Mar 2011 03:08 PM PST Competition between Western powers for Libya's spoils should not detract the Muslims Living in the digital age, that is the 21st Century, there are numerous ways to contact someone, phone, email , twitter or even Facebook. However when you are a state attempting to subvert the affairs of another things get complicated. It all of sudden becomes a little more cloak and dagger, you have diplomats being escorted by elite SAS troops around the streets of Benghazi under the pretext of trying to make contact with the Libyan opposition. All this is if you believe the official line coming from Foreign Secretary William Hauge and the likes, the mere suggestion that all is not what it seems is harked at. The repost is that Britain is not in the habit of interfering in the affairs of other lands. However few are buying the official line as it has become abundantly clear that the words of Western governments and their actions are never in synch. It has been known for years, all 42 years of Gaddafi's reign if you are counting, that the Western political machine will attempt to back the right horse at the right time. With hope of retaining Gaddafi in power disappearing, attempts are being made to hijack the revolution so that the West can gain as much leverage from the current situation as possible. No one really knows what the SAS were doing in downtown Benghazi, but they definitely weren't sightseeing and they didn't have the permission or the blessing of the people of Benghazi and the transition authority in Eastern Libya. Under the guise of maintaining 'national interests' political speak for neo-colonialism the West is now clambering over itself to try and get a piece of the pie in Libya, Egypt and Tunisia. So desperate are they to maintain any kind of footing they are even attempting to now out maneuver each other. The kind of secret undercover operation that was carried out by the SAS is nothing new. For many years now this has been the modus operandi of the West in the Muslim world. With secret under the table deals maintaining the dictators and their sons in power for decades. Seeing their dictators fall one by one is beginning to take its toll on the Western political psyche. This won't be the last attempt the West makes to mould the politics of Libya in protecting their own interests. Quite possibly the most difficult step towards freeing themselves of dictatorship has been taken by the Muslims. They have after decades come to the streets and began to remove the figure heads of Western influence, the likes of Ben Ali and Mubarak. They must maintain the same kind of determination and commitment when resisting Western interference in their affairs, just like the Muslims of Benghazi have done. |
| Washington's war drums beat louder Posted: 08 Mar 2011 03:02 AM PST The Washington war drums are beating for the president to strike at Gaddafi – not least because he may yet survive the revolt Political pressure is growing on Barack Obama to administer a coup de grace to Colonel Gaddafi, if need be through direct US military intervention. In part it's because policymakers and commentators see a chance of a fresh, democratic start in Libya, and in part because they fear a vacuum that anti-western Islamists and al-Qaida may fill. But Washington's war drums are also beating faster out of concern that Gaddafi, a long-reviled bogeyman first targeted by Ronald Reagan, may yet survive the revolt. John McCain, the 2008 Republican presidential candidate, is leading the charge – coincidentally providing a salutary insight into how America might act now had he and Sarah Palin not been defeated by Obama. McCain is urging the White House to declare its support for a Libyan provisional government, even though none presently exists, and provide "technical assistance", training and intelligence to rebel forces. Undeterred by Pentagon chief Robert Gates's warning that a no-fly zone (NFZ), as proposed by David Cameron, would be tantamount to declaring war, McCain said imposing a NFZ would not be difficult and would show "the president is serious when he says we need for Gaddafi to go". The Republican senate leader, Mitch McConnell, is arguing (again like Cameron) that supplying weapons to the rebels "could be an option". Stephen Hadley, former president George Bush's national security adviser, suggested immediate aerial arms drops. Democrat John Kerry has also jumped in, even though, given his long experience on the senate foreign affairs committee, he should know better by now. Apparently oblivious to Britain's SAS disastrous weekend adventure in eastern Libya, Kerry said bombing Libya's military air bases, runways and airports could be effective in containing Gaddafi's air power. He claimed a NFZ would not amount to military intervention. But he added it should only be undertaken with international agreement. Obama's position, so far, is that significant support from allies, principally Nato but also Arab states, would be required before any such steps were taken – conjuring the prospect of an Iraq era, neo-Rumsfeldian "coalition of the willing". The White House has been vague about whether a new UN resolution is needed. Nato's secretary-general, Anders Fogh Rasmussen, last week rejected intervention in Libya without specific UN authorisation but has nevertheless been ordered to draw up "full-scope" contingency plans that presumably include military action. Nato defence ministers will discuss Libyan options on Thursday. EU leaders are to meet the next day. Rightwing commentators such as John Yoo of the American Enterprise Institute, meanwhile pour scorn on Obama who, Yoo says, claims to uphold universal values but uses international law to keep his "passivity and confusion" concealed. "By putting aside the UN's antiquated rules [restricting armed intervention], the US can save lives, improve global welfare and serve its own national interests," Yoo wrote in the Wall Street Journal. The sense that momentum is building behind expanded, American-led involvement in the crisis is enhanced by possibly over-dramatic UN and governmental statements about the humanitarian situation and by the US offshore military build-up. The language used in a statement issued on Sunday by Ban Ki-moon, the UN secretary-general, gave the impression the stakes are rising. Ban said he was "deeply concerned about the fighting … which is claiming large numbers of lives and threatens even more carnage in the days ahead". US assets deployed close to Libya now include the 26th Marine Expeditionary Unit comprising two amphibious assault ships, Harrier jump-jets, attack helicopters, landing craft and combat troops. The US can also call on numerous aircraft based in Italy and elsewhere in the Mediterranean plus special forces, technical and intelligence gathering units. Operations to disrupt the regime's communications through "cyber attack" signal-jamming are being prepared. Meanwhile, the USS Enterprise aircraft carrier and its strike group is reportedly moving up the Red Sea, heading for the Suez canal. It's a sure bet Obama does not want to get involved militarily in Libya if he can help it. But he has demanded that Gaddafi step down. And the country is the exception to his hands-off, post-Egypt policy rule of encouraging peaceful reform by friendly Arab governments. If regime forces continue to regain lost territory, if casualties and evidence of mass killings of civilians mount, if the humanitarian crisis deepens, and if political pressure intensifies in Washington, Obama may feel obliged to act. Critically, if the US calculates that Gaddafi – wounded, vengeful and blaming the west for his woes – could ultimately survive in Tripoli to fight another day, this moment of maximum weakness may be seen in Washington as a final, but finite, opportunity to get rid of him once and for all. Gaddafi's survival would break Arab hearts. It could also break Obama's whole fragile Middle East strategy. |
| Afghanistan lets Blackwater stay despite shakeup of security contractors Posted: 08 Mar 2011 03:00 AM PST Hamid Karzai forced to back down over expulsion of mercenary companies, with many likely to remain in country * o o Share89 o Reddit o Buzz up * Jon Boone in Kabul * guardian.co.uk, Monday 7 March 2011 17.16 GMT * Article history IRAQ File picture of a Blackwater security contractor in Iraq, where the company has since been banned from operating. Its successor, Xe, will enjoy favoured status as a provider of guards in Afghanistan under watered-down arrangements forced on the president, Hamid Karzai. Photograph: Jacob Silberberg/AP Blackwater looks set to survive an Afghan government clampdown on mercenaries after Hamid Karzai was forced by his western partners to abandon a complete disbandment of private security companies. Under plans to be announced by the Afghan government this month many security contractors, whom Karzai regards as being little better than militias, will be allowed to continue operating for another year. As part of a complex new transition strategy the government is giving them until 21 March 2012 before most security for development projects is taken over by the Afghan Public Protection Force. The APPF is a government security service intended to assume control over the country's hugely lucrative commercial security industry, which employs around 30,000 guards. Western and Afghan officials say the draft plans drawn up by former Karzai opponent Ashraf Ghani will actually allow companies to keep supplying private guards and security services to development projects indefinitely. According to a list seen by The Guardian 11 companies operating in Afghanistan that have a good reputation with government officials will enjoy favoured status in taking over contracts. Xe Services, formerly known as Blackwater, is included in that group despite being banned in Iraq and notorious for its activities in Afghanistan. Seven companies deemed too closely linked to senior Afghan officials have been sent orders to disband within 90 days. They include NCL, which is owned by the son of the defence minister and has interests in a $2.2bn US government transport contract. Another company, Watan, is frantically trying to win a stay of execution by arguing that its owners, the Popal brothers, are not as closely related to the Karzai family as widely believed. Karzai had previously described the companies as "thieves by day, terrorists by night". Last August he wanted them all disbanded by the end of 2010. That decree sparked months of chaos and acrimonious wrangling between Karzai and his overseas allies. The foreign ministry refused to issue new visas to foreign guards. "Karzai is doing what the Americans are telling him to do because he has no choice," said a senior western diplomat. "But if he thought in terms longer than just the next 24 hours he would not have got himself into this mess." Karzai is said to be unhappy with parts of the new plan. He must give it his assent before it is due to come into effect on 21 March, the Afghan new year. David Petraeus, the top US commander in Afghanistan, has helped to put pressure on Karzai. Afghan officials are acutely aware that without a bridging agreement billions of US aid dollars could be threatened by the general's forthcoming testimony to the US Congress on the security situation in Afghanistan. Karzai had already conceded that embassies and Nato, which rely on private guards to protect supply convoys, could continue to use security companies. But questions remained over development projects, such as road construction, that the US regard as essential for winning over ordinary Afghans. Under the new plan companies guarding reconstruction projects will be able to have 500 of their own guards, or up to 1,000 if they pay a one-off fine. For contracts requiring more than that the companies will be expected to recruit, train, arm and pay new APPF guards who will then take control of the contract after 12 months. If the APPF proves not up to the job the private company will continue to be in control, according to the draft proposal. Many officials think that is likely. "Building up Afghan capacity so that it is big enough, is clean and not corrupt is a huge task that I think could take at least two years," said General Manan Farahi, a senior adviser to the country's interior minister who has been closely involved in the issue. Kabul's expatriate security contractors will be able to reinvent themselves as consultants to the APPF. "There's no incentive in it for the companies who are being asked to train up these guards and then just hand them all over with all their equipment," said a manager for a large security company. "But most of us will keep our jobs as consultants and be simply rehired … Most of my clients want to see an expat to keep an eye on things." Blackwater's clean slate Eyebrows were raised among Kabul's security contractors when it emerged this month that one of the most notorious companies in the industry was deemed free of any offences. Out of 52 companies on a list of security providers drawn up by the Afghan government Blackwater, or Xe Services as the US company is now known, was among nine considered to be in good standing.That is despite a 2009 incident when two allegedly drunk employees working for a subsidiary company killed two Afghans after opening fire on their car. Most of the other companies scrutinised by officials were deemed guilty of considerably less serious crimes, including possession of unregistered guns, having too many guards and tax violations that they will have to rectify in order to keep operating. A US Senate inquiry has found that the Blackwater subsidiary, called Paravant, illegally signed out 500 machine guns from a US military store under the name Eric Cartman, the South Park character. In September a US court declared a mistrial in the case of the two contractors involved in the 2009 Kabul shooting. A jury considering claims that the men were acting in self-defence was unable to reach a unanimous verdict. That the CIA-connected company remains welcome in Afghanistan, where it works on huge contracts to train up the Afghan security forces, is in sharp contrast to Iraq. The Iraqi government refused to renew its operating licence after Blackwater contractors were involved in a notorious 2007 shootout that let 17 civilians dead. It prompted the company to change its name to Xe Services. |
| Egypt and Turkey, It's time to act Posted: 08 Mar 2011 02:58 AM PST Some of my Egyptian friends, having stood in Tahrir Square during the most critical days, are now engaged in running medical supplies and occasionally doctors into Libya. And now that the International Red Cross is in place and working closely with the Libyan Red Crescent Society in Benghazi and other parts of liberated Libya, they say the critical problem is food. Significant amounts of medical supplies can cross over haphazardly in cars and minivans, but that is not the case with food for large numbers of people. Very soon two million or more Libyans in liberated territory may be in need of supplies. If Qadhafi is so willing to shoot down his own people when they are unarmed, why not also starve them into surrender? Already there are reports that food supplies being shipped from Tripoli to the eastern cities are being stopped by pro-Qadhafi militia manning roadblocks and turned back, and that bakeries in the liberated territories are running out of wheat. But Egypt does not have locally produced food surpluses stored away–indeed one of the scandals of modern times is that this agricultural country has to import much of its food. That is not the case for Western Europe and above all the US, where large surpluses of domestic product are kept off the market to sustain price levels and be kept available for emergency use. But how to fly it in? Given the ease with which pro-Qadhafi forces have fired upon unarmed civilians in the earliest days of the insurrection–and to this date in Tripoli, there is no reason to assume that Qadhafi would not order his air force to intercept slow-moving transport planes flying over liberated Libyan territory to drop food supplies by parachute, or to use anti-aircraft batteries if any such transport planes stray within range. That means a no-fly zone is needed–not for the sake of military intervention, as was the case with the Anglo-American no-fly zone operating over northern Iraq in the late 90s–but for the sake of humanitarian relief. No doubt a no-fly zone would provide a more level field for the insurgents, who are assembling a hastily trained volunteer rebel army under the loose command of regular army officers who have defected to the revolution–but that would be a by-product, albeit a very welcome by-product, of what remains a justifiable and explicit humanitarian intervention. A few days ago the US secretary of defense quite stringently seemed to be distancing the US from undertaking such an operation. He noted quite accurately that to impose a no-fly zone means that whichever air force is tasked with the mission must first knock out Qadhafi's anti-aircraft installations. That shouldn't faze the US Air Force, which did precisely that in northern Iraq. But a few days ago it seemed to be a problem for Defense Secretary Robert Gates, even though Libyan anti-aircraft defenses are far less sophisticated than those maintained by Saddam Hussein. But Egypt, if it does not have surplus food, certainly has a powerful air force and one that has the capacity to do precisely the job at hand, within range and without the need for aircraft carriers or foreign bases (although the Tunisians could reasonably be asked to provide refueling facilities). If necessary, Egypt has the capacity to act alone; it is also clear from President Obama's remarks on Sunday that he is charting a different course than his defense secretary. At a press conference at the White House, Obama not only said that the violence must stop, that Qadhafi had lost all legitimacy and must step down, but he also noted that American forces were being positioned so that the US would have "full capacity to act rapidly if we have a humanitarian crisis on our hands." That is certainly more encouraging than Gates' comments the previous day. But I would qualify my enthusiasm by recalling first how long it took for the United States to come to the rescue, with its air power, of the Bosnian people, despite the pledges then President Bill Clinton made to intervene when he was campaigning for the presidency–and the fact that he was dealing with a far more obviously genocidal enemy. Secondly, even as a humanitarian intervention rather than an explicit military intervention, it would still be American combatants engaged–however limited–in warfare in the Muslim world. Of course, given the overwhelming support for the Libyan Revolution throughout the Arab world, I strongly believe there would be a significant gain for America by identifying for a change with Arab and Sunni aspirations. But why shouldn't the Egyptian Armed Forces rise to this occasion on their own initiative, as they did so heroically in 1973, and again, in their own way, just a few weeks ago here in Egypt? And why not broaden the base of operations by asking the Turkish government to authorize its air force to participate in a joint operation? An Egyptian or Egyptian-Turkish imposed no-fly zone over Libya would make it immediately possible for an American and European air lift to provide food for Liberated Libya. The idea of an Egyptian-Turkish Third Force Alliance, so-to-speak evolving from cooperation over Libya, should be quite appealing: An alliance that would transcend the present divisions within the Arab world. Whatever the Turkish response, Egypt has the capacity and moral ground to act now, and alone if necessary. Neither would it be the first time the Egyptian Air Force engaged with Qadhafi's anti-aircraft defenses. Back in the late seventies, fighting broke out along the frontier with Libya and the Egyptian Air Force went into action for at least a few days. At the time, I was NBC News bureau chief in Cairo and I knew that former President Sadat was preparing to deal decisively with Qadhafi–to finish off his regime by committing Egyptian ground forces, which were preparing to mass on the border. We, at the NBC bureau, were preparing ourselves on a very low public profile basis, to cover the imminent action. But the CIA, for reasons I do not know but can only guess at, opposed the operation and, by leaking Sadat's plans to the world–a common device if a country wants to politically preempt another country from launching what could otherwise be described as a defensive counter-attack–aborted the operation. Let us hope this time around, if the Egyptian Air Force chooses to act decisively, the CIA minds its own business. Abdallah Schleifer is a veteran American journalist as well as a professor emeritus at the American University in Cairo and founder and first director of the Adam Center for Television journalism there. He has worked for both Western and Arab media including both Al-Arabiya and Al-Jazeera, Jeune Afrique, NBC News and the New York Times over a span of some 50 years.
|
| You are subscribed to email updates from Hizb ut-Tahrir Britain To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now. | Email delivery powered by Google |
| Google Inc., 20 West Kinzie, Chicago IL USA 60610 | |
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "World_Politics" group.
To post to this group, send email to world_politics@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to world_politics+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/world_politics?hl=en.
--
Palash Biswas
Pl Read:
http://nandigramunited-banga.blogspot.com/
No comments:
Post a Comment