Sunday, March 20, 2011

Kate From Katesplayground Under Water

Why yes in the Sahara and not in Libya? Fukushima

Following the military intervention against Gaddafi in Libya, is showing a current with the # noalaguerra very legitimate on their part (I also support ). Within of this trend, some groups have opposed the intervention, but in the past as in the slaughter of the Sahara or the flotilla of freedom, it called for UN intervention. Why the double standard? With the events in the history of the freedom flotilla, which prevented Israel (all media, including the military) the arrival of a flotilla of freedom, completely disarmed and for humanitarian purposes, many groups described the incident as War crimes and came to ask for UN intervention, being an attack on a vessel flying the flag of another country and for the events. later something similar happened with the input blood and fire of the Saharan Moroccan army in November and lots of death of Saharawi citizens were Izik Gdeim camp on the outskirts of Laayoune, the capital of Western Sahara. At that time, some human rights organizations and political parties like United Left called for the intervention of Spain (to be privileged partner and former metropolis of the Sahara) and the UN (an organization involved in the decolonization process) in the area to know the truth and to stop him to Morocco with an international intervention. Demand
UN intervention against Moroccan slaughter Sahrawi protesters demanded the UN to send a delegation to verify the extent of repression of the gendarmerie and the Moroccan army to 20 000 refugees in a camp on the outskirts of Laayoune, the capital of Western Sahara.

Most political parties and large sections of society requires the Moncloa Palace (seat of central power) more strongly against its North African neighbors, which in 1975 annexed the Sahara, former English colony. Lara
urged the United Nations, the European Union (EU) and the Zapatero administration to take urgent action against the violation of human rights by the regime in Rabat. Juventud Rebelde



If in the past called for UN intervention, why not support it now? Why asking for UN intervention in the Sahara and also with the fleet but deny the intervention of the UN in Libya? As stated by Filipe Ten

@ javier_parra
Moreover, what legitimacy can the left opposition in Libya to claim the same q for Sahara and Palestine? (2 / 2)


Filipe
Ten on Twitter

remember what you said one of the parties that opposed the intervention in Libya and the United Left:
Izquierda Unida believes that resolution of the Security Council UN seriously jeopardizes the scope of a ceasefire and reaffirmed Libya against any foreign military intervention in the country.

International Policy Coordinator of United Left and MEP, Willy Meyer, believes that the resolution 1973, adopted by the Security Council by 10 votes in favor, with abstentions from Germany, India, Russia, China and Brazil " gives green light for a military response to the crisis in Libya. " Meyer stressed the need to "reach a peaceful solution" to this conflict through "rejection of the use of force, and any foreign military intervention."

MEP for the United Left, "a military intervention in any format, either through NATO or countries such as France or the United States individually, can trigger a worsening of the crisis both in Libya and in the region. " Reservations for Germany, which detects "considerable damage and risks in military action" and India's position that "deplored the use of force", support this thesis. "This indicates that neither the EU nor NATO is no unanimity on the alleged positive effects of military action on the territory Libya, "said Meyer.

Other statement on the website of the United Left

If you look at this statement, emphasizes the opposition

military intervention, even compared with Iraq.
federal coordinator of United Left, Cayo Lara said today in Palma de Mallorca hope that the international military involvement in Libya is prepared "does not turn on what happens in this country into a second Iraq."
noted that this action "is more responsive to oil interests that the real desire to establish democracy," so who opted for a negotiated settlement to end the dictatorial regime of Gadhafi and the Libyan people to reach freedom and not claiming it is evidence "the failure of international politics and diplomacy."

Century Journal





remember that when you thought of the Sahara were opposed and criticized the peaceful solution as they were now calling dialogue the Minister of Foreign Affairs with his Moroccan counterpart, since directly asking for intervention EU and UN.







The PP and IU Jiménez criticize his attitude 'weak and embarrassing 'to the Sahara
has been the spokesman for Izquierda Unida, Gaspar Llamazares

, who opened the building on fire harshly criticized the Foreign Minister that after eight days of the dismantling of the camp
Gdeim Izik
by Moroccan security forces, she has not said a word about the matter before the House.
black hole
government policy, which he says has been a" Copernican revolution "to go to BECOME policy of" outside interests "because only pay attention to trade relations forgetting the "diplomacy of values \u200b\u200band human rights."
" You use the Sahara as
currency", has accused IU spokesman. "Today we speak of a dispute, but tomorrow we'll talk about a real conflict in the Maghreb," he warned. World





Libya is not Iraq
As seems to be some controversy over the intervention of foreign powers under the umbrella of the UN against Gaddafi in Libya, it would be nice to make some considerations to avoid conspiracies unfounded, especially those relating to oil and now see a black hand.
should be noted that this time, there is a big difference with respect to the interventions in Kosovo and Iraq in 1999 and 2003, respectively, intervention of NATO and the United States acted without UN legitimacy.
This time, there is a big difference, as the Security Council UN justifies the intervention (resolution 1973) and prohibits the use of ground troops. This resolution is similar to the previous post exclusions Iraq's air Gulf War I and the deaths in the Bosnian War, the first without the support of the UN and the
second one did and was carried out by planes NATO. Interestingly see that the current resolution of Libya, received no votes
contrast, countries with veto power like Russia and China, the countries most opposed to the intervention, as both Russia and China, have a good customer Libya for the sale of weapons and foreign investment.
Despite being contrary to intervene, abstained from the vote, which had the potential veto amounts to support the intervention. Another case is the German abstention, abstention can be understood in the electoral key in a country with elections soon and growing opposition to his stay in Afghanistan.

And as for the other two countries decided to abstain, are India and Brazil, which together with Russia and China, are well-known BRIC countries. As well aware

Jordi Pérez, the BRICs are not interested in intervention but not interested in non-intervention, and they are interested in getting along with all countries, especially African countries.
India and Brazil are the way Chinese and Russian. Are two emerging powers and now prefer non-intervention and, at least in the case of Brazil, it takes bad with Libya (the regime released days before a Brazilian journalist Guardian one Iraqi, were arrested together.) Germany has different reasons: its history, does not like military adventures. In addition, within ten days there are elections in three important states. His intervention in Afghanistan and is unpopular. The government might not want to risk more. Obama
world And I know I will say that the Security Council is no reference in World Peace, is the same council that opposed the illegal war in Iraq and is the same advice in the now the "allies" Qaddafi, "supported" the operation.

Security Council and Iraq

France, Germany

, China

,

Syria,

Mexico, Chile

and


Russia expressed its opposition to measures of force against Iraq and were supporters of a negotiated solution to the crisis. France, Russia and China, permanent members of the Security Council, called for the continuation of the work of inspectors and announced its intention to veto any document that explicitly legitimizing the attack. During these demonstrations, there were several clashes between the U.S. and countries that opposed the invasion. But in the end those who opposed the war gave way and remained neutral since the beginning of invasion.


Wikipedia


Moreover, the opponents of the intervention, see the specter of Iraq oil. No kids, oil this time is not important
(for once in life).
Libya's oil production, while important, represents only 2% of world production (18 º producer) the difference in Iraq on 12 th producer, but it contains 10.7% of world reserves, but perhaps most important, as is its strategic position
in the area for access to Iran, Gulf countries, Turkey and part Asia.





Whoever controls Iraq -> controls the area -> controls the world's oil.


Although the country more reserves on the continent and is now the third largest producer (after Nigeria and Angola), the fact is that offshore exploration in Angola are working well and could soon overtake Libya. Perhaps the only thing that Libya could be a sweet cake, would be in the
gas and water supplies.

However, this cake, and is distributed to foreign companies
, which are not interested in intervention in Libya, and they have very good relations with Gaddafi to operate for a long time in Libya, with good results and
would be very uncertain future if
revolution triumphed, with a new government that does not look kindly on companies that financed the fortune Gaddafi to pay bribes in order to act or making management of their boards of directors.

Who are these companies? Nothing more, nothing less than European and American companies, which in theory would be more inclined to war (see Iraq) but on this occasion, certainly not in favor of a war.
Libya's oil industry is run by the National State Oil Corporation (NOC), which is responsible for implementing agreements on exploration and production sharing with international oil companies. Added to

subsidiaries under, NOC represents about 50% of the country's oil production. Starring foreign major international oil companies operating in Libya include Eni, StatoilHydro, Occidental Petroleum, OMV, ConocoPhillips, Hess Corp., Marathon, Shell, BP, ExxonMobil and Wintershall, a subsidiary of chemical company BASF. Public Report Even the ghost waving American, remind them that the U.S. only Sucks to 6% of Libyan oil. In any case who would be most interested in intervention, would be Italy (+30%) and were the first defending Berlusconi refused to Gaddafi. Therefore, the comparison between Iraq and Libya, is very bad off. By the way, I opposed the Iraq war as illegal and oil interests in any conflict would call for diplomatic intervention, before intervention, but with this speech, I find myself in a great frame of mind. A Gaddafi has been given multiple opportunities and offering diplomatic intervention of mediators who are opposed because they did not need, and it was a problem procedure. It has been warned and yet their attitude of arrogance (the same one that has helped him go from being a tyrant, to be a friend West and now again become a satrap) has denied it all and has directly laughed the rest. therefore believe that this intervention to protect civilians and prevent further slaughter, it is necessary. So I ask you to help me answer these questions, advocates of the # noalaguerra: - asked why the UN intervention in the Sahara and renounce the UN intervention in Libya? - Should we continue to provide opportunities for dialogue with a leader who has refused last week to mediation because nothing happened in Libya and that he managed it because they were internal things? - Should we let Gaddafi goes against civilians and returning to repeat the mistakes of nonintervention on which it could prevent genocides in the Balkans or Rwanda?

More

- Attack on Freedom Flotilla is a war crime

- Response to article in El Pais "Where's Willy (Toledo)?" Culla i Clara
-
Israel kills a dozen people who had help Gaza humanitarian
- Demands UN intervention against Moroccan slaughter

- Morocco Sahara fire

- No War in Libya
-
a conspiracy against the Libyan oil do

-



Resolution 1973 - Council Approved
Security 'No-Fly Zone "over Libya, Authorizing' All Necessary


- What can go wrong in Libya and why we must be optimistic
- The NATO finalizes its plan to ensure the no-fly zone over Bosnia

-
Iraq and Bosnia, the two antecedents of the air exclusion zones


- Libya and the oil



-
side 'raw'


Libya - Libya's
The oil (and water)


-
War of the Toyota

Posted by admin at 7:51 AM

0 comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)