PDA

View Full Version : Divisions strain NATO push for Libyan airstrikes



Joe McCarthy
03-21-2011, 11:56 PM
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110321/ap_on_re_eu/libya_diplomacy


BRUSSELS – Discord erupted Monday in Europe over whether the military operation in Libya should be controlled by NATO, after Turkey blocked the alliance's participation while Italy issued a veiled threat to withdraw the use of its bases unless the alliance was put in charge.

Germany also questioned the wisdom of the operation, and Russia's Vladimir Putin railed against the UN-backed airstrikes mounted so far against Moammar Gadhafi's force by Britain, France and the United States outside of their NATO roles.

"The Security Council resolution is flawed, it allows everything and is reminiscent of a medieval call for a crusade," Putin said. "In fact, it allows intervention in a sovereign state."

A day after Turkey declined to support a military plan for the alliance to enforce a Libya no-fly zone, Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan said he could support the NATO effort — but only if it does not turn into an occupation.

"NATO should only enter Libya to determine that Libya belongs to Libyans and not to distribute its natural resources and richness to others," Erdogan said during a visit to Saudi Arabia.

There had been widespread expectation that the strikes against Libya would be overseen by NATO, and the hastily improvised nature of the military coalition has drawn criticism.

The United States, France and Britain initiated attacks on Libya on Saturday, raining cruise missiles and precision bombs on Libyan military targets on the ground, including Gadhafi's residential compound. Other countries have since joined in.

Diplomats said Turkey, a NATO member that sees itself as a bridge between Europe and the Muslim world, was angered by its exclusion from an emergency summit Saturday in Paris organized by French President Nicolas Sarkozy, at which the 22 participants agreed to launch armed action against Gadhafi's military.

France ended up making the first strikes, and the diplomats said Turkey's envoys had warned that NATO's participation in the airstrikes could damage the alliance's standing in the Islamic world at a time when it is heavily engaged in the war in Afghanistan.

The diplomats, who are accredited to NATO, spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the discussions.

NATO's participation in any military action against Libya would require the approval of all 28 NATO members. But Turkish Foreign Ministry spokesman Selcuk Unal denied that his country was grounding NATO.

"Turkey is not blocking NATO, Turkey has been contributing to the preparations with a positive approach since the beginning," Unal told The Associated Press.

The NATO diplomats said the North Atlantic Council, NATO's top decision-making body, was unable to reach agreement Monday, and would take up the issue again on Tuesday for the fourth day in a row.

Even if such an order is adopted, it would take several days before aircraft under NATO command could start flying missions over Libya. The order also is likely to restrict NATO's air forces to making sure there are no unauthorized flights over Libya, with no mention of attacks on ground targets, one of the diplomats said.

Turkey was apparently not the only obstacle. Diplomats said France was seeking political leadership of the mission, but this was opposed by a number of other nations, which wanted NATO firmly in charge. Another sticking point was just how aggressive the enforcement of the no-fly zone should be, as several nations strongly opposed continuing the air strikes on Libyan ground targets.

Italy warned Monday that it would review the use of its bases by coalition forces if NATO does not take over. The country lies just across the Mediterranean from Libya and is allowing the use of seven of its military bases.

"Italy will begin reflecting on the use of its bases," said Foreign Minister Franco Frattini, according to Italian news reports. "If there is a multiplication of command centers, we must study a way in which Italy retakes control of its bases."

Italian Premier Silvio Berlusconi insisted the mission should pass to NATO's command, and said Italian planes would not launch any missiles. Speaking in Turin, he said coordination among partners must be "different from the one that has been established so far."

British Prime Minister David Cameron, however, praised the performance of the informal coalition, saying its forces had neutralized Libyan air defenses and helped avert a bloodbath.

The prime minister told British lawmakers that Gadhafi had violated a U.N. Security Council resolution by moving troops toward rebel-held cities and also had lied to the international community.

"Gadhafi responded to the U.N. resolution by declaring a cease-fire, but straightaway it was clear he was breaking that promise," Cameron said.

Cameron stressed that through airstrikes, coalition forces helped avert what could have been "a bloody massacre in Benghazi."

The aims behind coalition airstrikes — which Cameron called "necessary, legal and right" — were to suppress Libyan air defenses to enable the enforcement of a no-fly zone and to protect civilians.

"Good progress has been made on both fronts," Cameron said.

Calling intervention in Libya a "coalition of the willing," Cameron said Britain wants "to internationalize this to the maximum degree possible" and outlined commitments from other nations.

While no Arab planes have flown in the mission, Cameron said the Qataris are providing a number of jets to help enforce the no-fly zone and the U.K. is doing everything it can to encourage other Arab nations to come forward.

Cameron declined to say whether Gadhafi was himself a potential target of the airstrikes.

Support from the Arab League was critical to obtaining U.N. approval for international action to protect Libyan civilians. But after the international operation began, the league chief Amr Moussa was quoted as telling reporters in Cairo that it should not have included attacks on Libyan targets on the ground.

EU foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton said Monday that Moussa had been misquoted, but German Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle offered the comments as evidence that Germany's decision not to participate in the operation was justified.

"This does not mean that we are neutral," Westerwelle said. "This does not mean that we have any sympathy with the dictator Gadhafi. It means that we see the risks, and when we listen closely to what the Arab League yesterday said."

Westerwelle said Germany would focus on broadening economic and financial sanctions against the Gadhafi regime.

On Monday, the EU extended its travel ban and the freeze on assets to another 11 Libyan officials and its assets freeze to a further nine Libyan companies. It did not name the people or the companies involved.

And in France, diplomats were hosting members of Libya's opposition for talks in Paris. Foreign ministry spokesman Bernard Valero noted France has had regular contacts with Libya's transitional national council — a top opposition group.

Analysts said Turkey does not completely oppose military action, but wants to promote its role as a broker for peace in Libya.

"Turkey with its Muslim identity is emerging as a peace-builder and prefers reducing of the presence of foreigners and its policies might differ from those of Europe or the United States," said Ilter Turan, a professor of political science at Istanbul's Bilgi University.

Turkey has vast business interests in Libya, most notably in the construction sector, and had relatively friendly ties with Gadhafi. More than 30,000 Turks were working in Libya before the uprising against Gadhafi's 42-year rule began last month.

The Lawspeaker
03-22-2011, 12:00 AM
Medvedev already gave Putin a piece of his mind. (http://www.monstersandcritics.com/news/europe/news/article_1627664.php/Medvedev-criticizes-Putin-over-Libya-remarks)

Your scare-tactics don't work.

Psychonaut
03-22-2011, 12:08 AM
Medvedev already gave Putin a piece of his mind. (http://www.monstersandcritics.com/news/europe/news/article_1627664.php/Medvedev-criticizes-Putin-over-Libya-remarks)

Your scare-tactics don't work.

Putin shot a tiger. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/blog/2008/sep/01/russia)

Your anti-scare-tactics don't work.

Austin
03-22-2011, 12:08 AM
I find it extremely amusing how Germany is siding with the Russian position (Medvedev is a joker to the ace) all because of Germany's gas deals with Russia.

It shows that resources dictate alliances and support over all else.

Cold reality consumes all. So much for a 'United Europe'......

Then again, I am not insulting Europe. If America hadn't done away with it's rebels and converged it's reign internally in a true Union then it too would have Europe's internal-political-chaos alliance-wise.


Once again we see what the mighty European Union really amounts to at the end of the day. A nice blue picture and feelings of superficial warmth that don't fool anybody besides those drinking the cool aid.

The Lawspeaker
03-22-2011, 12:10 AM
Putin shot a tiger. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/blog/2008/sep/01/russia)

Your anti-scare-tactics don't work.
He immediately got thrashed by his own boss for his remarks. So.. no. I don't take his remarks seriously at all. And who cares whether he shot a tiger?

Joe McCarthy
03-22-2011, 12:14 AM
I find it extremely amusing how Germany is siding with the Russian position (Medvedev is a joker to the ace) all because of Germany's gas deals with Russia.

It shows that resources dictate alliances and support over all else.

Cold reality consumes all. So much for a 'United Europe'......

Then again, I am not insulting Europe. If America hadn't done away with it's rebels and converged it's reign internally in a true Union then it too would have Europe's internal-political-chaos alliance-wise.

This stuff only tends to come together when the US applies a firm hand - and Obama doesn't have what it takes. The interesting thing though is not Russia, as they always bitch, but Turkey. Turkey is increasingly problematic as a member of NATO. In fact, I think they should be expelled.

The Lawspeaker
03-22-2011, 12:16 AM
And as a matter of fact: the Turks should be expelled and we should all leave - leaving America all alone without a friend in the world.

Psychonaut
03-22-2011, 12:18 AM
He immediately got thrashed by his own boss for his remarks. So.. no. I don't take his remarks seriously at all. And who cares whether he shot a tiger?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/0/08/0330chewbacca.jpg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chewbacca_defense)

Svanhild
03-22-2011, 05:50 PM
It shows that resources dictate alliances and support over all else.

Cold reality consumes all. So much for a 'United Europe'......

Then again, I am not insulting Europe. If America hadn't done away with it's rebels and converged it's reign internally in a true Union then it too would have Europe's internal-political-chaos alliance-wise.
And who says that we want an United Europe like the EU is going to pursue? I don't like the idea of a centralistic Europe and the worst what could happen is a United States of Europe form of rubbish. But we all know that US governments are a leading power in calling for an United Europe.

I prefer some chaos with nation states over a Union without identity and common ground. Hence go speak for yourself.

The Lawspeaker
03-22-2011, 05:53 PM
Not me, sorry. When we remain divided and don't find at least some common ground the Americans, Jews, Muslims and Chinese will divide us against each other and pick us off one by one. Not having a United Europe is exactly what the Americans AND Israeli's want (who do you think funds parties like the PVV and UKIP ?). For now- with our huge differences in terrain, economy, societies.. we are a lame duck.

So a very lose federation (not like today's EU but more like the EFTA) with a joint military and nuclear arm will do.

Joe McCarthy
03-22-2011, 06:13 PM
And who says that we want an United Europe like the EU is going to pursue? I don't like the idea of a centralistic Europe and the worst what could happen is a United States of Europe form of rubbish. But we all know that US governments are a leading power in calling for an United Europe.
.

I prefer some chaos with nation states over a Union without identity and common ground. Hence go speak for yourself.

This isn't really the case, but it's an interesting claim given that so many here are preoccupied with conspiracy theories involving the US 'dividing Europe'.

Joe McCarthy
03-22-2011, 06:16 PM
[FONT="Georgia"]Not me, sorry. When we remain divided and don't find at least some common ground the Americans, Jews, Muslims and Chinese will divide us against each other and pick us off one by one. Not having a United Europe is exactly what the Americans AND Israeli's want (who do you think funds parties like the PVV and UKIP ?). For now- with our huge differences in terrain, economy, societies.. we are a lame duck.


This stuff seriously comes off like old style, rank anti-Semitism. The Jews are capitalists and communists, but mainly they suck because they're Jews. The Americans want to divide Europe and unite it, but mainly they're just Americans that suck.

I hate to get bottlenecked with kikes, but that's what is essentially being done here. We've replaced Jews among the more 'respectable' European far right types.

The Lawspeaker
03-22-2011, 06:16 PM
I think that America (who funds the PVV and UKIP) has no interest in a United Europe: it would only become a competitor.

The Lawspeaker
03-22-2011, 06:16 PM
This stuff seriously comes off like old style, rank anti-Semitism. The Jews are capitalists and communists, but mainly they suck because they'rew Jews. The Americans want to divide Europe and unite it, but mainly they're just Americans that suck.

I hate to get bottlenecked with kikes, but that's what is essentially being done here. We've replaced Jews among the more 'respectable' European far right types.
Rather that then blind, Joe.

The Lawspeaker
03-22-2011, 06:24 PM
For now.. a kind of EFTA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Free_Trade_Association) between the original members of the E.E.C (minus Greece) but with Sweden, Austria, Finland and Estonia (and maybe Norway, Switzerland, Liechtenstein and Iceland) could be the core to a new attempt to bring Europe closer together. But we should keep the Euro though but simply kick out the rest of all the Eurozone-members (as they have only costed us all a shitload of money) and get rid of Schengen for a while and start reforming the entire institution. At all costs: keep the Common Market.

Groenewolf
03-22-2011, 06:30 PM
I think that America (who funds the PVV and UKIP) has no interest in a United Europe: it would only become a competitor.

Actually since the end of WOII America played a role in uniting Europe. Starting from the Marshall Plan (http://www.america.gov/st/develop-english/2007/May/20070522162259MVyelwarC0.7400019.html), where America practically demanded that European nations must form some kind of economic cooperation before they received money from the USA. The reason why they had an interest in an united Europe is simple, it is more easily to deal with one minister of foreign affairs then with a few dozen.

And the PVV, as you know, has been branded as an anti-American party in diplomatic cables. Because Wilders does not supports Americas military operations. in the Middle East and calls for a pull back of Dutch forces.

The Lawspeaker
03-22-2011, 06:34 PM
Actually since the end of WOII America played a role in uniting Europe. Starting from the Marshall Plan (http://www.america.gov/st/develop-english/2007/May/20070522162259MVyelwarC0.7400019.html), where America practically demanded that European nations must form some kind of economic cooperation before they received money from the USA. The reason why they had an interest in an united Europe is simple, it is more easily to deal with one minister of foreign affairs then with a few dozen.
But a real European Union would be a competitor that would very likely no longer feel the need to lean on America. 700 million Europeans leaning on 300 million Americans ? Don't be daft, mate. Particularly not if there was a European Army.



And the PVV, as you know, has been branded as an anti-American party in diplomatic cables. Because Wilders does not supports Americas military operations. in the Middle East and calls for a pull back of Dutch forces.
While the PVV receives funding from neo-conservatives in the U.S.A and Israel ? And proven as well and was elected to the European Parliament on an anti-European platform ?

It would be all the more a sign that the U.S is backing two sides of the same coin then.

Joe McCarthy
03-22-2011, 06:39 PM
Remember that those diplomatic cables come from the Obama administration. Wilders has supporters among the neo-con right, but also opponents, as well as other anti-Islam conservatives, along with contacts in the Pentagon, which is mostly a conservative bastion.

In other words, America is not a monolith... no more than 'Jewry' is.

The Lawspeaker
03-22-2011, 06:42 PM
Right, Joe.

Besides the one institution that actually rules America is not even elected. The Fed. Reserve and the like. The AIPAC controls a lot in American politics and what kind of people are those ? Exactly.. they are Jews.

Or would you say that Ben Bernanke is a Christian ?

Joe McCarthy
03-22-2011, 06:52 PM
Right, Joe.

Besides the one institution that actually rules America is not even elected. The Fed. Reserve and the like. The AIPAC controls a lot in American politics and what kind of people are those ? Exactly.. they are Jews.

Or would you say that Ben Bernanke is a Christian ?

AIPAC is mostly the domain of right-wing Jews of the sort most likely to support Wilders. The Fed tends to have a lot of Jews around it because Jews tend to be found in the financial sector to the tune of around 30% in the US. I'm personally unfamiliar with Bernanke's politics though. Greenspan was a disciple of Ayn Rand.

The Lawspeaker
03-22-2011, 06:54 PM
AIPAC is mostly the domain of right-wing Jews of the sort most likely to support Wilders. The Fed tends to have a lot of Jews around it because Jews tend to be found in the financial sector to the tune of around 30% in the US. I'm personally unfamiliar with Bernanke's politics though. Greenspan was a disciple of Ayn Rand. And again.. a Jew.
You know: that's something that puzzles me. How a group of 7 million people can wield such an enormous influence in a country where they are a clear minority. You may deny it but it is an actual fact. American policies and also European policies (in a lot of Western European countries) revolve around supporting Israel.

France being the sole lucky exception.. but their choice of politics is little better.

anonymaus
03-22-2011, 06:57 PM
Greenspan was a disciple of Ayn Rand.

Greenspan was a member of her little knitting circle for a time in the old days. He in no way represented or carried out anything she believed in, and he never claimed to be an Objectivist--nor would the label have, in any way, matched him. He was a typical lip-service capitalist and did innumerable disservices to free markets.

Joe McCarthy
03-22-2011, 06:57 PM
And again.. a Jew.
You know: that's something that puzzles me. How a group of 7 million people can wield such an enormous influence in a country where they are a clear minority. You may deny it but it is an actual fact. American policies and also European policies (in a lot of Western European countries) revolve around supporting Israel.

France being the sole lucky exception.. but their choice of politics is little better.


The same thing occurred in your country in the 17th century, and I'd argue it was better for it.

France was Israel's primary patron until the Six Day War. De Gaulle reoriented France toward the Arabs, and we all see how that worked...

I'm not a fan of the Jews, but not everything they do is bad, and given the right situation, they can be used.

Groenewolf
03-22-2011, 06:57 PM
France being the sole lucky exception.. but their choice of politics is little better.


From someone who loves Jew spotting in matters of politics, you missed something there.

The Lawspeaker
03-22-2011, 06:58 PM
From someone who loves Jew spotting in matters of politics, you missed something there.
"Loves". No.. I just begin to notice it. What about our own minister of foreign affairs ? The leader of the Labour Party ? Wilders himself (probably). We haven't had so many of them in positions of power for a long time !


The same thing occurred in your country in the 17th century, and I'd argue it was better for it.
Not for the majority of the people.


France was Israel's primary patron until the Six Day War. De Gaulle reoriented France toward the Arabs, and we all see how that worked...
Yes and ? The thing that you dislike is just the very idea that a country decides on it's own. Granted: they shouldn't have been focussed on anyone of those Desert Rats but ah well.



I'm not a fan of the Jews, but not everything they do is bad, and given the right situation, they can be used.
No.. they use you. Not the other way around.

Groenewolf
03-22-2011, 07:00 PM
"Loves". No.. I just begin to notice it. What about our own minister of foreign affairs ?


You mean the one part of the Jewish group that wanted a Paars III where Harry Mens warned us about?


The leader of the Labour Party ?

Come on, that one is to easy. But I doubt he can do little more then slow down the power seizing of a certain other group.


Wilders himself (probably).

His ex-wife and current wife are Jews.

Joe McCarthy
03-22-2011, 07:02 PM
Greenspan was a member of her little knitting circle for a time in the old days. He in no way represented or carried out anything she believed in, and he never claimed to be an Objectivist--nor would the label have, in any way, matched him. He was a typical lip-service capitalist and did innumerable disservices to free markets.

I agree that in practice as Fed chairman he didn't institute anything Rand would identify with. In fact, he annoyed her just by taking the post. But he never denounced her as far I'm aware, and the policies he championed were very similar to hers as of the 60's.

In fact, having read Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, I'd say Greenspan was a better representative of Rand than Rand was.

The Lawspeaker
03-22-2011, 07:04 PM
You mean the one part of the Jewish group that wanted a Paars III where Harry Mens warned us about?
Uri Rosenthal. Harry Mens was probably right.
Now Amsterdam has a Jewish mayor again.



Come on, that one is to easy. But I doubt he can do little more then slow down the power seizing of a certain other group.
By moving in his own, just as un-Dutch, group?




His ex-wife and current wife are Jews.
Yes. And in his "party" HQ hangs the Israeli flag. Should tell you something.

anonymaus
03-22-2011, 07:10 PM
I agree that in practice as Fed chairman he didn't institute anything Rand would identify with. In fact, he annoyed her just by taking the post. But he never denounced her as far I'm aware, and the policies he championed were very similar to hers as of the 60's.

In fact, having read Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, I'd say Greenspan was a better representative of Rand than Rand was.

Yes, in fairness, there was certainly a time when he was quite gung-go about Objectivism--no doubt that he was at one point an accepted Objectivist. However, his willingness to apply soft and pragmatic measures contrary to his beliefs for the sake of safety and expediency disqualifies him in my opinion. Capitalism is still a radical idea in the USA and he was no proponent of radicalism.

Joe McCarthy
03-22-2011, 07:47 PM
Yes, in fairness, there was certainly a time when he was quite gung-go about Objectivism--no doubt that he was at one point an accepted Objectivist. However, his willingness to apply soft and pragmatic measures contrary to his beliefs for the sake of safety and expediency disqualifies him in my opinion. Capitalism is still a radical idea in the USA and he was no proponent of radicalism.

Let me correct myself on one point as I see I didn't word my post well. Greenspan alienated Rand's followers by accepting the Fed post. Rand herself died five years earlier.

Oops.