HOW DIFFERENT IS OBAMA FROM GEORGE BUSH?

Apr 01, 2011 Features / Columnists, Peeping Tom

---

The Guyana Government has been strangely silent on events in Libya. It has so far not issued any statement to indicate where it stands in relation to the actions being taken by western powers in bombing the North African nation.
The foreign ministry has been very quiet, not offering even a word of solace to the Libyan leader who, not so long ago, met with Guyana’s President under a tent in the Libyan desert, and from whom Guyana had been hoping for a great deal of assistance.
But as a small nation under threat from larger powers itself, Guyana has to be mindful that its defence against external aggressions is dependent on respect for international law, which is being turned upside down by the western powers.
The United Nations authorized a no-fly zone over Libya because there was condemnation about the disproportionate use of force by government forces against protesters, who were described as civilians. This is a condemnable act, which the UN initially responded to with sanctions.
However, soon after those attacks, the so-called peaceful protesters became a rebel force intent on toppling the Libyan government. This rebel army attacked police stations and army depots in seizing Benghazi, in the process killing members of the country’s security apparatus and also civilians caught in the crossfire.
The rebel army is being described as pro-democracy forces, but they are engaged in a civil war with the Libyan government and they have taken up arms against their State, which has a right to defend itself against internal strife. These rebels are far different from the protesters that gathered in Egypt and which forced the removal of Hosni Mubarak. The rebels in Libya are armed insurrectionists who are against the Gaddafi regime.
They were, however, a ragged bunch of fighters driving around in SUV’s and other armored personnel vehicles which they had seized from government troops. They became highly susceptible to counter attacks from government forces and were on the point of being defeated when the West intervened to give them some breathing space.
The West has intervened because of Russia’s failure to veto the UN Security Resolution calling for a no- fly zone in Libya. This intervention, it was said, was necessary to stop Gaddafi from using his airpower to strike at civilian targets, even though press reports had indicated that the use of air power by Gaddafi was to identify rebel targets in the desert, after which mortar rounds were used against these positions. The world was being led to believe that Gaddafi was firing indiscriminately into civilian areas.
There is no doubt that with the retaking of towns and villages held by rebels, collateral damage and civilian causalities were high. But the same can be said of the rebels’ advances.
The no-fly zone could only have been intended to be used to ensure that air power was not employed as a means of force. But a no-fly zone could have been enforced without bombing military installations and without attempting to assassinate the Libyan leader, whose government is still recognized by most of the countries of the world, with France being a noteworthy exception.
There was no need to bomb the compound of the Libyan leader. In a previous conflict this was also done, and the Libyan leader lost a daughter in that attack. It is therefore clear that the West is using the no-fly zone authorization to advance its own interests within Libya, and especially to give the rebels an advantage by destroying the state’s military capability. Even the Arab League – which had so shamelessly called for a no-fly zone – has expressed concern about the NATO-led bombing raids.
The misuse of the UN authorization constitutes a violation of international law. The intent of the no-fly zone was to prevent Gaddafi from using air power to bomb civilian targets, but as we have seen, NATO bombing raids have gone beyond grounding Libyan planes. They have also been bombing military targets which have nothing to do with the air force.
NATO did not need to cripple Gaddafi’s air power. It could have enforced a no-fly zone without any bombs. It has the technology to know when a plane is air-bound and to take necessary action to disable that aircraft. But the western powers want to help the rebels because they know that if the rebels win, Pan-Africanism will no longer have the support of Libya, the West will have rights to Libyan oil, and their arms dealers will make a great deal of money reequipping the new Libyan army that will be formed.
The action of western powers in Libya also constitutes a partisan intervention in the internal affairs of a sovereign nation. This is not sanctioned under international law.
Like it was in Iraq, the West has found a pretext for their mission in Libya. George Bush had declared war on Iraq based on a false claim that there were weapons of mass destruction. He had unsuccessfully sought to obtain a UN Security Council Resolution, and was forced to act on the basis of preventing a pre-emptive strike. Barack Obama has obtained a UN Security Council resolution, but is violating its spirit by the nature of the mission, which is siding with the rebels and fortifying their position. Now there are reports that this meddling in Libya’s internal affairs will continue through CIA covert activity.
So how different is Barack Obama from George Bush? Some will say that this is a humanitarian mission. Gaddafi’s excesses will no doubt provide an excuse for invoking such a defence.
But let us see how humanitarian Obama is? Let us see whether humanitarian concerns will allow him to take action in Bahrain and the Ivory Coast, as he is doing in Libya.

---

---