Rattling your cages! Will anybody react?

Hey old friend. I have been traveling for a while. I do care and I pretty much share the same sentiments with you. I actually didn’t even share your initial thoughts about Libya. I was also disgusted with Turkey’s stand against Libya. A few months before these events started prime minister of Turkey (Erdogan) was scheduled to receive an award from Kaddafi but Erdogan made a 180 after the operations began and started advising Kaddafi to leave.

We shall see what happens…

Zerkes

hi saker,
can’t download but i agree tarpley is a bit of a sledgehammer.
gaddafi is a contradictory figure much like milosevic. i think the yugoslavi analogy is very close.
egyptians are of 2 minds. they see the strong parallel between the 2 peoples overthrowing a dictator, and want to see things b/w.
moussa has been a big problem, confusing many.
there is also the ‘friction of small differences’ that characterizes libyan-egypt relations and even their peoples.

Ishamid, just a comment on your point 6: you realize that your hypothesis is ultimately unverifiable? First you say that China and Russia cooperate with the Empire by allowing the attack against Lybia, and then say that, even if they opposed this attack it would be because they cooperate with the Empire.
While not justifying every actions from China or Russia, which of course are far from perfect, they still remain the only considerably independent big powers in the world.
About Lybia, I have nothing to add, as I know very few on the country and Kaddafi.

@Guthman: you are setting yourself up for continuous disappointment by asking for the impossible: the community of virtuous traditionalist God-fearing men you root for, is the oldest pipe-dream there is. Has it ever occurred to you that Hezbollah’s siding with the Alawite regime might have sectarian reasons on top of pragmatic ones? The heretical Alawites had after all been declared Shiítes by none other than Musa Sadr himself…

Very good points. I *am* setting myself up, but not for asking for the impossible, but for hoping for the exceedingly rare. I really do not think that a “community of virtuous traditionalist God-fearing men” is a pipe-dream, I know of at least two such communities myself. True, these are monasteries and not people engaged in politics. Yet the example of, say, Malcolm X, tells me that even in politics you can sometimes find people who are absolutely, totally and uncompromisingly honest. They might be *mistaken* in their beliefs – we all might – but at least they are fully honest and God-fearing.

I do want to believe that Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah is exactly this kind of man and, so far, I see no evidence of the contrary. But yes, Hezbollah’s siding with the Assad Jr. bothers me a lot. Oh sure, I understand all the compelling pragmatic reasons behind it, but that bothers me no less. I am an unrepentant and incurable idealist whose motto has always been “do whatever is right and let God bother about the consequences”. This kind of choice is easier for me than for the Secretary General of the most powerful anti-Imperial movement on the planet, of course. And yet, yes, I am bothered by that. And not only by that.

I wish Hezbollah had the courage to totally and openly denounce all the Wahabi crazies on the planet. And not only because these Wahabis will gladly murder any Shia they could lay their hands on, but because it is the right, God-fearing, thing to do. I wish I could remind the Hezbollah Shura of the famous words of Pastor Martin Niemöller about “first they came…”.

The heretical Alawites had after all been declared Shiítes by none other than Musa Sadr himself…

I was not aware of that. But then, Sheikh Mahmood Shaltoot, al-Azhar Theological school in Egypt, announced in 1959 that Twelver Shia were Muslims on equal footing with the Sunni. That has hardly prevented the Wahabis from continuing to refer to them as “rejectionists’ and even “idolaters”. The Saudi backed Wahabi crazies in Bahrain clearly don’t given a damn about what Sheikh Mahmood Shaltoot had to say.

@Ishamid: Current Geopolitical Working Axiom: The Russians and Chinese are generally subservient to the interests of Global Capitalism and the Euro-American Imperial order until proven otherwise. One or two small or apparent counterexamples are not sufficient to abandon the axiom.

I fully concur.

If a serious shift occurs — as could happen over Libya

Here I am even more disillusioned than you: I don’t see China and, even much less so, Russia, doing anything at all over Libya. Other than a barrage of vapid expressions of outrage, of course. But both Russia and China knew *exactly* what they were letting pass at the UNSC when they did not veto a resolution which allowed “all necessary measures to protect civilians”. Hell, *I* did and I wrote so that very same day.

No, China and Russia are ultimate self-interested realists. They care only about themselves and nothing else. Sure, they are delighted when the USA does something stupid again or when they can denounce the US hypocrisy, but they will never do anything about it. And since the Empire has far more to offer than any other country, your axiom is absolutely correct: The Russians and Chinese are generally subservient to the interests of Global Capitalism and the Euro-American Imperial order until proven otherwise.

Sad, but true.

Saker, Ishamid: perhaps I am bothering with my off-topic comments, as the point of this article was clearly to discuss the Lybian crisis. If this is the case let me know, and I will stop. But I disagree with both of you. I won’t write about China, because I don’t know much about this country and its policy, but I do a bit about Russia. By seeing the same points, I get the exact opposite than you, I would rather say: The Russians are generally opposed to the interests of Global Capitalism and the Euro-American Imperial order until proven otherwise. One or two small or apparent counterexamples are not sufficient to abandon the axiom. In 2008, Russia let things completely clear: they have their inconditional national interests, mostly in the post-Soviet space, and have other in which they are willing to find an arrangement. Georgia was an example of the first, as Russia even went to war to prevent this country from becoming a NATO member. Lybia and (unfortunately) Iran are an example of the second. A pro-US regime in Lybia wouldn’t be good for Russia, but not the disaster it would be to have a bordering NATO member supporting and hosting Caucasian fundamentalists and separatists.
Every country, even the most independent one, has to make some kind of arrangements with the dominating empire if there is an utmost need. Iran has done it, as it received weapons from the US and even Israel during the war against Iraq.

@Carlo: perhaps I am bothering with my off-topic comments, as the point of this article was clearly to discuss the Lybian crisis. If this is the case let me know, and I will stop

No, no, no, no, no. Not at all. Remember – I ENCOURAGE “off-topic” posts here. My point is not to impose some topic, but to get people together for a free and intelligent discussion. So please never feel like you are off-topic, really!

The Russians are generally opposed to the interests of Global Capitalism and the Euro-American Imperial

Yes, but *which* Russians? The majority of the people? Yes. The majority of the military? Definitely! But the power elite who is in control of the Kremlin? I very much doubt it.

Let me give you one example to illustrate this tension.

The vast majority of Russians are deeply suspicious of Israel and pro-Israeli individuals and organizations. Yet the Kremlin is 100% solidly behind Israel. Even Netanyahu and Lieberman get are treated like good friends by the Kremlin.

Another example. The vast majority of Russian deeply dislike the Papacy. Yet the head of the Moscow Patriarchate is all sweet and smiles in his relationship with Rome.

Third example. China and Iran are, I submit, natural allies for Russia. Yet the Kremlin does nothing to get Iran in the SCO and it lets the entire SCO mostly be a low-level regional organization. If you could poll the Russian people I have no doubt that they would tell NATO to go to hell with its anti-missile shield in Europe, its blockage of Russia’s entry into the WTO and its wars all over the world. I can tell you that the Russian military is rabidly anti-US and anti-NATO and sees absolutely no point in all that backslapping between Medvedev and Rasmussen.

I think that the Putin/Medvedev regime is generally popular in Russia because of the economic boom it has presided over and because of the huge social and political changes it has heralded for Russia. Russians remember the Eltsin years, and they see the chaos in Belarus and the Ukraine and they know that they are far better off.

But in terms of ideology and worldview I would say that the Kremlin is totally out of sync with what most Russians feel and think.

Does that sound plausible to you?

VINEYARDSAKER:

It would be good if you cited examples of how Tarpley is wrong 50% of the time who usually references US military documents and other sources when he writes his opinions.

He was the first prominent person to publish the US own report in Iraq that proved per capita that the Libyan rebels had by far the highest rate of suicide bombers and the rebels are mainly Islamists.

Muslims and Islamic countries are the most self serving entities of them all who work hand and glove with the NWO.

I think China is a natural ally but Iran definitely not who have been pushing their own influence in Central Asia and abroad against Russian interests supporting Jihadists in Bosnia, Chechnya and Tajikistan with covert US/British backing.

Terrorist attacks contributed to Gadaffi in the 80’s like Lockerbie have been proven the evidence has been tampered with to implicate Libya in the attacks by British and western intelligence which are most likely false flag terror attacks who themselves have recruited Islamists to launch terrorist attacks against Gadaffi.

In regards to Libya what exactly Russia or China do?

At least they are not actively helping NATO like the Muslim regimes in the Mid East lead by Qatar.

Why doesn’t your Muslim friends complain or do something about that?

@ishamid

Turkey with US/Israeli/EU/NATO backing since the collapse of the USSR have been pushing their Imperial police in the Balkans, Eurasia and now the Mid East.

Gaddafi is a rotten bastard, and above all, treacherous and disloyal. He is an opportunist par excellence, and was willing to allow Megrahi to be framed for the Panam bombing to allow the US to protect the real bomber and get back into America’s good books. Above all, Gaddafi is despised in the Arab world for an unmentionable act that he will never live down …his embrace of Tony Blair, who is the arch-monster of the arab street, but became a close family friend of Gaddafi and crusading supporter, even earning money from contracts with Gaddafi’s son.

In my view, the best commentator on the attack on Libya is Pepe Escobar, whose archives dating back to the start of the attack, are available on Asia Times. Here is a useful summary by an American liberal commentator, who is certainly no socialist:

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article28079.htm

Denials by the reformist left that its about oil is strongly discredited by the importance of oil contracts in the brief resurrection of Gaddafi. Just as happened in Iraq when Saddam threatened to shift oil contracts to Russian and German corporations (a major reason for the Iraq invasion and Russian and German opposition), Gaddafi began to make similar threats. But perhaps even more unacceptable to America was Gaddafi’s willingness to sell oil to China, which was the case with Saddam too. Providing energy to China is an unforgivable sin.

The external plotting against Gaddafi also predates the attack by several years. That plotting was led by a similarly reactionary group of Libyan expatriates, who were similarly willing to sell Libya to the west in return for power. This group was centred in the US, UK, and France, who turned out, (surprise, surprise) to be the “allies” who undertook the attack on Libya. This expat group were supported in the USA by the neo-con PNAC crowd, especially Bolton and Kristol; and in the UK by the neo-con organization called the Henry Jackson Society, among whose prominent members are Michael Gove, David Trimble, and other well-known reactionaries like Labour Bush supporter, Gisela Stuart, and Oliver Kamm. PNAC members, Kristol and Richard Perle are also patrons of the Society. There is a similar far-right organization in Paris about which I dont know the details, who worked with the Libyan expat group there.

A further similarity between the attack on Libya and the invasion of Iraq, were the fabricated lies that were made the pretext for the attack. In the case of Iraq, it was the WMDs, the 45 minute attack on London, and Condoleeza Rice’s “mushroom cloud”. In the case of Libya, it was the story fabricated in concert with the Libyan expat group in the US, by Obama’s own Rice, Susan Rice, US ambassador to the UN, about the genocide about to take place in Benghazi. This was fed to CNN and it was soon sped around the world and picked up by media here, who never bothered to check the facts. Given how easily Gaddafi’s troops have been held in check and even defeated by a rag-tag mob of largely unarmed rebels, the fact that the impending Bengahzi genocide was a fabricated lie is now obvious to everyone except the most stubborn Cameron apologists.

It has also become clear since Dennis Kucinich began his own investigations of the events leading up to the attack on Libya (now being challenged in the Supreme Court), that despite all the pretending, this was, from the start, an Obama initiative, for which Cameron and Sarkozy were recruited to give him cover from Republican critics. It is also, surely, no coincidence, that the three plotters, Obama, Sarkozy, and Cameron, are all leaders of deeply unpopular regimes concerned about their re-election chances, who were motivated by the hope that emerging as war-leaders would bring them popular support. It has blown up in all of their faces, and may well cost them a defeat at the ballot box.

Saker, here goes the list of some of Medvedev’s intransigent actions:
1- Medvedev shows no sign whatsoever of seeking a compromise about South Ossetia and Abkhazia;
2- on the other hand, he shows no sign whatsoever of seeking to recognize Kosovo’s independence;
3- while Japan is trying to become an important military power and building up its military power, Medvedev was the first Russian leader (also counting the Soviet period) ever to visit the Kuril Islands. Also, at last Russia is beginning to increase its military in the region;
4- Russia got away from the CFE treaty and doesn’t plan to comply it until NATO countries ratify it;
5- I see the anti-missile shield discussions as just a political show-off, as it is pretty clear that it will lead nowhere – the US will never accept a true Russian participation. But by joining talks, the Russian leadership can say that they were willing, and if it didn’t work it wasn’t their fault;
6- economical, political and military ties with Venezuela continue to increase: many treaties were signed, included to build a nuclear power plant, and Russian weapons continue to be delivered;
7- the CSTO, the military alliance between Russia and many former Soviet republics, is also buildint up its power, with Russia supplying modern weapons mostly to members of Central Asia.
For me, all these are signs that Russia is an independent power, and plans to remain so.
On the other hand:
“Not selling the S-300s to Iran is totally unjustifiable, its monumentally stupid, and its sets a terrible precendent.”
I fully agree with you here.

As a muslim reader I have followed your blog for more that 2 years. I believe you wanted to hear from me as a muslim how I feel about Gaddafi? I actually I agree with you about Gaddafi, he is another Arab dictator who has no disregarde for his country and the future of his people as long as he or his son rule the country. I believe you heard one of his spokesmen questioning the logic of NATO to allied itself with Rebels “who are weak” So this means if he had the chanse he would have allied himself with NATO to oppress his people as we all know he has done that for years while doing bussines as usual. Saker you have been 95% correct and this time you correct again about Gaddaffi.
A.A

In answer to your question Saker, the expatriate Libyans that negotiated the US-UK-French attack on Libya, coopted the natural people’s rebellion that began as part of the Arab Spring, and set themselves up in Benghazi as the “Rebel Administration”. They were instantly recognised by Obama, Cameron, and Sarkozy, despite all the lectures they give about the necessity for democratic elections. The first line of leadership was entirely expatriate and imposed. Gradually, they welcomed into their “administration” some of the worst thugs who deserted Gaddafi, who should have been detained as criminals, but were instead given ministerial portfolios. It was clear, within days of the start of the imperialist attack that this was no longer a popular revolution but a civil war, in which Gaddafi supporters were splitting down the middle. No genuine Libyan patriot would sell his country to the imperialist west the way this “rebel regime” has openly done, offering years of future control over Libya’s oil reserves in return for weapons and the bombing of Gaddafi’s forces.

Do the rebels get popular support ? Undoubtedly, parts of the population who despise Gaddafi are so desperate that they will support any effort to unseat him. Does this make the rebel administration a patriotic, liberation force ? Hardly. You would have to be an idiot to believe so. It has always been the case that the local population will cheer whoever comes to town bearing arms. That is the intelligent way to survive. Of course, the toady western media tries its best to portray the rebels as “the good guys”. There are many reports that the rebels can be just as ruthless as Gaddafi.

The last thing Libya needs is a country without Gaddafi beholden to and receiving orders from the White House, and that is what will happen if the US (called NATO) attack on Libya succeeds. As can always be anticipated, there are liberals in the west who come up with the predictable cliche that NATO overthrowing Gaddafi is at least “a small step in the right direction”. Ask the Iraqi people about that absurd “small step in the right direction” !!!

It is a safe tenet of international socialism, that the patriotic forces of a country are responsible for their own revolutions; and no genuine patriotic revolutionary would ever call in the enemy to support them. And of course, many of the “progressives” who support the NATO bombing of Libya would be quite happy with Libya becoming a client state of the White House. That is why they too are enemies of the Libyan people.

“Sorry for being so bitter, but I just wish that other people were in the Kremlin and at the CSTO…”
I understand and agree with you to some point. But who would be a better leader for Russia? I think there is no one, at least no one with a decent possibility of rising to power. It’s the same, say, with Venezuela: Chavez has a lot of defects, but the opposition to him is much worse.

Israel Shamir on Russia. He’s no fan of Medvedev or Putin, regards most of the pro Western liberals as elitists who have little concern for the Russian people and is an admirer of Rogozin.

http://www.israelshamir.net/English/Tandem1.htm

Hi Carlo,

You said:

========================
The Russians are generally opposed to the interests of Global Capitalism and the Euro-American Imperial order until proven otherwise.
========================

and

========================
I only stated that Russia is an independent power.
========================

Obviously these are two very different things :-) :-) Russia may be an “independent power” in a strong sense, but that does not change the fact that, beyond its immediate sphere of influence, Russia generally serves the interests of Global Capitalism and the Euro-American Imperial order.

You also said:

===================
Russia acts not out of moral or spiritual values
===================

That basically leaves Global Capitalism, since Communism is dead (and I don’t see any genuine theocratic/spiritual ideological movement on the Russian horizon). The elites of Russia have apparently decided that their individualist as well as national interest lie in having a seat at the Global Capitalist table. Nature abhors a vacuum, and Russia has replaced the ideological vacuum left by communism with a seat at the G8.

There was arguably a similar movement in Iran under Khatami, which thankfully got nipped in the bud, mainly for moral reasons. Hence Iran’s cultivation of relations with Africa, Latin America, etc. in lieu of selling out to the Empire.

What does Russia or China have by way of ideology or value system to offer the world at this moment? [obviously I’m talking about the ruling systems, not the people.] In lieu of an ideological alternative, cooptation by the powers that be is unavoidable.

At least communism stood for something. At the moment the Kremlin elites stand for little beyond local nationalist sentiments and mercantilism.

==========

Let me put it another way. The Prophet of Islam (S) once said there would be many poor people in Hell. When asked why — after all, they are the underdogs of this world — the Prophet answered: It’s because their entire aim was to be like the rich people and to oppress others when the shoe switched to their feet. [Think of the tea party and their opposition to taxes on the rich … the poor slobs think they will be rich one day, and don’t want to pay taxes to help other poor folks when that fantasy date arrives!]

Thus: So what if Russia and China are “independent”? They only seek more power and influence for themselves, but — and this especially applies to Russia in my view –not to any different end than that promoted by the current leaders of the Imperial Order. Currently, Russia frames its own materialistic agenda within the current global system. The oppressed peoples of the world may get a bone here or their due to inter-Imperial rivalries, but that aside one cannot depend on Russia for anything more substantial. Hence my axiom:

The Russians and Chinese are generally subservient to the interests of Global Capitalism and the Euro-American Imperial order until proven otherwise.

Peace

Ishamid, you made excellent points. But contrary to Saker’s opinion, I think that a little bit of old, pre-Soviet Russia remained, their traditional values are mutilated and dormant, but not dead. Russians “feel in their gut” they have to resist. They have no idea of why they should resist, and many times not even how (that’s why so many mistakes were and are made): they lost faith in the idolatry of Communism, and didn’t re-encounter true spiritual values. That is why, even though there is no national ideology, nor strong moral or spiritual values among the population (and less among the elites), Russia do resist. If the Russian elite has come to the conclusion that their prosperity depends on joining the West (the US economical-political-military Empire), I can’t explain why Russia isn’t putting any effort to join NATO, nor hasn’t sent their aircraft carrier to participate in operations against Lybia, nor abandoned completely Chavez to his own, as true vassals of the US do.

@VINEYARDSAKER

Do not over simplify things to “The Empire” (which would consist of what?) and the nasty Zionists giving no real historical context or

Sorry I forgot there is also the nasty Wahabbi’s despite the fact that the most active theatres of jihad Bosnia, Kosovo and Chechnya were/are supported by Iran and Turkey with foreign fighters being mainly of Turkish Ottoman ethnic ancestry in the Mid East and Europe supported by the US and EU and the wealthiest billionaires on the planet so they can link the various Turkish groups in Central Asia, North Caucasus and Balkans into a financial/energy empire transiting Caspian oil and gas through Turkey and the Balkans into Europe.