Understanding the war in Libya (3/3)

In every war it is. At first, it is almost impossible to oppose. The media hype is such that one is immediately branded as an accomplice to a monster. After a while, when will the “mistakes”, the dead civilians, the military failures and revelations about “our friends”, the debate will eventually open. But initially it is very hard.

3d74a europe economy L300xH240 Unplugthesige97a 09eae 72981 Understanding the war in Libya (3 / 3)

To unlock this debate, the battle of the info is the key, as we said even a week ago. [1] And this battle can be fought by us all, wherever he is, according to people we met, listening to what influences them, verifying information with them, patiently … To effectively conduct this debate, it is very important to study the experience of misinformation in previous wars.

The 5 principles of war propaganda applied to Libya

This experience, we have summarized in the “five principles of war propaganda”, as outlined in our book Israel, talk about In every war, the media wants to convince us that our governments are well and why they apply these five principles: 1. Obscure economic interests. 2. Invert the victim and the aggressor. 3. Hide history. 4. Demonize. 5. Monopolize the news.

These five principles were applied again against Libya, it will be reported in the previous pages. Finally, draw attention to the fourth: the demonization of the opponent. The going-in-war must still persuade the public that they do not act to obtain economic or strategic, but to eliminate a serious threat. In every war for decades opposing the ruler was always presented as cruel, immoral and dangerous, with the worst atrocity stories. Afterwards, many of these stories – and sometimes all – were deflated, but regardless, they had served their purpose: to manipulate the emotions of the public to stop analyzing the interests really at stake is no going back .

We did not have the means to go to Libya. By cons, we were in Yugoslavia, under the NATO bombings, and we found, and proved that NATO had systematically lied. [2] We have seen also in Iraq. As for Libya, it looks great, but so far we have not had the means to carry out test-media information presented. Investig’Action our team still lacks the necessary resources. But several commentators have already identified strong indications of misinformation. For example, “six thousand dead were victims of the bombing of Qadhafi on civilians” . Where are the pictures? There were no cameras, no cell phone there as there were in Gaza, Tahrir Square, in Tunis or in Bahrain? No evidence, no reliable evidence, denials by Russian satellites or observers of the EU, yet the news has turned loop endlessly and no one dares to contradict the fear of being accused of “complicity”.

A civil war is never lace, but this is true on both sides. A partial info will always try to make us believe that atrocities were committed on one side and therefore need to support each other. But we must be very careful about such stories.


Who informs us

What you should be able to show us around is that the demonization does not fall from the sky. It is broadcast by the media that take advantage, often without saying so. And it’s still always the first question to ask in a war: was I heard the other side?

Why Europe and the United States, the media they are thoroughly against Gadhafi? And why in Latin America, Africa, Asia, Russia, denounces Does it instead a new imperialist crusade? They all are wrong? Westerners always know everything better? Or is it all influenced by its media? So, should we blindly follow our media or test

We were thoroughly watered on the negative sides of Gaddafi. But we pointed out the positive aspects? We talked about his support for African development projects? Who said we knew that Libya, as international institutions, the highest “human development index” throughout Africa, ahead of the darlings of the West such as Egypt or Tunisia? Life expectancy: 74 years, reduced to 5% illiteracy, the education budget to 2.7% of GDP and that of Defence to 1.1%.

Distinguish two different issues

There are a lot of intimidation in the intellectual debate on Libya. If you denounce the war against Libya, they accuse you of supporting anything done by Gaddafi. Not at all. There are two very different problems.

On the one hand, the Libyans have every right to choose their leaders, and change through whatever means they deem necessary. The Libyans! Not Obama or Sarkozy. While sorting through the charges against Gaddafi, between what is really established and what is propaganda concerned, a liberal may well wish that the Libyans have a better leader.

On the other hand, when Libya is under attack because hackers want to get its hands on its oil, its reserves and its strategic position, then it must be said that the Libyan people will suffer even more under the power of the pirates and their puppets. Libya lose its oil, its companies, the reserves of its national bank, social services and dignity. Neoliberalism apply its sales revenues have plunged many people into poverty.

But a good leader, it never happens in the suitcases of the invaders and bombs. What the U.S. has brought to Iraq is an Al-Maliki and a small group of corrupt officials who sold their country to the multinationals. In Iraq, there is still no democracy, but also, we lost the oil, electricity, water, schools and everything that makes life a little dignity. What the United States led in Afghanistan, Karzai is one that reigns over nothing but a district of Kabul, while U.S. bombs hit villagers, wedding parties, schools and the drug trade has never been so good.

Leaders who are imposed on Libya by Western bombs would be worse than Gaddafi. So, we must support the legal government of Libya when he resists what is really a neocolonial aggression. Because all solutions prepared by Washington and its allies are bad: whether the overthrow or assassination of Gaddafi, either splitting the country into two or whether the “Somaliazation”, ie ie a low intensity civil war and long duration. All these solutions will bring suffering to the people.

The only solution in the interest of the Libyans is negotiating with international mediators who are not disinterested party to the conflict, as Lula. A good agreement implies respect for Libyan sovereignty, maintaining the unity of the country, preparing for democratic reforms and an end to regional discrimination.


Enforcing the law is the opposite of “right of interference”

We are told that the United States today are much more respectful of international law at the time of the cowboy Bush, and there was this time a UN resolution. This is not the place to discuss whether the UN really represents the democratic will of the people or if the votes of many states are the subject of buying and pressures. But we will simply note that the resolution 1973 violates international law and, first of all, the Magna Carta … the UN itself.

Indeed, Article 2 § 7 states: Nothing in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially the domestic jurisdiction of any State. “. Suppress an armed insurrection is the responsibility of a State even if one can regret the consequences. Anyway, if armed rebels bomb is considered an intolerable crime, then there is an urgent need to judge Bush and Obama for what they have done in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Similarly, Article 39 limits the cases where the constraint member is authorized: “The threat against the peace, breach of peace or act of aggression” (cons another country). Libya did not match any of these three cases, and this war is therefore also illegal. A note, just for laughs, even the NATO treaty states as Article 1: “The Parties undertake, as set forth in the Charter of the United Nations, to settle by peaceful means all international disputes in which they may be involved.

We present this “right of humanitarian intervention” as a novelty and a great step forward. In reality, the right of interference has been practiced for centuries by colonial powers against countries in Africa, Asia and Latin America. By the strong against the weak. And it is precisely to stop this gunboat diplomacy have been enacted in 1945, new rules of international law. The United Nations Charter specifically prohibits a strong country to invade weak countries and the principle of state sovereignty is progress in history. Cancel this conquest of 1945 and return to the right of intervention is going back to colonial times.

So for us to approve a war still very interested, we play a chord: the right of intervention would be needed to save people in danger. Such excuses were also used in time by France, Great Britain or Belgium colonial. And all the imperial wars of the United States have made with this kind of justification.

With the United States and its allies in the police world, the right of interference obviously always belong to the strong against the weak, and never the reverse. Iran have the right to intervene to save the Palestinians? Venezuela have the right to intervene to end the bloody coup in Honduras? Russia Has the right to intervene to protect Bahrainis

In reality, the war against Libya is a precedent that paves the way for armed intervention of the United States or its allies in any Arab country, African or Latin American. Today, we will kill thousands of Libyan civilians “to protect them,” and tomorrow they will kill civilians Syrian or Iranian or Venezuelan or Eritrean “to protect them” while the Palestinians and all other victims of ‘Strong’ continue to suffer dictatorship and massacre. …

Show that Western intervention violates the law and brings us back to colonial times seems to put a theme central to the debate.


What to do:

The United States has called “Dawn of the Odyssey the war against Libya. However, their code names always contain a message to our unconscious. The Odyssey , a classic ancient Greek literature, recounts the journey undertaken by Ulysses twenty years across the universe. A half-words, we are told here that Libya is the first act of the long journey from the United States to (re) conquer Africa.

They thus attempt to halt their decline. But ultimately, this will be in vain, the U.S. will inevitably lose their throne. Because this decline is not due to chance or special circumstances, it is due to their very mode of operation. The famous theorist of liberal capitalism, Adam Smith has warned a long time ago: “The economy of any country that practices slavery of blacks is in the process of initiating a descent into hell that will be tough the day when other nations will wake up. “

But in fact the U.S. has replaced slavery with another. In the twentieth century, they built their prosperity on domination and pillage of entire countries, they lived like parasites and they have thereby weakened their internal economic capacities. Mankind has an interest in this system permanently terminated. Even the population of the United States there is interest. For one stops to close its factory, destroy jobs and confiscating their houses to pay the bonuses of bankers and war spending. Europe’s population also has an interest in an economy rather than serving multinationals and their wars, but to serve people.

We’re at a turning point, what “Dawn” will we choose? That announced by the United States, and that will lead to twenty or thirty years of incessant warfare on all continents? Or a true dawn: another system of international relations, where no one will impose its interests by force and where each people freely choose its path?

As in every war the last twenty years, much confusion in the European left. Pseudo-humanitarian discourse relayed by the media because blind people forget to listen to another version, to study the previous wars, to test the info.

Our site Investig’Action – investigaction.net strives to help everyone learn to inform and discuss. But our means are too limited compared to mainstream media. We therefore call waiting for all those who can. 1 ° Join our network of volunteer researchers to develop analysis strategies of the United States and other major powers, the analysis of economic and political relations as well as wars in preparation. 2 ° Join our group for critical analysis “test media.”

A world without war, it depends on all of us.

Michel Collon

[2] Kosovo, NATO and the media, debate between Michel Collon, Jamie Shea (NATO Spokesman) and Olivier Corten (Professor of International Law), June 23, 2000, DVD Investig’Action.

Sources: investigaction.net