Tag: Libya

  • Libya’s Interim Government Recognizes  The Armenian Genocide Once Again

    Libya’s Interim Government Recognizes The Armenian Genocide Once Again

    By Harut Sassounian
    Publisher, The California Courier

    Libya’s Interim Government recognized the Armenian Genocide on April 24, 2020, for the second year in a row. On April 19, 2019 the provisional government had issued a similar recognition.

    While this recognition may surprise many people because there is hardly a single Armenian living in Libya, there are, however, geopolitical reasons for taking such an action. Ever since the toppling and killing in 2012 of Muammar Gaddafi, the leader of Libya, the country has been in constant turmoil with various military factions fighting each other to rule Libya.

    The officially recognized government of Libya is limited around coastal Tripoli and Misrata, while most of the Libyan territory is occupied by the Interim Government led by military leader Khalifa Haftar. The internal civil war has been considerably expanded by the interference of external powers in Libya’s domestic affairs. Turkey and Qatar have supported the Central Government with Islamic fighters and military hardware, while the Interim Government has been endorsed by Egypt, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates (UAE).

    The countries on the opposing sides in Libya are also involved in diplomatic clashes and mass media wars. Last month Saudi Arabia announced that it was blocking access to Turkish news agencies and websites. In return, Turkey blocked Saudi and Emirati news outlets. Furthermore, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan supports the Muslim Brotherhood, while Saudi Arabia, Egypt and UAE are opposed to the Muslim Brotherhood. Egypt and Turkey have been feuding ever since the pro-Muslim Brotherhood President of Egypt Mohammed Morsi, supported by Turkey, was toppled in 2013. Egypt, Saudi Arabia and UAE have asked their citizens to boycott Turkish products and travel to Turkey.

    These various regional and internal feuds have prompted the recognition of the Armenian Genocide by the Libyan Interim Government’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation on April 24, 2020. Here is the text of the announcement translated into English:

    “We recall today the genocide of the Armenian population by Turkey which falls on April 24 of each year. The State of Libya commemorates this anniversary in implementation of Government Decision No. 238 of 2019, which approved this day as a national day to revive it.

    “Turkey’s criminal actions against the Armenian people by burning, deliberate killing, forced deportation, and other ugly acts contrary to all divine laws is a crime against humanity and it must be recognized and granted an official apology to the Armenian people and compensate them for the pains that these massacres have caused which cannot be forgotten from the memory of Armenians and the whole world. As we condemn this crime devoid of any element of humanity, we again call upon the countries of the world to recognize this heinous crime.

    “It is today’s Turkish government, in its new situation, which commits crimes against the peoples of the world by its blatant interference in their internal affairs. Perhaps what it carried out yesterday by bombarding the city of Tarhuna [Libya] with missiles and drones, killing children, the elderly and women, destroying humanitarian convoys, food and medical aid, fuel tanks, bringing in mercenaries and supporting terrorists are other crimes added to a chain of Turkish crimes against people and confirms to the whole world the extent of Erdogan’s arrogance and his disregard for all international laws and norms.”

    On April 19, 2019, the Libyan Interim Government had issued a similar statement through its Foreign Ministry which reads as follows:

    “The Interim Government officially adopted a resolution in March recognizing the Armenian Genocide.

    “On 24 April 1915, the Ottoman authorities rounded up, arrested, and deported from Constantinople (now Istanbul) to the region of Ankara, 235 to 270 Armenian intellectuals and community leaders, the majority of whom were eventually murdered.

    “This was followed by the deportation of women, children, the elderly, and the infirm on death marches leading to the Syrian Desert. Driven forward by military escorts, the deportees were deprived of food and water and subjected to periodic robbery, rape, and massacre.

    “The final death toll of the genocide is reported to be 1.5 million.”

    It should not be surprising that the Libyan Interim Government has issued a statement on the Armenian Genocide because it serves its anti-Turkish political agenda. It would have been more surprising if such an announcement would be made contrary to its own interests.

    All countries cater to their national interests. The Armenian government must also act in a similar manner. Libya is a good example. This is the second year in a row that its Interim Government has recognized the Armenian Genocide. What has been the reaction of the Armenian Government? We are not aware of any public comment to this effect. Wouldn’t it be proper for the Armenian Foreign Ministry to issue a statement welcoming the Libyan announcement? Someday the Interim Government may become the legally recognized government of Libya. Now is the time for Armenia to establish friendly relations with Libya. As Turkey has been isolating Armenia from its neighbors by its blockade and its anti-Armenian economic and diplomatic efforts, Armenia in response should join hands with supportive countries and isolate Turkey to whatever degree it can.

    By establishing good relations with the Libyan Interim Government, Armenia would also be in a good position to affirm its relations with Egypt and the United Arab Emirates and mend its non-existent relations with the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. I am sure these countries would appreciate the friendly hand extended by the Government of Armenia.

    Libya’s Interim Government Recognizes

    The Armenian Genocide Once Again

  • Turkey to send troops to Libya at Tripoli’s request: Erdogan

    Turkey to send troops to Libya at Tripoli’s request: Erdogan

    ANKARA (Reuters) – Turkey will send troops to Libya at the request of Tripoli as soon as next month, President Tayyip Erdogan said on Thursday, putting the north African country’s conflict at the center of wider regional frictions.

    Libya’s internationally recognized Government of National Accord (GNA) has been fending off a months-long offensive by General Khalifa Haftar’s forces in eastern Libya, which have been supported by Russia, Egypt and the United Arab Emirates.

    Last month, Ankara signed two separate accords with the GNA, led by Fayez al-Serraj, one on security and military cooperation and another on maritime boundaries in the eastern Mediterranean.

    The maritime deal ends Turkey’s isolation in the East Mediterranean as it ramps up offshore energy exploration that has alarmed Greece and some other neighboring states. The military deal would preserve its lone ally in the region, Tripoli, which is surrounded by Haftar’s forces.

    “Since there is an invitation (from Libya) right now, we will accept it,” Erdogan told members of his AK Party in a speech. “We will put the bill on sending troops to Libya on the agenda as soon as parliament opens.”

    The legislation would pass around Jan. 8-9, he said, opening the door to deployment.

    However, it was unclear what specific invitation Erdogan was referring to, as the interior minister in the Tripoli-based government, Fathi Bashagha, suggested in comments to reporters in Tunis that no such official request had yet been made.

    “If the situation escalates and then we have the right to defend Tripoli and its residents… we will submit an official request to the Turkish government to support us militarily so we expel the ghost of mercenary forces,” Bashagha said on Thursday.

    Haftar’s forces were not immediately available for reaction to Erdogan’s comments.

    For weeks Ankara has flagged the possibility of a military mission in Libya, which would further stretch its armed forces less than three months after it launched an incursion into northeastern Syria against a Kurdish militia.

    FILE PHOTO: Turkey’s President Recep Tayyip Erdogan leaves after the Global Refugee Forum at the United Nations in Geneva, Switzerland, December 17, 2019, REUTERS/Denis Balibouse

    Turkey has already sent military supplies to the GNA despite a United Nations arms embargo, according to a U.N. report seen by Reuters last month.

    Erdogan visited Tunisia on Wednesday to discuss cooperation for a possible ceasefire in neighboring Libya. On Thursday, he said Turkey and Tunisia had agreed to support the GNA.

    TENSION WITH RUSSIA

    Moscow has voiced concerns over a possible Turkish military deployment to Libya in support of the GNA. Erdogan has said Turkey will not stay silent over mercenaries from the Kremlin-linked Wagner group supporting Haftar.

    “Russia is there with 2,000 Wagner (fighters),” Erdogan said on Thursday, also referring to some 5,000 fighters from Sudan in Libya. “Is the official government inviting them? No.”

    “They are all helping a war baron (Haftar), whereas we are accepting an invitation from the legitimate government of the country. That is our difference,” he added.

    Haftar’s eastern-based Libyan National Army has been trying since April to take Tripoli from the GNA, which was set up in 2016 following a U.N.-brokered deal. The UAE and Egypt have for years provided military support for Haftar’s forces, U.N. reports have said.

    Russian mercenaries have put more pressure on the GNA and “accelerated this quid pro quo between Tripoli and Ankara,” said Sinan Ulgen, a former Turkish diplomat and chairman of the think-tank Center for Economics and Foreign Policy Studies.

    Slideshow (3 Images)

    “So the troop deployment must happen right away, but the risk is that Turkey is being sucked into a military game where the only path is more engagement and escalation,” he added.

    Turkish and Russian officials held talks in Moscow this week to seek a compromise on the issues of both Libya and Syria, where Russia backs President Bashar al-Assad.

    In the Mediterranean, Turkey is at loggerheads with Greece, Cyprus, Egypt and Israel over rights to resources off the coast of the divided island of Cyprus. Athens says Ankara’s maritime deal with Tripoli violates international law.

    Additional reporting by Nevzat Devranoglu in Ankara, Ulf Laessing in Cairo, and Ahmed Tolba and Nadine Awadalla in Tunis; Writing by Daren Butler; Editing by Jonathan Spicer and Gareth Jones

    Our Standards:The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.
  • How Israel wants to restart the war in the Levant

    How Israel wants to restart the war in the Levant

    How Israel wants to restart the war in the Levant

    The Wright plan, published in September 2013, modifies the projects for the remodelling of an enlarged Middle East. As concerns Syria and Iraq, it plans for the creation of a ’Sunnistan’ and a ’Kurdistan’. The former sate was created in 2014 by the Isalmic Emirate (Daesh), while the latter still has to be realised. However, the Kurds are in the minority in Northern Syria. The Wright plan also mentions Libya, Yemen and Saudi Arabia. It seems to be in progress in the two former states, also thanks to the Islamic Emirate.
    The Wright plan, published in September 2013, modifies the projects for the remodelling of an enlarged Middle East. As concerns Syria and Iraq, it plans for the creation of a ’Sunnistan’ and a ’Kurdistan’. The former sate was created in 2014 by the Islamic Emirate (Daesh), while the latter still has to be realised. However, the Kurds are in the minority in Northern Syria. The Wright plan also mentions Libya, Yemen and Saudi Arabia. It seems to be in progress in the two former states, also thanks to the Islamic Emirate.
    In order to sabotage the agreement which should be signed by Washington and Teheran on the 30th June, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has prepared a new episode of the war against Syria.After the tentatives by the United States, France and the United Kingdom to hand over power to the Muslim Brotherhood (from February 2011 to the first Geneva Conference in June 2012), the mercenary war (from the Paris Conference of the Friends of Syria in July 2012 to the second Geneva Conference in January 2014), and the attempt to create chaos by the Islamic Emirate (from June 2014 to today), Israël now proposes to launch a fourth installment of the war.

    The aim is to pursue the application of the plan elaborated by Robin Wright for the Pentagon – published in September 2013 by the New York Times – by creating an independent Kurdistan straddling Iraq and Syria [1].

    General David Petraeus (ex-head of CentCom and director of the CIA) participated in March 2015 at a seminar in Erbil. He declared that the crimes committed by the Islamic Emirate were no threat either to the United States or Israël, and called for a struggle by any means possible against Iranian influence and the proposed agreement between Washington and Teheran.
    General David Petraeus (ex-head of CentCom and director of the CIA) participated in March 2015 at a seminar in Erbil. He declared that the crimes committed by the Islamic Emirate were no threat either to the United States or Israël, and called for a struggle by any means possible against Iranian influence and the proposed agreement between Washington and Teheran.

    Who are the Kurds ?

    The Kurdish people are present in Turkey, Iran, Iraq and Syria, but no longer have a state since the failures of the Republic of Ararat (1927-30) and the Republic of Mahabad (1946-47). The Kurds are today spread out primarily across Turkey (13 to 20 million), Iran (5 to 6 million), Iraq (4 to 5 million) and finally Syria (3 million).

     After some of them participated in the genocide of the Christians and the Yezidis, the Turkish Kurds were persecuted in their turn for a century in the name of « pan-Turkism ». During the period 1984-2000, the repression of the insurrection by the PKK caused at leaast 40,000 deaths.
     The Iranian Kurds enjoy a certain autonomy, but are abandoned economically by Teheran.
     The Iraqi Kurds have been linked to NATO since the beginning of the Cold War, first of all by assisting Saddam Hussein and fighting the Khomeinist revolution, then by working against Saddam when NATO decided to get rid of him. Today they enjoy regional autonomy and maintain embassies abroad.
     The Kurds arrived in Syria when they fled the Turkish persecutions, first of all during the reign of Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, and then thirty years ago during the PKK insurrection. Those among them who had not yet been naturalised were awarded Syrian nationality by President Bachar el-Assad at the beginning of the war, and concluded an agreement with Damascus which provided them with weapons for the defence of their region.

    The Kurds are a diverse people with powerful internal tensions. They do not speak the same language, have different religions, even though they are principally sunnites, and ally themselves with opposing political movements. Since the Cold War, they are divided between pro-US factions (the Barzani family which today controls part of Iraq) and pro-Soviet factions (Öcallan, who was kidnapped by the Israelis in 1999 on behalf of Turkey and has been emprisoned since then).

    From left to right : Meir Amit (director of Mossad), Moshe Dayan (Israeli Minister of Defence) and their agent Molla Mustafa Barzani (father of the current President Masoud Barzani).
    From left to right : Meir Amit (director of Mossad), Moshe Dayan (Israeli Minister of Defence) and their agent Molla Mustafa Barzani (father of the current President Masoud Barzani).

    Iraqi Kurdistan : Mafia and the Mossad

    Taking into account the role of Israël in Anglo-Saxon imperialism, the Barzani family – which was originally socialist – joined Mossad in the 1960’s which set them against the Iraqi Baath party [2]. Very poorly considered by the Kurds of Turkey, Iran and Syria, the current President Massoud Barzani is probably also a member of Mossad. He has managed to establish a certain prosperity in Iraqi Kurdistan, thanks to Israeli investments, and also to install a clanish régime.

    President Barzani is holding onto his power despite the fact that his mandate ended almost two years ago – a non-democratic situation which does not seem to trouble Washington any more than that of Mahmoud Abbas (Palestine) or Abd Rabbuh Mansur Hadi (Yemen). His government wallows in nepotism and corruption. His clan occupies the main posts of importance, beginning with that of Prime Minister, which is reserved for his nephew Nechervan Barzani, and comprises 15 billionaires (in dollars) and thousands of millionnaires, without being able to explain the origins of their fortunes. Lawyers were the first to be repressed, with the condemnation of Me Kamal Qadir to 30 years in prison for having criticised President Barzani. Freedom of the Press has been no more than theoretical since 2010, after the kidnapping and assassination of the Kurdish journalist Sardasht Osman, guilty of having caricatured the President. The regional government is bankrupt, and has not paid many of its officials for several months.

    Son of the current President Barzani, Masrour « Jomaa » Barzani continued his studies in Iran, the United Kingdom and the United States. He returned to Iraq in 1998, under Anglo-Saxon protection, settled in the « no-fly area », and took up responsibilities in the family party, the PDK. He quickly became the connection between his family and the CIA. In October 2010, he acquired the Château Noble, a few kilometres distant from the Agency’s headquarters in Langley, for 10 million dollars. He created and directed « Bas News », the main Iraqi Kurdish newspaper, and supervised all activities of the Iraqi Kurdish secret services. It is as such that he participated in the secret meetings in Amman (May 2014) and co-organised the joint offensive of the Islamic Emirate and the Peshmergas against Baghdad.
    Son of the current President Barzani, Masrour « Jomaa » Barzani continued his studies in Iran, the United Kingdom and the United States. He returned to Iraq in 1998, under Anglo-Saxon protection, settled in the « no-fly area », and took up responsibilities in the family party, the PDK. He quickly became the connection between his family and the CIA. In October 2010, he acquired the Château Noble, a few kilometres distant from the Agency’s headquarters in Langley, for 10 million dollars. He created and directed « Bas News », the main Iraqi Kurdish newspaper, and supervised all activities of the Iraqi Kurdish secret services. It is as such that he participated in the secret meetings in Amman (May 2014) and co-organised the joint offensive of the Islamic Emirate and the Peshmergas against Baghdad.

    Iraqi Kurdistan and the project for the annexation of Northern Syria

    In 2014, the Regional Government of Kurdistan participated in the conspiracy aiming to reconfigure Iraq and Syria, as described in the Wright plan. It participated in several meetings in Amman with the Jordanian secret services, the leaders of the Islamic Emirate, the leaders of armed groups in Syria and the Iraqi Naqchbandis [3]. It was agreed that, under the authority of Washington and Tel-Aviv, the Islamic Emirat and the Regional Government of Kurdistan would launch a coordinated attack to take control of a large part of Iraq. While the international Presse denounced the exactions of the Islamic Emirate in Iraq, Barzami’s Kurds would grab the oil fields of Kirkuk and expand their territory by 40 %.

    Following that, while many states, who were secretly supporting the operation, publicly denounced the crimes against humanity and the pillages committed by the Islamic Emirate, the Regional Government of Kurdistan offered the service of the pipe-line they had just stolen to the jihadists so that they could sell the petrol they had just pillaged to the Europeans.

    All condemnations of the alliance between the Regional Government of Kurdistan and the Islamic Emirate is severely repressed. So Hayder Shesho, the Yezidi leader who had spoken against it was arrested on the 7th April, although he has a double nationality with Germany.

    In the years after 2000, the Israeli Chief of Staff was planning to neutralise the missile capacities of Egypt and Syria by placing Israel’s own missiles in South Sudan and the Iraqi Kurdistan. While the former region has achieved independence, the latter still has not. The Wright plan offers both the occasion to realise this strategic objective and to spread bloody confusion. In order to sabotage the agreement that Washington and Teheran are scheduled to sign on the 30th June, Benjamin Netanyahu has plans to force the Peshmergas (in other words, Barzani’s soldiers) into an assault on Northern Syria. And yet the Syrian Kurds are hostile to the Barzani mafia and have always been in the minority in this region.

    For several months now, a campaign of Press lies has been blaming the Pershmergas for the actions of the Turkish Kurds of the PKK against the Islamic Emirate, for example during the battle of Kobane. The Western states, with France in the lead, have been sending arms directly to Erbil without going through Baghdad, in violation of Iraqi sovereignty. These weapons are not being used, but stored for the planned attack on Northern Syria.

    In the United States Congress, Edward Royce and Eliot Engel, two representatives who traditionally channel the interests of the Israeli Likud, presented a proposition for law in November 2014 [4] which would authorise the delivery of arms directly to the Regional Government of Iraqi Kurdistan. Since the text was not adopted, these dispositions were included in the law concerning the Defence budget by the President of the Armed Forces Commission, Mac Thornberry, along with others who aim to simultaneously reinforce military aid to groups fighting against the Syrian Arab Republic. If this text were to be adopted by both houses, the proposition would deprive Baghdad of any power outside the the shiite area of Iraq, and would open the way for both the dismatling of the country and a fourth war in Syria. Most Iraqi politicians who speak publicly have warned of the dangers of such a policy. As for the chiite leader Moqtada el-Sadr (ex-commander of the Mahdi Army) he has declared that if the law was to be adopted, he would once again consider the United States as enemies of the Nation, and would make war on the 3,000 military advisors in Iraq as well as US iuterests abroad.

    President Obama and Vice-President Biden strongly indicated to President Barzani, on the 5th May at the White House, that they would not allow Israel to pursue their plans, and demanded that the Iraqi Kurds stand down. However,in Iraqi Kurdistan, the Press is pretending on the contrary that President Obama warmly welcomed the delegation, and had promised to support an independent « Kurdistan ».

    The new Israeli government, formed on the 7th May by Benjamin Netanyahu, is attempting to unify the jihadists of Northern Syria – the aim is to coordinate their withdrawal to Damascus when the Iraqi Kurds enter Syria to massacre the Kurds of the PYG (the local branch locale of the Turkish PKK, which supports the Syrian Arab Republic) and annex their territory.

    President Erdoğan considers that the creation of an independent « Kurdistan » straddling Iraq and Syria would revive the Kurdish conflict in his country, and denounced the project as a step towards the destruction of Turkey. In the event of a Kurdo-Iraqi offensive in Syria, he could instantly take sides with Damascus.

    There is no doubt that the Israeli project will be debated (together with the creation of an Arab NATO under Israeli control) during the next session of the Gulf Cooperation Council that President Obama – who is not a member – has called at Camp David.

    Thierry Meyssan

    [Translation: Pete Kimberley]

    [1] “Imagining a Remapped Middle East”, Robin Wright, The New York Times Sunday Review, September 28, 2013.

    [2] “”Kurdistan” Israeli Style”, by Thierry Meyssan, Translation Roger Lagassé, Al-Watan (Syria), Voltaire Network, 14 July 2014.

    [3] “PKK revelations on ISIL attack and creation of “Kurdistan””, Voltaire Network, 8 July 2014.

    [4] H. R. 5747, “Bill to authorize the direct provision of defense articles, defense services, and related training to the Kurdistan Regional Government, and for other purposes”, House of Representatives, November 20, 2014.

    Thierry Meyssan

    French intellectual, founder and chairman of Voltaire Network and the Axis for Peace Conference. His columns specializing in international relations feature in daily newspapers and weekly magazines in Arabic, Spanish and Russian. His last two books published in English : 9/11 the Big Lie and Pentagate.

    | DAMASCUS (SYRIA) | 15 MAY 2015

  • David Cameron’s Statement on the death of Usama bin Laden, and counter terrorism

    David Cameron’s Statement on the death of Usama bin Laden, and counter terrorism

    cameron2

    Prime Minister David Cameron’s statement to the House of Commons on the death of Usama bin Laden and counter-terrorism.

    Read the statement

    The death of Usama bin Laden will have important consequences for the security of our people at home and abroad and for our foreign policy, including our partnership with Pakistan, our military action in Afghanistan and the wider fight against terrorism across the world.

    Last night I chaired a meeting of COBR to begin to address some of these issues.

    The National Security Council has met this morning.

    And I wanted to come to the House this afternoon, to take the first opportunity to address these consequences directly and answer Hon Members’ questions.

    Mr Speaker, at 3am yesterday I received a call from President Obama. He informed me that US Special Forces had successfully mounted a targeted operation against a compound in Abbottabad, in Pakistan.

    Usama bin Laden had been killed, along with four others: bin Laden’s son, two others linked to him, and a female member of his family entourage. There was a ferocious firefight, and a US helicopter had to be destroyed but there was no loss of American life.

    I am sure the whole House will join me in congratulating President Obama and praising the courage and skill of the American Special Forces who carried out this operation.

    It is a strike at the heart of international terrorism, and a great achievement for America and for all who have joined in the long struggle to defeat Al Qaeda.

    We should remember today in particular the brave British servicemen and women who have given their lives in the fight against terrorism across the world.

    And we should pay tribute especially to those British forces who have played their part over the last decade in the hunt for bin Laden.

    He was the man who was responsible for 9/11 – which was not only an horrific killing of Americans, but remains to this day, the largest loss of British life in any terrorist attack.

    A man who inspired further atrocities including in Bali, Madrid, Istanbul and of course, here in London on 7/7.

    …and, let us remember, a man who posed as a leader of Muslims but was actually a mass murderer of Muslims all over the world. Indeed he killed more Muslims than people of any other faith.

    Mr Speaker, nothing will bring back the loved ones who have been lost and of course no punishment at our disposal can remotely fit the many appalling crimes for which he was responsible.

    But I hope that at least for the victims’ families there is now a sense of justice being served, as a long dark chapter in their lives is finally closed.

    As the head of a family group for United Airlines Flight 93, put it – we are “raised, obviously, never to hope for someone’s death” but we are “willing to make an exception in this case … He was evil personified, and our world is a better place without him.”

    Mr Speaker, Britain was with America from the first day of the struggle to defeat Al Qaeda. Our resolve today is as strong as it was then. There can be no impunity and no safe-refuge for those who kill in the name of this poisonous ideology.

    Security

    Mr Speaker, our first focus must be our own security.

    While bin Laden is gone, the threat of Al Qaeda remains.

    Clearly there is a risk that Al Qaeda and its affiliates in places like Yemen and the Mahgreb will want to demonstrate they are able to operate effectively.

    And, of course, there is always the risk of a radicalised individual acting alone, a so-called lone-wolf attack.

    So we must be more vigilant than ever – and we must maintain that vigilance for some time to come.

    The terrorist threat level in the UK is already at Severe – which is as high as it can go without intelligence of a specific threat.

    We will keep that threat level under review – working closely with the intelligence agencies and the police.

    In terms of people travelling overseas, we have updated our advice and encourage British nationals to monitor the media carefully for local reactions, remain vigilant, exercise caution in public places and avoid demonstrations.

    And we have ordered our embassies across the world to review their security.

    Pakistan

    Mr Speaker, let me turn next to Pakistan.

    The fact that bin Laden was living in a large house in a populated area suggests that he must have had a support network in Pakistan.

    We don’t currently know the extent of that network, so it is right that we ask searching questions about it. And we will.

    But let’s start with what we do know.

    Pakistan has suffered more from terrorism than any other country in the world.

    As President Zardari and Prime Minister Gilani said to me when I spoke to them yesterday, as many as 30,000 innocent civilians have been killed. And more Pakistani soldiers and security forces have died fighting extremism than international forces killed in Afghanistan.

    Usama Bin Laden was an enemy of Pakistan. He had declared war against the Pakistani people. And he had ordered attacks against them.

    President Obama said in his statement: “counterterrorism cooperation with Pakistan helped lead us to bin Laden and the compound where he was hiding.”

    Continued co-operation will be just as important in the days ahead.

    I believe it is in Britain’s national interest to recognise that we share the same struggle against terrorism.

    That’s why we will continue to work with our Pakistani counterparts on intelligence gathering, tracing plots and taking action to stop them.

    It’s why we will continue to honour our aid promises – including our support for education as a critical way of helping the next generation of Pakistanis to turn their back on extremism and look forward to a brighter and more prosperous future.

    But above all, it’s why we were one of the founder members of the Friends of Democratic Pakistan. Because it is by working with the democrats in Pakistan that we can make sure the whole country shares the same determination to fight terror.

    Afghanistan

    Mr Speaker, I also spoke yesterday to President Karzai in Afghanistan.

    We both agreed that the death of bin Laden provides a new opportunity for Afghanistan and Pakistan to work together to achieve stability on both sides of the border.

    Our strategy towards Afghanistan is straightforward and has not changed.

    We want an Afghanistan capable of looking after its own security without the help of foreign forces.

    We should take this opportunity to send a clear message to the Taleban: now is the time for them to separate themselves from Al Qaeda and participate in a peaceful political process.

    Mr Speaker, the myth of Bin Laden was one of a freedom fighter, living in austerity and risking his life for the cause as he moved around in the hills and mountainous caverns of the tribal areas.

    The reality of Bin Laden was very different: a man who encouraged others to make the ultimate sacrifice while he himself hid in the comfort of a large, expensive villa in Pakistan, experiencing none of the hardship he expected his supporters to endure.

    Libya

    Mr Speaker, finally let me briefly update the House on Libya.

    In recent weeks we have stepped up our air campaign to protect the civilian population.

    Every element of Qadhafi’s war machine has been degraded.

    Over the last few days alone, NATO aircraft have struck 35 targets including tanks and armoured personnel carriers, as well as bunkers and ammunition storage facilities.

    We have also made strikes against his command and control centres which direct his operations against civilians.

    Over the weekend there were reports that in one of those strikes Colonel Qadhafi’s son, Saif al-Arab Qadhafi, was killed.

    All the targets chosen were clearly within the boundaries set by UN Resolutions 1970 and 1973.

    These Resolutions permit all necessary measures to protect civilian life – including attacks on command and control bases.

    Mr Speaker, this weekend also saw attacks on the British and Italian embassies.

    We utterly deplore this.

    The Qadhafi regime is in clear beach of the Vienna convention to protect diplomatic missions. We hold them fully to account. And we have already expelled the Libyan Ambassador from London.

    The British embassy was looted as well as destroyed.

    The World War Two Memorial was desecrated.

    And the UN have felt obliged to pull their people out for fear of attack.

    Qadhafi made much of his call for a ceasefire.

    But at the very moment Qadhafi claimed he wanted to talk, he had in fact been laying mines in Misurata harbour to stop humanitarian aid getting in and continuing his attacks on civilians, including attacks across the border in neighbouring Tunisia.

    Mr Speaker, we must continue to enforce the UN resolutions fully until such a time as they are completely complied with.

    And that means continuing the NATO mission until there is an end to all attacks on – and threats to – civilians.

    Conclusion

    Mr Speaker, bin Laden and Qadhafi were said to have hated each other. But there was a common thread running between them.

    They both feared the idea that democracy and civil rights could take hold in the Arab world.

    While we should continue to degrade, dismantle and defeat the terrorist networks a big part of the long term answer is the success of democracy in the Middle East and the conclusion of the Arab-Israeli peace process.

    For twenty years, bin Laden claimed that the future of the Muslim world would be his.

    But what Libya has shown – as Egypt and Tunisia before it – is that people are rejecting everything that bin Laden stood for.

    Instead of replacing dictatorship with his extremist totalitarianism, they are choosing democracy.

    Ten years on from the terrible tragedy of 9/11, with the end of bin Laden and the democratic awakening across the Arab world, we must seize this unique opportunity to deliver a decisive break with the forces of Al Qaeda and its poisonous ideology which has caused so much suffering for so many years.

    And I commend this statement to the House.

    The Prime Ministers Office

    Number 10

  • Joint article on Libya: The pathway to peace

    Joint article on Libya: The pathway to peace

    Friday 15 April 2011

    number10logo

    Prime Minister David Cameron, President Barack Obama and President Nicolas Sarkozy have written a joint article on Libya underlining their determination that Qadhafi must “go and go for good”.

     

    Read the article

    Together with our NATO allies and coalition partners, the United States, France and Britain have been united at the UN Security Council, as well as the following Paris Conference, in building a broad-based coalition to respond to  the crisis in Libya. We are equally united on what needs to happen in order to end it.

    Even as we continue military operations today to protect civilians in Libya, we are determined to look to the future. We are convinced that better times lie ahead for the people of Libya, and a pathway can be forged to achieve just that.

    We must never forget the reasons why the international community was obliged to act in the first place. As Libya descended into chaos with Colonel Qadhafi attacking his own people, the Arab League called for action. The Libyan opposition called for help. And the people of Libya looked to the world in their hour of need. In an historic Resolution, the United Nations Security Council authorised all necessary measures to protect the people of Libya from the attacks upon them.  By responding immediately, our countries  halted the advance of Qadhafi’s forces. The bloodbath that he had promised to inflict upon the citizens of the besieged city of Benghazi has been prevented.

    Tens of thousands of lives have been protected.  But the people of Libya are suffering terrible horrors at Qadhafi’s hands each and every day. His rockets and his shells rained down on defenceless civilians in Ajdabiya. The city of Misrata is enduring a mediaeval siege, as Qadhafi tries to strangle its population into submission.   The evidence of disappearances and abuses grows daily.

    Our duty and our mandate under UN Security Council Resolution 1973 is to protect civilians, and we are doing that. It is not to remove Qadhafi by force.  But it is impossible to imagine a future for Libya with Qadhafi in power.  The International Criminal Court is rightly investigating the crimes committed against civilians and the grievous violations of international law.  It is unthinkable that someone who has tried to massacre his own people can play a part in their future government. The brave citizens of those towns that have held out against forces that have been mercilessly targeting them would face a fearful vengeance if the world accepted such an arrangement.  It would be an unconscionable betrayal.

    Furthermore, it would condemn Libya to being not only a pariah state, but a failed state too.  Qadhafi has promised to carry out terrorist attacks against civilian ships and airliners.  And because he has lost the consent of his people any deal that leaves him in power would lead to further chaos and lawlessness.  We know from bitter experience what that would mean.  Neither Europe, the region, or the world can afford a new safe haven for extremists.

    There is a pathway to peace that promises new hope for the people of Libya.  A future without Qadhafi that preserves Libya’s integrity and sovereignty, and restores her economy and the prosperity and security of her people.  This needs to begin with a genuine end to violence, marked by deeds not words.  The regime has to pull back from the cities it is besieging, including Ajdabiya, Misrata and Zintan, and their forces return to their barracks. However, so long as Qadhafi is in power, NATO and its coalition partners must maintain their operations so that civilians remain protected and the pressure on the regime builds.  Then a genuine transition from dictatorship to an inclusive constitutional process can really begin, led by a new generation of leaders.  In order for that transition to succeed, Colonel Qadhafi must go and go for good.  At that point, the United Nations and its members should help the Libyan people as they rebuild where Qadhafi has destroyed – to repair homes and hospitals, to restore basic utilities, and to assist Libyans as they develop the institutions to underpin a prosperous and open society.

    This vision for the future of Libya has the support of a broad coalition of countries, including many from the Arab world.  These countries came together in London on 29 March and founded a Contact Group which met this week in Doha to support a solution to the crisis that respects the will of the Libyan people.

    Today, NATO and its coalition partners are acting in the name of the United Nations with an unprecedented international legal mandate.  But it will be the people of Libya, not the UN, that choose their new constitution, elect their new leaders, and write the next chapter in their history.

    Britain, France and the United States will not rest until the United Nations Security Council resolutions have been implemented and the Libyan people can choose their own future.

    The Prime Ministers Office

    Number 10

  • Turkey Balances Its Ties With West and Islamic World in Libya Operation

    Turkey Balances Its Ties With West and Islamic World in Libya Operation

    Turkey Balances Its Ties With West and Islamic World in Libya Operation

    Publication: Eurasia Daily Monitor Volume: 8 Issue: 62

    March 30, 2011

    By: Saban Kardas

    Turkey’s position on the unfolding events in Libya has caused a great deal of confusion for observers of Turkish foreign policy. Despite its objections to the use of military force to solve the impending civil war, Turkey has eventually changed course, by agreeing to the transfer of the military operations to NATO command and taking part in non-combat military missions.

    When the violence first broke out, Turkey was apparently caught unprepared to deal with a crisis that involved various issues. While the Turkish government had declared its support for the pro-democratic movements in the Middle East, it failed to offer unequivocal support to Libyan revolutionaries. Turkish construction firms’ multi-billion dollar investments and the presence of thousands of Turkish workers in the country constrained Turkey’s options. Consequently, Turkey gave timid responses to Gaddafi’s brutal use of force, which drew international criticism. Turkish leaders expressed vehement opposition to international sanctions or use of military force to stop Gaddafi’s aggression. Turkish Prime Minister, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, went as far as criticizing the motivations of the Western powers, arguing that they were after Libya’s natural resources (EDM, March 4).

    Although Turkey successfully evacuated its citizens from Libya, it maintained the same rhetoric critical of the Western policy. One Turkish diplomat visiting Washington to explain Turkey’s position argued that Turkey had to tread cautiously considering the uncertainty over the future of Libya in a post-Gaddafi scenario (Anadolu Ajansi, March 3). However, the gains achieved by the rebel forces cast doubts over Turkey’s policy. Some commentators increasingly argued that by failing to side with the Libyan rebellion, Turkey might risk becoming the loser in the future determination of Libya’s political structure (Haberturk, March 13).

    Another criticism of Turkey’s policy was raised on moral grounds, given that Turkey apparently offered no viable solution to halt Gaddafi’s atrocities other than to constantly counsel him to step down from power. This challenge became urgent, as the heavily armored Gaddafi forces repelled the rebel forces back to Benghazi. As international concern grew over Gaddafi’s use of force against civilians in the recaptured towns, the debate on the military option was reignited. Following UN Security Council Resolution 1973, authorizing a no fly zone, the Western powers led by the United States and France accelerated consultations for military operations.

    Turkey still insisted that military intervention should be avoided and a negotiated settlement might be possible. Ankara even proposed observing a ceasefire, when Gaddafi announced that he would impose a unilateral ceasefire. Nonetheless, Turkey underlined that it would back an arms embargo, provision of humanitarian assistance and the no-fly zone, in line with the UN Security Council resolution (IHA, March 18).

    However, the continuation of Libyan forces’ attacks and Gaddafi’s threats to enter Benghazi prompted the Western powers, joined by some Arab leaders, to act swiftly. France, leading the interventionist camp, gathered likeminded powers in Paris, to which Turkey was not invited (Anadolu Ajansi, March 19). When French aircraft started bombing Libyan military targets, Turkey continued its vocal criticism, calling for an immediate halt to operations, so that the destruction of Libyan infrastructure and killing of civilians could be prevented. Also angered by France’s sidelining of Turkey, Erdogan argued that by acting recklessly against Libya, Sarkozy was only interested in his political career, not the wellbeing of the Libyan people (Zaman, March 22).

    The lack of consensus within the pro-intervention camp as to how to handle the operations and what command and control roles NATO should play again brought Turkey to the forefront. Erdogan listed some conditions that needed to be met if NATO was to be given such a role. When the NATO Council met in Brussels, Ankara raised objections to the use of NATO beyond the enforcement of an arms embargo. It took President Barack Obama to telephone Erdogan before Ankara dropped its objections to the transfer of the operation to NATO (Anadolu Ajansi, March 23).

    On March 25, Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu, announced that Turkey’s concerns and demands had been met. Meanwhile, the Turkish parliament also authorized a motion that permitted the Turkish military to participate in the international force in Libya and allowed the government to undertake a multi-dimensional contribution. According to the deal, it was reported that the NATO base in Turkey’s Aegean town of Izmir might be one of the operational centers for the NATO mission in Libya. Also, though not providing combat forces, Turkey would continue to contribute five warships and a submarine to operations for use solely for humanitarian purposes (Hurriyet, March 25).

    Pro-government media sources heralded this development as a major achievement for Turkish diplomacy. Also, Western powers’ decision to invite Turkey to the London conference on March 29, unlike the Paris summit, was viewed as a victory over France. Erdogan said that by transferring operations to NATO’s command Paris would be sidelined. Also, Turkish sources later explained that they insisted on a broad-based participation in the London Conference so that the operations would not be perceived as exclusively Western (www.haber7.com, March 25).

    Attending the London Conference on Tuesday, where an agreement to continue operations was reached, Davutoglu reiterated Turkey’s position. Turkey would not participate in combat operations or airstrikes but it would take a role in the provision of humanitarian assistance and the enforcement of an arms embargo (www.ntvmsnbc.com, March 29). Earlier, Erdogan announced that Turkey would also take control of Benghazi airport to ensure the delivery of aid. Erdogan called for an end to military operations and asked for an immediate ceasefire. Arguing that Turkey maintained communication with not only the Gaddafi regime but also the rebel forces, he added that Ankara could mediate a ceasefire (Anadolu Ajansi, March 28).

    As Erdogan emphasized repeatedly in his justification of Turkish policy, he is against placing the country in a position where it would be forced to take military action against another Muslim nation. Here, he constantly refers to the examples of Iraq and Afghanistan, where miscalculated US interventions resulted in the destruction of the country and killing of innocent civilians, and Turkey’s decoupling from US policy gained him popularity at home and abroad. Turkey’s removal of its objections to NATO’s involvement also shows that it still values its partnership with the West and can prioritize Alliance unity. Ankara took seriously the intervention by President Obama and as in other crises with NATO it did not abandon its ally altogether.

    https://jamestown.org/program/turkey-balances-its-ties-with-west-and-islamic-world-in-libya-operation/