NATO Secretary General's Press Conference

NATO Secretary General's Press Conference 


Great Video about Great Aspiration!
during the press conference Mr Rasmusen answered on some question about NATO's role in Libyan conflict.
So main objectives in this operation:

Yesterday the NATO foreign minister made clear the three military objectives of our mission in Libya: firstly, an end to all attacks and thread of attacks against civilians. Secondly, that will draw of all receive forces to barracks. Thirdly, an immediate humanitarian access. And we strongly endorsed the call by the contact group for Qaddafi to leave power, So, NATO is absolutely determine to continue its operation for as long as the thread against Libyan civilians and it’s impossible to imagine that this thread disappear when Qaddafi in power.

It was a good final question from Russian journalist:

Mr Rasmusen, the main reason for NATO operation in Libya is protecting civilians, so why NATO doesn’t stand up civilians in Yemen and Syria and don’t you think that the NATO operation creates the situation when authoritarian and not authoritarian regimes are motivated to obtain weapons of muss distraction as guarantee from foreign intervention?

Mr Rasmusen: We have taken action in Libya because the UN Security Council took an historic decision to adopt a resolution that lives up to the responsibility to protect. The responsibility to protect civilians against brutal and systematic attacks from their own government, own regime. And we operate in a co-ordinance with and with in the frame work of that UN Security Council a resolution. The UN Security Council applies to all countries and this resolution also mentions regular organizations like NATO so we feel a responsibility to participate in the implementation of that security come to resolution. This is a reason why we took action in Libya to live up to what the UN Security Council requested. 

I remember my lesson on rhetoric: if you don't know what to answer on the question you've asked, start answer on unimportant and small part in this question, in another words find your way to speak about and make visibility that you are speaking on theme.
So here we can see a good example of such answers: the journalist ask him about "so why NATO doesn’t stand up civilians in Yemen and Syria and don’t you think that the NATO operation creates the situation when authoritarian and not authoritarian regimes are motivated to obtain weapons of muss distraction as guarantee from foreign intervention?" But Mr Rasmusen answers on this "the main reason for NATO operation in Libya is protecting civilians", i understand that this is very complicated question and this situation around Libya can make many consequences in a future, but as for me it is very improperly to make babble on this problem.

possible crisis in EU & NATO

In one previous post of mine I tried to figure out what consequences might be because of the Libyan war; however, I didn't imagine that would such migration crisis in Europe. Moreover, as we can see, this crisis influences on internal EU relations:

Deutsche Welle: "France temporarily stopped a passenger train from neighboring Italy to prevent North African migrants from entering the country on visas issued by Italian authorities. The move highlights a growing row over migration". 

“A group of Italian and French activists on Sunday had planned to board what they dubbed "The Train of Dignity" to accompany migrants with visas into France to protest Europe's measures to shut down its borders despite the Schengen agreement. 

The French authorities said they would allow in only Tunisians with passports and the financial resources to live in France independently.

The Italian newspaper La Repubblica reported that Rome was not demanding a passport before handing out visas and was set to issue about 100 documents a day.” [1]

           

Moreover, in the web can be found more pessimistic ideas, that not only EU can experience some internal crisis, but also image of NATO can really suffer because of this operation:

              "In truth, the Libyan expedition is an Anglo-French project and has been from the beginning. Yet neither Britain nor France wants responsibility for the operation — and neither feels comfortable relying on the other. The French grumble that the American withdrawal has encouraged Moammar Gaddafi; the British think the French might now be distracted by a war in their former colony, Ivory Coast. This failure to cooperate is hardly surprising. This, after all, is the first Anglo-French military operation since the Suez escapade of 1956 — and that one ended rather badly". 

“But if this historically unreliable Anglo-French coalition proves unable to sustain a long operation, what then? There is certainly no European force that can replace it. There isn’t even a European foreign policy: Years of diplomacy, debate and endless national referendums culminated, a couple of years ago, in the selection of two powerless figureheads as Europe’s “president” and “foreign minister.” Attempts to create a united European army have never moved beyond pure symbolism. If Britain and France run out of planes, fuel, money or enthusiasm, it’s over. And NATO — an organization that, I repeat, did not plan for, prepare for or even vote for the Libyan operation — will shoulder most of the blame. The use of NATO’s name, in Libya, is a fiction. But the weakening of NATO’s reputation in Libya’s wake might become horribly real. ”. [2]

France: fingers in many African pies

France returned in NATO and wanted to make up leeway?! The Ivory Coast conflict has just resolved with France help:

“Ivory Coast's UN-recognised President, Alassane Ouattara, has urged restraint after the dramatic capture of his rival Laurent Gbagbo”[1].

And exact in this day France's foreign minister made statement where he described dissatisfaction of NATO’s role in Libya:

 “Nato is not doing enough to destroy heavy weaponry used by Muammar Gaddafi's forces in Libya, France's foreign minister has said.

Libyan civilians remain at risk, Alain Juppe said, despite an ongoing bombing campaign now led by Nato.

"Nato must play its role fully. It wanted to take the lead in operations," Mr Juppe said, saying efforts so far were "not enough".[2]”

After failure of [3] African Union's proposal this statement of France's foreign minister shows only the one way out: ground operation.

Moreover, the “kavkazcenter.info” wrote interesting notes about French and other countries’ ground forces in Libya:

“"The Algerian newspaper "Al-Khaber" published a report saying that a French commando unit got lost in the desert region of Al-Hamada Al-Hamra in the south-west part of the country. According to the newspaper, they went there to prevent the flow of weapons, mercenaries and terrorists into Libya. For reasons that are unclear, Paris lost contact with the commandos and asked Algeria to provide air-space and two air force bases in order to search for the special forces soldiers," wrote the Italian newspaper.

"The aforementioned French unit is one of the many units sent by the coalition to assist the rebels. British SAS soldiers, CIA agents and, probably, special forces from Arab countries are active in this theater of war."”[4]

LA Times: “Reporting from Washington— CIA officers are on the ground in Libya, coordinating with rebels and sharing intelligence, U.S. officials say, but the Obama administration has not yet decided whether to take the further step of providing weapons to those trying to oust Moammar Kadafi.”[5]

This war became very expensive for Europe, and the stumbling block isn’t money; the main problem is political benefits, which can reach after Libyan struggle.

So, speaking truly, I’m expecting for the ground operation. Why? There are many voice against such intervention, however they doesn’t relief from the situation: conflict has no evolution nor for rebels neither for Gaddafi forces. I think, that inspired by ‘victory’ in Ivory Coast French’s government might consider that it will be other fast ‘victory’ in Libya, and they want to repeat the same scenario that was in Ivory Coast...

---

[1] http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-13044818

[2] http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-13046127

[3] http://english.aljazeera.net/news/africa/2011/04/201141116356323979.html

[4] http://www.kavkazcenter.com/eng/content/2011/04/08/14055.shtml

[5] http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-fg-cia-libya-20110331,0,4277132.story?track=rss