Of course it was very "premature" to forget about Al Qaeda!
"Al Qaeda and its various militant affiliates have been relegated in recent months to statements of support as protesters across the Middle East and North Africa demand greater freedom and an end to authoritarian rule. If anything, empathy for Al Qaeda’s violent, militant version of Islam appeared to have dissipated as youthful protesters challenged authoritarian leaders and forced the presidents of Tunisia and Egypt to resign".[1]
There is other thing that I'm very interesting in: Why do journalists always speak about Al Qaeda if there are so many other terrorist organization on Middle East and North Africa, of course they are well connected; but, it is hardly doubtful that Al Qaeda became a brand of Sunni terror movement in the world, but the problem is not this organization but ideology... And by using this brand, journalists and politicians simply do concept shift, something like stereotype.
Showing posts with label NEWS. Show all posts
Showing posts with label NEWS. Show all posts
Thursday, 21 April 2011
Monday, 18 April 2011
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]
Sunday, 17 April 2011
The second chance to resolve the Libyan conflict
"WASHINGTON — The Obama administration has begun seeking a country, most likely in Africa, that might be willing to provide shelter to Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi if he were forced out of Libya, even as a new wave of intelligence reports suggest that no rebel leader has emerged as a credible successor to the Libyan dictator.
The intense search for a country to accept Colonel Qaddafi has been conducted quietly by the United States and its allies, even though the Libyan leader has shown defiance in recent days, declaring that he has no intention of yielding to demands that he leave his country, and intensifying his bombardment of the rebel city of Misurata." [1]
What a great news; however, nobody did say that after his exile he can return back like ... Napoleon returned from Elba with all followed consequences. So there is a little chance for a good and long life somewhere in Africa. :-)
One more thing: “We learned some lessons from Iraq, and one of the biggest is that Libyans have to be responsible for regime change, not us,” one senior administration official said on Saturday. “What we’re simply trying to do is find some peaceful way to organize an exit, if the opportunity arises.” [2]
Good idea, but concerning Libyan war it looks like western policy divided into 2 parts or roles: one for Europe - a brute-force attack, or "physical contact" and other for US - a "good peacemaking policy".
So let's study modern diplomacy on this good example)
The intense search for a country to accept Colonel Qaddafi has been conducted quietly by the United States and its allies, even though the Libyan leader has shown defiance in recent days, declaring that he has no intention of yielding to demands that he leave his country, and intensifying his bombardment of the rebel city of Misurata." [1]
What a great news; however, nobody did say that after his exile he can return back like ... Napoleon returned from Elba with all followed consequences. So there is a little chance for a good and long life somewhere in Africa. :-)
One more thing: “We learned some lessons from Iraq, and one of the biggest is that Libyans have to be responsible for regime change, not us,” one senior administration official said on Saturday. “What we’re simply trying to do is find some peaceful way to organize an exit, if the opportunity arises.” [2]
Good idea, but concerning Libyan war it looks like western policy divided into 2 parts or roles: one for Europe - a brute-force attack, or "physical contact" and other for US - a "good peacemaking policy".
So let's study modern diplomacy on this good example)
Tuesday, 12 April 2011
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
Sunday, 10 April 2011
Developing of Libyan crisis
Today African Union mission arrived for Tripoli talks[1]; this step has all possibilities to become a crucial point in Libyan conflict. “An African Union mission has arrived in Libya to try to negotiate a ceasefire between rebel forces and those loyal to Col Muammar Gaddafi.
South African President Jacob Zuma and three other leaders had earlier left Mauritania to fly to the Libyan capital, Tripoli. The team will also visit rebel representatives in Benghazi. Fierce fighting is continuing in Ajdabiya in eastern Libya, with Col Gaddafi's forces pushing back rebels.”[2] The mission from these African countries can meet some troubles during negotiations, as was told earlier: “Libyan rebels say they have signed an oil contract with Qatar to export oil from rebel-held territory.”[3] This is the step that can help to legitimate the rebel’s regime in international level; and, of course, to promote dividing country.
One more important statement that was early today:
“A top US general maintained Thursday it was unlikely that Libyan rebel forces could oust Gadhafi, saying the conflict appeared to be turning into a stalemate.
General Carter Ham, who led the first stage of the coalition air campaign in Libya, said the international bombing raids had succeeded in protecting civilians for the most part but that Gadhafi's regime probably would not be removed by military means”.
“Asked at a Senate hearing about the chances that the opposition could "fight their way" to Tripoli and replace Gadhafi, Ham said: "Sir, I would assess that as a low likelihood."
And when pressed by Senator John McCain whether the situation was an "emerging stalemate," Ham said: "Senator, I would agree with that at present on the ground."
His comments underscored growing concern in Washington and European capitals that the fight in Libya could be deadlocked, with Gadhafi firmly in control in Tripoli and badly-organized rebels unable to turn the tide even under the cover of NATO-led air power. [4]”
So, in this ‘emerging stalemate’ situation the African Union mission can be one of the ‘success’ way to resolve this crisis.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)