Artículo No. 18 Europe divided over Libya mission

Divisions arise between coalition carrying out military action and other world powers over UN-sanctioned operation. Last Modified: 21 Mar 2011

Meanwhile in Germany, Guido Westerwelle, the country's foreign minster, speaking inBrussels, defended his country's decision not to back air raids against Gaddafi's forces.

He said that the Arab League criticism of the air attacks had vindicated Germany's reluctance to back the action, but that Germany stood with other European Union countries in tightening sanctions against the Libyan government.

·                      

local

regional

subregional:

Mundo Árabe(seis petromonarquías del CCG)

Saudi Arabia: Emir Calls For United Gulf Army

March 22, 2011

Saudi Emir Turki al-Faisal, director of the King Faisal Center for Islamic Research and former ambassador to Washington, has called for a conference in Abu Dhabi to make the Gulf Cooperation Council more like the European Union, and to create a united “Gulf” army, Al-Watan reported March 22. Al-Faisal said other nations must be prevented from forcing their agendas on Saudi Arabia to weaken its military power. Saudi Arabia should be able to obtain nuclear weapons if it fails in its effort to persuade Iran from abandoning its nuclear program, according to al-Faisal.

,Unión Africana,Organización de la conferencia Islámica

Mayores apoyos en Latinoamérica que con los 22 países miembros de la Liga Árabe.

 

Algeria: Airstrikes On Libya Disproportionate - FM

March 22, 2011

Algerian Foreign Minister Mourad Medelci said Western-led airstrikes against Libya are a disproportionate response and could worsen the situation in the North African country, BBC News reported March 22.

Peso de Turquía e Irán.

Global

Artículo No. 17 Saudi Arabia's intervention in Bahrain

We look at the regional implications of Saudi Arabia's decision to send troops into theneighbouring Gulf state. Inside Story Last Modified: 16 Mar 2011 Al-Jazeera

The initial wave of public discontent in Bahrain followed the pattern set in other Arab nations: a public alienated from the ruling class demanded reforms and a change in the political status quo.
But as the days passed the protests became more and more sectarian in form. Seventy per cent of the population is Shia, while those who govern the country are exclusively Sunni.

And the escalating protests are watched with increasing concern across the King FahdCauseway in neighbouring Saudi Arabia.

The ruling Sunni monarchy there are suspiciously watching Shia activitity in the region - the spectre of any increased Iranian influence long seen as a threat to Sunni control.

The unprecedented decision to send troops and police into another Arab state was publically at least a decision taken by the six members of the Gulf Cooperation Council - justified by the need for stability in these turbulent times.

And as the global economy continues to feel the effects of the Japanese earthquake and subsequent nuclear threat, stability wherever possible is what many are looking for.
Is the core of sectarian divide about to be exposed? And could the fallout become regional?
Inside Story, with presenter Mike Hanna, discusses with Abdullah al-Alami, a Saudi Arabian economist and writer; Salman Shaikh, the director of Brookings Centre in Doha; and Nabeel Rajab, the vice-president of the Bahrain Centre for Human Rights.

Artículo No. 16 Al Babawa News Israel expects the imminent fall of three Arab leaders 21.3.11 Israeli newspapers on Monday predicted the escalation of protests in Syria during the next few days, pointing out that the repressive response by the Syrian regime against the popular revolution will strengthen demonstration movement.

The Yediot Aharonot newspaper, citing Israeli intelligence sources, expects the fall of the Syrian regime during the upcoming days, especially with the continued use of violence against demonstrators. It added that the Syrian youth showed a strong rejection towards the regime. Israel claims the Syrian regime uses now the Iranian security services in the suppression of the demonstrations, especially since these Iranian elements are the most experienced in the suppression of popular demonstrations and protest movements.

Another Israeli newspaper Israel Today noted that at the same time the regimes in Yemen andLibya are expected to collapse in the near future. It said the fall of President Ali Abdullah Saleh of Yemen is expected during the next days or even next hours, especially after senior military officers joined the Revolution Youth.

Regarding Libya, the newspaper said that some of the top Israeli intelligence chiefs expect the fall ofMoammar Gaddafi. However, this fall in Libya can take a longer period compared to Yemen in light of the tribal complexities in Libya.

Artículo No. 15 Asia Times 25.3.11 Endgame: Divide, rule and get the oil By Pepe Escobar Without cutting through the fog of war it's impossible to understand what's really going on in Libya.

Odyssey Dawn is only happening because the 22-member Arab League voted to impose a no-fly zone over Libya. The Arab League - routinely dismissed in Western capitals as irrelevant before this decision - is little else than an instrument of the House of Saud'sforeign policy.

Its "decision" was propelled by Washington's promise to protec the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) kings/sheikhs/oligarchs from the democratic aspirations of their own subjects - who are yearning for the same democratic rights as their "cousins" in eastern Libya.

This is exactly the same GCC, posing for Saudi Arabia that invaded Bahrain to help the Sunni al-Khalifa dynasty to crush the pro-democracy movement. The GCC gang is considered by the West as "our" bastards, while Colonel Muammar Gaddafi - according to the Western narrative - is a terrorist who went to rehab and is now a thug.

The GCC comprises stalwart egalitarians Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Kuwait, Qatar, Oman and the United Arab Emirates (UAE). It was the GCC that first voted for a no-fly zone; then top dog Saudi Arabia twisted arms/promised bribes to extract an Arab League endorsement (Syria and Algeria, for instance, were seriously against it).

For the opportunist Arab League secretary-general Amr Moussa, who is already running for the presidency of Egypt, this was a great deal; he took his marching orders from Riyadhwhile at the same time polishing his CV with Washington.

For Saudi Arabia this was a great deal; the perfect chance for King Abdullah to get rid of Gaddafi (the bad blood between both since 2002 is legendary), and the perfect chance for the House of Saud to lend a hand to a bewildered Washington.

Odyssey Dawn has no inbuilt endgame. US President Barack Obama has made it clear numerous times that his endgame means "Gaddafi must go". This is called "regime change". Or, in the new two-pronged Obama doctrine, "US outreach" (directed towards opponents of "evil regimes"). Not-so-evil regimes, as in Bahrain or Yemen, are encouraged towards "regime alteration".

The problem is "regime change" is not mandated by UN Resolution 1973.

Odyssey Dawn is the first African war of the latest Pentagon overseas military command,Africom. Soon it will turn into the first African war of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). Although sold as a "limited mission", Odyssey Dawn - as in just imposing and maintaining a no-fly zone - will cost at least $15 billion a year. Members of the Arab League are supposed to be footing a substantial part of the bill - since the only one to have committed military forces is Qatar (two Mirage fighters).

The whole ongoing circus revolves around how to "transition" the war from the Pentagon inAfrica - which is based in Stuttgart, Germany, because none among 53 African countries wanted it - to the Pentagon in Europe, also known as NATO.

NATO already interfered in Somalia in 2010 - airlifting thousands of Ugandan troops. It is now conducting operation Ocean Shield off the Horn of Africa. And before Odyssey Dawn had already placed Libya under 24-hour surveillance by its AWACS planes - part of the nearly 10-year-old Operation Active Endeavor.

In the big picture, the combined role of the Pentagon global tentacles falls under the Full Spectrum Dominance doctrine, which aims to prevent any developing nation, or group of nations, from establishing alliances or preferential relationships with both China and Russia.

China and Russia are among the top four BRIC countries, along with Brazil and India. All four abstained from the UN vote. Only 48 hours before the rushed-in vote, Muammar Gaddafi had threatened that if attacked by the West he would transfer Libya's juicy energy contracts to companies from Russia, India and China.

War by committee
The Libyan opposition is a motley crew of disaffected tribes, the well-meaning youth movement, civilian and military defectors from the Gaddafi regime, Central Intelligence Agency-sponsored assets (such as sinister former justice minister Mustafa Abdel-Jalil), Muslim Brotherhood-related (and unrelated) Islamists, and monarchist Senussi tribesmen. The Senussi is the top tribe in the Benghazi area; most of the keffiah-and-Kalashnikov "rebels" are Senussi, as was King Idris, overthrown by Gaddafi in 1969.

The Libyan transitional council now calls itself an "interim government" - although still committed, in its own words, to a unified Libya. But partition cannot be ruled out - because historically Cyrenaica has always been at odds with Tripolitania. If Gaddafi can muster majority tribal support, the regime won't crumble.

All eyes will be on a "green march" now announced by the one million-strong al-Warfallatribe, Libya's largest; they had defected to the opposition but now are eager to show their loyalty to Gaddafi.

There's no guarantee the February 17 Movement, the political force at the forefront of the Libyan revolt, with a democratic platform for human rights, a state of law and free and fair elections, will have the upper-hand in a post-Gaddafi environment.

The West will privilege a leadership speaking English, and cozy with Washington and European capitals. Preferably a pliable puppet. Oil may corrupt the new leadership to the core. Add to it the spicy bit of news of al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM) - arguably yet one more CIA front - with its maximum of 800 jihadis, already supporting the "rebels". No wonder Armageddon scenarios swirl - the fall of Gaddafi having the potential to produce another Afghanistan or another Iraq.

The agreement reached by Obama, UK Prime Minister David Cameron and French President Nicolas Sarkozy is that NATO will play "a key role" in Odyssey Dawn. Translation; for all practical purposes NATO will be in charge. The political leadership will fall to a "steering committee" of foreign ministers - an Anglo-French-American club with a sprinkling of Arab League. They are supposed to meet soon in Brussels, London or Paris.

Obama phoned Turkey's Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan and apparently convinced him about the arrangement - although in a speech to his ruling Justice and Development Party Erdogan said that Turkey "will never point a gun at the Libyan people".

French Foreign Minister Alain Juppe said that since not all members of the military coalition are members of NATO "this is therefore not a NATO operation". Make no mistake; it is.

This "now you NATO, now you don't" war is roughly what Sarkozy wanted - a "heroic" platform to save his re-election in 2012. But the West's motivation, above all, tastes like oil. Since Saudi Arabia is not on the market, Libya is a spectacular piece of real estate for the energy-hungry West; a giant gas station in the desert with very few people around.

The bulk of Libya's proven oil and gas reserves lie in "rebel" Cyrenaica. Oil and gas account for 25% of the economy, 97% of exports and 90% of government revenue. Sarkozy - as well as the West - fear a protracted war. France wants it to end now. Unlike Germany, Britain andItaly - they're already in - France is salivating to get a huge piece of the oil action.

There's absolutely nothing humanitarian about the current casino inside the EU and NATO. The only thing that matters is the right positioning towards the post-Gaddafi era - the energy bonanza, geostrategic primacy in the Mediterranean and the Sahara-Sahel space, juicy business "reconstruction" opportunities.

Regime change or balkanization?
So Western moral uprightness may be summed up like this. If you sell us a lot of oil, buy our weapons, and smash al-Qaeda, that's fine with us. You may even kill your own people, provided it's just dozens, not thousands.

That's how Saudi Arabia can get away with anything in the current counter-revolution climate, with the House of Saud pulling all stops to crush any measure of democratic aspirations in the Persian Gulf.

As for those regimes that kill perhaps thousands of their own people - and have oil, and threaten to sell the oil to the Russians or the Chinese, their destiny is to fight a UN/Tomahawk resolution.

The forces of counter-revolution are now joined at the hip with the West. Saudi Arabia's military will remain inside Bahrain. The GCC legitimizes the Western war in Libya. The favorite Western endgame in Libya is divide and rule, and roll with the oil. Is the great 2011 Arab revolt about to crash-land in the desert sands?

Artículo No. 14 El número de hispanos aumenta en California por Jim Carlton Dow Jones Newswires

14 de marzo -- En 2010, los niños latinoamericanos conformaron por primera vez la mayoría de la población menor de 18 años en el estado de California, ya que los hispanos crecieron hasta 37.6% de los residentes en esa entidad, la más poblada de Estados Unidos. Un nuevo reporte de la oficina de censos del país mostró que la población blanca no hispana cayó 5.4 puntos porcentuales en la última década, una tendencia continua que se vio compensada por el aumento de 27.8% en hispanos y 30.9% en asiáticos. Aunque en declive, los blancos californianos siguieron siendo el grupo demográfico más grande con 40.1%. Pero los demógrafos dijeron que los hispanos están a punto de tomar la delantera. Algo que recalca los cambios demográficos, es que California creció en la última década a su tasa más baja en más de un siglo. La población subió 10%, a los 37.3 millones de personas, un incremento que está de acorde con el promedio nacional. Igual que en California, los hispanos ganan terreno en muchos otros estados, como en Carolina del Norte, ya que los blancos están a punto de convertirse en minoría entre todos los niños recién nacidos en ese país. El reporte es el más reciente en indicar grandes cambios. Algunas cifras del censo publicadas a principios de este año mostraron que la población de Chicago cayó a su menor nivel en 90 años. Otras mostraron que los afroestadounidenses emigraron de las ciudades del noreste y del medio este hacia el sur, que tiene uno de los mayores crecimientos en décadas. Eso propulsó a Carolina del Norte, cuya población subió 18.5% en la década, en comparación con una tasa a nivel nacional de 9.7%, ya que la economía del estado siguió estando fuerte. En lo que representa una primicia, California no pudo obtener un escaño en el Congreso en la cuenta del censo más reciente. Los Ángeles experimentó su menor incremento poblacional desde el censo del periodo de 1890-1900, al crecer 2.6% a 3.8 millones de habitantes. "Lo más importante para California es que ahora se está convirtiendo en ancla, más que en un imán en el oeste", dijo William Frey, demógrafo y miembro senior deBrookins Instituto de Washington, D.C. Algunos de los cambios demográficos podrían reconformar la política de California. Por ejemplo, en el bastión conservador del condado de Orange, las minorías superaron a los blancos por primera vez para convertirse en mayoría de la población, de acuerdo con cifras del censo. Debido a que muchas minorías son demócratas, los observadores políticos dijeron que esa tendencia podría diluir con el tiempo la fortaleza histórica del Partido Republicano. Sin embargo, áreas al interior del estado, las cuales tienden a ser más conservadoras, tuvieron algunos de los mayores crecimientos. Fresno creció 15.7% para llegar a 494,665 millones de habitantes. San José, más cercano a la costa, creció 5.7%, para quedar en 945,942 millones. El otro gran grupo demográfico en avanzar en las cuentas del censo fueron los asiáticos. A diferencia de los hispanos, cuyo crecimiento se redujo de un incremento de 43.8% entre 1990 y 2000, los asiático mantuvieron su crecimiento de 34.6% de la década de 1990. Entre tanto, los afroestadounidenses declinaron 8% a 2.16 millones. Frey dijo que la disminución de blancos y afroestadounidenses de la década pasada, al igual que la desaceleración en el crecimiento de los hispanos, es atribuible parcialmente a más familias de la clase media que abandonan la costosa California para irse a residir a otras partes donde el costo de la vida es más reducido. El crecimiento hispano en Nevada se aceleró durante la década pasada contra la anterior, en parte, debido a que más californianos hispanos se reubicaron ahí, dijoFrey. En 2000, los blancos representaron 46.7% de la población de California, mientras que los hispanos representaron 32.4%. "Creo que esto es el éxodo de la clase media", dijo Frey. "California aún es muy costosa, de manera que las personas que no pueden encontrar una vivienda que puedan pagar prefieren dejar el estado". En términos numéricos, había 14 millones de hispanos en California en 2010, 15 millones de blancos y 4.8 millones de asiáticos. Las otras dos grandes ciudades también mantuvieron su crecimiento: San Diego creció 6.9% a 1.3 millones de habitantes, mientras que San Francisco aumentó 3.7% a los 805,235 ciudadanos. Los Ángeles, con 9.8 millones de personas, siguió siendo el condado con mayor población del estado, al crecer 3.1% desde 2000. Los restantes condados más importantes incluyen San Diego con 3.1 millones de personas (10% más de habitantes), Orange con 3.01 millones (5.8% más), Riversidecon 2.19 millones (5.8% más) y San Bernardino con 2.04 millones de habitantes (19.1% más).

Artículo no. 13 ‘Hydro-diplomacy’ needed to avert Arab water wars By Reuters March 20, 2011

OSLO (Reuters) - The United Nations should promote "hydro-diplomacy" to defuse any tensions over water in regions like the Middle East and North Africa where scarce supplies have the potential to spark future conflicts, experts said Sunday.

They said the U.N. Security Council should work out ways to bolster cooperation over water in shared lakes or rivers, from the Mekong to the Nile, that are likely to come under pressure from a rising world population and climate change.

The Middle East and North Africa are the regions most at risk of conflict over scarce water supplies, they said, but history shows "water wars" are very rare.

"We think that water is an issue that would be a appropriate for the U.N. Security Council," Zafar Adeel, chair of UN-Water, told Reuters ahead of a meeting of experts in Canada this week to discuss water and security.

U.N. studies project that 30 nations will be "water scarce" in 2025, up from 20 in 1990. Eighteen of them are in the Middle East and North Africa, with Libya and Egypt among those added to the 1990 list that includes Israel and Somalia.

Water scarcity is when each person has access to 1,000 or fewer cubic meters of water a year.

UN-Water coordinates water-related activities of all U.N. agencies. March 22 is "World Water Day" in the U.N. calendar.

"The world's top ranked water conflict hotspot is the Arab region, comprised of the Middle East and North Africa," according to a statement about the March 21-23 talks in Toronto.

Adeel said the U.N. should try to promote past traditions of rivals cooperating over supplies in a form of "hydro-diplomacy."

"CLEAR ADVANTAGES"

"We have a whole history of cases where...even countries at war have used water almost as a neutralizing element," he said. India and Pakistan, for instance, cooperated to share supplies in the Indus River even during conflicts in 1965 and 1971.

"There are clear advantages in cooperation," former Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chretien, who will be a co-chair of the meeting in Toronto, told Reuters.

"Water will become an ever more important issue," he said, adding that the talks would look at cases such as the River Jordan, with rival demands by Israelis, Palestinians, Jordanians and Syrians.

Experts say the only documented case of a "water war" was about 4,500 years ago when the city-states of Lagash and Umma went to war in the Tigris-Eurphrates basin.

Apart from that example, "water has never been the principal cause of two states going to war," Fabrice Renaud, of the U.N. University's Institute on the Environment and Human Security, said in a statement.

Even so, Adeel said that stresses on water supplies due to global warming and a rising population -- which is set to grow to 9 billion by 2050 from 7 billion in 2011 -- could heighten the risk of future conflicts.

Forty percent of the world's population live within 263 international river basins, from the Amazon to the Jordan.

Chretien is among 37 former national leaders in the InterAction Council, who will meet in Canada in May to discuss water and security after this week's preparatory talks.

(Editing by Kate Kelland)

Artículo No. 12 Libya: Shifting sands · The tension between the responsibility to protect civilians and helping rebels to oust a tyrant will only grow in the coming days · Editorial · The Guardian, Monday 21 March 2011 · Article history

Air Vice-Marshal Osborn said yesterday his commanders were "entirely comfortable" with the missile strikes on Libya. Amr Moussa, the outgoing secretary general of the Arab League, for one, was not. Calling an emergency meeting one day after attending the first gathering of the coalition in Paris, Mr Moussa said that he agreed to the protection of civilians, not the bombardment of more civilians. The support of the Arab League is central to the claim by David Cameron, Nicolas Sarkozy and Barack Obama that the operation has regional support. This supposedly makes it different from Iraq in 2003. Dr Liam Fox, thedefence secretary, went further. He said active Arab participation in the no-fly zone made it clear to the Arab street that the attack on Libya was an attack on a tyrant, not the Arab world. Mr Moussa's statement throws that ambition into doubt. A strong Arab League statement pushed the UN security council to act with speed, so the criticism could belevelled: what did it expect?

Not a full-scale assault on Gaddafi's army, which is what it got. Mr Moussa's reaction is a reminder of the political limits of a resolution designed to save civilian lives. This is an inherently defensive concept. The tension between the responsibility to protect civilians and helping rebels to oust a tyrant will only grow in the coming days. The first blows in the campaign were a purely western affair. French Mirage jets shot up an armoured column south of Benghazi and the assault on the city was routed. Cruise missiles fired from US and British ships, submarines and aircraft destroyed radar, communications and air defencesites. Weeks of bloody urban fighting in Benghazi may have been prevented by the French action, although it could equally be argued that a speedy UN resolution may have precipitated a push into built-up areas, which provided Gaddafi's columns cover from the air.

As the military pendulum swings back into the favour of the rebels, calculations will change. Gaddafi's forces will be thrown back into defending Tripoli. Civilians could rise up against the tyrant and all would then be over. It would be good if that happened. But if they stand and fight, what then? Will French Mirages and British Typhoons be used like Nato air cover in Afghanistan, to knock out loyalist positions attempting to hold off a rebel advance? How does a responsibility to protect civilian life work in the circumstances where Gaddafi loyalists are defending their patch and the rebels are standing outside at the gates? The rationale of the resolution would then be to enforce a ceasefire, but that would mean keeping Gaddafi in power.

Before the UN vote, a key part was played by Hillary Clinton, the US secretary of state. The hand-wringing in the White House stopped when she changed sides in the debate, abandoning Robert Gates, the defence secretary, and joining Samantha Power, a senior aide at the national security council, and Susan Rice, the US ambassador to theUnited Nations

. Ms Rice was an African specialist and adviser to Bill Clinton when the US failed to intervene to stop the genocide in Rwanda. The genocide occurred within a week of the USwithdrawal from Somalia, and no one at the time in Washington advocated a US military intervention. What then happened in Rwanda strengthened her determination to be more active in conflict prevention and resolution: "I would rather be alone and a loud voice for action than be silent," she later told National Public Radio.

Libya is no Rwanda. It soon morphed from a rebellion into a civil war and the outcome is far from certain. One thing is clear. No partner in this coalition wants to assume the leadership of fighting this campaign. The Americans are hiding behind the Europeans, and both are using the Arab League as cover. But whether they like it or not, each country involved will bear responsibility for how this ends. It may not be pretty.