Artículo No. 38 CONTRALINEA 3.4.11 Radar Geopolítico Por Alfredo JALIFE-RAHME LA COALICION “OCCIDENTAL” SE APODERA DEL 80% DEL PETRÓLEO DE LIBIA.

No existe la menor consistencia entre la intervención militar de “Occidente”(sin Alemania)para dizque defender selectivamente a los “civiles” de Bengazi(capital de la región histórica de Cirenaica que concentra 30% de la población de Libia) y el abandono de otros “civiles” en Bahrein(asiento de la quinta flota de EU) y Arabia Saudita(la mayor potencia petrolera del mundo aliada de EU).

Tampoco le importa a la coalición “occidental” que la mayor parte de los rebeldes de Cirenaica pertenezcan a los jihadistas de Al-Qaeda que supuestamente combate EU en el planeta entero,como ilustra un estudio del 2007 Harmony Project del Centro del Combate al Terrorismo de la Academia Militar estadunidense de West Point(Al-Qaida’s Foreign Fightersin Iraq: A First Look at the Sinjar Records).

Dejaremos de lado los cables secretos del 2008(hace apenas un poco mas de dos años) de la embajada de EU en Trípoli, exhumados por Wikileaks,sobre el “extremismo en la parte oriental de Libia”(Léase:la Cirenaica y su capital Bengazi).

Mas allá de la guerra desinformativa de los ubicuos cuan omnipotentes multimedia “occidentales”,la única constante es el petróleo que define la axiología de “Occidente” dependiendo de la identidad del controlador del “oro negro” y por lo que se puede entender la razón tanto de la intervención militar de la triada de EU,Francia y Gran Bretaña(GB) en Libia así como su pasividad pasmosa en Bahrein y Arabia Saudita.

La intervención militar de la triada neocolonial consiguió levantar el sitio de las tribus deBengazi por sus rivales de las tribus del coronel Khadafi que se han replegado a subastión,en la parte oriental de Tripolitania(capital Tripoli) que concentra el 60% de la población.

El ministro de relaciones exteriores de Alemania, Guido Westerwelle----quien se soltó la lengua a sabiendas quizá de su derrota electoral en las elecciones regionales teutonas----,fustigó la hipocresía “occidental” en búsqueda del vellocino de “oro negro” y suinvolucramiento en una lucha fratricida de tribus en Libia.

La intervención militar “occidental” propició no solamente el levantamiento del sitio de Bengasi sino también la recaptura tanto de Brega,la principal terminal exportadora de petróleo en la parte oriental,así como de Ras Lanuf,su principal refinadora.

Prácticamente el 80% de los hidrocarburos de Libia,que Alá ha dispuesto se ubiquen del lado oriental,son ahora controlados por los jihadistas de Al-Qaeda,apuntalados paradójica y/o coincidentemente(como guste)por la triada de EU-Francia y GB.Así las cosas,el mando militar puede ser trasladado ahora a manos de la OTAN que sale triunfante de su control de los hidrocarburos de Libia,la mayor parte concentrada en la parte oriental.

Los estrategas “occidentales” se rompen la cabeza montando diferentes escenarios sobre el epílogo del coronel Khadafi,replegado en su feudo de Tripolitania,lo cual, a estas alturas resulta irrelevante cuando,mas que la balcanización de facto de Libia,la triada controla el 80% de los hidrocarburos.

En la ecuación de Libia -----que depende del 90% de sus ingresos petroleros----,la única constante son los hidrocarburos y los actores resultan sus variables en consecuencia.

¿Puede existir voltereta de las lealtades de las tribus,como ha sucedido en el pasado?Todoes posible.

Inmediatamente a la recuperación de los rebeldes jihadistas en el terreno militar,Qatar----una de las seis petromonarquías del Consejo de Cooperacion del Golfo que participa conspicuamente al lado de la coalición “occidental”-----, se ha adelantado a comprar la producción petrolera de las tribus enemigas del coronel Khadafi.Se necesita mucho dinero para mantener inalterable la lealtad de las tribus del desierto libio.

Stratfor del 23 de febrero se basa en un reporte de varias empresas petroleras que  expone la importancia del control del Golfo de Sidra desde cuyos puertos se exporta el 77% del petróleo libio: “El Golfo de Sidra es crucial para las exportaciones de energía de Libia.Lospuertos de as Sidra,Marsa el Brega,Ras Lanuf,Tobruk y Zuetina manejan aproximadamente el 77% de las exportaciones petroleras de Libia”.

La refinería de Marsa en Brega,hoy en manos de los jihadistas de Al-Qaeda----paradójica y/o coincidentemente aliados estructurales de la triada “occidental” en Libia---,destila 200,000 barriles al día.

Los tres campos petroleros----Nafura,Messla y Sarir---están en manos de la tribuZawiya(enemiga de las tribus todavía leales a Khadafi).El campo de Sarir nutre el puerto de Tobruk(donde combatieron el alemán Rommel y el británico Montgomery en la segunda guerra mundial).

Ras Lanuf,en manos de los rebeldes jihadistas,aliados paradójica y/o coincidentemente de la coalición”occidental”,constituye la mayor refinería de exportación libia(220,000 barriles al día).El peso de la refinería de Ras Lanuf es enorme en la economía libia.

La relevancia de Ajdabiya(también bajo control jihadista,aliada paradójica y/o coincidentemente de la coalición “occidental”)-----cerrojo de la principal carretera costera entre Bengazi y Trípoli a lo largo del Golfo de Sidra------,radica en su cercanía al estratégico puerto de Zuetina.

La ráfaga de disparos de los misiles Tomahawk,al unísono de los bombardeos de los aviones de Francia y GB para “implementar” la zona de exclusión aérea,permitieron la recaptura de Ajdabiya por los jihadistas de Al-Qaeda.

Stratfor,centro de pensamiento texano-israelí, es muy veloz para las cuentas: “las tres cuartas partes de ls ingresos petroleros de Libia,del orden de US$30,000 millones en 2009,son exportados el extranjero a través del Golfo de Sidra”.

A través del prisma inamovible de los hidrocarburos,la balcanización de Libia ha resultado exitosa para la triada “occidental” que al corte de caja de hoy controla el 80% de su producción y reservas,mientras deja el restante 20% en manos de las tribus de Khadafi que se pudieran quedar con el yacimiento petrolero de Elephant(producción de 110,000 barriles al día)para subsistir penosa y puniblemente el tiempo que se decanta la situación.

Vale la pena consultar las fotos ,publicadas por Réseau Voltaire(“Un Festival de Hipocresía”;www.voltairenet.org/article169090.html ),que exhiben sin rubicundez al hoy pestilente coronel Khadafi con sus amigos aliados de ayer,los hipócritas mandatarios de “Occidente” que en su infausto “pacto faustiano” hace mucho le vendió su alma a Mefistófeles, y quienes hoy,después de haber exprimido sus capitales,lo arrojan inmisericordemente a las aves de rapiña de las trasnacionales petroleras que merodean en el desierto libio.

¿Pasarán las tribus de Khadafi a una prolongada guerra de guerrilla con sus aliados de Chad y Níger?

¿Qué advendrá de los pletóricos capitales del coronel Khadafi depositados en “Occidente”?EU ha congelado  US$32,000 millones y GB otro tanto.Se recurda que EU y GB padecen una severa insolvencia financiera.

¿Tendremos una nueva narrativa “occidental” para depurar a los rebeldes de Bengazi de sus matrices jihadistas y así conservar los capitales congelados en una nueva edición de las “Mil y Dos Noches”  que agregó su capítulo final mas inverosímil :la salvación del género humano en el Golfo de Sidra?

¿Qué pasará con los suculentos “fondos soberanos de riqueza”(Wealth Sovereign Funds) de Libia que superan los US$100,000 millones?

Por lo pronto,los bancos “occidentales” los podrán usar ad libitum y especular con ellos las alzas del petróleo y los alimentos para cerrar su círculo vicioso.

En caso de la defenestración del coronel Khadafi ,el control “occidental” de los hidrocarburos libios pasaría a un 100%.As simple as that.Lo demás es literatura barata.

Artículo No. 37 Why Russia, Turkey Look Toward Armenia and Azerbaijan April 1, 2011 | Stratfor

Armenian President Serzh Sarkisian announced Thursday that he would personally be on the first civilian flight from Armenia into the newly rebuilt airport in Nagorno-Karabakh when it opens in May. (Nagorno-Karabakh is an Armenian-backed secessionist region enclosed within Azerbaijan.) Azerbaijan had earlier announced that it would shoot down any plane over its occupied territories. For now, the issue is at a standoff as both sides have laid a challenge that could not only propel the region back into the brutal war of the 1990s, but could also pull in some global heavyweights. That said, STRATFOR is looking beyond the political theater that normally, and incessantly, takes place between Yerevan and Baku to whether this has been orchestrated by the country that has held the peace between the two, Russia.

The southern region of the Caucasus has seen countless struggles in the past century, though one of the most enduring is between the Armenians and Azerbaijanis over Nagorno-Karabakh. Soviet rule from the 1920s onwards stifled these battles for the most part. But as soon as the Soviet Union’s disintegration looked imminent, conflict flared up when Nagorno-Karabakh declared independence from Azerbaijan, with intention to unify with Armenia. Free of being restrained by Moscow, Azerbaijan defended its territory and a full-scale war erupted, stretching across Armenia and Azerbaijan until Russia brokered a cease-fire.

“Both Ankara and Moscow know that any Azerbaijani-Armenian conflict would not remain contained within the region.”

Though simmering hostilities have continued, there are two reasons the conflict has remained frozen. First, beginning in the mid-1990s, neither Armenia nor Azerbaijan had the resources to continue fighting. Armenia’s economy was, and is, non-existent for the most part. Without the financial means, it would be impossible for Armenia to launch a full-scale war. At the same time, Azerbaijan’s military has been too weak, thus far, to assert control over the occupied lands.

After nearly two decades, the issue is beginning to thaw again as the balance betweenArmenia and Azerbaijan is beginning to change. Baku has grown exponentially stronger in the past six years. Rich with energy-wealth, Azerbaijan has started creating a modern and competent military and the largest out of the Caucasus countries. Moreover, Azerbaijan’s close ally, Turkey, has renewed its commitment to defend Azerbaijan in any conflict withArmenia, recently signing a strategic cooperation agreement to this end. On the other hand,Armenia has been reduced to a satellite of Russia for the most part, with little independent foreign policy, politics or economy. Being folded under Russia’s wing, Armenia feels protected against its rival. These two shifts have led to an increase in tensions betweenBaku and Yerevan over whether either is bold enough to revive hostilities.

The involvement of Turkey and Russia is the main cause of deterrence that is holding the two sides back. Both Ankara and Moscow know that any Azerbaijani-Armenian conflict would not remain contained within the region. Each power would be expected by Baku andYerevan to defend their respective ally — whether they actually would is unclear. Therefore, the standoff has become more about Moscow and Ankara holding back each side and not allowing the instability to become exacerbated to the extent of an open conflict or war.

However, two other issues are also evolving. First, Baku is becoming more powerful thanMoscow is comfortable with. It is not that Russia is concerned it cannot handle Azerbaijanon its own, but Russia is attempting to maintain a regional balance by dominating each of the three Caucasus states in its own way. Baku’s resource wealth and hefty foreign connections are beginning to tip those scales in comparison to the other two states. Still,Russia has held back as to not launch a larger conflict with Turkey, which Moscow is wary to provoke.

This is where the second development comes in. Turkey is engulfed in other large conflicts and is one of the key members in the Middle Eastern theater helping the United Statessuppress the instability. Turkey is struggling within NATO to carve out a leadership role and is embroiled in a standoff with some European NATO members over how extensive the Libyan intervention ought to be. Ankara is also using its influence in the Iranian-Saudi struggle over Bahrain and the Arab world in general. There are also domestic politics to consider, with important elections coming up in June for Turkey. Such a string of endless conflicts also has the United States, which has deep relations with both Yerevan and Baku, preoccupied.

On the other hand, Russia isn’t wrapped up in any of those issues. Moreover, Moscow feels pretty confident these days with its position globally. First, Russia has been largely successful in its resurgence into its former Soviet sphere. Second, as of the past few months, it has even more room to maneuver now that the West is dealing with the instabilities in the Islamic theater. Third, Europe is torn over taking part in those conflicts and its need to focus on its own set of domestic challenges, both economically and politically. Lastly, the conflicts have caused energy prices to soar and many countries to demand more supplies — of which Russia is the winner. Russian international reserves crossed over the $500 billion mark on March 18 for the first time in two and a half years. The last time Russian reserves were in the $500 billion range, Moscow confronted Georgia in August 2008.

If there ever were a time for Russia to look at the more difficult issues it has avoided — like the standoff between Azerbaijan and Armenia or challenging an ascendant Turkey that does not seem to be slowing down, it would be now. It is most likely that Russia is not looking to launch a new conflict, but instead it wants to test how assertive Azerbaijan feels with its strengthening position against Armenia and just how willing Turkey is to dance with the bear. It is easier to feel such things out when the rest of the world is looking elsewhere.

Artículo No. 36 Why Sarkozy Went to War Why Sarkozy went to war in Libya

 

http://english.pravda.ru/world/africa/30-03-2011/117401-Why_Sarkozy_went_to_war_\ in_Libya-0/ Why Sarkozy went to war in Libya 30.03.2011 The French president spent five years as Minister of the Interior, building the image of a radical crime and immigration fighter (in areas related to people of Muslim origin). Apparently Sarkozy wants to repeat the political strategy of the 2007 campaign when he sought to follow the advice of Karl Rove (Bush strategist). Instead of just trying to build a majority, it is more effective to promote controversial issues such as immigration, identity, crime and Islam, which may provoke the fragmentation of the opposition. by Reginaldo Nasser / Carta Maior Besides the oil (85% of exports) and import of arms (1 billion dollars) the issue of immigration comes up as a major concern of the European Community in relation to recent events in Libya and North Africa. One of the words most used by European diplomats in recent days to refer to the action of Gaddafi is "unacceptable." However, in recent years, it has been perfectly acceptable for the governments of the European Community to outsource the protection of their borders to the this same "dictator." Over three years the police apparatus of Libya was used to keep migrants away from the sacred soil of Europe. "We are extremely concerned about developments in North Africa" ??- said a spokesman for the European Commissioner for Internal Affairs - Michele Cercone, who visited Libya last year to carry out cooperation agreements with the promise for assistance of 5 billion euros a year in exchange for the cooperation of Colonel Kadhafi who warned that "Tomorrow, maybe Europe is no longer European, but black." Two years ago an agreement was concluded between Italy andLibya that allowed the Italian navy to intercept the boat people and return them toLibya, one of the main routes of entry into Europe because of its proximity to southern Italy. Thus, it is estimated that in 2008 more than 32,000 illegal immigrants entered Italy via Libya, and in 2009 after the agreement, only 7,000 immigrants arrived at their destination. Those who failed to enter Europe were detained in camps inLibya showing Europe's serious discrimination and xenophobia against African immigrants. According to the Italian government, Libya has already intercepted more than 2.5 million immigrants over the past five years. Refugees who have no possibility of applying for asylum or access to any effective resource risk being forced to return to their country of origin where they may face persecution or torture. In contrast to his inept response to the riots in Tunisia andEgypt, Sarkozy not only condemned the regime of Gaddafi, but was the first to recognize the interim National Transitional Council, in Benghazi, and to take the initiative of getting the resolution approved to authorise air attacks. He estimated that it would be an excellent opportunity to show off how someone superior in national politicking could be bold and internationally put France in the "pantheon of great nations." aiming to increase his popularity. Furthermore, the intervention in Libya would be a way to reassert his position in Europe, and especially as a counterweight to the political and economic power of Germany in the European Union. It's a message that says that if Europe is to be taken seriously as a world power, the French military is a mainstay of its props. In messages on radio and television, the French president tried desperately to improve his image, hailing the "great hope" brought by Arab riots. Dominique Paille, President of the French Department of Immigration and Integration, observed "a few weeks ago we were watching the train of history go by, it was time for us to become one of the locomotives ourselves." In turn, Claude Guéant, Minister of the Interior and Immigration, a man in the confidence of the president, wanting to compete in the ideological land of the extreme right-wing (the new leader of the National Front, Marine Le Pen, comes up first in searches) stated that "because of uncontrolled immigration, the French sometimes have the feeling that they are no longer at home." Do not forget that Sarkozy spent five years as Minister of the Interior building the image of a radical fighter against crime and immigration (in areas related to people of Muslim origin). Apparently Sarkozy wants to repeat the political strategy of the 2007 campaign when he sought to follow the advice of Karl Rove (Bush strategist). Instead of trying to build a majority, it is more effective to promote controversial issues such as immigration, identity, crime and Islam, which may provoke the fragmentation of the opposition. The result, in the long term, is a greater level of social dissent and violence. The difference, and it is much more serious, is that now the focus of domestic law and order is closely connected to French and European foreign policy. In a sense, France wants to reprise its role of the nineteenth century, when European colonial powers were seeking to project their power and protect their interests outside of Europe. ? . (*) Professor of International Relations, PUC (SP) and the Graduate Program San Tiago Dantas (Unesp, Unicamp and PUC-SP). ?

Artículo No. 35 Libyan rebels sell weapons to Al Qaeda - Algerian paper Ria Novosti 2.4.11

Rebels who have plundered Libyan army depots sell weapons to militants from Al Qaeda'sNorth Africa branch, the Algerian paper L'Expression said on Saturday referring to a source from the Algerian security forces.

The militant Islamist group has already received heavy weaponry and air defense missiles from the Libyan rebels, the paper said, adding that if Western nations decide to equip the Libyans, these weapons could also come to the hands of Al Qaeda terrorists.

"Al Qaeda continues to recruit fighters on Libyan territory and is preparing a war against the regime of Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi," the paper said.

The Libyan political crisis, which evolved into military clashes between opponents and supporters of the country's longtime ruler Muammar Gaddafi, began in mid-February. The conflict has already left thousands of people dead and forced many more to flee the country.

UN Security Council Resolution 1973, adopted on March 17, imposed a no-fly zone over Libyaand authorized measures to protect civilians from Gaddafi forces, but stopped short of authorizing ground operations in the North African country.

CAIRO, April 2 (RIA Novosti)

Artículo No. 34 Mounting evidence of CIA ties to Libyan rebels By Patrick Martin

April 04, 2011 "WSWS" - -Numerous press reports over the weekend add to the evidence that the Libyan rebels fighting the regime of Muammar Gaddafi are under the direction of American intelligence agencies. Despite the repeated claims by Obama administration officials that the rebels are a largely unknown quantity, it is becoming increasingly clear that key military leaders of the anti-Gaddafi campaign are well known to the US government and have longstanding relations with the CIA.

For better than two weeks there had been a virtual ban in the US media on reporting the name of Khalifa Haftar, the long-time CIA collaborator who was appointed chief rebel commander March 17, on the eve of the US-NATO bombing campaign against Libya. Only the regional McClatchy Newspapers chain reported Haftar’s appointment, and ABC News ran a brief interview with him on March 27. Otherwise, silence prevailed.

This de facto censorship abruptly ended April 1, when a right-wing US think tank, the Jamestown Foundation, published a lengthy study of Haftar’s background and record, which was cited extensively by Reuters news service, and then more widely in the US and British media.

The Jamestown Foundation report declared: “Today as Colonel Haftar finally returns to the battlefields of North Africa with the objective of toppling Gaddafi, his former co-conspirator from Libya’s 1969 coup, he may stand as the best liaison for the United States and allied NATO forces in dealing with Libya’s unruly rebels.”

The Jamestown study noted Haftar’s role in organizing the Libyan National Army (LNA), which he founded “on June 21, 1988 with strong backing from the Central Intelligence Agency,” and cites a 1991 interview with him “conducted in an LNA camp in rural Virginia.” Not only did the CIA sponsor and fund the LNA, it engineered the entry of LNA officers and men into the United States where they established a training camp.

Reuters added, using a variant spelling of the name, that it has “repeatedly asked for an interview with Hefta but he could not immediately be contacted.” The news service added, “The CIA declined to comment” on its relationship to the former Libyan military leader.

Other references to Haftar’s role appeared in the online blog of the New Yorker magazine, in Africa Confidential, on National Public Radio, the British daily Guardian, and in the Independent on Sunday, another British newspaper.

The Independent column, headlined “The Shady Men Backed by the West to Displace Gaddafi,” described the Libyan rebel commanders as follows: “The careers of several make them sound like characters out of the more sinister Graham Greene novels. They include men such as Colonel Khalifa Haftar, former commander of the Libyan army in Chad who was captured and changed sides in 1988, setting up the anti-Gaddafi Libyan National Army reportedly with CIA and Saudi backing. For the last 20 years, he has been living quietly inVirginia before returning to Benghazi to lead the fight against Gaddafi.”

Finally, the Washington Post’s Sunday edition carried several references to Haftar, including a front-page article profiling the divisions within the rebel military leadership. “KhalifaHaftar, a former army colonel who recently returned to Libya after living for many years in Falls Church, was initially hailed by the Transitional National Council as a leader who could help discipline the new army and train its largely volunteer ranks,” Post reporter TaraBahrampour wrote.

She then quoted TNC and rebel military spokesmen giving conflicting accounts, one sayingHaftar had been removed from command, the other saying he remained in control of the military. A spokesman for the TNC, asked to explain the conflict in light of its earlier announcement of Haftar’s appointment, said, “This is the position of the council today. The situation is fluid.... The political viewpoints change frequently.”

Walter Pincus, the Post’s long-time reporter on intelligence activities, himself a former CIA informer in the National Student Association, described Haftar as “a former Libyan army colonel who for years commanded the Libyan National Army (LNA), an anti-Gaddafi group.” The article said Haftar had “established the LNA, allegedly with backing from the CIA and Saudi elements.” It continued: “In 1996, he was reported to have been behind an alleged uprising in eastern Libya. By that time, he was already settled with his family in Falls Church.”

According to Pincus, “a senior intelligence official,” asked about the Libyan commander’s connection to the CIA, “said it was policy not to discuss such issues.”

The informal blackout on Haftar’s identity and CIA connections still continues on the American television networks and in the pages of the New York Times—a newspaper that openly admits its subservience to the US military/intelligence apparatus. But the significance of the weekend press reports is unmistakable: the Libyan rebel military is not the independent organ of a popular uprising against the Gaddafi dictatorship, but rather the creature of American imperialism, the most reactionary political force on the planet.

The dubious character of the Libyan rebels was further underscored in a remarkable profile published Saturday by the Wall Street Journal of three Libyans who had fought with Osamabin Laden in Afghanistan and were now playing major roles in the rebel military effort. Two of the three had been in US custody as alleged Al Qaeda operatives and one spent six years at Guantanamo Bay before being turned over to the Gaddafi regime in 2007. The three menare:

· Abdel Hakim al-Hasady, described as “an influential Islamic preacher and high school teacher who spent five years at a training camp in eastern Afghanistan” and now “oversees the recruitment, training and deployment of about 300 rebel fighters fromDarna,” a city in eastern Libya

· Salah al-Barrani, “a former fighter from the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, or LIFG,” who is Hasady’s field commander

· Sufyan Ben Qumu, “a Libyan army veteran who worked for Osama bin Laden’s holding company in Sudan and later for an al Qaeda-linked charity in Afghanistan,” and who “is training many of the city’s rebel recruits.”

Hasady and Ben Qumu were arrested by Pakistani security after the US invasion ofAfghanistan in 2001 and turned over to the US. Hasady was transferred to Libyan custody two months later, while Ben Qumu was moved to Guantanamo and held there until 2007, when he, too, was sent to a Libyan prison. The Gaddafi regime released both men in 2008, at a time when US-Libya collaboration in the “war on terror” was at its height. Such an action would certainly have been checked with Washington.

The former Al Qaeda warrior was quite willing to speak to the leading US business newspaper, which reported, “his discourse has become dramatically more pro-American.” He told the Journal, “If we hated the Americans 100 percent, today it is less than 50 percent. They have started to redeem themselves for their past mistakes.…”

Whether these individuals are Al Qaeda operatives who were “turned” by their American captors or have simply changed allegiance under changed circumstances is unclear. But their role in the Libyan opposition further undermines the longstanding propaganda of theUS government about the supposedly unbridgeable gulf between Al Qaeda and American imperialism.

For a decade, the US government, under Bush and now Obama, has used the terrorist actions of Al Qaeda and its alleged supporters as a pretext for one military intervention after another in the Muslim world—Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Somalia, Yemen, the Philippines, Indonesia and now Libya.

There has long been reason to doubt the “war on terror” narrative, not least the fact that AlQaeda was effectively created by the CIA through its activities in recruiting and mobilizing radical Islamists to go to Afghanistan in the 1980s and join the mujaheddin guerrillas fighting the Soviet army there. Many of the 9/11 suicide hijackers were known to the CIA as Al Qaeda operatives, and in some cases under active surveillance, but were nonetheless allowed to enter the country, receive training at US flight schools and carry out the terrorist attacks.

An incident during a hearing Thursday before the House Armed Services Committee demonstrates the sensitivity of the US government concerning the links between US intelligence services and Al Qaeda. Democratic Congressman Brad Sherman questioned a witness, Deputy Secretary of State James Steinberg, about the role of Abdel Hakim al-Hasady. Steinberg refused to discuss the matter, suggesting it could be taken up only in a closed-door session where US covert operations are regularly reviewed.

Artículo No. 33 4.4.11 Making peace in Libya RIA Novosti political commentator Dmitry Kosyrev

No matter how long a war may last, it is always followed by peace. And the strange war inLibya is no exception to this rule. In fact, it appears that many of the world's major powers have been preparing to broker a peace deal from the start.

Vying to keep the peace

On Monday and Tuesday, the head of the African Union, Jean Ping, will be holding talks with NATO and EU leaders. He has proposed a detailed plan for a cease-fire and a peace settlement in Libya. It will be interesting to see whether the discussion there will revolve around general issues or focus on specific measures to bring about peace in Libya.

The African Union is a major player, at least when it comes to Libya. But one gets the sense that the organization is also jockeying for position in the hopes of taking the lead in the peace effort.

There are several other peace initiatives. A group of left-wing Latin American countries, led by Cuba and Venezuela, has submitted its own plan for a cease-fire to the UN Security Council.

This group would have looked like a minor player had it not been joined by Asian countries like Indonesia and Vietnam. Moreover, there are three much more influential countries that have not signed onto the plan, but only because they currently have a seat on the UN Security Council - India, Brazil and South Africa.

The plan was formally submitted to China's representative in the Security Council, as Chinais the current chair. It's worth examining China's role in the international community's response to the crisis in Libya. Like Russia, China abstained from the vote on resolution 1973 that authorized a military operation against Gaddafi's regime.

On April 1, the Chinese and German foreign ministers held a meeting in Beijing. They reminded the world that both had abstained from the vote because they could see that the resolution, which is intended to protect civilians, would ultimately have the opposite effect. Both countries are calling for a cease-fire.

This begs the question: Do any countries share the position of Britain, France, Belgium and a few other states that are involved in intervention in Libya - all the more so now that the United States announced its decision to step back from the operation?

Obama's re-election and an isolated Europe

On Monday European NATO members were begging the United States to continue playing an active role in the airstrikes against Gaddafi's regime. The Americans have agreed to stay on... for now.

But U.S. Defense secretary Robert Gates, who visited Moscow on March 21-22, has said theUnited States will soon step back from the mission. There were many other promises and signs that the Obama administration - or at least one faction within the administration - does not want this war. However, the majority of Russians cannot be persuaded that the United States does not need Libyan oil, or that it will withdraw from Afghanistan as promised.

There is no doubt that the United States will leave Libya and shift this military disgrace not simply onto NATO (where the U.S. is the main force) but onto the Europeans.

On Monday Obama announced his intention to run for a second term. There is no doubt that the U.S. withdrawal from Libya was timed to coincide with the start of the 2012 election campaign.

We are witnessing a rare event in which a small group of European states (you can't even call them "the West") find themselves isolated as they prosecute what amounts to a very stupid war, which cannot guarantee Gaddafi's departure. Indeed, his defeat appearsunlikely.

Sino-Russian experience

Let's see which major world powers were smart enough to avoid getting involved. Recently, an excellent columnist by the name of Li Hongmei wrote a detailed analysis of why Chinaabstained from the vote on resolution 1973. She said what some Chinese diplomats will never admit - that China has been gradually offering its partners in the Middle East an alternative to the America's highly unpopular policy in the region. As distinct from the consensus with Washington, the consensus with Beijing is not a myth but a policy that has led China's trade with Saudi Arabia alone to grow to over $40 billion a year.

If it had not been for the fact that Arab nations pushed for the resolution because of their dislike of Gaddafi, China might have vetoed it. But already on the second day of the war, the Arab League said that the aggressive bombing campaign is not what it had in mind. Now the organization is advocating peace.

China is now one of the leading voices for peace in the Libyan conflict, as is Russia. It was difficult for Russia to make the right choice but, ultimately, it did. Russia staked out the best possible position on the issue and can now take part in the peace process on a par with all the other countries involved.

The views expressed in this article are the author's and may not necessarily represent those of RIA Novosti.

Artículo No. 32 Trump: We should stay in Iraq and keep their oil · Posted on 04.1.11 · By murielkane · Categories: Featured, Say What?

In an interview on Fox News, potential Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump outlined his Iraq strategy to Bill O’Reilly.

“In the old days when you had wars, you win, right?” Trump began. “You win. To the victor belonged the spoils. So when we go to Iraq, we spend $1.4 trillion so far and thousands of lives are lost, right? … And we’re going to leave and 15 minutes after we leave, Iran is going to go into Iraq.”

Having laid out the problem to his own satisfaction, Trump then proposed a solution: “You stay and protect the oil and you take the oil and you take whatever is necessary for them and you take what’s necessary for us and we pay our self back $1.5 trillion or more. We take care of Britain, we take care of other countries that helped us and we don’t be so stupid.”

“You look at wars over the years,” Trump concluded. “A country goes in, they conquer and they stay. We go in, we conquer and then we leave. And we hand it to people that we don’t even know. Now, who are the people that are going to be running Iraq? The person that hates the United States the most will be running Iraq. So, in a nutshell, we go in, we take over the second largest oil fields and we stay.”

Watch this video, uploaded by Fox News on April 1, 2011