Libya can still count on a few allies

https://www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/afric...x.html?hpt=T2/

Libya can still count on a few allies

(CNN) -- Despite facing intense pressure from parts of the international community to relinquish power, the Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi can still count on the continued support of some prominent world leaders, say analysts.

Much of Gadhafi's overseas backing is based on a shared anti-colonial narrative and the instincts of some regimes to undermine the norms of the international community, experts believe.

So while many countries have criticized Gadhafi in the aftermath of protests that have left more than 1,000 people dead and many more injured, according to the U.N., some of his allies, including Venezuela and Zimbabwe, refuse to publicly criticize Libya.

"There is a natural alignment between all regimes which are into power maximization, that is, regimes trying to accumulate as much power as they can for themselves," says Barak Seener, a Middle East research fellow at the Royal United Services Institute, a London-based think tank.

"Venezuela, for example, also has close links with Iran," added Seener.

Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez has called for an international good will commission to mediate in Libya; in contrast the U.N. Security Council over the weekend voted for tough restrictions and possible war crimes charges against the Libyan regime.

On Monday, Chavez said Gadhafi, "has been my friend and our friend for a long time," in remarks broadcast on Venezuelan state television.

And in comments made on Thursday, Chavez described alleged preparations to invade Libya as "a madness, and in front of that madness, as always, the Yankee empire that tries to dominate the world, at the cost of fire and blood."

The former Cuban President Fidel Castro on Thursday also condemned what he described as the inevitable U.S.-backed invasion of Libya by NATO to get its hands on that country's oil.

Seener said that countries with a record of "domestic abuse," such as limiting freedom of speech and having no independent judiciary, have no sense of accountability to their people in the same way that elected powers do and that lack of perceived accountability tends to spill over into their foreign polices.

Another close allay of Gadhafi is Zimbabwean president Robert Mugabe. Libya has pumped millions of dollars into Zimbabwe, which already has few international friends, says Jane Kinninmont, senior research fellow at the think tank Chatham House.

"There is not a great incentive (among the international community) to back Gadhafi as not many would bet on him retaining power... but while some countries have done a diplomatic turnaround, Mugabe is unlikely to do so," Kinninmont says.

She adds that, for example, during the bloody ethnic conflict in the Sudanese region of Darfur, Sudan faced international condemnation but "did still have its friends in the international world."

There is also a second group of nations -- including China, Russia and Turkey -- which while unlikely to openly back Gadhafi, would not support an invasion and they would also be against a no-fly zone, said Seener.

"It is not simply a case of being anti-Western. Turkey for example is increasing diplomatic and economic links with Iran and as it does so it is entering the Iranian sphere of influence. They will not condemn what Gadhafi is doing in Libya," says Seener.

Despite the continued backing of Gadhafi by his allies, some analysts predict a sorry end for the leader.

Scott Horton, an international lawyer said: "Deposed dictators now are subject to lawsuits, both civil suits by the governments that succeeded them and human rights suits, and they wind up being prosecuted and successfully sued."

However, Barak Barfi of the New America Foundation said: "I think there is a very good possibility he'll fight to the death knowing he has very few options."

One important thing to understand about "our" government's attitude to Gadhafi (and other national leaders) is this: Contrary to their pretensions, our government does NOT decide who to support and who to oppose based on their human rights records. If the US decides to help overthrow the Libyan government, it won't be because Gadhafi is an evil bastard; the US routinely supports evil bastards worldwide, sometimes helping to overthrow democratically elected leaders (Mossadeq, Allende, Aristide, etc.) to replace them with torturing, murdering despots who are friendly to US corporate/government interests. The list of murderous fuckers the US has supported includes the Shah, Marcos, Pinochet, Noriega, Saddam Hussein, the Taliban, Mubarak, the Duvaliers, Rios-Montt, various nameless meat-packing glitterati from Colombia to Burma, and many, many more. So if the US ends up intervening in Libya, it'll be because the ruling class of this country sees it as being in their interest, NOT for the noble sounding reasons they'll claim. As their support of the above-mentioned dictators shows, "our" government certainly has zero interest in promoting democracy or human rights.

I suspect strongly that if "we" arm the insurgents in Libya, a primary motivation will be to stabilize the petroleum market. Given the current state of affairs, there's a lot of instability in the system. The last time this happened two and a quarter years ago, the consequences threatened to bring down the entire global economy. (Fall of 2008)

I want them armed for other reasons (and maybe also the one I just stated, in spite of my antipathy for "The System") to level the playing field and end the carnage, especially of innocents, ASAP.

Notice I wrote "armed" not invaded, bombed, strafed, occupied or any other direct application of outside forces. OTHER than providing shoulder launched anti-tank and anti-aircraft munitions to the Benghazis and other Libyans fighting their oppressors.

Problem is, the drawback for Empire is once those stingers and tows get out and about, it's hard to control who uses them, and for what. See Mujahadeen in Afghanistan during the eighties and nineties.

It's interesting to me to observe the dilemma whether or not US or UN should intervene in Lybia. I'm reminded of the situation in 1956 in Hungary (I was 9 years old there at the time). When the Russians invaded with thousands of tanks and troops, Hungary called out for help from the UN -- or anyone listening -- and there was no response. Over 2500 Hungarians/700 Russians were killed and 200,000 Hungarians (Magyars) escaped over the Russian secured borders -- my mother, sister and I among them. Considering the tension of the Cold War, I suppose it could have turned into a serious confrontation involving surrounding countries in Europe. It's a catch 22 situation in Lybia. A similar scenario could unfold if the US invaded Lybia or even armed Gadhafi's opposition. And I agree that the US gov/empire is more concerned about its interest in the region than the struggles and well being of the people there.

There is a book written by the police chief of Budapest during the uprising in 1956, "In the Name of the Working Class." The author, Sándor Kopáchi, narrates his daily activities in solidarity with the Hungarian people during the uprising. Intense reading -- as if you're there in the streets during the fighting as well as behind closed doors where discussions occurred. The Hungarian uprising was against Russian occupation/domination not against the socialist system as US propaganda portrayed it.

-