Tag Archives: Un Resolution 1973

BENGHAZI – Part 3 – NATO Responds to the UN Resolution 1973

Suppose just for a moment that what I am about to tell you is what really happened. Suppose for a moment it is the truth that diplomats and elites do not want you to know.

First off, it will help you to understand that the world exists at two different levels: the one the elites want us to see, hear about, and is written about by the press; the other, which exists only for elites, takes place in a different realm, where only the few live.

In order to understand what really happened at Benghazi, this is the third in a series of articles that will provide the background to what led up to the diplomatic disaster that cost the United States the lives of Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens, Foreign Service Information Management Officer (IMO) Sean Smith, and CIA contractors and former Navy SEALS Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty.

My last blog referred to the gold and assets that Qaddafi owned and the world’s concerns of him creating a gold-backed currency. How did the world get to UN Resolution 1973? Let me explain.

On February 21, 2011, Libyan’s Deputy Permanent Representative to the UN, Ibrahim Dabbashi, went before the council and requested a no-fly zone to keep supplies and mercenaries from joining Qaddafi regime’s military fighting and killing Libyan citizens. Remember, Qaddafi had fought his own citizens for years—killing anyone or any group he remotely believed could attempt to overthrow him.

Then two days later, French President Sarkozy went to the European Union, expressing his concerns regarding Qaddafi, and stating they must stop the attacks on his citizens, which got sanctions passed to freeze Qaddafi’s assets abroad.

On February 26, the UN Security Council unanimously passed Resolution 1970, which referred the current Libyan government to the International Criminal Court for gross human rights violations. The UN also called for an arms embargo. Remember this fact. Then they agreed to freeze Qaddafi’s—and several other government officials’—assets outside of Libya.

On the last day of February, British Prime Minister David Cameron also proposed a no-fly zone so Qaddafi could not use the Libyan Air Force against his own citizens.

Surprisingly, without any explanation to the press from either the President or the Secretary of State, on March 1, the United State Senate unanimously passed a non-binding resolution urging the UN Security Council to impose a Libyan no-fly zone. Plus, they called for Qaddafi to step down as leader of the country. At the time, the U.S. had naval assets sitting near the Libyan coast, including the USS Enterprise.  Canada joined the stakes the next day. Oh, by the way, they, too, coincidentally already had naval assets near Libya. They upped the threat, saying NATO was looking at this as well. To set this straight, NATO’s charter was established to defend NATO countries from aggressors, more particularly,  the Soviet Union, now Russia. Was Libya threatening the citizens within any NATO country? This seemed like a stretch.

The next week, this worldwide movement against the pariah of the earth, Qaddafi, increased, beginning with NATO announcing twenty-four-hour a day AWACS flights. Britain and France increased their refining of the no-fly zone resolution to be brought before the UN Security Council. To keep the momentum going, the Gulf Cooperation Council, the Arab equivalent to the European Union, of which, coincidentally enough, Libya was not a member, called for the establishment of a no-fly zone to protect Libyan citizens.

The Libyan National Transition Council, based in Benghazi, pleaded for the international community to impose the no-fly zone immediately, fearful that if Qaddafi’s forces reached Benghazi, they would kill “a half-million people.” For the record, the last available (2006) census of Benghazi placed its population at 670,797. According to Wikipedia, which is not a reliable reference but the only one with figures, the city’s population was 631,555 in 2011, while the greater metropolitan area held a population of 1,110,000. So, the National Transition Council believed that half of the population would be killed off? Seems like a stretch to me.

Then, on March 10, after a meeting with Sarkozy, France recognized the Libyan National Transition Council as the legitimate government.

The big development came on March 14, just before the G8 meeting in Paris. Sarkozy and the French Foreign Minister met with U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to push her to lead the U.S.’s intervention in Libya.

After you have read about how the elites and diplomats brought drama to this bad situation, here are some of the facts, which may not be a complete list of the actual on-the-ground situation.

Let’s look back at the beginning.

On February 16, 2011, Libyan anti-government protestors, inspired by uprisings in Egypt and Tunisia (you will remember the Arab Spring Movement), clashed with police. These protests continued for five days, spreading from Tripoli to Benghazi, which resulted in the deaths of a least five hundred Libyan citizens, while hundreds—perhaps as many as a thousand—were injured. By February 23, the eastern cities, including Benghazi, had fallen to the control of the “Arab Spring Movement”—or the rebels—or what was now pegged as the “good guys.” As violence continued throughout the country, it was estimated that more than 100,000 citizens had fled to surrounding countries.

Two weeks after the beginning of the uprising, it was estimated six thousand citizens had died, both pro-Qaddafi and anti-Qaddafi. Qaddafi loyalists had lost control of much of the country, except Tripoli. By the time the UN Security Council brought Resolution 1973 to a vote, the resolution stated: “Demanding an immediate ceasefire in Libya, including an end to the current attacks against civilians, which it said might constitute “crimes against humanity”, the Security Council this evening imposed a ban on all flights in the country’s airspace — a no-fly zone — and tightened sanctions on the Qaddafi regime and its supporters.” civil unrest had tumbled the entire country into turmoil. Just before the UN no-fly zone was to go into effect, the Libyan government called for negotiations with the opposition—but Qaddafi’s forces attacked rebels in the city of Misrata, which unraveled any glimpse of hope Qaddafi had of his government withstanding what was about to be unleashed.

The first forces to intervene in Libya were the French on March 19, just two days after the resolution. Then on March 24, the French government agreed to let NATO take over all military operations, no later than March 29. NATO was empowered with enforcing the no-fly zone and the arms embargo (not to the rebels, of course, but only for the loyalists of Qaddafi). Only Turkey wanted to veto the forthcoming air strikes, but it never came to an official vote. The NATO operation began with the defense of Benghazi, the new capital of the Libyan Coalition Government.

On March 27, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was provided an intelligence briefing by one of her intelligence gatherers that the NATO-backed rebels were also committing war crimes. So, both Qaddafi fighters and the rebels were committing war crimes against one another. Additionally, it was reported from other sources that the rebels suddenly had a large number of AK-47s, which they had not had just days earlier. So, despite the arms embargo, the rebels were provided weapons.

On March 28, the day before NATO was to take over operations, President Obama addressed the American people on the Libyan situation. . He explained why it was the responsible thing to stop “violence on a horrific scale,” keeping Qaddafi from slaughtering thousands of Libyans, acting with a mandate from the UN, and being a part of a coalition force. Obama discussed that intervention was important to the peaceful transition of power in both Egypt and Tunisia, due to Libyan refugees pouring into those countries. It is important remember, as mentioned above, these two countries overthrew their dictators as a part of the Arab Spring Movement. President Obama claimed it was the right, albeit belated, decision to join with allies.

Was President Obama too slow to explain that decision or his long-term strategy to Congress and the American people?

 

 

 

BENGHAZI – Part 2 – The Gold – The Lead up to September 11, 2012

Suppose just for a moment that what I am about to tell you is what really happened. Suppose for a moment what I am about to tell you is the truth that diplomats and elites do not want you to know.

First off, it will help you to understand that the world exists at two different levels: the one the elites want us to see, hear about, and is written about by the press; the other, which exists only for elites, takes place in a totally different realm, where only the few live.

In order to understand what really happened at Benghazi, this is the second in a series of articles that will provide the background to what led up to the diplomatic disaster that cost the United States the lives of Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens, Foreign Service Information Management Officer (IMO) Sean Smith, and CIA contractors and former Navy SEALS Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty.

I assume when Qaddafi led a “bloodless military coup” and deposed of Libyan King Idris, he took possession of all of the assets of the Libyan King still in the country. I can find no reference to this assumption, although a small amount was returned to the country’s coffers. King Idris’s estate would have been small in comparison to other royal estates.

Nevertheless, it provided a good building block for Qaddafi. By 2011, it was rumored that Qaddafi had between 100 and 200 million US dollars hidden away in various corporate investments, as well as in front companies and bank accounts not associated with his name. It is my opinion the lower figure was more accurate. Plus, I assume a portion of his wealth was in physical gold. Additionally, his net worth was reported at $200 billion dollars, which included his personal and corporate ownership in crude oil field assets in Libya.

Within the decade that Qaddafi took over the Libyan oil and gas industry, political unrest resulted in  a significant increase in crude oil prices. Libya became the richest country in Northern Africa.  Despite the growth of a middle class, there was not a “trickle down” to the general population in proportion to the crude oil income.

The crude oil reserves in the country were the best in Africa and attracted the interests of many European countries in close proximity, including but not limited to Italy, Germany, Spain, and France. Additionally, Libya purchased goods from many of those same countries, including Italy, Germany, the United Kingdom, and France.

As I had written in the first blog, Qaddafi had withdrawn from the terrorist business after September 11, 2001. Thus, he became “more acceptable” to the Western World, particularly with the countries with which they were doing business. Naturally, business was conducted in Euros, British Pound Sterling, Italian Lira, German francs and French francs, while crude oil was purchased in U.S. dollars.

As mentioned in the first blog, by 2011, Libya officially claimed to have 4.6 million troy ounces—or 146 metric tons—of gold associated with their central bank. The value of this gold had grown to approximately $8 billion dollars USD.

Qaddafi still had dreams of becoming the egotistical name he’d given himself—the “King of Kings”—which had little meaning for the most part. That is, until his plan was revealed that could make him the power broker for most of Africa. Again, most in the Western World paid little attention until Qaddafi decided to create a gold-backed Dinar, which could potentially become a currency used throughout Africa. It should be noted that Qaddafi believed he had a sufficient quantity of gold in the Libyan central bank to initiate his plan.

Suddenly, Qaddafi was a problem to the World. The official story, sold to the public via meetings at the United Nations, was that he was mistreating his own Libyan citizens. Now, as I stated earlier, Qaddafi was not a “prince,” but there had been no major change in the way he treated his people over the past decade or more. The “Arab Spring” movement—the last of several uprisings he’d put down—caused a segment of his own population to threaten to rise up against his reign. In the past, he had put down several uprisings, but the Western World paid little attention, while obviously hoping someone would take him down.

But this time was different to the Western World. Nicholas Sarkozy, then President of France,  was under extreme pressure from French banks to step in. If I had a guess, the British, Italian and German leaders were also receiving pressure from their bankers. But it was the French whom had the most to lose, as the French franc was one of the largest exchange currencies throughout most of Africa, and replacing it with the Libyan gold-backed dinar would have a huge ripple effect throughout the African continent. Those four European countries, as well as the World Prime banks in Europe, could not have that gold-backed currency go into circulation. Why, you ask? A gold-backed currency would cause non-gold-backed currencies to drop in value.

As a result of frantic meetings at the United Nations Security Council on March 17, 2011, there was a vote on Resolution 1973, with ten countries for it and five countries abstaining. Surprising to me, Germany was one of the abstention countries. Here is a portion of the quote of this resolution:

“Demanding an immediate ceasefire in Libya, including an end to the current attacks against civilians, which it said might constitute ‘crimes against humanity,’ the Security Council this evening imposed a ban on all flights in the country’s airspace—a no-fly zone—and tightened sanctions on the Qadhafi regime and its supporters.

“The Council authorized Member States, acting nationally or through regional organizations or arrangements, to take all necessary measures to protect civilians under threat of attack in the country, including Benghazi, while excluding a foreign occupation force of any form on any part of Libyan territory—requesting them to immediately inform the Secretary-General of such measures.” Quotation taken directly from the United Nations text of Resolution 1973

However, in then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s emails, there was an e-mail that painted a different picture than the diplomatically crafted U.N. Resolution 1973, which came from none other than President Sarkozy, with the subject line “France’s client and Qaddafi’s gold”:

“…leading the attack on Libya with five specific purposes in mind: to obtain Libyan oil, ensure French influence in the region, increase Sarkozy’s reputation domestically, assert French military power, and to prevent Gaddafi’s influence in what is considered ‘Francophone Africa’.” Quotation from one of 3000 new Hillary Clinton emails released by the State Department – source – website http://thefreethoughtproject.com

As the Arab Spring movement went from talk to action, Qaddafi turned his army and mercenaries loose on the small group of poorly armed and organized rebels, which was composed of military deserters and ill-trained militiamen. They called their ill-fated movement the National Transitional Council (NTC). Qaddafi quipped these rebels were “17-year-olds, given pills at night, hallucinatory pills in their drinks, their milk, their coffee, their Nescafe.” Quotation of Qaddafi taken from website www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-12699033

Clearly, Mrs. Clinton bought into Resolution 1973. It can only be assumed that she also had undocumented conversations with bankers from the World Prime European banks. After the U.N. Resolution 1973 was enacted, there was no problem with President Obama getting on board, which is where he coined the famous phrase “Leading from Behind.” In my opinion, he wasn’t completely on-board with this action, but with Mrs. Clinton and the other European leaders egging him on, the United States joined the process.

Therefore, one can conclude that Resolution 1973 was carried out by world leaders, diplomats and elites to initiate a false narrative regarding Qaddafi, and start in motion a process not necessary for the protection of the Libyan population, but instead to stop Qaddafi from issuing a gold-backed African currency that would compete with the Western central banking monopoly.

Was there a precedence of stopping a gold-backed currency from going into effect by a third world country? Yes. Read up on Indonesian President Soekarno was planning to start an independent “third world bank” with a gold-backed currency in 1965. Shortly after he started this push, he was removed from office and a man the West could control, Suharto, was put in charge of the country.

In my next blog, I plan to write about what NATO did in Libya with respect to the United Nations Resolution 1973.