Koppel - Why Did Libya Win The ‘Humanitarian Defense Sweepstakes Of 2011?’

[malaise]

Wow that was a surprise!
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/ted-koppel-why-did-libya-win-the-humanitarian-defense-sweepstakes-of-2011/
<snip>
Lining up on the side of those critical of Obama is the BBC’s Ted Koppel who wonders of all the countries worldwide that face a potential humanitarian crisis, why do the citizens of Libya deserve America’s focus and protection more than the citizens of any other country?

Koppel argues that many countries throughout the world have had much greater civilian loss than Libya, including the Congo, Sudan and the Ivory Coast. Therefore, Koppel asks, “why it is that Libya, of all countries in that region, has won the humanitarian defense sweepstakes of 2011?” Koppel says it’s a simple question, yet one that neither Obama nor anyone in his administration has been able to answer.

If Koppel’s displeasure with the Libyan strategy wasn’t clear enough, later in the show he suggests, “we know for a fact that Gaddafi is a bad guy, but we know very little about the people who seek to replace him.” In fact all we do know, according to Koppel, is that a disproportionately high number of the Libyan rebels aided Al-Qaeda in Iraq. Koppel clearly needs a lot of convincing that this was the right strategy, and maybe Obama’s speech tomorrow night to the nation can begin to aid in that effort.

[customerserviceguy]

1. Do you really think this speech will articulate

why we did this in Libya, and why we don't (or won't) do it in a couple dozen other places?

[pampango]

2. If there had been another "winner" of the "HDS of 2011" would "Why _____" become the cry?

And, of course, it was not that "the citizens of Libya deserve America’s focus and protection more than the citizens of any other country". The UN decided that "the citizens of Libya deserve the world's focus and protection more than the citizens of any other country.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resolution_1973

"United Nations Security Council Resolution 1973, on the situation in Libya, is a measure that was adopted on 17 March 2011. The Security Council resolution was proposed by France, Lebanon, and the United Kingdom."

Ten Security Council members voted in the affirmative (Bosnia and Herzegovina, Colombia, Gabon, Lebanon, Nigeria, Portugal, South Africa, and permanent members France, the United Kingdom, and the United States). Five (Brazil, Germany, and India, and permanent members China and Russia) abstained, with none opposed.

Of course Koppel's preference for UN intervention in Congo, Sudan and the Ivory Coast has merit. Indeed the UN is intervening in those countries.

Sudan: http://www.responsibilitytoprotect.org/index.php/crises/crisis-in-sudan
Congo: http://www.responsibilitytoprotect.org/index.php/crises/crisis-in-drc
Ivory Coast: http://www.responsibilitytoprotect.org/index.php/crises/crisis-in-ivory-coast

Maybe Ted's going with "If you can't intervene everywhere simultaneously and in exactly the same manner, don't intervene anywhere." Or maybe he means to be arguing that military intervention is the only "real" intervention and that he's in favor of that int these other countries, too. The UN looks at it as a last resort, not the preferred method of intervention.

In terms of policy military intervention comes only after 6 criteria are considered.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Responsibility_to_protect

Threshold for military interventions

According to the International Commission for Intervention and State Sovereignty (ICISS) Report in 2001, any form of a military intervention initiated under the premise of responsibility to protect must fulfill the following six criteria in order to be justified as an extraordinary measure of intervention:

Just Cause
Right Intention
Final Resort
Legitimate Authority
Proportional Means
Reasonable Prospect

[malaise]

3. One thing for sure

None of the losers is an oil producing country

[gratuitous]

4. Oh, how cynical!

Why would you think, even for a second, that . . .

Never mind. Got it in one.

[malaise]

8. LOL

Good morning :hi:

[Distant Observer]

9. They may find some oil off the Ivory Coast -- but not Libya's $Trillions: LOOSE!

[pampango]

14. Neither was Burma in 2007 when France, the UK and US tried to get the UNSC

to intervene based on the Responsibility to Protect civilians. Those three permanent members of the Security Council were willing to intervene in a non-oil producing country.

One might have to ask China and Russia who both vetoed UN intervention in Burma why their attitudes changed when it came to Libya. The US, UK and France were consistent supporting UN intervention based on R2P in a non-oil producing country and in an oil-producing one. Russia and China have not been so consistent.

[PVnRT]

16. To be fair, Burma does produce oil

However, nearly all of it is sold to China. But that couldn't be the reason they vetoed any action in 2007, of course.

[PVnRT]

15. No, but Congo has untold billions in natural resource wealth

And, once again, if it were all about oil, why wouldn't we intervene on the side of the guy making sure the spigots run freely?

[sad sally]

28. Note the Libyan opposition already has an oil guy (from the US no less)

Sunday, March 27 / March, 2011, 15:18 GMT
Philippine accuse the West beat Libya for oil
Libyan opposition says that Qatar is ready to market the oil in eastern Libya. Said a senior official of the Libyan opposition to the rule of anti-Libyan leader Colonel Muammar Gaddafi said Qatar has agreed to market the crude oil produced from fields in eastern Libya, which is no longer under the control of Gaddafi.

Altarhuni, "said Ali, who is responsible for Finance and Economic Affairs at the National Council of the opposition in Benghazi:" We have reached an agreement with Qatar. Will be the first shipment in less than a week. "
Altarhuni said in a press statement in Benghazi that the production of oil fields controlled by the opposition is between 100 and 130 thousand barrels per day.

He added that the production of those fields can be increased to the rate of 300 thousand barrels per day.
And Altarhuni coming from the United States of America where he lived before the recent developments and noted that the opposition has opened a special account be transferred to him the proceeds of oil sales.
Altarhuni said he had asked the oil company in Brega return to work within 24 hours, adding that the region will produce liquefied natural gas for domestic consumption at this time.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/arabic/business/2011/03/110327_qat...?du

[malaise]

37. Duh!

:evilgrin:

[Distant Observer]

5. Have you reviewed the history of "Security Council" votes?? You'd be surprised.

[JoePhilly]

6. +100, if we can't help everyone all at once, don't help any

The fight over HCR has the exact same structure.

So many basically claim that since it didn't help everyone right away, then those that it would help shouldn't get any help either.

Same is happening here.

[Gravel Democrat]

10. some objected to a mandate to buy insurance which Obama campaigned against

and the lack of a public option which he campaigned on

Does that make it a little more clear?

*******

http://costofwar.com

[JoePhilly]

20. Not if it means that kids with pre-existing conditions don't get

covered UNTIL those things change.

I'm not a fan of the all or nothing approach to progress.

Get as much as we can, when we have majoroties, hold that ground when out of power, work for more when we return to power.

Hope that's clear.

[Shiver]

23. +1,000,000,000,000

Going for everything often results in ending up with nothing. Unless you're certain you can get it all, it's far better to take what you can get and then start working to build on that.

Not a popular opinion, but realistic. I can't help but wonder if Obama had fought tooth and nail for the public option and everything else, and then not gotten it, would we be complaining that he failed to get anything?

[JoePhilly]

29. Exactly. If he got nothing, the same folks hitting him for no public

option would STILL be hitting him for it. Plus, they'd hit him for getting nothing else too.

They'd say he was a HUGE failure.

[Distant Observer]

7. They Deserved the Prize: Highest incomes in Africa, Highest Life Expectancy (same as US),

and, of course, most importantly, the largest un-tapped Oil Reserves.

CONGRATULATIONS LIBYA. YOU WON!!!

[Catherina]

11. Why Libya? Because the same criminals who got us into Iraq said so, for the same reasons. Rec'd n/t

[Baclava]

12. Because we're bombing Libya to save their oilfields for our European friends?

[Catherina]

21. I hold grave fears over Libya. It will be an unspeakable tragedy

@Henry_Kissinger
Dr Henry Kissinger
I hold grave fears over Libya. It will be an unspeakable tragedy if any harm should come to those oil installations.
21 Mar via Twitter for Mac Favorite Retweet Reply

[Baclava]

22. We're in another oil war, no doubt about it.

Britain and France, frothing at the mouth for war? Who woulda thunk it.

Oh, their main oil supplier just happens to be Libya?


Well then, it's a Holy Oil War now! God save British Petroleum! Let loose the bombs of war!


yee-haw

[Catherina]

31. Oil! Minerals! Uranium! Onward Christian soldiers!

Using state-of-the-art satellite remote sensing, the western powers have certainly mapped the mineral deposits that lie beneath the sands of the Libyan desert. For example, Canada's Barrick Gold has for years had concessions in Niger and Mali -- this is the corporation affiliated with former US President George Herbert Walker Bush, former US Senator Howard Baker and former Canadian Prime Minister Brian Mulroney -- and Libya has a huge landmass with massive untapped mineral potential that goes way beyond the known petroleum deposits.


BP is the worst of them all. They have a $71Billion investment in Libya and didn't take kindly to Gaddafi saying the 2007 agreements were void.

Have you read Keith Harmon Snow's most recent piece?

...

Another strategic geopolitical concern of the western powers is the protection and control of the massive nuclear (uranium) resources both inside Libya and nearby. France and Canada had already signed memorandums (circa 2007-2008) with Libya to explore and exploit uranium in Libya.

France's entire nuclear weapons complex (and massive nuclear power industry) revolves around uranium extracted from Agadez and Arlit in northern Niger and it was built, over the past 50 years, out of the blood, sweat and tears of the Nigerienne people. Japanese companies have been extracting uranium out of Niger through the Overseas Uranium Resources Development Corporation (OURD), in cooperation with U.S., Israeli, German and French corporations. In 2008, France and former colony Algeria signed defense and civil nuclear power accords, including cooperation in research, training, technology transfer and the exploration and production of uranium, all of interest to French nuclear giant Areva Corporation. Canadian and Australian corporations are also mining in Libya's other southern neighbor, Burkina Faso. And yet, unlike Libya, where the people have seen some benefits from the extraction of wealth from their land, Niger remains the second poorest country in the world and Burkina Faso is close behind.

Russia and Ukraine had also signed memorandums with Libya regarding uranium exploration and development. However, China intends to quadruple its uranium consumption and China's largest nuclear power corporation China National Nuclear Corp, has signed an agreement with China-Africa Development Fund to jointly develop uranium resources in Africa. Western nuclear corporations aim to monopolize Libya's uranium sector and exclude China and Russia from the exploration and development -- so they can build the nuke plants themselves and sell uranium to their Asian competitors.

...

from GENOCIDE IN LIBYA? NATO INVASION UNDER WAY. ITS THE OIL, STUPID.

[Name removed]

34. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Marr]

13. When humanitarian and business interests intersect, we do humanitarian interventions.

Otherwise, we either ignore it (if no business interests are at risk), or come up with another excuse and go in (if no humanitarian crisis exists).

[crickets]

19. Ding! We have a winner. -nt

[malaise]

32. You deserve the award

for nailing it :applause:

[PVnRT]

17. "Disproporitonately high number"

Yeah, let's see some evidence for that al-Qaeda claim that doesn't come from Qadaffi's press secretary.

[Distant Observer]

25. These are exclusively from US Intelligence reports during the height of Iraq war

[Doctor_J]

18. Where was Ted in 2002? I will not respect this opinion until

I find out where he was on Operation Iraqi Liberation. If he cheered that one, then he is the same as Newt and Boner.

[undeterred]

24. Wasn't he still at ABC?

[Doctor_J]

35. Of course. I mean where was he on Smirk's war.

Most Big Media types love Repuke wars, then become cautious and reasoned when a Dem launches a war.

[undeterred]

36. Yeah, but I wonder if its different working for the BBC than ABC.

Koppel is pretty damn smart.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

26. Because the neocons/neolibs consider it an easy target.

[Doctor_J]

27. Just like Iraq

From Rumsfeld, c. 2003 - "Baghdad is a cakewalk - real men want Tehran"

Fucking psychopathic ghouls.

[krawhitham]

30. They won the Sweepstakes because they were getting media attention

if the cable news channels gave it no air time they would have lost the sweepstakes

[Ramulux]

33. Ted Koppel is a douche

but he is right about Libya. They are no deserving of military aid than a dozen other dictatorships all over the world.