China, Russia Oppose Another Libya-type of US-led NATO Military Intervention

China seems the main and the real strategic target.

On October 4, much more carefully-worked out than the previous vote on Libya in March 17, though in nature same as viciously deceptive, limitlessly greedy, unimaginably hypocritical and racist as before, the UN Security Council Resolution on Syria which had been also cunningly but forcibly pushed upon by US-led NATO powers was, however, thwarted down this time.

China and Russia justifiably used their veto powers to oppose another Libya-type of US/Western military intervention against another non-Western sovereign nation, this time, Syria.

But China and Russia did not use their veto powers then in March, even if they seemed to have known the US-led NATO’s hidden agenda with regard to the vote on UNSC Resolution 1973 on Libya.

At any rate, under any circumstances and no matter what had happened to their strategic considerations then in March, China and Russia didn’t oppose the Libyan resolution but instead “abstained” from that fatal UNSC vote.

Their hardly-explicable, logically-unpersuasive and, as many have argued, “morally-unjustified ” position on Libya has, as it’s been repeatedly warned, become a convenient pretext, tool and justification for another US-led NATO military intervention in a “sovereign nation’s internal affairs.”

The position China and Russia took last March seemed to have been respectfully criticized by many in the world. Also the decision seemed to have caused a considerable amount of quite worrisome reactions from around the globe.

According to most recent media reports, even then Russian Prime Minister Putin was reportedly also concerned and seemed to have differed from the position of his President. Many, probably including Putin, might have questioned with concerns, confusions and reservations particularly from many third world nations if the March decision could be strategically recoverable in the foreseeable future.

It seems, with another strategically important and maybe in a way even more extremely crucial October 4th’s decision at UNSC vote on Syria, at some corners around the world people cautiously predict the failed March decision could be possibly redeemed in a way, if the two permanent members of UN Security Council could play a more proactive, preventive and, if necessary, assertive, as they did this time, role to discourage, deter and eventually stop the US-led NATO’s another deceptive military intervention.

While the whole world seems to have helplessly, regrettably, miserably witnessed the US-led NATO’s continued (UNDISPUTEDLY!) “crimes against peace,” “war crimes,” and “crimes against humanity” for over 6 months now, the Western powers seemed to have undoubtedly, knowingly and willfully violated the March 17 UNSC resolution on Libya.

Throughout the entire Libyan ordeal, the seemingly desperate colonial powers have arbitrarily justified their indiscriminate criminal bombings (both sorties from air and strikes from sea) against Libya’s both military and civilian targets with that infamous UNSC Resolution 1973.

However, under the disguised pretexts of so-called “no-fly-zone” and “protection of civilians,” after more than six months of nonstop NATO bombings and killings, in other words, the state-sponsored terrorist attacks against innocent Libyan population including a numerous number of civilian population, what sort of any constructive outcome might have been resulted after all?

A seemingly apparent answer seems as in the following: Complete destructions of Libya’s total social infrastructures (i.e., EVERYTHING!); ongoing genocidal civilian massacres till this very day (the October 9th) in areas like Sirte; repetitions of vicious racist killings of black Africans; dirty gangster-style lootings of Libya’s sovereign wealth (just like the cowboy bank robberies!); and partial military occupation against an independent, resource-rich, particularly oil-rich and socialist Libya.

Are they not?

About a two dozen independent webmedia outlets around the globe like the 4th Media (China), the Strategic Culture Foundation (Russia), CounterPunch (US), the Global Research (Canada), nsnbc (Britain), (France), Net News Global (Germany), the Mathaba (Hong Kong, London), including several Russian mainstream media outlets such as Russia Today (RT) TV, and also even as in the most recent Wikileaks’ reports, have faithfully and tirelessly reported news, news analyses and breaking stories on Libya quite different from the most global, particularly Western mainstream media reports.

According to those independent media reports around the world, it’s been UNDISPUTEDLY for sure that the US-led NATO powers have clandestinely and continuously organized, operated and even coordinated throughout the illegal land invasion against Libya by employing those recruited Al Qaeda terrorists, hired mercenaries/thugs and other disgruntled Islamic fundamentalists and extremists at forefront.

Of course, as well- and -broadly exposed now through those global independent and some mainstream media outlets, too, NATO had already deployed their own military personnel through secret missions well ahead of the so-called “Arab Spring” revolutions last February. These revelations have been publicized even by several Western mainstream media such as the Guardian in Britain.

According to these sources, the American, British and French “special operation forces” and their intelligence agencies like CIA, M15 and DGSE, in addition to financial, media (specifically Saudi-owned Al Arabia and Qatar-owned Al Jazeera) and military personal assistances from Saudi Arabia, Qatar and other puppet Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) nations, have all physically landed in Libyan soil well before the March 19 NATO bombings.

Presumably now as the whole world seems very much aware of, the US-led NATO’s evil, greedy and hypocritical agenda through the colonial powers’ typical “divide and conquer” strategy, mainly through the world scale of media deception against the whole global population was to occupy Libya, as simple as it is, in order for them to control not only the Libyan wealth but also the entire African continent’s, beginning with the North Africa and Middle East region.

In this US-led NATO’s extremely deceptive Libya strategy, by way of ”media war” or “information war” or even the “war propaganda” through the global scale of constant mass deception, as many like F. William Engdahl have argued (See his most recent article, “Washington targeting China’s Achilles heel“), China seems the main and the real strategic target.

Their hidden but already much-revealed agenda of imperial conquest through military invasion, devastating destructions, genocidal massacres, lootings, robberies and colonial occupation seem absolutely constitute, according to the definitions of Nuremberg Principles VI, the “crimes against peace,” “war crimes,” and “crimes against humanity.”

However, as briefly mentioned above, the US-led NATO has arbitrarily claimed their military actions (such as bomings, killings, and all sorts of indiscriminate destructions) are justified by/with those ill-famous and disgustingly despicable pretexts such as the so-called “no-fly-zone” and “protection of civilians” under the mandate of UNSC Resolution 1973.

But, in reality, after more than 6 months, the number of indiscriminate bombings NATO has committed against innocent Libyan population has reached up to now “25,097 Sorties and 9,335 Strike Missions” (as of October 8, 2011, check here for more information from the Stop NATO website).

See the following Wikipedia information which may partially show some numbers of Libya’s civilian casualties. Even if its information could be also hardly unbiased from Western media lies, deceptions, false witnesses and fabrications on the true Libyan situation, it seems still I believe worthy to share this with our readers:

… Estimates of deaths in the 2011 Libyan civil war vary with figures from 2,000 to 30,000 given between March 2 and September 8. … Deaths caused by Coalition forces: The Libyan official sources claimed that at least between 64 and 90 people were killed during the bombardments on the first two days of the U.N. intervention and another 150 had been wounded. The Vatican news agency confirmed that in Tripoli alone, at least 40 civilians died as a result of the bombing campaign. According to the Libyan Health office, the airstrikes killed 1,108 civilians and wounded 4,500 by July 13. (Emphasis added. Wikipedia)

Again, as noted already, the UNSC Resolution 1973 on Libya, with the pretexts of so-called “no-fly-zone” and “protection of civilians,” has been undoubtedly violated for the justification of US-led NATO’s indiscriminate bombings everywhere, particulalry the entire Libyan social infrastructures including civilian targets such as hospitals, schools, nurseries, and so on.

Let’s look at the following Nuremberg Principles VI’s definitions in regard to the above-mentioned three distinctive crimes below:
Principle VI states,

The crimes hereinafter set out are punishable as crimes under international law:

(a) Crimes against peace:

(i) Planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances;

(ii) Participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the acts mentioned under (i).

(b) War crimes: Violations of the laws or customs of war which include, but are not limited to, murder, ill-treatment or deportation of slave labor or for any other purpose of the civilian population of or in occupied territory; murder or ill-treatment of prisoners of war or persons on the Seas, killing of hostages, plunder of public or private property, wanton destruction of cities, towns, or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity.

(c) Crimes against humanity: Murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation and other inhumane acts done against any civilian population, or persecutions on political, racial, or religious grounds, when such acts are done or such persecutions are carried on in execution of or in connection with any crime against peace or any war crime.

Today, however, the UNSC Resolution 1973 is still being used to justify for NATO bombers to continue its criminal bombings against areas like Sirte, Wani Balid and other places wherever there are Libyan population who continue to resist NATO’s aggressions and are ready to die for their dignity, independence and right to self-determination.

Therefore it’s been genuinely, with great relief and appreciation, much praised and in a way globally celebrated when the above-mentioned strategic failure last March wasn’t repeated this time in October.

For the sake of the future humanity, the world’s great majority population seems to have appreciatively applauded and do sincerely regard, with due respect, great relief and even with some hope, the two nations’ strategic vote on Syria as a historic and courageous decision.

Many hope it could be strategically, with firmness, assertiveness and decisiveness, further utilized for a greater goodness, so that the international community of peace and justice and equality, encouraged by and together with those five BRICS nations, could deter at least and/or stop at best the imperial powers’ seemingly uncontroable madness of their ugliest pursuit of conquering the world.

In light of moral, political and global responsibilities for a better future of the entire humanity, it seems those five BRICS member nations, particularly China and Russia do need international community’s undeterred support and solidarity in order for them to take a crucial leadership role to stop and refuse the return of the old colonial dark days.

It was the US, British and French who seemed not happy at all on the October 4th with the result of Syria vote. According to a CNN report, the hawkish warmonger U.S. Ambassador to UN Susan Rice, like the other notoriously hawkish warmonger Secretary of State Hillary Clinton of the United States, was “outraged.” She said the following, according to the same report: “This [October UN Security] Council has utterly failed to address an urgent moral challenge and a growing threat to regional peace and security.”

She used the language like the following: “An urgent moral challenge and a growing threat to regional peace and security.” Alas! The poor Rice! Or how badly unstable, like some sort of schizophrenic symptoms, her state of moral conscience is at the moment? When she said the above-quoted statement, she seemed to be apparently completely out of balance or normalcy. Or she seemed not to understand who’s saying what at all. She neither seemed did understand what that “urgent moral challenge” might mean. What on earth after all the one who said the “growing threat to regional peace and security” was the US Ambassador to UN?! Alas!

The neocon-like Ambassador Rice, like the former Secretary of State Condi Rice during Bush presidency and her present NATO colleagues to UN, seems fail to understand what those languages and words she herself murmured may mean, while the great majority populations around the globe seem have no problem to understand what they really meant quite easily with a normal, ordinary sense of moral conscience.

Look also how desperate, hurried, disarrayed the US-led NATO forces and their de facto puppet rebel organization the NTC are! According to a AP report from Sirte on October 9, British Defense Secretary Liam Fox, too, present at the site of the failed attempt to occupy a Gadhafi stronghold, seemed to make a hollow statement when he tried to urge the NATO mercenaries to bring Sirte under NATO control. However, as a matter of fact, they’ve miserably failed to do so for more than six weeks even after their another hollow claim, the so-called “Tripoli fall.”

That’s the very reason why his empty “pledge to keep up NATO airstrikes even after Sirte fall” sounded helplessly hollow as well.

He also said “the international military action would continue as long as the remnants of the regime pose a risk to the people of Libya.”

Exactly same as Ambassador Rice, it seems the British Secretary of Defense, too, must have been suffered with some sort of similar mental illness as she does. Whose “military action” is that the so-called the “international military action” he’s talking about? Isn’t the US, British, and French “military action”? There is no such thing such as the “international military action” other than theirs alone, right? Isn’t it?

Who are the “remnants” who he said “pose a risk to the people of Libya?” The Libyan people “pose a risk to the people of Libya” themselves? What is this? As already mentioned, is he also mentally unstable? After he and his other NATO colleagues have miserably failed to complete their hidden but well-known mission for more than six months now, it seems their psychological, mental health condition must have been very much deteriorated. Otherwise how come could ever he make that type of so abnormal, strange, illogical public statement in a press conference?

That’s totally a nonsense! Who’d after all “pose a risk to the people of Libya”? Is it not the US-led NATO aggressors who’ve endlessly “posed” the gravest “risk to the people of” not only Libya but also Syria, Iran, Algeria, DPRK (North Korea), Cuba, Venezuela, Yemen and so on and so on? Who are the aggressors after all? Is the US-led NATO not the aggressor?

Listen now what he said here: “’We have a message for those who are still fighting for Gadhafi that the game is over, you have been rejected by the people of Libya,’ he told reporters Saturday in Tripoli before flying to Misrata.”

What? “The game is over”? Whose game is over? What? “Rejected by the people of Libya”? Who are the ones being really “rejected by the people of Libya” now? Then what about the people, apparently the majority population of 6 million Libyan population who are still fighting to resist in order to stop and “reject” the US-led NATO powers? Who are the ones miserably failed and lost the genocidal war against a sovereign nation now for more than six months, even with their over 35,000 times of continued bombings day and night from air and sea since March 19 when they began their imperial bombings?

  • This article was originally published at 4th Media.
  • Dr. Kiyul Chung, Editor-in-chief at the 4th Media, is a Visiting Professor of School of Journalism and Communication at Tsignhua University in Beijing, China. Read other articles by Kiyul, or visit Kiyul's website.