China preventing UN action on Libya

Discussion in 'China' started by captonjohn, Mar 17, 2011.

  1. pmaitra

    pmaitra Moderator Moderator

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2009
    Messages:
    33,274
    Likes Received:
    19,464
    Location:
    EST, USA
    They did not say 'Jack', neither did they say 'Jill'. They blamed the whole bombardment of Libya by the coalition, and the coalition includes France, UK and US.
     
  2. pmaitra

    pmaitra Moderator Moderator

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2009
    Messages:
    33,274
    Likes Received:
    19,464
    Location:
    EST, USA
    Coalition air strikes see waning support from Arabs, China and Russia

    Coalition air strikes see waning support from Arabs, China and Russia

    Ewen MacAskill, Ian Black and Nick Hopkins
    guardian.co.uk, Sunday 20 March 2011 21.18 GMT


    Arab League and China express regret as Moscow suggests US-led coalition is going beyond its mandate

    [​IMG]
    The next phase of coalition operations is expected to involve British Tornado ground attack jets.Conflict War Photograph: Peter Macdiarmid/Getty Images

    Arab support for the US-led war in Libya showed signs of fraying today in reaction to the sheer destructive power of the initial attack, claims of civilian deaths and a warning by Muammar Gaddafi to prepare for "a long war".

    The secretary-general of the Arab League, Amr Moussa, appeared to wobble just over a week after his organisation, which represents 23 Arab states, voted in favour of a no-fly zone. Pictures of charred bodies led to not only the Arab League but also Russia and China expressing regret over the violence. Moscow claimed the US-led coalition was going beyond its UN mandate to protect civilians and called for an end to the "indiscriminate use of force".

    As anti-aircraft fire was heard across Tripoli, and a second wave of attacks was launched targeting ground forces and air defences, suggesting a second night of bombardment, the US claimed it had control of the skies over Libya and had stopped Gaddafi's advance against rebel positions. The start of the mission, labelled Operation Odyssey Dawn, included firing more than 100 Tomahawk missiles at Gaddafi's air defences. Defence sources said the next phase would be to cut supply lines to Gaddafi's frontline troops and was expected to involve British Tornado ground attack jets.

    A short time later Libya announced another ceasefire which was issued in the name of the Libyan government and armed forces, rather than Gaddafi.

    A government spokesman in Tripoli said: "We, the Popular Social Leadership of Libya, recommend to the armed forces to announce an immediate ceasefire to all military units."

    The announcement was followed by an order from the armed forces that the ceasefire would be effective from 9pm local time.

    Downing Street said Gaddafi remained in breach of his obligations under last week's United Nations resolution, which the coalition would continue to enforce. "Everyone will recall that in recent days Colonel Gaddafi declared a ceasefire which was promptly violated," said a spokesman for Number 10. "We said then we would judge him on his actions not his words - and we will do so again."

    Gaddafi, seeking to win Arab popular support, portrayed the military action as an attack by crusading colonialists and signalled that the west should prepare for a protracted conflict. Defiant from the moment the attacks began on Saturday night, he said Libyans had the patience to wage a "long war".

    "We will fight if you continue your attacks on us," he vowed in an ominous radio address. He added that he would throw open the country's arsenals, arming the civilian population with a million weapons to conduct this war.

    Libyan TV claimed 64 people had been killed in the US-led onslaught with more than 100 injured, including civilians.

    The British defence secretary, Liam Fox, said it was possible that allied forces would treat Gaddafi himself as a legitimate target for air strikes. He said: "There is a difference between someone being a legitimate target and whether we go ahead and target him.

    You would have to take into account what would happen to civilians in the area, what might happen in terms of collateral damage. We don't simply with a gung-ho attitude start firing off missiles."

    But the US, reflecting confusion over war aims, rejected the idea that Gaddafi is a target. "We are not going after Gaddafi," vice-admiral Bill Gortney, told a press conference.

    Hundreds of Libyan civilians had streamed into Gaddafi's Bab al-Aziziya headquarters in central Tripoli before the attacks began on Saturday, as well as to airports across the country, possibly to guard against just such an eventuality. With the fight for world public opinion as critical as events on the ground, the top US commander, Admiral Mike Mullen, gave a series of television interviews in which he said he had heard no reports of civilian deaths. "We've worked very hard to absolutely minimise and eliminate civilian casualties," he said.

    But Moussa, in comments carried by an Egyptian news agency, was quoted as saying: "What is happening in Libya differs from the aim of imposing a no-fly zone. What we want is the protection of civilians and not a bombardment of more civilians." A UK government source claimed his comments had suffered from mistranslation.

    An about-turn by Moussa would seriously undermine the US-led effort. The Obama administration is anxious to avoid being seen in the Muslim world as embarking on a third war against a Muslim country within a decade. The US cited the Arab League vote in favour of a no-fly zone as tilting the balance in Washington in favour of military action.

    The Foreign Office stressed that the coalition, unlike Gaddafi, was not attacking civilians. "The UN resolution authorises all necessary measures to protect the Libyan people. For the no-fly to be enforced safely, it is necessary to carry out carefully targeted operations against Libyan air defence capabilities. All missions are meticulously planned to ensure every care is taken to avoid civilian casualties."

    In spite of promises by several Arab countries to provide military support to the coalition, only Qatar and the United Arab Emirates have responded so far. A French defence ministry spokesman, Laurent Teisseire, said Qatar planes would be flying alongside French jets "in the hours to come". An Italian source told the Guardian that jets from the UAE may be hosted at Decimomannu base on Sardinia.

    "I think it is very important for opinion in the Arab world to show that this is not simply the west acting," said Fox.

    British and US commanders are hoping that leadership of the operations will soon come under the auspices of Nato, whose members met in Brusselson Sunday.

    "Some very complex and critical decisions about the mission are being worked out now," said a spokesman. "I think a consensus can be reached."

    The Pentagon has been reluctant to become involved in another war and Mullen, reflecting this hesitation, insisted Sunday that it was only a limited operation and that the US would hand over leadership within days to Britain and France.

    Asked who was in charge, he said: "[We are] leading it now. We're looking to hand off that leadership in the next few days."

    The US would then take a back seat, he said, engaged in jamming Gaddafi's communications and helping with air-to-air refuelling.

    He admitted that he could not be sure of the eventual outcome or how long the conflict might last.

    Mullen insisted that the goals of the mission were limited to protection of civilians and not the removal of Gaddafi.

    "It is not about seeing him go," he said, admitting that the mission could be accomplished and Gaddafi still remain in power.

    The Pentagon line contrasts with the more hawkish line in Britain, where David Cameron has insisted Gaddafi needs to go.

    The military buildup around the Mediterranean is continuing with the French saying its aircraft carrier Charles de Gaulle had left the port of Toulon and was en route to the Libyan coast. A number of RAF Typhoons had landed at Gioia del Colle in southern Italy. Aircraft from Spain, Denmark and Canada were also in the region. However, defence officials denied that there was any likelihood of ground troops becoming involved; there has been some speculation that the elastic nature of the UN resolution could lead to troops being sent to Libya for humanitarian operations, not as an occupying military force. "That just isn't part of our thinking," said a Whitehall source.

    Source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/mar/20/libya-air-strikes-waning-arab-support
     
  3. JustForLaughs

    JustForLaughs Regular Member

    Joined:
    Dec 23, 2010
    Messages:
    190
    Likes Received:
    0
    bin laden --> WMD --> "saving" citizens.

    the reasoning is getting worse and worse. i think NATO has saved the middle east enough. dont think they can take anymore saving.

    nvm i take that back. save the middle east. dont save elsewhere :/
     
  4. pmaitra

    pmaitra Moderator Moderator

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2009
    Messages:
    33,274
    Likes Received:
    19,464
    Location:
    EST, USA
    JustForLaughs, you really made me laugh.

    Good sense of humour.
     
  5. pmaitra

    pmaitra Moderator Moderator

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2009
    Messages:
    33,274
    Likes Received:
    19,464
    Location:
    EST, USA
    Latest from AL-Jazeera

    • Cracks in the coalition.
    • Gaddafi not the target.
    • Second ceasefire from Gaddafi.

     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 10, 2015
  6. kch

    kch Regular Member

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2011
    Messages:
    41
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Bangalore
    I think Nato won't gobble all the oil alone this time. Rus and Cheen must have agreed not to block the UN resolution with specific assurances that their business interests will not be harmed. I have a feeling that NATO action in Libya is less to do with oil than Obama's anxiety to be seen in Arab world as messiah of Arab people, so US can get "peace with honor" in Af-Pak and Iraq.

    Of course, I agree with you that Iraq was purely an oil-grab and Bush's personal vendetta and afghanistan was anxiety to be seen as taking revenge for 9/11.
     
  7. LETHALFORCE

    LETHALFORCE Moderator Moderator

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2009
    Messages:
    22,838
    Likes Received:
    14,364
    There were no Afghans in 9/11 mostly Saudis he is taking revenge on the wrong people?? CIA has shut down Osama Bin Laden unit. The real reason for Afghanistan is not what is reported.
     
  8. nrj

    nrj Stars and Ambassadors Stars and Ambassadors

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2009
    Messages:
    9,251
    Likes Received:
    3,356
    Location:
    Brussels
    Hope this is not repost...

    With Libya, is India confused or just too clever by half?

    India abstained last week from a U.N. vote on the no-fly zone in Libya that also authorised military action, but since then it has been more vocal in its rejection of airstrikes, joining China and Russia in criticising the coalition of Western powers and the Arab league and its actions against the Libyan government.

    “We regret the air strikes that are taking place in Libya. We are viewing ongoing violence with grave concern,” Foreign Minister S.M. Krishna told reporters on Monday, in comments carried by NDTV television channel. It echoed an official comment on Sunday.

    India’s declarations signal that New Delhi will not step in line with the West despite its growing ties with the United States and Europe — highlighted by a string of visits last year, including President Barack Obama’s and the leaders of France and the United Kingdom.

    This is not new. India for years has gone against U.S. interests in a string of geo-political issues, including Myanmar. But it has counted on the fact that it is now economically too important to be sidelined by any Western power due to any criticism of the West.

    India, especially the ruling Congress party, still has deep roots in the Non-Aligned Movement. And domestically, it plays well with voters often skeptical of Western intentions.

    Why then did India abstain in the U.N. vote? While China’s veto would have stopped the no-fly zone given Beijing’s status as a permanent member of the Security Council, India’s would have been a symbolic move.

    China did not want to be seen blocking what is perceived by many as being a humanitarian mission. India would have just been a noted protest at the United Nations.

    So again, there is a disparity between what India votes and what it says. Is India still unclear about where it stands globally? Or has it played a clever political game — a game that it has played for decades as a “non-aligned” power — that will pan out if the military airstrikes end in a stalemate?


    Source
     
    Last edited: Mar 21, 2011
  9. LETHALFORCE

    LETHALFORCE Moderator Moderator

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2009
    Messages:
    22,838
    Likes Received:
    14,364
    Abstaining from the vote was the best thing India can do. Should have done the same on Iran during the Bush nuclear deal.
     
  10. venkat

    venkat Regular Member

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2009
    Messages:
    907
    Likes Received:
    200
    Its just too much!!! what these so called allied forces are doing to Libya? turn it into a state of rubble like that of Iraq?
    Its time china,india should stop these air raids on libya!!!! tackle things through diplomatic means...what for UN is there? is it an USA poodle? This is nothing but wanton destruction.
     
  11. LETHALFORCE

    LETHALFORCE Moderator Moderator

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2009
    Messages:
    22,838
    Likes Received:
    14,364
    Western nations don't want China,India,Russia to have access to Libyan oil, this is a war for resources.
     
  12. badguy2000

    badguy2000 Respected Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2009
    Messages:
    5,133
    Likes Received:
    734
    well, Lybia will become another Somalia and the base of Al Qaeda finally....it would be a nightmare to Europeans..
     
  13. kch

    kch Regular Member

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2011
    Messages:
    41
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Bangalore
    I know that Lethal. That's why I said "seen to be taking revenge". Ie. Bush just wanted to be seen by Americans as taking revenge.
     
  14. neo29

    neo29 Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2009
    Messages:
    1,284
    Likes Received:
    30
    Location:
    india
    China is the savior and leader of rogue states. Pakistan, North Korea, Libya, Burma ... you name it. If US and UN has doubts about a country China is there to help.
     
  15. pmaitra

    pmaitra Moderator Moderator

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2009
    Messages:
    33,274
    Likes Received:
    19,464
    Location:
    EST, USA
    So is the US. Both are same. Just like PRC back rogue states, US too backs rogue states and regimes.

    Saddam Hussain, Papa Doc, House of Saud, Hosni Mubarak, Pakistan, Mikhail Saakashvili, ..., you name it.

    PRC is best suited to challenge USA.
     
  16. pmaitra

    pmaitra Moderator Moderator

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2009
    Messages:
    33,274
    Likes Received:
    19,464
    Location:
    EST, USA
    You are absolutely right. You have been seeing my posts right from the beginning. I always maintained this is more about Libya's oil than anything 'humanitarian'. With every passing day, the situation vindicates my point. Sometimes I wish PRC never occupied Indian territories and we could have been very good friends, formed an alliance with the Russian Federation and stopped NATO from carrying out these bullying tactics. Alas, PRC does not want to have good relations with any of its neighbours.

    India needs to get the ICBM capability soon, and test them.
     
  17. badguy2000

    badguy2000 Respected Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2009
    Messages:
    5,133
    Likes Received:
    734
    as a old chinese saying (“成事不足,败事有余”) tells, China now is not mighty enough to set up a new world order,but mighty enough to break the current world order.....
     
  18. kch

    kch Regular Member

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2011
    Messages:
    41
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Bangalore
    pmaitra : yeah - china has a knack for annoying those that could be it's best friends. If china ever stands a chance to challenge USA, it needs to stop throwing it's weight around in Asia. Like MMS says, we are perplexed by why China feels the need to bully India and lose it's friendship. India bears no threat at all to China - neither in politics nor economically (There is scant overlap in the fields where Chinese and Indian economy is strong).

    PRC hostility to India can just be explained by an immature sort of bullying. The new bully in town feels that unless he whacks his neighbours, there's no way he'll be respected by the existing bully. New bully doesn't realize that old bully is weakening him by using those very neighbours.

    badguy - PRC doesn't disrupt world order with it's "might", the only thing it achieves is self-isolation by it's posturing. The "world order" is same as circa 1990. NATO can invade any country it likes.
     
    Last edited: Mar 23, 2011
  19. amoy

    amoy Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2010
    Messages:
    5,972
    Likes Received:
    1,827
    Honestly I feel your theories are really weird

    - "Rogue" States: most of the "rogues" u name are not rogues at all IMO. pls use your OWN brain instead of parroting others. Libya for example in my separate post "A Strategy aimed at ruining Libya" by a Russian scholar has elaborated how the dictator Qaddafi, who's been demonized by the "mainstream", has benefited Libya in history at the expense of the West (oil grands alike). If u were a Libyan yourself u probably would have applauded for Qaddafi's policy “Partners, not workers for hire” or "Securing the country's grip over its own economy" as a beneficiary.

    - China bullying India: u may argue that China "occupied" Indian terrritory. or a horde of Chinese may rebut it was India who annexed China's. thats simply another endless debate, fruitless as it is... Neither wants to give up that pound of meat. If the fact that China is warming up with most S. Asian countries poses a challenge or disturbance to India's dominance India has to review how those litte peers can be kept orbited. However, all that doesn't justify any allegation of China bully. We'll continue in such a "cold peace" as we've been in past decades.
     
    Last edited: Mar 23, 2011
  20. chex3009

    chex3009 Regular Member

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2010
    Messages:
    925
    Likes Received:
    196
    Location:
    IL
    China seizes on Libya for propaganda war against West

    A plot to seize Libya's oil. A warning to the world that the West will cling to dominance. A flagrant display of hypocrisy over human rights.
    China's ruling Communist Party has countered the West's air strikes against Libya's Muammar Gaddafi with a torrent of such criticisms in state-run newspapers and television, mounting a propaganda campaign to deter the public from any temptation to copy Arab insurrections against authoritarian rulers.

    The media drive shows how nervous China's leaders are about any challenges to their firm hold on power, and especially about online comments that Western action in Libya shows the supremacy of international human rights standards, said Li Datong, a former editor at a Chinese party newspaper.

    "The Chinese Communist Party sees a big threat in the idea that human rights and democratic demands can outweigh state sovereignty. They want to counter all that," said Li, who was forced out of his job for denouncing censorship.
    Even before fighting in Libya broke out, Chinese security forces vehemently attacked online calls for "Jasmine Revolution" gatherings to demand democratic change inspired the popular uprisings in Tunisia and Egypt. Those calls were stifled by censorship and a sweeping security crackdown.

    Since the air strikes in Libya began, China's government has pushed propaganda into high pitch to tell the public that the Libyan shows the West cannot be trusted and will put self-interest ahead of principles.
    "In recent days, some well-known domestic (Chinese) websites have proposed the weird argument that human rights are more important than sovereignty," said an editorial in the Global Times, a popular Chinese tabloid, on Wednesday.

    The Libya air campaign is meant to send "the international political signal that in this world it's the West that calls the shots," said the paper.
    "Iraq was attacked because of oil, and Libya is also being attacked for its oil," said the overseas edition of the People's Daily, the main mouthpiece of the Chinese Communist Party.

    Beijing's opposition to the Western attacks in Libya reflects its longstanding opposition to intervening in other countries' internal conflicts, especially in the name of human rights. But the Chinese media condemnation is also driven by domestic political currents, said Li, the former editor.

    Those political needs could give China's response to Libya and further unrest in the Middle East a harder ideological edge.
    "They're using the state media for a propaganda counter-offensive using Libya," said Li.

    "The Jasmine Revolution calls were never more than an online prank, but all this shows how sensitive they are to any challenges to their power."
    Chinese newspapers, television stations and other media all come under state control, although there is also fierce commercial competition among them for audiences and advertising. The Party's Propaganda Department can demand that they censor information or opinions, or that they push a certain line.

    A NEW WAR, A FAMILIAR SCRIPT

    "Behind the air strikes on Libya is self-interest," said the headline in the Military Weekly, published by China's People's Liberation Army.
    "The air attacks are an announcement that the West wants to dominate the world," the Global Times said on Tuesday. "The West still believes down to its very bones that it's the leader of the world."
    This is not a new script for China.

    In 1999, China denounced NATO's Kosovo campaign as reckless meddling, its outrage reaching fever pitch after U.S. bombs hit the Chinese embassy in Belgrade, killing three people inside.
    Likewise, Chinese state media have criticised the U.S.-led wars in Afghanistan and Iraq as demonstrations of Western hypocrisy and self-interest.

    Nowadays, Chinese officials confront a domestic Internet which, despite extensive censorship, is even bigger and often livelier than during those wars, said Zhan Jiang, a professor of media studies at Beijing Foreign Studies University.
    Chinese President Hu Jintao is worried about controlling the country's 453 million Internet users. In a speech last month, he urged "establishing mechanisms to guide online public opinion." .

    "This is a bit like the Kosovo War in 1999, except now I think the Internet is a much bigger force and there's more support online for ideas about democracy," said Zhan.

    Source : China Defense Mashup
     

Share This Page