CPC(M-L) HOME TML Daily Archive Le Marxiste-Léniniste quotidien

April 8, 2011 - No. 56

April 9 Day of Action to End the War in Afghanistan

All Out to Oppose the War on Afghanistan and Libya! Get Canada Out of NATO! Dismantle NATO!
Canada Needs an Anti-War Government!

April 9 Day of Action to End the War in Afghanistan
All Out to Oppose the War on Afghanistan and Libya! Get Canada Out of NATO! Dismantle NATO! Canada Needs an Anti-War Government!
The War Against Libya - Letters to the Editor
Recent Developments in Libya
The Politics of Assassination - Tony Seed


April Day of Action to End the War in Afghanistan

All Out to Oppose the War on Afghanistan and Libya! Get Canada Out of NATO! Dismantle NATO!
Canada Needs an Anti-War Government!

On April 8 and 9, actions are taking place across the country to demand an end to the war in Afghanistan and for Canadian troops to be brought home now. TML calls on everyone to go all out to mobilize for and participate in the actions and vigorously express the people's rejection of the use of force as a means to solve conflicts between and within nations.

Canada has been involved in NATO's illegal occupation of Afghanistan since 2001, a war that now includes the slaughter of civilians in Pakistan by drone attacks. Despite the clear and unchanging majority will of Canadians that Canada get out of Afghanistan immediately, the parties in the Parliament extend the mission time and again. The mission in Afghanistan was predicated on the false notion that Afghanistan was to blame for the 9/11 attacks. Rather than trying to resolve the situation through diplomatic means, as was proposed by the Afghan government at that time, the U.S. refused to abide by international law and uphold the peace. It organized for the NATO countries to commit the supreme war crime -- a crime against peace -- and invaded Afghanistan. By setting this dastardly precedent, NATO forces have since then committed all manner of war crimes with impunity, using the high ideals and values espoused by the Harper government, the Obama administration and governments of other NATO member nations to justify their actions.

As time goes by, more and more crimes committed by NATO forces, including those from Canada, come to light -- from complicity in torture, battlefield executions and airstrikes on civilians to the outright murder of civilians for sport. Rather than being exceptional incidents, the fundamentally illegal basis for the war in Afghanistan set the precedent for impunity for war crimes from which all these subsequent crimes have arisen. Time will reveal that such crimes are not aberrations but the norm in Afghanistan and now Pakistan as well, as they were in Korea and Vietnam before this.

The so-called training that Canadian soldiers are to carry out once their combat mission ostensibly ends is a total farce. Given that the last people in the world who require training in how to fight are the Afghans, the training is for purposes of creating a disciplined force which is subservient to the foreign interests of the U.S. and its yes-man Canada. For the U.S., Canada and others to impose so-called western values of democracy on the peoples of Afghanistan, who have their own thought material that is based in no small part on the steadfast rejection of foreign occupation, is utmost self-serving hypocrisy. The mission has nothing to do with humanitarianism and must be ended immediately.


U.S. soldiers in Afghanistan pose with the body of an Afghan youth they killed for sport, January 15, 2010. The photos
are among dozens seized as evidence by investigators and ordered sealed from public view by the Army.
German magazine Der Spiegel reports that its staff has numerous images and videos of these activities.

While the Harper government fights in court to hide from the public the treatment of prisoners Canada hands over to Afghan authorities, what is hidden is what happened to the Afghans Canada handed over to the Americans or, for that matter, how it conducts its own interrogations. The war in Afghanistan has once again shown that the so-called civilized values Canada, the U.S. and other NATO countries stand for include torture and indefinite detention and all kinds of crimes against humanity which are provided with no end of justifications.

In its call for the April 9 Day of Action, the Canadian Peace Alliance recounts recent developments regarding the criminal nature of the war in Afghanistan:

"The war in Afghanistan has reached new levels of brutality. Civilian casualties spiked in 2010 and the rate of killing is increasing each month. It's time for it to end. After almost ten years of occupation and a half a trillion dollars spent by NATO, Afghanistan still suffers from a lack of basic services and a corrupt NATO backed government.

"The Canadian Peace Alliance and the Collectif Échec à la guerre are calling for a pan-Canadian day of action on April 9, 2011 to demand an end to the war and to bring Canadian troops home now. This day of action will coincide with anti-war demonstrations in the US in both New York and San Francisco.

"The statistics are shocking. According to the Afghan Rights Monitor: 'Almost everything related to the war surged in 2010: the combined numbers of Afghan and foreign forces surpassed 350,000; security incidents mounted to over 100 per week; more fighters from all warring side were killed; and the number of civilian people killed, wounded and displaced hit record levels.'

"The NATO forces continue with air strikes that kill civilians such as during the 4 days of attacks on Ghazi Abad which started on February 16 and killed more than 60 civilians -- 30 of which were children. In a single two week period between the 12th and 26th of February, 200 civilians were killed.

"The Canadian deployment of another 1000 soldiers to act as trainers will only compound the problems faced by the Afghan people. Any support for the corrupt regime of Hamid Karzai works against the aspirations of the Afghan people to live in a free and democratic society. The Harper government admitted that they were propping up a corrupt regime while at the NATO summit in Lisbon. They even announced that they would refuse to send aid to the Afghan president until they had assurances that the money would be spent properly. One wonders what strange twist of logic has Canada refusing to send aid for fear of corruption while they are willing to send Canadian soldiers to help expand the control of that same corrupt government throughout the country."

The Canadian Peace Alliance notes that the peoples of West Asia and North Africa are precisely fighting to set their own future, free from foreign intervention.

Given NATO and Canada's role in Afghanistan, no one should have any illusions that Canada's role to oversee the NATO mission in Libya is anything but to supervise the commission of war crimes at the behest of the U.S. Once again these crimes are being committed in defiance of the fundamental principle of international relations that conflicts within and between nations must be resolved through peaceful means. As in Afghanistan and Yugoslavia, the imperialists espouse the highest ideals of humanitarianism to cover up their criminal use of aggressive military force to impose their dictate. The fact that the Harper government has accepted the nefarious role bestowed by the U.S. imperialists to lead the NATO attacks on the Libyan people is not a sign of maturity nor a matter of pride but a further blemish on Canada's deteriorating international reputation as a country that kowtow's to U.S. imperialism, Zionism and reaction.

Collectif Échec à la guerre, in a March 21 statement condemning the UN Security Council Resolution against Libya and Canada's support for it, points out that the foreign "humanitarian intervention" in Afghanistan and Iraq forebode similar war crimes in Libya:

"After being presented with humanitarian arguments for intervention in Iraq and Afghanistan, our political leaders are once again giving the argument that we should 'help the people of Libya.' In Iraq, this 'help' gave rise to hundreds of thousands of casualties and in Afghanistan it has not ceased to produce numerous 'collateral casualties.' Just remember the 60 civilians, including 30 children, who were killed in four days of attacks in Ghazi Abad from February 16 to 19. Even if the media are quick to say that the targets were 'carefully chosen to avoid civilian casualties' it is impossible to avoid significant civilian casualties.

"We know that our governments continue to support regimes which are presently carrying out bloody repression against the civilian uprisings in Bahrain and Yemen. We know that our governments have given their support for decades to the dictatorial regimes of Ben Ali and Mubarak and still today to the Saudi royal family. We are sceptical about the humanitarian argument. We find odious the selective sensibilities of western political leaders and the collusion of the big media concerning civilian casualties and the protection that intervention would offer."

The statement concludes emphasizing the need to respect the sovereignty of the Libyan people.

TML reiterates its condemnation of the parties in the Parliament for unanimously supporting the war on Libya and refusing to uphold the will of Canadians and Quebeckers to bring an immediate end to the war in Afghanistan. More than ever, the situation demands that everyone take up the work for an anti-war government that will get Canada out of NATO, bring its troops home and uphold the rule of law internationally.

All Out for the April 9 Day of Action to End the War in Afghanistan!
Hands Off Libya!
Get Canada Out of NATO! Dismantle NATO!
Canada Needs an Anti-War Government!

Return to top


The War Against Libya

Deeds Reveal What Obama's Words Cover Over

Obama's address on March 28, 2011 to justify the U.S.-led attack against Libya does not mesh with reality. He attempted to portray the U.S. mission as a one-time action with the aim of protecting innocent civilians from attack by brutal armed forces sent to massacre them, not the action of an imperialist power hell bent on intervening in a civil war with the intention of bringing about regime change. However, just before Obama spoke, the Director of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Vice Admiral Bill Gortney let slip the truth behind U.S. actions in a briefing at the Pentagon.

Asked by a reporter if he could make "absolutely sure that you're attacking regime forces rather than opposition forces," Gortney responded: "Well, that is the challenge, the positive identification of the target. That's why the discipline of the air crew from all of the coalition partners is absolutely critical. Right now it appears that where we are striking, the opposition is not where we can make -- assist in that positive identification, identifying friend from foe."

Watching the briefing it was clear he was stating that "where we are striking, the opposition is not." Period. The transcript leaves this truth out. This reveals that the U.S. war planes are attacking, not to "protect civilians," but rather they are aiming their attacks where the so-called rebel forces are not attacking.

Looked at another way, they are clearing the way for the rebel forces to attack.

Who they are attacking, is not discussed. According to NATO, Libya is divided between pro- and anti-Gadhafi forces. Anyone who is killed by NATO planes or Tomahawk missiles or the rebels is pro-Gadhafi and the bad guys, and anyone killed who is not pro-Gadhafi must be anti-Gadhafi and therefore the good guys.

No doubt the rebels are being used by NATO to provide an internal pretext for regime change and the imposition of new arrangements onto Libya which serves the U.S.

Shame on the Canadian Parliament for taking part in this crime against the people. All of the parties who support Canada joining this intervention have the blood of the Libyan people on their hands.

A youth in Windsor

War Against Libya

It was sickening to witness the shamelessness of the parliamentarians in the House of Commons as they unanimously "endorsed" Canada's participation in a war of aggression against Libya on the 21st of March. The NDP, the Liberals and the Bloc Québécois, all supported the Harper Conservatives and sanctioned this criminal act against Libya and even applauded afterward.

Not only is this "endorsement" unjust, but it comes after Canada sent the frigate HMSC Charlottetown to join the flotilla of U.S., French, British, Italian and other warships off the coast of Libya, and after 6 Canadian F18 fighter jets and the over 400 military personnel were already on stand-by ready to bomb the Libyans! The so called debate in Parliament was a manoeuvre to justify the unjustifiable. It also shows once again that our Parliament is incapable of being a voice for peace internationally, and that it is under the dictate of Anglo-American imperialism and NATO. The "debate" was to hoodwink the Canadian people into conciliating with this crime against peace and war crime against the Libyan people. Not in Our Name! It must not pass!

A Reader in Toronto

So-Called Moral Duty

Defence Minister Peter MacKay in his comments to start the take-note parliamentary debate on going to war against Libya said: "We are compelled to intervene, both [as] a moral duty and by duty [to] NATO and United Nations." It would be laughable if not so tragic for the Canadian people and Libyan people to hear Mr. MacKay shamelessly talk about morality when he himself has no compunction about involving Canada and Canadians in wars of aggression and occupation around the world, such as in Afghanistan and now Libya where civilians are being used for target practice by Canadian guns and bombs, despite pious words about being concerned about "collateral damage."

A Worker in Halifax

Canadians Stand for Peace!

After the take-note debate in Parliament, a unanimous vote was taken to support Canada's participation in the in the aggression against Libya. News media noted that some of the MPs were "uncomfortable" about the decision to support one side in the civil war in Libya given the experience in Afghanistan or to put "Canadian fliers and sailors in harm's way." The resolution was nevertheless given unanimous approval. This is unacceptable. To not take a clear principled stand on questions of war and peace is to conciliate with the preparations for a wider war. Video footage shows a practically empty chamber when the vote took place. Besides the foreign affairs spokespersons of each party, a motley quorum of some 20 people made sure a recorded vote did not take place, making the decision unanimous. This is a problem facing Canadians -- that they have a Parliament made up of warmongers and those who conciliate with warmongers -- who do not represent their will to have Canada stand for peace and peaceful relations with other countries, and most certainly not to be under the dictate of the U.S. or NATO or other military alliances.

A worker in Hamilton

Canadians Need an Anti-War Government

The unjust and criminal war against Libya and the Libyan people is an election issue. Canadians must discuss how they can have an anti-war government. The first step is to vote for and elect candidates of the Marxist-Leninist Party and other small parties or independent candidates who take a principled stand against the war on Libya and want to build an anti-war government which will have a foreign policy based on peace; a government that upholds the principle of the right of all nations to sort out their problems without outside interference, and that rejects the use of force to settle conflicts between nations and within nations.

A youth in Montreal

Return to top


Recent Developments in Libya

Developing Stalemate

The fighting on the ground has been concentrated around the eastern towns of Brega and Misrata, agencies report. Control of Brega has exchanged hands between government forces and the so-called rebels several times. It is now reported to have been retaken by government forces while the so-called rebels have been pushed back toward the town of Ajdabiya. Their retreat was due in part to yet another so-called friendly fire NATO airstrike on rebel forces, causing them to disperse and retreat.

Top U.S. General Carter Ham told a U.S. Senate hearing that it was unlikely that Libyan rebel forces could oust Libyan leader Muammar Gadhafi, saying the conflict appeared to be turning into a stalemate. The general, who led the first stage of the coalition air campaign in Libya, claimed the international intervention had succeeded in protecting civilians for the most part but that regime change would not come through military means. Asked at the hearing about the chances that the opposition could "fight their way" to Tripoli and replace Gadhafi, Ham said: "I would assess that as a low likelihood."

And when pressed by Senator John McCain whether the situation was essentially a stalemate or an "emerging stalemate," Ham said: "Senator, I would agree with that at present on the ground." Under further questioning, he added that a stalemate is "not the preferred solution" in Libya but that outcome appeared "more likely" now than at the outset of the air campaign. This increases the likelihood that a country such as France will try to challenge U.S. domination of North Africa by getting its own boots on the ground to shore up the rebel forces.

More "Friendly Fire" Killings

NATO says its airstrikes in Libya have killed several rebels using tanks. The strikes occurred on April 7 at 10:30 am after the so-called rebels had moved 20 tanks to the front in their battle to retake Brega, a key coastal installation that the fighters lost a week ago. NATO, however, refused to apologize, saying the situation on the ground was "extremely fluid." Rear Admiral Russell Harding, the deputy commander of the NATO operation, said that opposing forces had engaged in a series of advances and retreats, making it hard for pilots to distinguish between them. He also said NATO had no previous information the rebels were operating tanks. At least five opposition fighters were killed April 7 when their convoy was hit by an air strike. Canada has taken over command of NATO's air operation from the U.S. and will have to be held to account for its "humanitarian" collateral damage.

"We don't want NATO anymore!" said fighter Basit bin Nasser in response to the incident, while another yelled, "Down, down with NATO," al-Arabiya reports.

A group of so-called rebels was also hit by "friendly fire" on the eastern outskirts of Brega late on April 1, killing 13 of them. "The rebels shot up in the air and the alliance came and bombed them. We are the ones who made the mistake," said one fighter of the April 1 incident.

Theft of Libyan Oil Begins

News agencies note that Brega has great significance, as it along with the eastern town of Ras Lanuf make up the lion's share of Libya's 1.5 million barrels daily export of crude oil, which has been radically affected by the situation in the country. The so-called rebels said they have signed a deal with Qatar to market "their" crude oil abroad in exchange for food, medicine and -- they hope -- weapons, al-Arabiya says. RT reports that on April 6, the so-called rebels sent their first consignment of crude oil of about a million barrels from the Libyan port of Marsa al-Hariga to Qatar.

Diplomatic Solutions Sought

The Libyan government said on April 5 it was ready to negotiate reforms, but refused any talk of regime change that western powers which are attacking the country are demanding, news agencies report. "What kind of political system is implemented in the country? This is negotiable, we can talk about it," government spokesman Mussa Ibrahim told journalists. "We can have anything, elections, referendums." But Gadhafi's departure is non-negotiable, he stressed. "We think [Gadhafi] is very important to lead any transition to a democratic and transparent model," Ibrahim said, adding that the international community has no right to say whether or not Gadhafi must stay or leave.

Ibrahim held talks in Turkey and Malta to seek a diplomatic resolution to the foreign military aggression against Libya. However, news reports say that Libya's discussions with diplomats in Greece, Turkey and Malta to advance a diplomatic solution were not successful.

Meanwhile, Prime Minister of Turkey Recep Tayyip Erdogan said at an April 7 news conference that Turkey is working on a "roadmap" to end the war in Libya which would include a ceasefire and the withdrawal of government forces from some cities, al-Arabiya reports. Turkey held talks this week with envoys from the Libyan government and representatives of the opposition. "We are working on the details of this road map," Erdogan said at a news conference. "A real ceasefire should be settled immediately and Gadhafi's military units should end the siege of some cities and withdraw," Erdogan added. He also urged the creation of "secure humanitarian spaces" to allow the delivery of aid to the Libyan people.

Libya's former colonial master Italy dismissed the idea of a diplomatic solution saying that Gadhafi and his family had to leave and that other countries should also support this position.

A similar position was also given by the so-called opposition, the Transitional National Council. A spokesman for the council told AFP "Gadhafi and his sons have to leave before any diplomatic negotiations can take place."

For its part, Germany has said that the situation in Libya could not be solved through 'military means' and has called for a ceasefire.

France's Foreign Minister Alain Juppe admitted there were differences of opinion among European Union members as to how to implement regime change in Libya. "Some of our partners feel that sanctions are sufficient. There is disagreement on this point," he stated.

Gadhafi Addresses Letter to Obama

In an April 5 letter to U.S. President Barack Obama, whom he referred to as a son of Africa, Gadhafi urged Obama to bring an end to the U.S.-NATO intervention and to keep NATO out of Libya's affairs, saying, "you are a man who has enough courage to annul a wrong and mistaken action." He stressed to Obama that "As you know too well democracy and building of civil society cannot be achieved by means of missiles and aircraft" or by backing the opposition fighters. He stated that Libya's problems were for Libyans to solve within the framework of the African Union.

U.S. Claims "Supporting Role"

On March 31, U.S.-led NATO assumed overall command of the operation in Libya. The U.S. handed command of the NATO operation to Canadian Lieutenant General Charles Bouchard thereby giving the impression that NATO is quite independent of the U.S. and the U.S. is merely playing a supporting role in the aggression against Libya.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Admiral Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, testifying to the Senate Armed Services Committee hours after the handover told Senator John McCain that some of the U.S. AC-130 gunships and A-10 tankbusters will remain available for use by the NATO commander if Gadhafi's forces threaten the eastern city of Benghazi, the headquarters of the alleged rebellion, McClatchy reports. They said the U.S. would "limit" itself to a supporting role in which American aircraft and ships will jam communications and provide midair refuelling, intelligence and other specialized aid to Britain, France and other nations that are assuming leading roles in the operation.

Gates "asserted the rebels needed training more than guns but suggested other nations do that job," al-Arabiya wrote.

"My view is that the future of Libya -- the United States ought not take responsibility for that. I think there are other countries both in the region and our allies in Europe who can participate in the effort," said Gates, adding, "I just don't think we need to take on another one." Gates' comments were echoed by Mullen, McClatchy Newspapers reports.

Gates said he was determined to avoid major U.S. military involvement in Libya. "I am preoccupied with avoiding mission creep and avoiding an open-ended, very large scale American commitment in this," he said. "We are in serious budget trouble."

Gates declined to address the presence inside Libya of CIA paramilitary teams that U.S. officials say are maintaining contact with the rebels and gathering intelligence on Gadhafi's forces and targets for airstrikes.

White House spokesman Jay Carney said that Obama had taken no decision on whether the U.S. should arm and train the rebels. But Carney said that Obama agrees with Gates that other countries should train Gadhafi's opponents, agencies report.

French Defence Minister Gerard Longuet said providing weapons was not part of the UN mandate, while NATO chief Anders Fogh Rasmussen said, "We are there to protect the Libyan people, not to arm people."

Russian Foreign Minister Serguei Lavrov at a press conference warned against NATO providing the aid requested by the so-called rebels, because to do so would be "meddling in a civil war."

"This was not authorized by the UN Security Council," Lavrov told a press conference. He emphasized that solutions to the ongoing crisis should be dealt with through negotiations insisting that they can not be imposed by the use of military force. The reports do not say whether Lavrov considered the NATO airstrikes on government forces to be "providing aid," "meddling in a civil war" or use of military force.

There are reports that Qatar is already providing training and weapons in exchange for the oil they are receiving from the so-called rebels.

RT reports that "Protests against NATO actions are becoming a common scene in Benghazi. Many are accusing the alliance of failing to protect civilians. Rebels are not asking for help anymore, they are demanding [to be armed]."

Libyan "Defections"

Global Research writer Gregory Elich sheds light on the so-called defections of Libyan officials, which are cited by some as a sign that the Gadhafi regime is weakening and that the foreign intervention is succeeding. Elich writes:

"The latest defections, by Libyan foreign minister and former intelligence chief Moussa Koussa, and Libyan UN representative Ali Abdessalam Treki, may not have been quite as spontaneous as Western officials would have us think.

"'I don't believe that [Koussa] necessarily decided on his own,' observes former CIA officer Emile Nakleh. 'I judge that intensive behind-the-scenes contacts must have been occurring between him and Western -- people from the West, let's say. I would be appalled, frankly, if our intelligence services and our government had not attempted to contact him and encourage him to leave.'

"And indeed, that was the case, as both U.S. and British intelligence agents were in regular contact with Koussa in the days leading up to his departure from Libya.

"Koussa had a comfortable life in Tripoli. What blandishment would make a man abandon his home and family? He may have been offered money, but at his age, that seems inadequate motivation for adopting a life of being effectively held under house arrest, far from family, and undergoing daily interrogation. It is anticipated that the interrogation sessions are to last from two to three years.

"Although a financial reward may someday come his way, that would depend on Koussa telling his interrogators what they want to hear, even if he has to lie to do so, such as taking on blame for the Lockerbie bombing. Koussa is expected to produce. According to a British official, 'Absolutely no promises will be made initially. That's a golden rule because it's too early to know exactly what his intelligence is worth.' Debriefing sessions can last as long as six hours at a time. 'This is all about control. Intelligence staff will make sure he reveals what information they want and when they want it,' the official pointed out.

"So if no promises were made, how were British and U.S. intelligence officials able to persuade Koussa to leave Libya? They may well have threatened him. The precedent of Yugoslavia is relevant here. In October 2000, a movement led by individuals trained and funded by the CIA overthrew the Yugoslav government. In its place were installed new leaders who immediately set about the task of putting the entire economy at the service of Western capital.

"For more than a year beforehand, U.S. intelligence officials visited several Yugoslav officials, who had been placed on a travel ban by U.S. and Western officials. Removal from the travel ban would be theirs, the Yugoslav officials were told, if they agreed to cooperate in the U.S.-backed campaign to overthrow the government. Some were even warned that they would be charged with war crimes if they refused to collaborate, and might be spirited away and placed on trial before the criminal tribunal at The Hague.

"It is very likely that similar threats were made against Koussa and other defectors. Already, the Chief Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court, Louis Moreno-Ocampo, has announced that investigations into Libyan war crimes are underway, and he hopes to issue the first arrest warrants by May. In addition to Qaddafi and his sons, those said to be under investigation include 'some people with formal authority who should pay attention to crimes committed by their people.'

"Steven Rapp, U.S. Ambassador-at-large for War Crimes Issues, says that 'it is not a question of if, it's a question of when' Libyan officials will be charged with war crimes.

"More defections can be expected. British agents are currently in touch with ten 'leading Libyan officials.' And it can be assumed that CIA agents are active as well.

"What inducements are offered can only be surmised: immunity from prosecution? Or a promise of a light sentence rather than harsh terms?

"Once again, the system of international war crimes justice is seen to serve a political purpose. Indictments against Libyan officials are already promised. There is not a single government on earth that would fail to respond with force to an armed uprising, and it is ludicrous to demand that Libya be the exception. What is taking place in Libya is a civil war, where the West has intervened in that state's internal affairs on behalf of one of the parties in the conflict. Only those on one side of this civil war are to be charged with crimes. More importantly, NATO and its members states, as they rain down bombs and cruise missiles on Libya, are immune from prosecution.

"In the weeks ahead, as further defections are announced, these will be presented as evidence of the moral rightness of the NATO war. But it would be more accurate to say that what will be shown is the moral bankruptcy of the West's language of threats."

(For the full item with footnotes, see: http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=24115)

(Agencies)

Return to top


The Politics of Assassination

On November 30, 2010 the former adviser to Prime Minister Stephen Harper and the architect of his election campaigns, Thomas Flanagan, called for the assassination of Wikileaks founder Julian Assange. In a discussion about the significance of the leaks of U.S. State documents, Flanagan declared: "I think Assange should be assassinated, actually. I think Obama should put out a contract or maybe use a drone or something." Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff said Flanagan's comments were "utterly unacceptable" and "crossed the line." The Prime Minister's office simply dismissed the extremist call as a matter of definition. "Everybody knows Tom Flanagan is no advisor to the Prime Minister," director of communications Dimitri Soudas said on Twitter. Most newspapers passed over the statement without comment. After Flanagan issued an apology for "a glib comment," the extremist threat disappeared from the media.

Just three-and-a-half months later, the heads of Britain, Canada and France issued direct and indirect threats against the person of Col. Muammar al Gadhafi on March 19 at the NATO Summit in Paris. On March 20 and 21, TV networks reported the cruise missile bombing by the Royal Air Force of Bab Al-Aziziyah, the modest three-story residential compound of Gadhafi in Tripoli on the second night of the U.S.-NATO attack on Libya. The block was about 150 yards from the iconic tents which the Libyan leader uses to officially greet foreign visitors. Three hundred people were reported to be in the compound. The attacks were obviously long in the planning. Fox TV in the U.S. sought to blame the victims by saying the people were acting as "human shields." That same day France carried out four air strikes and 112 Tomahawk cruise missiles were fired from American and British ships and submarines at more than 20 Libyan coastal targets. Libya's health officials said sixty-four people had been killed and 150 others wounded in the air strikes. On March 22, a residence of Gadhafi in Adjdabiya was also damaged.

Along with carnage and slaughter of civilians, the strikes opened a new chapter in the bloody book of political assassinations. The Daily Mail reported, "Senior government sources described the strike as a 'shot across [Gadhafi's] bows'. The target was agreed around four days ago by British military personnel in concert with the U.S. and the French. It was not the result of specific 'actionable intelligence' that Gadhafi was present." On March 21 a Globe and Mail editorial reported Harper's comments in Paris repeating the U.S. line that "Colonel Gadhafi will not be content with reimposing his authority but will massacre 'every single individual' remotely suspected of disloyalty -- words that lend themselves to a very wide interpretation of the protection of the civilians. Similarly, Liam Fox, the British Defence Secretary, has declared Col. Gadhafi to be a legitimate target for fighter pilots" ("Don't give in to mission creep"). According to news reports, Fox's comments were publicly sanctioned by British Prime Minister David Cameron and Defence Secretary Hague. Nicolas Sarkozy of France also spoke of "targeted" actions -- meaning assassination. According to the Montreal Gazette Harper further declared that the strikes were "essentially acts of war." In response to the British declarations, U.S. Defense Secretary and former CIA chief Robert Gates commented only that the assassination of Gadhafi would be "unwise." Meanwhile the Ignatieff Liberals who were exercised by Flanagan's declaration in November were second to none in demanding Gadhafi's liquidation in March: "We have to engage on the human rights issues and we have to engage successfully in making sure Colonel Gadhafi is history," Bob Rae had declared as far back as March 7. Completing the scenario, NDP leader Jack Layton, whose party had voted unanimously for the ongoing U.S.-NATO military attack on Libya just ten days before, posed as the moderate: echoing the assertions by Gates, he said on March 31 his party is now against "mission creep."

Gadhafi's assassination would not only be a mistake or "mission creep," but a crime. NATO threats against the president of the Libyan government constitute another act of war. Resorting to politics of assassination is one of the main ways of lowering the standards of human behaviour and subverting the achievements of the peoples of the world. Once targetted assassinations are presented by the big powers and their news agencies as par for the course, nobody is safe. This is the aim and content of the UN Security Council Resolution 1973 justifying "the use of all means possible" against Libya, which overthrows the international law that emerged from World War II and the victory over fascism. This is the unacceptable infamy that the extremist Harper, the defender of "Canadian values," is openly inciting -- just as his former advisor Flanagan publicly declared in his "glib comment" that the head of Wikileaks should be assassinated by the Obama regime. Or as former Chief of Staff Gen. Rick Hillier declared in 2005 that the mission of the Canadian Forces in Afghanistan was to "kill detestable murderers and scumbags." What was at one time considered extremist and unacceptable is to be accepted as routine, normal or "glib."

In 2002, Sandra L. Smith, writing on the 2002 U.S. missile attack that obliterated a car in Yemen, instantly killing six people, pointed out:

"The fundamental premise of a rule of law is that the authorities in power cannot and must not make themselves judge, jury and executioner. Clear note should be taken that while 'targetted assassinations' are presented in an acceptable light by portraying the victims are 'deserving' of such things, the same politics are being put in place at home in the form that all agencies of the state, not just 'security' forces, can act with impunity. It shows that while preparations are made to unleash imperialist war abroad, all measures are also being put in place to unleash fascism at home so that the people are not able to mount an effective opposition. It must not pass. Every effort must be made to oppose the criminalization of dissent and make it very clear that it is unacceptable under any conditions and circumstances with no exceptions. It is untenable to accept a definition of rule of law which is in contempt of the very notion of rule of law. This is the field in which the greatest wrecking activity is taking place. The fact that all of it is done in the name of 'rights', 'peace', 'democracy', 'security' and even 'nation-building' shows just how subversive it is."[1]

In this regard, the "cautionary" and "moderate" statements of U.S. Defense Secretary Gates and others of his ilk about "mission creep" recall the standard modus operandi of the United States. In 1981 widespread disinformation was floated in Canada and the U.S. about "a Libyan hit squad" that had allegedly entered the United States to assassinate then President U.S. Ronald Reagan and other top officials such as Vice-President George Bush. On December 2, 1981 the White House "officially confirmed" that "hit squads" had been dispatched to the U.S. directly by Muammar Gadhafi. Using this and other pretexts, some 100 U.S. aircraft at the direct order of U.S. President Ronald Reagan, under the code name "El Dorado Canyon," on the night of April 14, 1986 and the early morning of April 15 specifically attacked Col. Gadhafi's residence, killing his three-year-old daughter along with dozens of civilians. The major cities of Tripoli and Benghazi were bombed. It was Reagan who tried to murder Gadhafi. This despite Reagan even having signed an executive order which banned the CIA or any other government agency from direct or indirect involvement in any assassination plan. Coinciding with the April 1986 U.S. attack against Libya, Reagan made a national address in which he said, "Self-defence is not only our right, it is our duty. It is the purpose behind the mission ... a mission fully consistent with Article 51 of the UN Charter."

It was later revealed that the "Libyan hit squad" was CIA disinformation which was initiated by planting a story in the foreign press, the Toronto Star, which was quickly disseminated within the United States by the Wall Street Journal and then picked up by the news wires and newspapers in the USA and other countries -- the "multiplier effect" originally used in the Guatemala coup of 1954 and again in Chile in 1973. [2] The "propaganda campaign," wrote one anti-Libyan author who detailed the operation, was "designed to discredit the Libyan leader and turn him into an international outlaw."[3] A psychosis of terror was deliberately fomented to justify the aggressive military acts abroad and criminalize dissent at home. Following the April 1986 bombing attack, it was widely reported that "increased terrorism" was feared. A panic was created in the U.S. and Canada, leading to the widespread cancellation of tourist flights to Europe. Professional "terrorism experts" peddled the absurd claim that a network of terrorist cells with Libyan connections had spread across Canada; according to the Canadian media, Expo 86 became a target for terrorist gangs. Draconian security measures were adopted at the U.S.-Canadian border, airports and train stations. Passengers with felony convictions, no matter how minor, or those of Arabic or Middle Eastern origin, on the Halifax-Montreal train which passed through Maine and Vermont were simply removed and arbitrarily dropped by the wayside.

The reader can now see the pattern behind the amoral calls issued from Paris and elsewhere. Besides the obvious multiplier effect upon the potential audience they give the appearance of an independent world consensus. The calls to assassinate Muammar al Gadhafi constitute nothing more than a crude "strategic psychological operation" to ensure U.S. deniability.[4] No sooner the U.S. demands Gadhafi be hauled before the International Court of Justice as its fig leaf than the "allies" come forward as judge, jury and executioner. In this manner, Harper and the heads of Britain and France with the backing of the other political parties in their parliaments have stepped forward as willing tools of the U.S. Empire. Thus the road is being prepared for unleashing the imperialist politics of assassination and intervention in North Africa by the U.S. Empire and fascism at home. Only they can declare what is legal and what constitutes the rule of law, nobody else. Only they can declare what is good and moral for Canada, nobody else, even as what the whole world can see that what is good and moral for Canada is not good and moral for the people of Canada nor the people of Libya and the nations of North Africa.

Notes

1. Sandra L. Smith, "The Politics of Assassination," TML Daily, November 14, 2002 - No. 179.
2. The "multiplier effect" was documented by the Church Committee, the United States Senate Select Committee to Study Governmental Operations with Respect to Intelligence Activities, a U.S. Senate committee chaired by Senator Frank Church (D-ID) in 1975 [http://foia.state.gov/reports/churchreport.asp].
    For Newsweek's reference to the disinformation campaign, see "A Plan to Overthrow Kaddafi," Newsweek, August 3, 1981, p. 19. An excerpt: "The details of the plan were sketchy, but it seemed to be a classic C.I.A. destabilization campaign. One element was a 'disinformation' program designed to embarrass Kaddafi and his government. Another was the creation of a "counter government" to challenge his claim to national leadership. A third -- potentially the most risky -- was an escalating paramilitary campaign, probably by disaffected Libyan nationals, to blow up bridges, conduct small-scale guerrilla operations and demonstrate that Kaddafi was opposed by an indigenous political force." In November, "NEWSWEEK has also learned that Kaddafi . . . [is] ordering the assassination of the U.S. ambassador to Italy. . . . U.S. intelligence also picked up evidence that Kaddafi had hatched yet another assassination plot -- this time against President Reagan." [Michael Reese, "Uniting Against Libya," Newsweek, October 19, 1981, p. 43] These and other quotes from the press are cited by Noam Chomsky, Towards A New Cold War: Essays on the Current Crisis and How We Got There, New York: Pantheon, 1982
3. Edward P. Haley, Qaddafi and the United States Since 1969, New York: Praeger, 1984.
4. "The ultimate objective of U.S. military psychological operations," says the Pentagon, "is to convince enemy, neutral, and friendly nations and forces to take action favorable to the United States and its allies ... Global in nature, they may be directed toward large audiences or at key communicators." Psychological Operations Fact Sheet, U.S. Army Special Operations Command, http://www.iwar.org.uk/psyops/resources/us/psyops.htm

Return to top


Website:  www.cpcml.ca   Email:  editor@cpcml.ca