Libya Peace proposal

Stop the bombing. Cease fire. Negotiations. Free elections taking into account Gaddafi’s actual Elections Offer. The return of the Libyan money, blocked by the U.S. and European banks, to the Libyan State. The transfer of the money of the Libyan State that was intended for African projects, to the leaders of the African Union.
Russia has agreed to mediate in this conflict.

NATO and NATO rebels reject every peace proposal…


7 thoughts on “Libya Peace proposal

  1. kruitvat Post author

    NATO and NATO rebels reject systematically all the peace purposes…

    Peace plan for Libya
    By Elyse Garner

    Published: Tuesday, May 3, 2011
    Updated: Tuesday, May 3, 2011 09:05

    With growing political unrest and seemingly unending violence in Libya, a hope for peace between Libyan rebels and pro-Gaddafi forces appears to be the stuff of imagination. Determined to restore the nation to a state of order, however, the African Union has prepared a plan for peace that could end the hostility.
    The AU, a coalition of representatives from five African countries (South Africa, Mauritania, Mali, Congo-Brazzaville, and Uganda), first developed a peace plan with five main goals in response to the persisting Libyan crisis. With plans to immediately cease fire, deliver humanitarian aid, protect foreign nationals, implement of political reforms and increase dialogue between rebels and the government, AU members approached Gaddafi’s Libyan government with their proposition.
    After gaining the government’s acceptance of the peace plan, AU representatives then turned to Benghazi to face the Libyan rebels. Their proposition was met with protests as rebels declared that there will be no peace while Gaddafi remains in power. Despite AU efforts, rebel forces officially rejected the peace plan on Monday, April 11.
    “The African Union initiative does not include the departure of Gaddafi and his sons from the Libyan political scene; therefore it is outdated,” rebel Mustafa Abdel Jalil said.
    Although many members of NATO approve of the need for political reform as presented in the plan, other members received the ideas with some reserve. AU called for an immediate end to NATO airstrikes, but the latter maintains that such airstrikes are necessary when “credible and verifiable” for the protection of civilians. Any ceasefire, according to UK foreign secretary William Hague, must meet “UN conditions” before commencing.
    In the meantime, with only one of the vital parties in agreement with the AU peace plan, NATO has continued a series of air strikes in an attempt to push back Gaddafi forces and stop the attacks on civilians. “A huge amount has been achieved in Libya, but clearly there is more to be done,” Hague said.
    The AU continues to hope that the plan will take effect and that Libya will one day see peace.
    Sources: BBC News
    CNN News

  2. kruitvat Post author

    NATO and NATO rebels reject systematically all the peace purposes…

    Give the Libya Cease-Fire Plan a Chance
    Moral absolutists will reject the cease-fire proposed by Africa’s leaders. But NATO and the U.N. should fix what they can and see if they can stop this hideous fighting.
    April 11, 2011 7:55 PM EDT
    Moral absolutists will reject the cease-fire proposed by Africa’s leaders. But NATO and the U.N. should fix what they can and see if they can stop this fighting.

    Westerners who rushed to the defense of the Libyan rebels bridle at the thought of any cease-fire proposal that doesn’t require Col. Gaddafi’s removal from power. Indeed, Libyan rebels have already rejected the proposal by African leaders that restricts itself to a straight cease-fire and puts off other contentious issues. But NATO leaders would be dead wrong to reject the African proposal out of hand. They would be wrong to let the absolutists and the rebels let the war go on until they have everything they want, no matter what the costs. For all the holes in the African initiative, it does start the ball rolling toward a possible cease-fire. At the very least, U.S. leaders owe it to Americans to explore the ideas seriously, perhaps through NATO or the U.N. Security Council. And the moral war-mongers can always console themselves with the thought that if these cease-fire talks collapse, all parties can resume the killing in the name of freedom and humanity.
    No one expects Col. Gaddafi to agree to or keep a full-fledged cease-fire, but he has accepted the limited African proposal. Obviously, NATO shouldn’t simply accept the African plan as is. But it should respond with a beefed-up counterproposal, one with inspectors in place and other reasonable requirements that can’t be dismissed as ploys to make the cease-fire idea fail. And if the colonel says no to that, most Westerners—including myself—would feel less strained about the ongoing and costly battle.

    In sum, here’s what the five African presidents placed on the table on behalf of the African Union: (1) An immediate cease-fire, (2) the unhindered delivery of humanitarian aid, (3) protection of foreign nationals, and (4) a dialogue between the government and rebels on a political settlement.

    Among other things, the NATO counterproposal should call for a U.N. inspection team to police the cease-fire, a pullback of Gaddafi’s forces to their base areas, and a cessation of all Libyan helicopter and aircraft flights. But other than items such as those to reinforce a cease-fire, the African suggestions seem necessarily general and wise as starting points. If a cease-fire would result in the creation of two Libyan states, that doesn’t seem like a terrible outcome when compared to a neverending civil war.

    Predictably, the Italian and British foreign ministers threw cold water on the African plan, and joined the rebels in insisting that Gaddafi must go as part of any cease-fire. To me, this is not a serious response. Their main mission is supposed to be saving civilian lives, and everything they are saying would simply guarantee more killing.

    Don’t let us be too squeamish about dealing with the Gaddafi monster. America and its allies have a long history of bargaining with devils.

    • Christopher Dickey: Revolution Off the Rails

    • Babak Dehghanpisheh: America’s Islamist Allies in Libya As for the position of the Obama administration, it seems to be a typical mystery. On Monday, Secretary of State Clinton proffered a list of non-negotiable terms including: cease-fire, pullback of troops from areas that had been forcibly entered, and resumption of water, electricity, and humanitarian aid. She added: “We believe, too, that there needs to be a transition that reflects the will of the Libyan people and the departure of Gaddafi from power and from Libya.” Interestingly, she did not include Gaddafi’s departure among her non-negotiable demands for a cease-fire. That omission would seem very promising, save that department officials were reluctant to underline its importance.

    White House press secretary Jay Carney produced his own tongue twisters on Monday: “What matters here are actions and not words… [Gaddifi’s forces] need to stop menacing the civilians… pull back from the cities… garrison themselves… [But] we are in no way letting up the implementation [of United Nations Security Council Resolution 1973].” To me, that sounds like the basis for a serious counterproposal. But then Carney went on to repeat the usual lines about U.S. policy being to squeeze Gaddafi until he leaves power. Go figure.

    Administration officials tell me that reacting favorably toward a cease fire proposal would lead Gaddafi to think he’s winning. And that, in turn, would make him more determined to fight on. My response is that NATO and the U.S. can control Gaddafi’s reactions by their counter proposal — hopefully a tough one. Besides, didn’t President Obama say that while he wanted to get rid of Gaddafi, that was not to be accomplished by military force, but by diplomatic and economic means?

    Of course, every decent person wants to get rid of Gaddafi. But the goal set out by the United Nations here is to save civilian lives, and it seems fair to try to achieve this by allowing for a cease-fire with Gaddafi in place, if only for the purpose of providing a power transition. Don’t let us be too squeamish about dealing with the Gaddafi monster. America and its allies have a long history of bargaining with devils—mass murderers like Stalin and Mao, and nasty opponents in war like Ho Chi Minh. And don’t forget the almost decade-long love fest the West had with Gaddafi himself after he renounced terrorism and destroyed his nuclear programs. The West can and does deal with devils to keep the peace and to save lives—without compromising its own security or fundamental values.

    Leslie H. Gelb, a former New York Times columnist and senior government official, is author of Power Rules: How Common Sense Can Rescue American Foreign Policy (HarperCollins 2009), a book that shows how to think about and use power in the 21st century. He is president emeritus of the Council on Foreign Relations.

  3. kruitvat Post author

    NATO and NATO rebels reject systematically all the peace purposes…
    Libyan revolutionary council rejects African Union’s peace initiative
    Rebels say deal is unacceptable because it does not require Gaddafi to step down

    Chris McGreal in Benghazi, Harriet Sherwood in Tripoli, Ian Traynor in Brussels and Nicholas Watt, Monday 11 April 2011

    Libya’s revolutionary leadership has flatly rejected an African Union peace initiative because it does not require Muammar Gaddafi to immediately relinquish power.

    The rebels’ interim ruling council met an AU delegation from five countries – led by three presidents and two foreign ministers – the day after Gaddafi endorsed the African “roadmap to peace”, which included an immediate ceasefire, the suspension of Nato air strikes and talks towards a political settlement.

    But Mustafa Abdul Jalil, the revolutionary council chairman, said the rebels had told the AU its proposal had been overtaken by events, including the UN security council resolution authorising air strikes, and was in any case unacceptable because it left Gaddafi in power while both sides negotiated.

    “From the very beginning we have been asking that the exit of Gaddafi and his sons take place immediately. We cannot consider this or any future proposal that does not include this peoples’ requirement,” said Jalil.

    “He leaves on his own or the march of the people will be at his doorstep.”

    That view was backed by thousands of demonstrators outside the Benghazi hotel where the talks were held. They waved revolutionary flags and carried signs saying: “No solution with Gaddafi staying.”

    Jalil said that the AU peace proposal was drafted a month ago and had been overtaken by the UN security council resolution requiring Gaddafi to halt his attacks on civilians.

    “Colonel Gaddafi did not recognise this resolution and continued bombing civilians from the air and shooting them, and surrounding cities with his forces, and put his forces inside cities. There is not any way the Libyan people can accept such a situation,” he said.

    Although the AU proposal included a ceasefire, the rebels said it did not go far enough. They want one that requires Gaddafi to withdraw his forces from towns where they have been used to suppress the revolution, particularly Misrata and Zawiya, and the allowing of unfettered public protest in the hope that Libyans in cities still under Gaddafi’s control will seize the opportunity to rise up.

    The British foreign secretary, William Hague, backed the revolutionaries’ position, saying that Gaddafi must go and that a new ceasefire would have to meet the UN requirement for a withdrawal of his forces from cities they are attacking.

    “Anything short of this would be a betrayal of the people of Libya and would play into the hands of the regime, which has announced two utterly meaningless ceasefires since the fighting began without its vicious military campaign missing a single beat,” the foreign secretary said.

    Jalil also rejected the AU’s proposal for a cessation of Nato air strikes. “If it were not for the air strikes carried out by the coalition forces and Nato, we would not now be at this meeting,” he said.

    The AU’s proposal for an end to the air strikes was also met with scepticism by Nato. Anders Fogh Rasmussen, the Nato secretary general, said that for a ceasefire to work it would need to be “credible and verifiable”, suggesting that international monitors would need to be deployed on the ground in Libya, but that it was “too early” for this. “We need to establish an effective monitoring mechanism if a ceasefire is to be credible,” he said.

    The AU delegation – made up of South Africa, Uganda, Mauritania, Congo-Brazzaville and Mali – left the talks looking glum, without making a public comment and to the derisive shouts of the protesters outside the hotel.

    Ibrahim al-Sharif, Libya’s minister for social affairs, claimed that children killed and injured in Misrata were victims of Nato air strikes. He said Libya would bring legal cases against Nato and countries supporting the coalition over the deaths and injuries. “The number of children harmed is increasing every day because the air strikes are increasing,” he told reporters in Tripoli.

    Sharif also claimed that arms were being shipped to Misrata under the guise of humanitarian aid, but failed to provide any evidence.

  4. kruitvat Post author

    It not as a a war, but a mission to remove Gaddafi from power…

    Barack Obama: US not in breach of law over role in Libyan conflict
    US president rejects suggestion from John Boehner that formal approval of Congress was needed before taking military action

    Chris McGreal in Washington, Thursday 16 June 2011

    The Obama administration’s report into the Libya conflict described it not as a a war, but a mission to remove Gaddafi from power.

    Barack Obama has vigorously defended his right to take military action in Libya without the formal approval of Congress, after Republican leaders challenged his authority amid the right’s growing suspicion of costly foreign military operations.

    This week the Republican leader of the House of Representatives, John Boehner, wrote to Obama telling him that, under the 1973 war powers act, the president was obliged to seek congressional approval for the Libyan venture before Friday.

    The White House replied by saying the law, which says there must be a vote in the legislature within 90 days of the president taking the US to war, did not apply because US participation in the Nato bombing did not amount to full-blown war.

    The issue unites liberals opposed to foreign ventures with fiscal conservatives, including some Tea Party supporters who want big cuts in military spending, although other Republicans want defence protected from budgetary restraints. The dispute is unlikely to have an immediate effect on the US role in Libya, but is becoming a sharp issue as next year’s presidential election draws near, with some members of Congress filing a lawsuit accusing Obama of breaking the law.

    Hillary Clinton, the secretary of state, said she was deeply concerned by reports of wide-scale rape in Libya and other acts of sexual violence across the Arab region. She praised the “brave women” of Libya who came forward to tell of brutality at the hands of Gaddafi’s forces. She urged a thorough investigation and the perpetrators to be brought to justice.

    Boehner, the speaker of the House, added to that pressure earlier this week when he wrote to the president to tell him that refusing to comply with a congressional request to seek authorisation for military action in Libya appeared to violate the war powers act.

    “The combination of [White House] actions has left many members of Congress, as well as the American people, frustrated by the lack of clarity over the administration’s strategic policies, by a refusal to acknowledge and respect the role of the Congress, and by a refusal to comply with the basic tenets of the War Powers Resolution,” Boehner said in the letter.

    The White House has responded with a 38-page report to members of Congress, describing the Libya operation not as war, but a mission to remove Muammar Gaddafi from power.

    The administration says that since Nato took over command of the operation in April, the US role has largely been restricted to supporting military action by Britain, France and others with refuelling and surveillance missions. But it acknowledges that remote control drones, as deployed in Pakistan and Yemen, are also at times used to fire missiles.

    “US operations do not involve sustained fighting or active exchanges of fire with hostile forces, nor do they involve US ground troops,” the report said.

    Boehner dismissed the White House position on Thursday. “It doesn’t pass the straight-face test in my view that we’re not in the midst of hostilities,” he said. “It’s been four weeks since the president has talked to the American people about this mission. It’s time for the president to outline for the American people why we are there, what the mission is, and what our goals are.”

    The House speaker said that Republican leaders were considering their options including “the power of the purse”.

    A major concern for the Republicans is the cost, after the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan contributed to the US’s ballooning deficit. The White House report says the assault on Libya will have cost the US $1.1bn by the time the latest phase of the Nato operation ends in September. Some more liberal members of Congress say the US has no business intervening in foreign conflicts.

    On Wednesday, 10 members of Congress from both parties asked the courts to order Obama to withdraw American forces from the Libya operation. The author of the lawsuit, Dennis Kucinich, said the White House’s arguments about the degree of involvement did not stand up to scrutiny. “Look, we’re at war. There’s already been $750m spent,” he said. “Whether there are boots on the ground or not doesn’t really get into the question of whether or not the president had the ability [to intervene] in the first place. It’s a constitutional issue here, and it can’t be danced around at all.”

    Another member of Congress, California Democrat Lynn Woolsey, accused the administration of showing “contempt for the constitution”.

    The war powers act was passed in 1973 amid a backlash against abuse of presidential authority during the Vietnam war – including the secret and illegal bombing of Cambodia – and over the veto of President Richard Nixon.

    It requires the president to notify Congress within 48 hours of sending the military in to action. If those forces are to remain in action for more than 90 days, the legislation requires that the president seek the approval of Congress.

    It has been ignored by several presidents, and some administrations have questioned its constitutionality. However, the Obama White House said that it recognises that the law is legal but argues that it does not apply.

  5. kruitvat Post author

    President Gaddafi is certainly more honest than Obama who said on June 16. in the American congress that there is ‘no war’ while NATO has admitted that since March 19 2011, 4.256 bombing missions have been carried out against the Libyan people.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s