Wednesday, April 13, 2011


By Susan Lindauer, former U.S. Intelligence Asset covering Libya and Iraq at the United Nations 

War doesn’t work, does it? Best case scenario, NATO's war against Libya will run 18 to 24 months unless decisive action is taken right now—this day—to end the military confrontation.

Moussa Koussa, Libya's Foreign Minister who defected to Britain on March 30, warns Libya is in danger of becoming the "New Somalia."

Violence is erupting from both sides. The ugly truth is that with every missile strike, NATO kills more and more Libyan people.

NATO cares nothing for the Saudi invasion of Bahrain, which has resulted in wide-scale disappearances of democracy activists. NATO cares nothing for the uprisings in Yemen, peppered with government snipers. Only Libya has been singled out for violent retribution. Of course, this is an oil grab. Gadhaffi challenged U.S. (and probably British) oil companies to reimburse Libya for the economic damage caused by U.N. sanctions tied to the Lockerbie bombing, which Libya had nothing to do with. The U.N. Security Council forced Libya to submit to the Lockerbie Trial and pay $2.7 billion in damages to the families of Pan Am 103, only for the U.S. to bribe witnesses with $4 million payments to testify against Libya's men at Trial.

The judicial corruption at The Hague underscored the absence of evidence against Abdelbassett Megrahi and Al-Amin Fhaima. Under the circumstances, it's hard to blame Gadhaffi for wanting to take something back for his people. The United Nations was grossly in error to apply sanctions to Libya in the first place.

But other than holding power for 42 years against a tide of popular support for fresh voices, is Gadhaffi really so bad? The Libyan people receive a cash distribution of oil revenues every year, houses, education and free health care under Gadhaffi's regime. They enjoy one of the lowest poverty rates in the world—an enviable 5 percent, an 82 percent literacy rate, and a life expectancy of 75 years, 10 percent above the world average. Yet suddenly NATO is determined to break Gadhaffi's hold on power, as if they've recently uncovered some great evil.

The facts are that an alarming number of Libyan rebels are returning from conflicts in Iraq, Chechnya, the Balkans and Afghanistan. Warfare is what they know, and they've brought it home with them. They have articulated no vision for the future. Instead, they have demonstrated an insatiable hunger for violence. No bombing is ever enough. Like tyrants they shout for more NATO bombs. They are guaranteed to destroy Libya if NATO doesn't pull the plug.

NATO has only itself to blame. By rushing to take sides, NATO has lost the ability to apply its influence to both parties, and press for a non-violent transition to power-sharing. By adopting the role of arms supplier to the rebels, NATO has ratcheted up the internal power struggle in Tripoli, which should have exhausted its objectives in a couple of weeks, if not for outside meddling.


It doesn't have to go this way.

Thankfully, the African Union has applied its influence in Tripoli to push for a ceasefire and immediate access to humanitarian assistance for Libya's people. The Presidents of South Africa, Mali, the Congo and Mauritania achieved this victory in diplomatic sessions with Libyan leader Moammar Gadhaffi over the weekend, joined by the Chair of the African Union Commission and the Peace and Security Division.

The international community should demand that NATO accept the African Union platform immediately, whether Libya's rebels approve or not. It's NATO's responsibility to deliver the message that for the sake of the world community, there must be a truce so that political talks can resume.

International oil corporations should likewise take an honest look at their bottom line, and acknowledge that a prolonged war in Libya is guaranteed to damage oil structures and distribution mechanisms upon which oil trading depends. Any protracted Oil War will hurt their profits, too. Most unforgivably, War in Libya will harm the global economy, driving up energy and freight transportation costs at a most difficult moment.

The African Union gets NATO out of this trap. It achieves the most pressing goals of the United Nations mandate in Libya, upon which NATO has claimed authority for its air strikes.

Doctors Without Borders and the Red Crimson would be ideal to lead humanitarian efforts. Doctors Without Borders won a Nobel Peace Prize for its commitment to high quality medical care and triage in conflict zones, while staying clear of political entanglements. For its part, the Red Crimson is the Islamic version of the Red Cross, and would be ideally sensitized to Libya's cultural lines.

It's an excellent first stage. What remains to be seen is whether a second stage will be necessary to secure the peace—That would deploy a small Peace Keeping force, probably from Algeria, Morocco, Tunisia and Egypt in North Africa—who share Libya's Islamic  heritage and aversion to European Occupation. North African peace keepers would have the advantage of neutrality, which NATO has sacrificed by taking sides in the conflict.

As much as it would rankle Libya's sense of sovereignty, given the rebels' history of violence, there's going to have to be some temporary peace-keeping force to divide these groups. The question is whether we do that today--- or in 18 to 24 months when the world finally acknowledges the stupidity and waste of this unnecessary war. There's going to have to be a solution at some point.

But NATO has to face up to some hard truth, too.

If elections in Libya are inevitable, then one more thing is also inevitable. It is strictly up to the Libyan people to choose their future leadership, including whether or not they want Gadhaffi or his sons to continue any role in the government. Genuine democracy demands that all comers have a right to throw their hat in the ring. Nobody has the right to stop them. The rebel forces have a very poor understanding of democracy indeed, if they expect to dictate which candidates participate in future elections.

For that matter, Britain, France and Italy are poor servants of democracy, if they are encouraging such misguided philosophies. That's colonialist thinking, and there's no place for it in a modern age.

If European powers are deeply persuaded of the Libyan rebels' cause, then they should not be afraid to present a full slate of policy ideas and candidates before the Libyan people for their final decision. However European powers must accept that there are no guarantees Libya's rebel forces would win a national election.

Quite the opposite is probably true. The longer the rebels fight, the more likely they are to antagonize the Libyan people who are going to cast those ballots. That's one more excellent reason for NATO to exit this conflict as quickly as possible.

If this War goes on much longer, there's strong probability NATO will win the battle—and lose the War. The world has only to look at Iraq to see what that would mean.

For the humanitarian welfare of the Libyan people and the goal of democracy itself, we must stop this War against Libya right now.
Susan Lindauer is the author of "Extreme Prejudice: The Terrifying Story of the Patriot Act and the Cover Ups of 9/11 and Iraq," which describes her work as an Asset covering Iraq and Libya, and her arrest on the Patriot Act shortly after requesting to testify before Congress about the CIA's advance warnings about 9/11 and a peace option in Iraq.

Comentários sobre a Síria

Por Lejeune Mirhan 
Já estava mais do que na hora tecermos alguns comentários sobre o que vem acontecendo na República Árabe Síria, onde presenciamos as primeiras manifestações de rua contra o presidente, Dr. Bashar El Assad. Publicamos agora esses primeiros comentários.
Síria, um país milenar

Não tenho pretensões aqui em contar a história da Síria. No entanto, um breve resumo se faz necessário. Esse é um país milenar. A cidade de Damasco, sua capital indivisível, tem mais de cinco mil anos de existência contínua. Disputa com a cidade palestina de Jericó, o aglomerado urbano mais antigo de vida continuada. Tem raízes no cristianismo muito forte. Lá um dos apóstolos de Jesus teria tido uma visão e se converteu a essa religião.

Os atuais sírios, descendem dos antigos arameus e assírios (meus antepassados são assírios da região noroeste do país). Na antiguidade clássica, essa região foi ocupada pelos Persas, de Alexandre e posteriormente virou província do Império Romano. Em 660, sob o califado omíada, a Síria é ocupada pelo império árabe e islâmico. Os cruzados cristãos europeus passam por lá por breve período tempo e organizam algumas fortalezas e constituem algumas cidades. Os turcos otomanos tomam o país em 1516, lá ficando até o fim do Império em 1918. Sua independência vem da tentativa de 1936 e depois de 1944, sendo só reconhecida em 17 de abril de 1946, considerada a data nacional mais importante do país.

Interessante registrar a forte influência que a antiga URSS teve sobre esse país, que no passado mais recente tinha o nome de República Socialista Árabe Síria. A palavra “socialista” caiu do nome do país, mas o slogan oficial do país continua sendo “unidade, liberdade, socialismo”. A França foi a potência europeia que colonizou o país, hoje com cerca de 20 milhões de habitantes.

Onda de protestos atinge o país

As ruas sírias, como as ruas árabes em geral, também clamam por mudanças. Mas, a situação desse país e do governo do presidente Dr. Bashar Al Assad tem particularidades que as distingue de outros países árabes do Oriente Médio. Aqui não se trata de defender o governo. Sabemos bem do tempo que Bashar encontra-se no poder – 11 anos! – e que suas sucessivas reeleições atingem elevadíssimos percentuais, sendo praticamente simbólicas e homologatórias. A Síria é regime de Partido único, no caso o Partido Socialista Árabe Sírio – Baath. Governam esse país desde 1963. O pai de Bashar ficou no poder de 1970 até a sua morte em 2000, quando o filho o sucedeu.

Não estou entre os que endeusam a democracia, concedendo-lhe valores universais. Cada país deve saber como encaminhar a sua democracia, a sua forma de escolha de seus governantes. Pregar hoje de forma indistinta a “derrubada de todos os ditadores” e colocar no mesmo saco o governo da Síria, de meu ponto de vista, é fazer completamente o jogo do imperialismo estadunidense.

Aliás, é bom que se registre, em uma mesma região – o Oriente Médio árabe – temos três posições completamente distintas. Na ampla maioria dos casos, trata-se de pedir mesmo a derrubada de todos os governantes monarquistas reacionários e pseudos presidentes “republicanos”. Há uma segunda posição, sobre a Líbia que não é de apoio nem a Kadafi nem aos tais “rebeldes” pró-americanos. E a terceira, é esta sobre a Síria, em defesa do governo.

O que dá o caráter de um estado, se ele é mais ou menos progressista, avançado, é o seu compromisso, sua plataforma de ação, as suas alianças internas – inclusive de classes sociais – para ver contra quem e a favor de quem age a sua estrutura governamental. Poderíamos citar aqui dezenas de governantes nos últimos dois séculos que não receberam voto nenhum de seus povos, mas foram extremamente populares. Nasser foi um deles. Nunca recebeu voto algum no tempo que governou o Egito, entre 1954 e 1970 quando morreu (ou foi morto, não se sabe ao certo). Mas, no seu enterro, pelo menos um milhão de pessoas estiveram presentes (seria hoje coisa equivalente a três milhões de pessoas, o triplo da maior manifestação reunida na Praça da Liberdade no Cairo).

Sírios comemoram o Dia da Independência, 17 de abril, com uma visita à fronteira das colinas de Golã, capturadas por Israel na Guerra dos Seis Dias, em 1967

Conheço de perto – como estudioso do mundo árabe – e muito bem, os compromissos do governo da Síria. Tem conteúdo e caráter antiimperialista nítido, bastante claro. Não conheço governo árabe nenhum em todo o OM, que dê guarida para qualquer grupo revolucionário que lute pela libertação de seus povos, como o sírio, do Partido Baath. Por fim, desconheço qual país árabe tenha dado tanta ajuda ao povo palestino e à sua luta pela libertação do jugo israelense quanto a Síria.

A Síria e seu governo têm inimigos antigos e poderosos no OM e no mundo. Entre eles estão os Estados Unidos, o Iraque (ocupado) e governado por uma maioria xiita, a Arábia Saudita, Israel e o atual e renunciante governo do Líbano, nas mãos ainda do demissionário Said Hariri, pró-EUA e amigo de Israel. Nesse sentido, é bastante possível e até provável que por trás dos que lideram protestos em algumas cidades sírias, podem estar o longo braço das agências e serviços secretos tanto de Israel quanto dos EUA.

Entendo como justas as reivindicações por reformas políticas. E tenho a convicção de que elas virão. Nunca nos esqueçamos que, tecnicamente falando, a Síria esta em guerra contra Israel desde 5 de junho de 1967, na chamada Guerra dos Seis Dias, quando os judeus tomaram-lhe as estratégicas colinas de Golãn.

A Síria forma hoje com o Irã e a Turquia, uma poderosa aliança que apoia a luta pela libertação da Palestina (com o Hamas e o Fatah) e a Independência do Líbano (com o Hezbolláh). A quem interessa quebrar essa unidade política e revolucionária? Independente de suas confissões religiosas, se cristãos, muçulmanos (xiitas e sunitas, bem como alawitas que governam a Síria), bem como comunistas e outras correntes, estão unidos tanto na Síria quanto no Líbano. Esperemos que tais forças e partidos coligados, possam se unir também no conjunto dos outros países árabes para levar adiante e até o fim, a derrota dos governos reacionários de direita aliados dos Estados Unidos e de Israel e anti-árabes.

A eventual queda do atual governo sírio e a entrada de Damasco no campo ocidental será uma imensa e significativa vitória estadunidense e imperialista. Praticamente enterra a revolução e a primavera árabe. Na verdade, podemos dizer que esse projeto já é parte de um plano de uma contra-revolução em curso que possui algumas características que vem sendo observadas na prática: 1. A invasão do Bahrein pela Arábia Saudita, com apoio americano para proteger a sede da 5ª Frota e o massacre do povo bareinita; 2. A intervenção imperial direta na Líbia para instaurar um governo aliado e subserviente aos EUA; 3. A tentativa de manipulação e o controle da revolução no Egito e na Tunísia; 4. A corrupção na revolução do Iêmen; correm tentativas de trocar o ditador Ali Saleh, há 32 anos no poder, por algum amigo dos EUA.

Não tem grau de comparação entre a importância estratégica que tem a Líbia e a Síria no cenário do OM. Derrubar hoje Kadafi e colocar um aliado americano na líbia quase nada mudaria na região. A Líbia já era aliada americana e da Europa desde 2002. Derrubar o governo sírio poderá sim significar um profundo retrocesso nas lutas de libertação e emancipacionistas árabes.

Nunca nos esqueçamos que nosso inimigo principal continua sendo os Estados Unidos e sua política unilateral de controle de todo o mundo. Quebrar a sua hegemonia – tarefa essa em curso exatamente com a força da Revolução Árabe – deve ser parte de todos os democratas, patriotas, nacionalistas, socialistas, comunistas e religiosos daquele mundo e de todos os países.


Sociólogo, Professor, Escritor e Arabista. Membro da Academia de Altos Estudos Ibero-Árabe de Lisboa e Diretor do Instituto Jerusalém do Brasil. Colunista de Oriente Médio do Portal da Fundação Maurício Grabois – FMG. Colaborador da Revista Sociologia da Editora Escala. E-mail:

The CIA's "Plan B" for Peru

The CIA not only wanted to deny the presidency to Peruvian nationalist Ollanta Humala, wo was defeated in the presidential election five years ago by Wall Street favorite Alan Garcia, but wanted to ensure that dual U.S-Peruvian citizen Pedro Pablo Kuczynski, a former World Bank official, former Peruvian Finance Minister, and executive with arch-vulture capitalist Felix Rohatyn's Rohatyn Group investment fund in New York, beat out Keiko Fujimori, the daughter of the jailed former president and CIA cypher, Alberto Fujimori. The Rohatyn Group was formed in 2003 by former JP Morgan executives.

With 80 percent of the vote counted, Fujimori held a 3 point lead over Kuczynski. The run-off election between Humala and Fujimori is scheduled for June 5.

Although he has moderated his tone since the last presidential election in 2006, Humala can be counted in the progressive Latin American leadership camp, his policies now between those of Brazilian President Dilma Roussef and Venezuela's Hugo Chavez. However much he has moderated his tone and policies, Humala remains a worry to the Obama administration, which has gone beyond the Bush administration in engaging in political chicanery south-of-the-border. Obama's early support for a CIA- and Pentagon-led coup against Honduran President Manuel Zelaya and an attempted coup against Ecuador's Rafael Correa are hallmarks of Obama's hostile Nixonian attitude toward nationalist and progressive elected governments in Latin America.

The darling of the international elites, former presidential candidate and Nobel Peace Prize laureate Mario Vargas Llosa, was quick to state that a choice between Humala, who he accuses of being "another Chavez," and Fujimori is like a choice between AIDS and terminal cancer. Kuczynski, who also served with the International Monetary Fund in Washington and Kuhn Loeb Investment Bank in New York, is the kind of candidate favored by Nobel Peace Prize-laden elitists like Vargas Llosa.

However, the CIA clearly will support "terminal cancer" over "AIDS" as it seeks to protect the interests of Wall Street and the global oligarchs. The CIA enjoyed a long history with Fujimori's father and his chief of intelligence, Vladimoro Montesinos. Both Alberto Fujimori and Montesinos are serving prison sentences in Peru for human rights violations and other crimes.

On November 8, 2005, WMR reported: "Montesinos was code named 'The Doctor' by the CIA and was well known as a facilitator for U.S. weapons smuggling and drug deals involving the Bush crime family. The CIA paid Montesinos at least $10 million between 1990 and 2000. The payments began just after the elder Bush launched his  1990 "Andean Initiative" to counter 'drug proliferation' in the region.  The Andean Initiative actually saw an expansion of coca growing fields in the region. Montesinos deposited $264 million in bank accounts in Switzerland, the Cayman Islands, the United States, and Panama." On September 8, 2010, WMR reported: "During his ten-year rule, Peruvian President Alberto Fujimori and his intelligence chief, Vladimiro Montesinos, thought to be a CIA asset, reportedly received USAID funds to put down the Shining Path and Tupac Amaru guerrilla movements."

Like Chavez, Correa, and Bolivia's President Evo Morales, Humala's main strength comes from Peru's long-disenfranchised and impoverished indigenous community. The business elite of mainly European roots, has historically opposed the rise to power of indigenous leaders in Latin America and they have received the firm backing of Western corporations and their CIA enforcers. Although former President Alejandro Toledo is of indigenous descent, he only placed fourth in the first-round because native Peruvians understand that he sold out while president to the World Bank and other capitalist contrivances. Humala edged out Toledo among the native electorate in the Peruvian highlands. Toledo only managed to garner 15 percent of the vote in the first round. 

Humala is an outspoken critic of the policies of Chile's right-wing billionaire President Sebastian Pinera, who Obama lauded in Santiago during a recent trip to Latin America.

Rather than see another progressive leader take the helm in Latin America, the CIA and its cyphers, USAID and the Soros non-governmental organizations (NGOs), will begin to pump money and other support into the campaign of right-winger Keiko Fujimori. Plan A was Kuczynski but since he was barely edged out for second place by Fujimori, Langley's money will be put on the daughter of their one-time top agent-of-influence in Peru.