Sunday, September 22, 2013

Stirred up Somali Muslims Kill Dozens of Non-Muslims in Nairobi Mall

Stirred up Somali Muslims Kill Dozens of Non-Muslims in Nairobi Mall
 
Somalians take to piracy to avenge overfishing along its coast and dumping of toxic wastes by the West
 
When questioned if he had any regrets in supporting Islamic fundamentalism in Afghanistan during 1980s, Zbigniew Brzezinski in a January 1998 interview with Le Nouvel Observateur, Paris, replied, "What is most important to the history of the world? The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire? Some stirred-up Moslems or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the cold war?"." Nonsense--" responded Brzezinski when asked "If Islamic fundamentalism represents a world menace today." Brzezinski was President Jimmy Carter's National Security Adviser.

The ongoing terrorist attacks on the mall in Nairobi (Kenya) and its takeover and killing of at least sixty non-Muslims and injuring of hundreds has attracted worldwide attention.
 
Given below first is a short paragraph from Wikipedia on why Somalians have taken to piracy. Later there is a very lucid and in-depth article on how Europeans led by USA have destroyed Somalia and turned it into a nest of stirred up Muslims, whose nurseries have been incubated ,created and supported by U.S.-led West and Muslim countries like Saudi Arabia Qatar and other petro monarchies since end 1979 in Afghanistan.
 
Why the Piracy off he coast of Somalia
 
Piracy off the coast of Somalia has been a threat to international shipping since the second phase of the Somali Civil War in the early 21st century. Since 2005, many international organizations, including the International Maritime Organization and the World Food Programme, have expressed concern over the rise in acts of piracy. Piracy has impeded the delivery of shipments and increased shipping expenses, costing an estimated $6.6 to $6.9 billion a year in global trade according to Oceans Beyond Piracy (OBP).
 
According to the German Institute for Economic Research (DIW), a veritable industry of profiteers has also risen around the piracy. Insurance companies, in particular, have profited from the pirate attacks, as insurance premiums have increased significantly.
 
A United Nations report and several news sources have suggested that piracy off the coast of Somalia is caused in part by illegal fishing. According to the DIW and the U.S. House Armed Services Committee, the dumping of toxic waste in Somali waters by foreign vessels has also severely constrained the ability of local fishermen to earn a living and forced many to turn to piracy instead. 70 percent of the local coastal communities "strongly support the piracy as a form of national defense of the country's territorial waters", and the pirates believe they are protecting their fishing grounds and exacting justice and compensation for the marine resources stolen. Some reports have suggested that, in the absence of an effective national coast guard following the outbreak of the civil war and the subsequent disintegration of the Armed Forces, local fishermen formed organized groups in order to protect their waters. This motivation is reflected in the names taken on by some of the pirate networks, such as the National Volunteer Coast Guard. However, as piracy has become substantially more lucrative in recent years, other reports have speculated that financial gain is now the primary motive for the pirates.
 
Rise of Islamic Terrorism
 
It was recently reported that a $ 100 billion has been given to Jihadis and extremist organizations like Al Qaeda and others by the government of Saudi Arabia since early 1980s  . Others in GCC have also contributed their share. Financial support and training etc are have been provided by CIA, MI6 and various Arab mukhabarats and other Muslim intelligence agencies like Pakistan's ISI etc
 
Various reports even by Western outfits like Chatham house, various CIA reports have agreed that the Crusade and Jihad in Afghanistan and then the U.S.-led 2003 illegal invasion and brutal occupation of Iraq and brutal bombing and destruction of Libya after the destruction of Afghanistan and Iraq have multiplied the number of bloodthirsty Jihadis, Taliban, Al Qaeda and its various franchises in Arab and Muslim countries not only in North Africa , West Asia and Central and South Asia but elsewhere too. It can be seen in Syria where the same NATO powers including Turkey apart from Jordan and GCC states are supporting extremist kind of bloodthirsty franchises of Al Qaeda, like Al Nusra Front.
 
Unfortunately, it is the neighboring countries that suffer most like India and many in Central Asia. The Saudi intelligence czar Prince Bandar recently threatened even Putin to let lose Chechen extremists in North Caucasus, an area I am familiar with somewhat.
 
Below is an in depth article on the current state of Somalia and why!
 
K.Gajendra Singh 22 September, 2013Mayur Vihar, Delhi-91
 
Somalia: How Colonial Powers drove a Country into Chaos
http://www.michelcollon.info/Somalia-How-Colonial-Powers-drove.html?lang=fr
INTERVIEW OF MOHAMED HASSAN FX
BY GREGOIRE LALIEU & MICHEL COLLON
Somalia had every reason to succeed: an advantageous geographical situation, oil, ores and only one religion and one language for the whole territory; a rare phenomenon in Africa.  Somalia could have been a great power in the region. But the reality is completely different: famine, wars, lootings, piracy, bomb attacks. How did this country sink? Why has there been no Somali government   for approximately twenty years? Which scandals stand behind those pirates who hijack our ships? In this new chapter of our series "Understanding the Muslim World", Mohamed Hassan explains for us why and how imperialist forces have applied in Somalia a chaos theory.   
How did piracy develop in Somalia? Who are those pirates?
Since 1990, there has been no government in Somalia. The country is in the hands of warlords. European and Asiatic ships took advantage of this chaotic situation and fished along the Somali coast without a license or respect for elementary rules. They did not observe the quotas in force in their own country to protect the species and they used fishing techniques –even bombs!- that created huge damages to the wealth of the Somali seas.
That's not all! Taking also advantage of this lack of any political authority, European companies, with the help of the mafia, dumped nuclear wastes offshore Somali coasts. Europe knew of this but turned a blind eye as that solution presented a practical and economical advantage for the nuclear waste management. Yet, the 2005 Tsunami brought a big part of these wastes into the Somali lands. Unfamiliar diseases appeared for the first time among the population. This is the context in which the piracy mainly developed. Somali fishermen, who had primitive fishing techniques, were no more able to work. So they decided to protect themselves and their seas. This is exactly what the United States did during the civilian war against the British (1756-1763): with no naval forces, President George Washington made a deal with pirates to protect the wealth of the American seas. 
No Somali state for almost twenty years! How is that possible?
This is the result of an American strategy. In 1990, the country was bruised by conflicts, famine and lootings; the state collapsed. Facing this situation, the United States, who discovered oil in Somalia a few years ago, launched Operation Restore Hope in 1992. For the first time, US marines intervened in Africa to take control of a country. It was also the first time that a military invasion was launched in the name of humanitarian interference.
The famous rice bag exhibited on a Somali beach by Bernard Kouchner?
Yes, everybody remembers those pictures carefully showcased. But the real reasons were strategic. An US State Department report recommended indeed that the United States must stay the lonely global superpower after the Soviet Bloc collapse. To reach that goal, the report advocated occupying a hegemonic position in Africa, which enjoys a vast amount of raw materials.
However, Restore Hope will be a failure. There was even that Hollywood movie "Black Hawk Down", with those poor G.I.'s "attacked by the bad Somali rebels"…
US soldiers were indeed defeated by a Somali nationalist resistance. Since then, American policy was to keep Somalia without any real government, even to balkanize it. This is the old British strategy, already applied in many places: setting weak and divided states in order to better rule them. That is why there has been no Somali state for almost twenty years. The United States has implemented a chaos theory in order to stop any Somali reconciliation and keep the country divided.
In Sudan, due to the civilian war, Exxon has had to leave the country after having discovered oil. So isn't letting Somalia plunge into chaos contrary to American interests, which cannot exploit the discovered oil?
Oil exploitation is not their priority. The United States know that the reserves are there but don't need it immediately. Two elements are much more important in its strategy. First, prevent the competitors from negotiating with a rich and powerful Somali state. If you consider Sudan, the comparison is interesting. The oil that the American companies discovered there thirty years ago, Sudan is selling it today to China. The same thing could happen in Somalia. When he was president of the transition government, Abdullah Yusuf went to China although he was supported by the United States. US mass media had strongly criticized that visit. The fact is that United States has no guarantee on that point: if a Somali government is established tomorrow, whatever is its political color, it could probably adopt a strategy independent of United States and trade with China. Western imperialists do not want a strong and unified Somali state. The second goal pursued by this chaos theory is linked to the geographical location of Somalia, which is strategic for both European and American imperialists.
Why is it strategic?
The issue is the control of the Indian Ocean. Look at the map. As mentioned, western powers have an important share of the responsibility in the Somali piracy development. But instead of telling the truth and paying compensation for what they did, those powers criminalize the phenomena in order to justify their position in the region. Under the pretext of fighting the piracy, NATO is positioning its navy in the Indian Ocean.     
 
Source: Wikipedia
What is the real goal?
To control the economic development of the emerging powers, mainly India and China. Half of the world's container traffic and 70% of the total traffic of petroleum products passes through the Indian Ocean. From that strategic point of view, Somalia is a very important place: the country has the longest coast of Africa (3.300 km) and faces the Arabian Gulf and the Strait of Hormuz, two key points of the region economy. Moreover, if a pacific response is brought to the Somali problem, relations between African in one hand, and India and China on the other hand, could develop through the Indian Ocean. Those American competitors could then have influence in that African area. Mozambique, Kenya, Madagascar, Tanzania, Zanzibar, South Africa etc. All those countries connected to the Indian Ocean could gain easy access to the Asian market and develop fruitful economic relationship. Nelson Mandela, when he was president of South Africa, had mentioned the need of an Indian Ocean revolution, with new economic relationships. The United States and Europe do not want this project. That is why they prefer to keep Somalia unstable..
You say that the United States does not want Somali reconciliation. But what are the roots of the Somali divisions?
In order to understand this chaotic situation, we must delve into Somali history. This country had been divided by colonial powers. In 1959, Somalia gained independence through the fusion of the Italian colony in the South, and the British colony in the North. But Somalis were also living in some parts of Kenya, Ethiopia and Djibouti. The new Somali state adopted a star on its flag, each branch representing one part of the historical Somalia. The message behind that symbol: "Two Somalias have been united, but three are still colonized".
Facing the legitimacy of those claims, the British – who controlled Kenya-, organized a referendum in the Kenyan area claimed by Somalia. 87% of the population, composed mainly of Somali ethnics, voted for the Somali unity. When the results were published, Jomo Kenyatta, a Kenyan nationalist leader, threatened the British to throw the colonists out if they gave a part of the territory up to Somalia. So Great Britain decided not to take the referendum into account, and today an important Somali community is still living in Kenya. You must understand that those colonial borders were a real disaster in the Somali case. The border issue was besides the object of an important debate among the African continent.    
What was the issue of that debate?
In the sixties, as many African countries became independent, there was a debate between what we called the Monrovia and the Casablanca groups. This later, including among others Morocco and Somalia, resolved that the borders inherited from colonialism be discussed. For them, those boundaries had no legitimacy. But most of the African countries and their borders are colonialism products. Finally, the Organization of African Unity (OAU), the ancestor of the current African Union, closed the debate by decreeing that the borders were indisputable: going back over those boundaries would provoke civilian wars everywhere on the continent. Later, one of the OAU architects, the Tanzanian Julius Nyerere, confessed that this decision was the best but that he regretted the Somali outcome.
What will be the impact of the colonial divisions on Somalia?
They will create strains with neighboring countries. During those years when Somalia advocated for revising the borders, Ethiopia became a US imperialism bastion. The United States had also military bases in Kenya and Eritrea. At this moment, Somalia, a young pastoral democracy, wished to build its own army. The goal was to not appear weak in front of the armed neighbors, to support Somali movements in Ethiopia and even to regain by force, if necessary, some territories. But the western forces were opposed to the creation of a Somali army.
So Somalia had tense relations with its neighbors. Was it not reasonable to be opposed to this Somali army project? It would have provoked wars, wouldn't it?  
The West did not care about conflicts between Africans but its own interests. The United States and Great Britain were providing and training militaries in Ethiopia, Kenya and Eritrea. Those countries were still under the yoke of very repressive feudal systems. But they were also neocolonial regimes devoted to Western interests. On the other hand, the power in place in Somalia was more democratic and independent. So the West had no interest in providing for a country that could escape its control.
As a consequence, Somalia decided to turn to the Soviet Union. This frightened the Western forces that feared Soviet influence stretching in to Africa. Those fears became more important with the 1969 putsch.  
What do you mean?
Socialist ideas were spread in the country. An important Somali community was indeed living in Aden in South Yemen. However, this is where Britain used to exile persons it considered dangerous in India: communists, nationalists and so on. They used to be arrested and sent to Aden where nationalist and revolutionary ideas quickly developed and affected later both Yemenites and Somalis. Under the influence of civilians with Marxist ideas, a coup d'état was led by officers in 1969 and Siad Barre took power in Somalia.
What were the reasons of that coup d'état?
The Somali government was corrupted. He had however the cards in hand to erect the country to the great regional power rank: a strategic position, only one language, one religion and many common cultural elements. This is fairly rare in Africa. But, by missing the economical development of the country, this government has created a context favorable to divisions among clans. Under the pretext of doing politics, Somali elites become divided. Everyone created his own political party, without any real program, and recruited voters among the existing clans. This increased the divisions and turned out to be totally useless. A democracy in a liberal type was in fact unsuitable for Somalia: there were at once 63 political parties for a three million population country! And the government was even not able to adopt an official script, which was creating serious troubles in the administration. Education was weak. Bureaucracy, police and army were, however, established. This later will play a key role in the progressive coup d'état.
"Progressive"! With the army?
The army was the only organized institution in Somalia. As a repressive apparatus, it was supposed to protect the so-called civilian government and the elite. But for many Somalis coming from different families and areas, the army was also an exchange place where there were no borders, no tribalism, and no clan divisions. This is how Marxist ideas from Aden circulated among the army.  So the coup d'état was led by officers who were most of all nationalist. They did not have a good knowledge of socialism but they had sympathy for those ideas. Moreover, they knew what was happening in Vietnam, and that fed anti-imperialist feelings. The civilians, who knew Marx and Lenin's teachings lacked a mass political party, supported the coup d'état and become the advisers of the officers who took power.  
What changes did the Somali coup d'état bring about?
One important positive aspect: the new government quickly adopted an official script. Likewise, the Soviet Union and China were helping Somalia. The students and the population mobilized themselves. Education and social conditions were enhanced. The years that followed the coup d'état were in fact the best ones that Somalia never knew. That is, until 1977.
What happened?
Somalia, which has been divided by colonial forces, attacked Ethiopia to get the territory of Ogaden back. Ogaden was mainly populated by Somalis. At this time however, Ethiopia was itself a socialist state supported by the Soviets. This country had been led for a long time by Emperor Selassie. But in the seventies, there was an important mobilization to overthrow him. The students' movement, in which I personally participated, made four major demands. First, to nonviolently and democratically resolve tensions with Eritrea. Secondly, to establish a land reform that would distribute the lands to the peasants.  Thirdly, to establish the principle of equality among the nationalities; Ethiopia was a multinational country led by elite who did not represent the diversity. Fourthly, to abolish the feudal system and to establish a democratic state. As in Somalia, the army was the only organized institution in Ethiopia and the civilians joined the officers to overthrow Selassie in 1974.
How did two socialist states, each supported by the Soviet Union, enter conflict?
After the Ethiopian revolution, a delegation including Soviet Union, Cuba and South Yemen organized a round table with Ethiopia and Somalia in order to resolve their contradiction. Castro went to Addis Abeba and Mogadishu. To him, Somali claims were justified. Finally, the Ethiopian delegation agreed to  seriously seriously its Somali neighbor's demands. The two countries made an agreement stipulating that no provocation should happen as long as no decision has been taken. Things seemed to start well but Somalia did not honor the agreement…
Two days after the Ethiopian delegation returned to its country, Henry Kissinger, a former Nixon Secretary of State, turned up to Mogadishu. Kissinger was representing an unofficial organization: the Safari Club that was among others including Shah's Iran, Mobutu's Congo, Saudi Arabia, Morocco and French and Pakistani intelligence services. The objective of that organization was to fight against the Soviet infiltration in the Gulf and in Africa. Under the Safari Club pressures and help promises, Siad Barre committed a disastrous strategic mistake of attacking Ethiopia.    

What were the consequences of that war?
Soviets left the region. Somalia, still led by Siad Barre, integrated the neocolonial network of the imperialist forces. The country had been seriously damaged by the conflict and the World Bank and the IFM were in charge of "rebuilding" it. This has aggravated infighting among Somali bourgeoisie. Each regional elite wanted to have its own market. They made the divisions among the clans' worst and contributed to the progressive dislocation of their country up to Siad Barre's fall in 1990. Since that, no head of state succeeded to him.  
But, thirty years after the Ogaden war, the opposite scenario happened: Ethiopia was supported by the United States to attack Somalia…
Yes, as I said, since the Restore Hope failure, United States has preferred to keep Somalia in chaos. However, in 2006, a spontaneous movement developed under the Islamic courts to fight against the local warlords and bring unity to the country. It was a kind of Intifada. In order to stop this movement from rebuilding Somalia, United States decided suddenly to support the Transitional Federal Government (TFG) after having refused to recognize it before. In fact, they realized that their project of a Somalia without effective state was no more possible: a movement – furthermore Islamic!- was about to lead to a national reconciliation. In order to sabotage the Somali unity, United States decided to support the TFG. But this later was lacking any social basis and an army. So the Ethiopian troops, commanded by Washington, attacked Mogadishu to overthrow the Islamic courts.
Did it work?
No, the Ethiopian army was defeated and had to leave Somalia. On their side, the Islamic courts were dispersed in several movements that still control a big part of the country today. As for Abdulla Yusuf's transitional government, he collapsed and United States replaced it by Sheik Sharif, the former Islamic Court spokesman.
So Sheik Sharif has passed to "the other camp"?
He used to be the Islamic courts spokesman because he is a good orator. But he has no political knowledge. He has no idea what imperialism or nationalism are. That is why western powers took him back. He was the Islamic court's weak link. Today he chairs a fake government, created in Djibouti. This government has no social base or authority in Somalia. It only exists on the international level because the imperialist forces support it.
In Afghanistan, the United States said they were ready to negotiate with Taliban. Why don't they look for discussing with the Islamic groups in Somalia?
Because those groups want to take the foreign occupier over and to allow a national reconciliation for the Somali people. As a result, the United States wants to break those groups: a reconciliation, through the Islamic movement or through the TFG, is not in the interests of the imperialist forces. They just want chaos. The problem is that today, this chaos reached Ethiopia too, which is very weak since the 2007 aggression. A nationalist resistance movement came to the light over there to fight against the pro-imperialist government of Addis Ababa. With their chaos theory, United States had in fact created troubles in the whole region. And now, they took it out on Eritrea.
Why?
This little country leads an independent national policy. Eritrea also has a vision for the whole region: the Horn of Africa (Somalia, Djibouti, Eritrea, Ethiopia) do not need foreign powers' interference; its wealth should allow it to establish new economical relationship on the basis of mutual respect. According to Eritrea, the region must get it together and its members must be able to discuss about their problems. Of course, this policy frightens United States that fears that other countries follow that example. So they accuse Eritrea of sending weapons to Somalia and instigating troubles in Ethiopia.
Isn't Eritrea sending weapons in Somalia?
Not even a bullet! This is a pure propaganda as they did against Syria about the Iraqi resistance. Eritrea's vision catches up with the project of Indian Ocean revolution that we spoke about before. The western powers do not want of that and wish to bring Eritrea back to the circle of the neocolonial states under control, such as Kenya, Ethiopia or Uganda.
Are there no terrorist in Somalia?
Imperialist powers have always labeled as terrorists the people who fight for their right. Irishmen were terrorists until they signed an agreement. Abbas was a terrorist. Now, he is a friend.
But we heard about Al Qaeda in Somalia?
Al Qaeda is everywhere, from Belgium to Australia! That invisible Al Qaeda is a logo designed to justify to the public opinion military operations. If United States say to their citizens and soldiers: "We are going to send our troops into the Indian Ocean in order to probably fight against China", people would be afraid of course. But if you tell them that it is just about fighting piracy and Al Qaeda, it won't be a problem. The real goal is however different. It consists in setting forces in the Indian Ocean region that will be the theater of major conflicts in the coming years. This is what we will analyze in the next chapter…
Mohamed Hassan is a geopolitics and Arab world specialist. Born in Addis Abeba (Ethiopia), he participated in student movements on the occasion of the socialist revolution of 1974 in his country. He studied political science in Egypt before specializing in public administration in Brussels. As a diplomat for his country of origin, he worked in Washington, Beijing and Brussels. Co-writer of L'Irak sous occupation (EPO, 2003), he has also contributed to books about Arab nationalism, Islamic movements and Flemish nationalism. He is one of the best contemporary experts on the Arab and Muslim world.          
Understanding the Muslim World with Mohamed Hassan - Previous chapters:

To visit the subject in depth, Mohamed Hassan recommends the following publications:
- Mohamed Omar, The Road to Zero: Somalia's Self-Destruction, Haan Publishing,1993
- Babu, Abdul, Rahman Mohamed. African Socialism or Socialist Africa? Londres, Zed Press,
1981, 190 p.
- Hersi, Ali Abdirahman, The Arab factor in Somali history : the origins and the development of Arab enterprise and cultural influences in the Somali Peninsula, Thesis--University of California, Los Angeles, 1977
- Michel Caraël, La ruine du pansomalisme, in Le Monde diplomatique, octobre 1982
- Mahmood Mamdani, Good Muslim, Bad Muslim: America, the Cold War, and the Roots of Terror,
- John K. Cooley, Unholy wars: Afghanistan, America and International Terrorism, Pluto Press, 2000
- John Drysdale, Whatever Happened to Somalia?, Haan Publishing, 1994
 
 
 
 
Posted by at

Saturday, September 21, 2013

Libya, post- 2011 NATO & GCC Humanitarian Bombings, Appeals for Help to Restore Security



Libya, post- 2011 NATO & GCC Humanitarian Bombings, Appeals for Help to Restore Security
Its oil exports plummet to 20% of pre- 2011 war
 
Whether led by State or Defense, the militarization of U.S. foreign policy has been a disaster. Embracing military action, on claims of humanitarianism, is the surest way for the foreign policy elite to advance in Washington-Chase Madar
 
I had written some articles in March 2011 at the time of US led from behind display of its airpower to impress its puppet buyers in the Gulf and elsewhere accompanied as in the past with a plethora of lies .Two URLs are reproduced below ;
 
Target Col Gaddafi, Western Democracies Descend to Middle Ages –
http://www.boloji.com/index.cfm?md=Content&sd=Articles&ArticleID=10761
Crusaders bomb Libya, says Tripoli; Putin agrees / Seen this Military-Porno-Movie before
http://mwcnews.net/focus/analysis/9456-crusaders-bomb-libya.html
 
Two recent articles on the terrible state in Libya since the US /NATOand GCC led humanitarian intervention against the UN Resolution 1973 are reproduced below.
 
US led West and its allies in NATO and puppet oil and gas stations in the Gulf led by Saudi Arabia with its archaic and mediaeval and barbaric polity wanted another intervention in Syria, a great centre of human civilization and culture but have been stopped by Putin and BRICS, Syria, Iraq, Hezbollah and SCO and the majority of the non-aligned nations.
 
K.Gajendra Singh 19 September, 2013.Mayur Vihar, Delhi-91.
 
Chaotic Libya Appeals for Help to Restore Security
* PM says Libya under threat of "terrorism and weapons"
* Seeking peaceful solution to confrontations
* Met British counterpart David Cameron
* Status of Libya's oil ports, fields
By Marie-Louise Gumuchian and Julia Payne
September 17, 2013 "Information Clearing House -  LONDON, Sept 17 (Reuters) - Libya's prime minister on Tuesday appealed to the outside world to help restore security, as it combats political chaos and tries to restart oil exports crippled by protesters at a cost of $130 million a day in lost income.
Ali Zeidan met with his British counterpart David Cameron, who two years ago was a driving force behind a Western military campaign that helped topple Muammar Gaddafi and aimed to encourage a stable democracy in Libya.
That has yet to emerge. A combination of strikes, militias and political activists have blocked the majority of Libya's oilfields and ports since end July but the government's fledging army and police force are ill-equipped to deal with armed protesters.
"If the international community does not help in the collection of arms and ammunition, if we don't get help in forming the army and the police, things are going to take very long," Zeidan said at a Libya investment conference in London.
"The situation is not going to improve unless we get real and practical assistance."
Zeidan and Cameron discussed reducing the supply of arms in Libya and reintegrating militia members into normal life, a British statement said.
Zeidan insisted that he still wanted to solve the crisis through dialogue rather than force.
"We are going to work on solving this problem," he said. "When blood is shed, the loss will be greater".
Tripoli has had some success with the restart of its biggest south-western oilfield on Monday but the bulk of oil production in the east is still paralysed.
NOC was able to lift force majeure on its western ports of Zawiya and Mellitah as a result.
The General National Congress' crisis committee negotiated a deal with an armed group to allow the resumption of the El Sharara oilfield, which is expected to reach full capacity by Friday.
The nearly two month disruption has led to loss of $7.5 billion in revenue for Libya and its foreign oil partners, Mustafa Sanalla, executive board member at the state National Oil Company (NOC) said. 
EXXON MOVE
Western oil companies, which jostled for the chance to join Libya's oil sector revival after the fall of Gaddafi, are losing faith.
ExxonMobil, the world's largest publicly-traded energy company, said on Tuesday it would cut back its staff and operations there as growing instability no longer justified a major presence.
Royal Dutch Shell suspended drilling and abandoned exploration on two Libya blocks last year due to disappointing results and other firms have postponed exploration due to concerns about safety since the 2011 war.
Marathon is considering the sale of its stake in a key Libyan oil consortium, sources told Reuters in July.
The restart of El Sharara is expected to increase Libyan oil output to 400,000-450,000 barrels per day (bpd), Libya's deputy oil minister Omar Shakmak said.
"Before Sharara (resumed production) it was around 230,000 bpd, now we're expecting 400,000-450,000 bpd," Shakmak said.
Once the 130,000 bpd El Feel ramps up, NOC board member Sanalla said he hoped output would reach 700,000 bpd by the end of the week.
The El Feel field, operated through a joint-venture with Italy's Eni, was taking a bit longer to restart than El Sharara as additional equipment and power supply checks needed to be made.
Libya's pre-war capacity was around 1.6 million bpd.
The El Sharara field operated through a joint-venture with Repsol has a capacity of around 350,000 bpd, and flows were already starting to feed the 120,000 bpd Zawiya refinery, which has been running on alternative Brega oil from the east in recent weeks due to the shutdown.
Despite the disruption and waning enthusiasm for new investment in Libya's upstream, NOC hopes to raise production to 2 million bpd by 2017 while more than doubling the capacity of its Zawiya refinery, Sanalla said.
Car bomb kills head of Libya's criminal investigations unit : Benghazi has been hit by a wave of targeted killings in recent months as security agencies struggle to secure the country. Several senior criminal investigators in Benghazi have been killed since the country's 2011 civil war.
U.N. issues oil warning to Libya: Libya needs to resolve issues that are dramatically curtailing its oil export potential or risk going broke, the U.N. special envoy to the country said.
A year after Benghazi, Libya worse off, families await answers
Mathieu Galtier and Jabeen Bhatti , Special for USA TODAY2:58 p.m. EDT September 11, 2013
TRIPOLI, Libya - A year to the day following an attack on the U.S. embassy in Benghazi that killed four Americans including the ambassador Christopher Stevens, the security situation in Libya has gone from bad to worse, say locals and analysts.
On Wednesday morning, unknown assailants detonated a car bomb near Benghazi's Foreign Ministry building which decades ago housed the US consulate, security officials said. No one was killed in the blast.
It is the latest in a string of bombings and assassination attempts plaguing Benghazi, the cradle of the Libyan revolution, which ended with the death in late 2011 of former leader Moammar Gadhafi.
In the United States, the families of those killed a year ago at the consulate says the Obama administration has yet to tell them what really happened, and why it is that none of the killers have been captured or killed.
It's hard, I never expected this from my government," Patricia Smith, mother of Sean Smith, told Fox News. "All they have to do is tell me the truth."
Sean Smith was an information officer at the consulate who was among four people killed in the Sept. 11, 2012 attack by al-Qaeda-linked terrorists.
BENGHAZI ANNIVERSARY: Obama, critics pay tribute to 4 Americans killed
9/11 ANNIVERSARY: Time of reflection, remembrance for USA
President Obama and then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton initially blamed the attacks on a spontaneous protest against a U.S.-made anti-Islam video despite a CIA report saying otherwise. Smith and other family members say the State Department and the White House have rebuffed their attempts to find out why security was so lax under Clinton, and why Obama did not order military assistance to the embattled officials that night.
The White House has said it has provided all it can on the attack and Obama alluded to Benghazi as a "phony scandal." Meanwhile, the terrorists who murdered the Americans that night are presumably still in Libya or the region.
Obama said last month that the U.S. was still committed to capturing those who carried out the assault. Obama said his government has a sealed indictment naming some suspected of involvement.
The leaders of an independent review board that investigated last year's deadly assault on the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya, will testify at a House hearing next week. Retired Adm. Mike Mullen and former Ambassador Thomas Pickering will appear before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee on Sept. 19.
Meanwhile, in the two years since Libya was freed of Gadhafi due in large part to a Western air campaign aiding rebels, the country has failed to build a stable government, strong military or police force.
Militias that police towns can't keep militants out, and the southern borders remain porous, allowing easy travel for al Qaeda-linked groups flush with cash.
"There are Islamist militias from the east who run drug trafficking routes from southern Libya to the coast - that is how al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb is funded," said " Jeli Ali, a Tuareg member of the reconciliation committee in Ubari, a town deep in the desert south of the country. "We have been asking for a strong government for three years (and are still waiting)."
Groups that took part in the civil war continue to hold significant amounts of weaponry, and some work with the militants, say analysts. Even so, no one is still sure who has been behind the rising violence.
Wednesday's bomb blew out a side wall of the building, leaving desks, filing cabinets and computers strewn among the concrete rubble. It also damaged the Benghazi branch of the Libyan Central Bank along a major thoroughfare in the city.
The Foreign Ministry used the building to provide government services to Libyans and foreigners in the eastern region, which is hundreds of miles away from the capital, Tripoli.
The explosion came a day after authorities found and defused another bomb next to the Foreign Ministry building in Tripoli, Libyan Prime Minister Ali Zidan said.
Deputy Interior Minister Sadik Abdel-Karim said the country's security situation was "deteriorating."
"The message has been delivered to every Libyan — especially in Benghazi," he said.
Some in the city blame Salafist group Ansar al-Sharia for the attacks including the one Sept. 11 on the American consulate. After the Sept. 11 attack, Benghazi residents marched on Ansar al-Sharia's Benghazi headquarters and officially drove the militia out of the city. But, unofficially, Ansar al-Sharia never left.
Analysts say the rise in violence comes as a result of the struggle between the central government and groups such as the militia, whose base of power goes back before the overthrow of Gadhafi and is partly based on tribal alliances.
"Some elements don't like the ways the central government has taken things and so have seized power," said Helen Twist, manager of the Middle East and North Africa program at the London-based think-tank Chatham House.
"There has been increasing criminality because there wasn't ever a successful weapons collection or reconciliation program. Weapons remain in the community and as a result, militias are well armed."
Twist said there is also the issue of border control with neighboring Algeria and Tunisia, which have contributed to the problem.
"I think Libya needs to work in a coordinated way with its neighbors on border security and also deal with the issue of corruption, which is what gives the militias power," she added.
Former Interior Minister Ashour Shwayl said that as long as the military and police are not in place, the turmoil will continue.
"To sum it up, there is no solution but for the police, military and judiciary are built up," Shwayl told The Associated Press in a telephone interview. "Chaos otherwise will remain."
Car bombs and drive-by shootings since the end the civil war also routinely kill security officials in Benghazi, the birthplace of the uprising.
"Even with so many officials assassinated, no one is held accountable," said Tawfiq Breik, a lawmaker with the liberal-leaning National Forces Alliance. "No one is arrested. The state is disabled."
Bhatti reported from Amman, Jordan


Posted by at

Welcome Multi-polar World ;Face Saver to Self Cornered Obama




Welcome Multi-polar World ;End of Hyper power Era
Catastrophe Averted; Face Saver to Self Cornered Obama
Syria to Handover Chemical Weapons to International Control
 
Secretary of State John Kerry said on Monday that if President Bashar al-Assad wants to avert an attack on Syria he should hand over all of his chemical weapons within one week. Russia, the Syrian government's most important backer, quickly welcomed the idea.
 
After discussing various pros and cons with the visiting Syrian Foreign Minister ,Russia requested Damascus to hand over chemical weapons to international control , a suggestion to which Syria has agreed .
 
Following the show of solid public support to Syria by a determined Putin , after Moscow had further strengthened its naval presence near Syria in Eastern Mediterranean , where it has a naval base at Tartus and continued sending arms specially missiles ,any attack and response could lead to a catastrophe if not WWIII.
 
( Author; I would not be surprised if some indirect talks had not taken place between USA and Russia .Obama and his advisers have made a fool of themselves .And what about hundreds of Israeli nukes! )
 
Responding to Kerry, Russia Urges Syria to Cede Arsenal
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/10/world/middleeast/kerry-says-syria-should-hand-over-all-chemical-arms.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
 
Asked if there were steps the Syrian president could take to avert an American-led attack, Mr. Kerry said, "Sure, he could turn over every single bit of his chemical weapons to the international community in the next week — turn it over, all of it, without delay and allow the full and total accounting."
 
While there is no indication that Mr. Kerry was searching for a political settlement to the Syrian crisis, Moscow's reaction appeared to represent the first possible point of agreement between Russia and the United States over how to address the chemical weapons issue that has grown out of the Syrian conflict, now well into its third year.
 
In a joint news conference with William Hague, Britain's foreign secretary, Mr. Kerry also sought to downplay the magnitude of any American military strike directed at the forces of President Assad.
"We will be able to hold Bashar al-Assad accountable without engaging in troops on the ground or any other prolonged kind of effort in a very limited, very targeted, very short-term effort that degrades his capacity to deliver chemical weapons without assuming responsibility for Syria's civil war," Mr. Kerry said "That is exactly what we are talking about doing — unbelievably small, limited kind of effort."
 
In Moscow, Russia's foreign minister, Sergey V. Lavrov, said in response to Mr. Kerry's remarks that Russia would join any effort to put Syria's stockpile of chemical weapons under international control and ultimately destroy them.
Mr. Lavrov appeared at a previously unscheduled briefing only hours after Mr. Kerry made his statement in London. Although Mr. Kerry appeared to treat the idea that Syria would give up its stockpile as improbable, Mr. Lavrov seized on it as a possible compromise that Russia was prepared to propose to the Syrians.
 
"We don't know whether Syria will agree with this, but if the establishment of international control over chemical weapons in the country will prevent attacks, then we will immediately begin work with Damascus," Mr. Lavrov said at the Foreign Ministry. "And we call on the Syrian leadership to not only agree to setting the chemical weapons storage sites under international control, but also to their subsequent destruction."
 
Mr. Lavrov met Syria's foreign minister, Walid al-Moallem, in Moscow only moments before Mr. Kerry spoke in London, and during a joint appearance at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, both ministers excoriated the United States for rushing to launch military strikes.
 
But the shift in tone between Mr. Lavrov's two appearances was striking. Mr. Lavrov said he made the proposal to put Syria's weapons under international control directly to Mr. Moallem, who remained in Moscow, but it was not immediately clear how the Syrian government might respond.
Mr. Lavrov went into more detail than Mr. Kerry's suggestion — which Mr. Kerry's own spokeswoman described as a rhetorical exercise rather than a proposal.
 
Mr. Lavrov said Russia was proposing that Syria join the international Convention on Chemical Weapons, which bars the manufacture, stockpiling and use of poison gas.
 
Syria is one of seven nations that have not signed the treaty, the others being Angola, Egypt, Israel, Myanmar, North Korea and South Sudan. "We are counting on a quick, and I hope, positive answer," Mr. Lavrov said Monday evening as Mr. Kerry flew back to Washington to attend briefings on Capitol Hill intended to build support for a military response to Syria's use of the weapon.
Publicly, the Syrian government, which is known to have amassed an enormous stockpile of chemical arms, has neither confirmed nor denied possessing them.
 
Mr. Kerry said his suggestion was more of a debating point than a serious ultimatum. He added that he did not believe Mr. Assad would take such action, and expressed doubt about whether it was even feasible as a civil war rages in Syria. "But he isn't about to do it, and it can't be done," Mr. Kerry said.
 
"Secretary Kerry was making a rhetorical argument about the impossibility and unlikelihood of Assad turning over chemical weapons he has denied he used," Jen Psaki, the State Department spokeswoman, said in an e-mail to reporters after Mr. Kerry's comments. "His point was that this brutal dictator with a history of playing fast and loose with the facts cannot be trusted to turn over chemical weapons, otherwise he would have done so long ago. That's why the world faces this moment."
 
Obama administration officials have discussed the idea of presenting Mr. Assad with an ultimatum. But officials are wary of giving the Syrian leader an opportunity to play for time, and carrying out inspections to make sure the Syrian government has not retained hidden stocks of poison gas as fighting rages appeared to be a near impossibility.
 
For Mr. Hague, whose government has already ruled out participation in a military strike on Syria in deference to Parliamentary opposition, the meeting with Mr. Kerry was nonetheless an opportunity to affirm British support for the United States, is most important ally.
"Our government supports the objective of ensuring that there can be no impunity for the first use of chemical warfare in the 21st century," Mr. Hague said in his joint appearance with Mr. Kerry. "As an international community we must deter further attacks and hold those responsible for them accountable.."
 
Mr. Hague also said: "We admire the leadership of President Obama and Secretary Kerry himself, in making this case so powerfully to the world."
 
Mr. Kerry said that Mr. Assad's claims that he was not responsible for the chemical attack on Aug. 21 that provoked an international crisis over whether to launch punitive military strikes were not credible because Syria's arsenal of poison gas is tightly controlled.
 
Mr. Kerry said that three senior officials in the Syrian government have held control over the nation's chemical weapons stocks and their use: Mr. Assad, his brother Maher and a senior general.
Mr. Kerry said that "high level" members of the government gave the instructions to use chemical weapons in the Aug. 21 attack near Damascus "with the results going directly to President Assad."
 
When asked if the White House would consider making public additional intelligence to counter Mr. Assad's claims that he had nothing to do with the attack, like physical samples that documented the use of sarin gas produced by the Syrian government, Mr. Kerry said that he did not know what President Obama would decide.
 
But he asserted that the Obama administration had already made available copious amounts of intelligence, and that the case against Mr. Assad was airtight.
 
In a discussion on Sunday with Charlie Rose, an American television interviewer, Mr. Assad asserted that Mr. Kerry had lied about the intelligence, drawing an analogy to the presentation that Colin Powell made to the United Nations about Iraq in 2003. Mr. Kerry appeared unruffled by that allegation and recalled that his own experience in dealing with Mr. Assad as a senator had convinced him that the Syrian leader could not be trusted.
 
In early 2009, Mr. Kerry met with Mr. Assad in Damascus to explore the possibility of improving relations between the United States and Syria. Mr. Kerry said that he confronted Mr. Assad about intelligence confirming that Syria had transferred Scud missiles to Hezbollah.
Mr. Kerry said that Mr. Assad had "denied it to my face," adding, "This is a man without credibility."
 
Repeating a point he has stressed throughout his four days of discussions with European allies, Mr. Kerry said that if an attack was carried out, it would be limited in scope and duration, would not involve ground troops, and would not drag the United States and its allies into a prolonged conflict. He emphasized that it would be nothing like the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the NATO bombing of Kosovo or the intervention in Libya.
 
Mr. Kerry's meeting with Mr. Hague came less than two weeks after the British Parliament rejected a role for British forces in any American-led attack.
That decision has allowed France to displace Britain as the United States' principal ally if a military strike is carried out, and has prompted commentators to question the durability of the "special relationship" between London and Washington.
 
Mr. Kerry and Mr. Hague sought to counter the notion that the parliamentary vote, which stunned Obama administration officials and was quickly followed by Mr. Obama's decision to delay a potential strike against the Syrian government and seek Congressional approval, had dealt a serious blow to American-British relations.
 
Citing common views on trade and climate change, Mr. Kerry stressed that American and British relations were about "values." At one point, Mr. Kerry referred to the number of Americans who worked for British companies as a sign that ties between the two countries were durable — a point that an American official would not have needed to make just a few weeks ago.
 
Mr. Hague made similar comments about the deep bonds between the two countries.
One purpose of Mr. Kerry's trip has been to solicit foreign support for an American-led attack, which might be used to try to sway Congress. Mr. Kerry's London visit was his last stop, and he is flying back to Washington, where he will immediately head to Capitol Hill to assist the administration's push for Congressional backing.
 
Mr. Kerry is scheduled to join other senior administration officials at a Monday briefing for lawmakers.
 
Having been rebuffed by his own Parliament, however, Mr. Hague was not able to provide much more than moral support.
 
Asked what steps Britain might take on Syria now that Parliament has blocked military action, Mr. Hague suggested that the British government might increase the amount of nonlethal assistance it provides to the Syrian opposition, like protective equipment against chemical weapons attacks. He also said that Britain would be active diplomatically and would press to see that humanitarian aid got through to the Syrians who needed it.
 
(Michael R. Gordon reported from London, and Steven Lee Myers from Moscow. Rick Gladstone contributed reporting from New York)
 
Russia urges Syria hand over chemical weapons to intl control to avoid strike
September 09, 2013
http://rt.com/news/lavrov-syria-chemical-weapons-handover-615/
 
Russia has urged Syria to put its chemical weapons under international control for subsequent destruction to avert a possible military strike.
"We are calling on the Syrian authorities not only agree on putting chemical weapons storages under international control, but also for its further destruction and then joining the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons," Lavrov said. "We have passed our offer to [Syrian Foreign Minister] Walid al-Muallem and hope to receive a fast and positive answer," he added.  
It is unclear if Syria will support the offer, but if it helps to avoid a military strike, Russia is immediately prepared to work with Damascus, Lavrov said. 
The Foreign Minister's statement comes shortly after US Secretary of State John Kerry's comment that the Syrian President "could turn over every single bit of his chemical weapons to the international community" to avoid a military strike on the country. 
"Sure, he could turn over every single bit of his chemical weapons to the international community in the next week - turn it over, all of it without delay and allow the full and total accounting [of it[, but he isn't about to do it and it can't be done," Kerry said. 
Following Kerry's statement, a US State Department spokeswoman clarified that "Secretary Kerry was making a rhetorical argument about the impossibility and unlikelihood of Assad turning over chemical weapons".
"His [Kerry's[ point was that this brutal dictator with a history of playing fast and loose with the facts cannot be trusted to turn over chemical weapons, otherwise he would have done so long ago. That's why the world faces this moment," the spokeswoman said. 
The Syrian Foreign Minister Walid al-Muallem said that Damascus was ready for "full cooperation with Russia to remove any pretext for aggression." 
The Russian and Syrian Foreign Ministers met in Moscow on Monday. 
 
Syria welcomes Russia's offer to put its chemical weapons under intl control
 
http://rt.com/news/syria-chemical-weapons-handover-619/
Damascus welcomes Russia's call to hand control over its chemical weapons to the international community, the Syrian Foreign Minister said responding to Sergey Lavrov's statement after the two met in the Russian capital.
"Syria Arab Republic welcomes Russia's initiative, based on the Syrian's government care about the lives of our people and security of our country," Syrian Foreign Minister Walid al-Muallem said in response to the statement by his Russian counterpart. 
"We are calling on the Syrian authorities not only agree on putting chemical weapons storages under international control, but also for its further destruction and then joining the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons," Russia's Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said earlier. 
Britain has responded to the Russia-Syria dialogue, saying that the chemical weapons handover idea for Syria must not be used as a "distraction tactic".
"If Syria were to put its chemical weapons beyond use under international supervision clearly that would be a big step forward," Cameron told parliament. "We have to be careful though to make sure this is not a distraction tactic to discuss something else rather than the problem on the table." 
 


Posted by at
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)