Biyokulule Online

Italian Commentary: US Envoy`s Killing Shows West Wrong To Topple Al-Qadhafi
Il Giornale.it
Thursday, September 13, 2012

U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens being removed from the Benghazi embassy by attackers

Commentary by Vittorio Feltri, former editor-in-chief of Il Giornale: “The Mistake by Sarkozy and Co: What Suicidal Madness To Attack Al-Qadhafi”

We had the impression straightaway that the so-called Arab Spring did not promise a radiant future. We thought so a year and a half ago, approximately, and now confirmation has come that our suspicions were well-founded. We are not talking about Syria or Egypt, where the disaster has been clear for some time -- and we are not surprised that the situation is getting worse, from each day to the next -- but about Libya, which has now fully revealed its fanatical nature. The West had formed a coalition to topple the dictator Al-Qadhafi, in the firm belief that the rebels would be able to turn the tyranny into a paradise of democracy; it had helped them in the battle, supplying them with sophisticated weapons, and bomber planes; it had banked on the defeat of the Colonel and, after having brought him down with great satisfaction, it has to realize that it miscalculated.

Whereas Libya was once potentially a threat, today it is a real danger, and it does not restrict itself to announcing violence, it exercises violence with cruelty. The killing of the ambassador and of three US citizens (if we neglect the victim in Egypt, in the course of disturbances) shows that, from Tripoli to Benghazi, that country is at the mercy of extremist hotheads who are unable to be tolerant, and who make use of religious pretexts to savagely attack people who have ideas that are different from theirs. Indeed, the motive for the killings is almost paradoxical, as well as crazed: punishing the United States for having produced a film, critical of Islam, that was shot by a film-maker of Jewish origin. This means that Libya rid itself of Al-Qadhafi, but has fallen out of the frying-pan and into the fire: In other words, the new lords and masters are more cruel and unreliable than the old ones, with whom Italy had established good relations, and done excellent deals, and not just oil deals. One should have imagined that this is how things would go: In our own small way, we had foreseen everything. But France, in particular, and NATO, and the United States itself, did not want to listen to reason: The imperative was to get rid of the Arab leader, and nobody thought that the despot`s successors would be worse than him. However, that is the case.

Cursed be the day when Europe (with the exception of Germany) and the United States decided to take military action to overthrow a regime, without concerning themselves with the consequences. The hope, a tenuous one, is that the massacre carried out yesterday is an isolated episode, and not the start of a cycle of ruthless acts which the Islamic fundamentalists are accustomed to. September 11 2001 has not been forgotten.

It is not yet known how Washington will react, but it is unlikely that President Barack Obama, in the midst of an election campaign, will sit on his hands. One tragedy tends to lead to another. That is the only certainty.

(Description of Source: Milan il Giornale.it in Italian -- Website of right-of-center daily owned by the Berlusconi family; URL: http://www.ilgiornale.it)

Italian Commentary Criticizes Obama`s Initial Response to Benghazi Attack
Il Giornale.it
Thursday, September 13, 2012

Commentary by Giuseppe De Bellis: “United States Reminded It Has an Enemy”

What was not there is now there (sentence as published). The United States is under attack, again: terrorism full of hate strikes and kills. A killed ambassador brings the United States back to 1979, to the Tehran crisis and Jimmy Carter. Bad memories. This is the past that returns.
In these hours, the United States knows that, as inept and excessive as the anti-Mohammad film was, it was just an excuse: those who attacked the consulate in Benghazi had been preparing for some time and were awaiting a pretext. Al-Qa`ida or whatever is left of it wanted to remind Washington that the war that was declared on 11 September 2001 is not over. This was a wakeup call, a heavy blow. A country that is going through an electoral campaign in which only the national economy seems to count is now talking about national security and the fight against Islamist extremism.

There has been too much silence about it so far, and there was also too much silence at the beginning of the day. The US Administration took forever to respond: nothing for hours and hours. While Arab TV stations and then Western ones were already showing the corpse of Ambassador Chris Stephens neither the White House nor the State Department said a single word. It is as if the blow was too strong and, most importantly, unexpected. There was panic, and along with panic there was the bewilderment of a country that always needs an answer.

Where was Obama? Where was Hillary Clinton? These questions were flying about for quite some time in political, diplomatic, and media circles. The President spoke after eight hours -- ages, when confronted with such a fact. When he did start speaking, he started badly: “The United States respects all faiths, but there is no justification for such violence.” He should have inverted the order of these remarks: first he should have condemned the attacks, and then dwelt on ecumenism. But this was not the case. This, paired with the first statement released by the US Embassy in Cairo, seemed to be insufficient. The previous night, the US diplomatic representation in Egypt criticized the film, but not Islamic reactions: “We condemn every action that harms anybody`s religious feelings, including those of Muslims.”

This soft initial double response has left the United States destabilized. This led to comparisons with Carter and to the first accusations of softness. At this point Mitt Romney barged in. At this point, the Benghazi case became an electoral campaign issue: “The United States must never apologize for defending its values. Beware of tolerating attacks on US citizens. It is outrageous that the Obama administration`s first response was not to condemn the attacks against our diplomatic offices, but to sympathize with the attackers.”

After dealing yet another blow on the President, this is where Romney should have stopped. A quick statement, a criticism and that is it. But then he made a mistake too: he turned political advantage into a potential own goal. In fact, at that point the United States was expecting a new speech on the part of the President. What is he going to do? Is he going to go on the attack or not? Is he going to react? Is he gong to tolerate this? While people waited for Obama, his rival continued speaking, adopting a risky tone, because by saying that Obama sympathized with Islamist extremists meant touching on an issue -- the President being pro-Muslim -- that so far has always been unsuccessful when used against the White House.

Romney`s remarks did not go down well and in the evening the President found it easy to attack him (“he shoots first and aims later”). Even some in conservative and Republican circles accused him of wanting to use the death of Ambassador Stevens as an electoral tool. The former governor of Massachusetts is definitely struggling, and the effects of his remarks will be seen in the coming hours.

Likewise, we will see the reaction to the latter part of Obama`s day, which was definitely better than the beginning. When the President spoke again, he finally said something: “Justice will be done.” These are the same words that George W. Bush used on 11 September 2001. This is no small detail, because the United States needs this, it needs to know that the death of US citizens will not remain unpunished. The news that 200 Marines were being immediately sent to Libya was yet another message that was good for the United States and for Obama -- who, with regards to the fight against terrorism, can brag about Bin Ladin`s killing.

The administration has made many mistakes in this matter, and is now trying to recover. At stake are the US role in the world and, much more mundanely, the 6 November elections. National security was not an issue, but now it is. The situation has changed and perhaps part of the electoral campaign is changing: Obama must demonstrate that he can defend the United States, Romney must try to make people understand that he too would be able to defend it.

(Description of Source: Milan il Giornale.it in Italian -- Website of right-of-center daily owned by the Berlusconi family; URL: http://www.ilgiornale.it)

Pakistani Commentary Says UAV Attacks Violation of International Law
Khabrain Online
Thursday, September 13, 2012

Second of two number of installments of a commentary by Professor Khurshid Ahmed: “Who Should I hold Responsible for My Blood”

Expert on international law and top lawyer of the UK, author of several books, Kiwis Council Jaffary Robertson (as read) writes in his recent article in New Statesmen : There is an impression that the international law has failed. The article 51 of the UN charter applies only on those attacks that are launched by other states, not terrorist groups. No one has so far bothered to apply this law on the issue of terrorism. Geneva Convention and ordinary rights should be applicable on terrorists as well as those enforcing law. If killing of Usama Bin Ladin, Aiyman Al-Zawahiri, and Hamas commanders is legally permissible then killing of Barack Obama, Netanyahu, their generals, and allies is also permissible, even the queen, being the head of state can be included in this list.

The people, who take lives of innocent people to spread terrorism, should be treated as dangerous culprits, they should be killed whenever necessary, and they should not be given the status that is given to militants fighting against the states. What will be the situation under the human rights law when the sympathizers of the terrorists are targeted to discourage others at a time when their arrest is possible? This will be flagrant violation of human rights. It will be reasonable to kill the terrorists, who are assigned the task of killing the civilians or are part of conspiracies to kill them. However, the record of the UAV attacks show that such people are targeted who pose no clear or immediate threat. Such people were targeted in the UAV attacks in Pakistan`s Tribal Areas and Yemen who were either armed or taking part in suspicious gatherings, however, the fault of others was only that they were attending some wedding or funeral or coming out of some mosque or hospital. Such incidents have also taken place in Pakistan in which pro-Pakistan leaders, their family members, and even the soldiers were killed by mistake. These attacks greatly damaged the US relations with such a nation that is politically under pressure, armed with nuclear weapons, and is not at war with it. It appears that Obama`s administration has given a free hand to the CIA to choose targets and it has been linked with the approval of law professor (Koh) who has in the current situation become an executioner. The people sitting in Nevada do not stop for a moment to think before pressing the button of hell fire as to whether fighters are their target. There is no objective to include these into list or to gauge the standards about murder. This is secret prerogative of the CIA that is above the jurisdiction of a court or the freedom of information act.

There is an impression that international law has failed. No satisfactory guidance has been provided in the UN charter, conventions, and ordinary proceedings of the court for these unjust wars. That is why the states are silent and recently a request by the UN human rights commissioner has come to light that the law should immediately be explained. It may be aimed at seeking the way back in order to explore a way forward through sizeable army and proportionate power. For the time being, many deaths caused by the US UAVs can be termed as murders.

The latest information about the killing of common citizens in the UAV attacks in Pakistan has been given in a report of committee on defense and defense production of the state of Pakistan published in July 2012 in the form of a chart. (According to the said report those killed include) 646 Militants, 1, 576common civilians, 656 women and children. These figures are of the UAV attacks launched from 2004 to 2012 that means that according to information presented before the defense committee, only 646 people out of 2787 were militant suspects while remaining 2,114 were common citizens including 565 women and children.

A report by another US institute, American Civil Liberty Union says that more than 4,000 people have been killed in the US UAV attacks in Pakistan, Yemen, and Somalia and large number of those killed was civilians. The report also highlight s the fact that individuals were targeted in the past but now gatherings and (specific) areas are targeted and missiles are fired on the basis of sheer air surveillance. This is causing collective deaths. The US security agencies have coined a new term `signature strikes` and Obama himself has given permission, rather directives for this.

Director International Commission of Human Jurists, Ayan Seadermen (as read) has said that about this lawlessness, the structure of international law was suffering huge damages. The United States can target any man or group of men aged between 15 and 60 in suspected areas for the `crime` of sporting long beard and because of their presence in these areas.

This is the new definition of terrorist that the United States has devised under which it is compelling the Pakistani Army to take action.

What more instance of dangerous game with the human lives and bloody atrocity can be presented except this? At a recent international conference, a South African professor and the special UN representative on extrajudicial killings, Christopher James (as read) have termed all these measures as war crimes. He expressed deep anxiety that not only an individual or place is being targeted but the people and gathering are also being targeted where the people are busy in burying those killed. While commenting on this bloody game, he stated this historic sentence and it is not difficult to gauge from this that justification for killings in 2001 is being given for the deaths in 2012. It is necessary to add that this game is being played in Afghanistan and Pakistan in exchange for an incident occurred in New York in 2001, though the alleged terrorists did not belong to any part of Pakistan or Afghanistan. Almost all serious researchers have reached the conclusion that terrorism has not decreased due to war on terror, particularly by the UAV attacks; rather it registered extraordinary increase. The most important book in this regard is that of Robert Peep and James Foldmen (as read) that is based on a straightforward intellectual review of all the incidents of terrorism since 2010. The total failure of the US strategy against terrorism has been presented with intellectual arguments and facts and figures. The research of two US and German professors, particularly about the UAV attacks also indicates the same conclusion that we are watching with our own eyes.

The US magazine, Foreign Policy Review edition of May and June states the conclusion of the research by these two in their own words. Our research shows that the UAV attacks have no impact on the terrorism by the Taliban and the Al-Qa`ida in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Rather their worse aspect is that these have prompted terrorism. By reviewing the figures between January 2007 and September 2011, we found out that the UAV attacks have proved ineffective on terrorist attacks by the Al-Qa`ida and the Taliban. On the contrary, attacks by the Taliban and the Al-Qa`ida in Pakistan increase multifold after the UAV attacks. Especially, when the UAV succeeds in killing its target.

Although some UAV attacks accomplish objectives of a different nature, yet our research tells that these have failed in preventing the Al-Qa`ida and the Taliban from carrying out terror attacks inside Afghanistan. The UAV attacks are promoting terrorism in Pakistan. If the objective of Obama`s strategy is a safe Pakistan, he will have to realize that the UAV attacks won`t be of any help.

Our objective was to focus attention on the real issue. The parenthesis prolonged but to understand the facts that we want to place before the nation, it is necessary to keep the mindset and the ideological and moral division in mind that is the root cause of many of our problems and hardships.

(Description of Source: Islamabad Khabrain Online in Urdu Website of the News, a sensationalist daily, published by Liberty Papers Ltd., generally critical of Pakistan People`s Party; known for its access to government and military sources of information. The same group owns The Post in English, Naya Akhbar in Urdu and Channel 5 TV. Circulation of 30,000; URL: http://www.khabrain.com)