Occupy Wall Street (OWS): Too Big to Fail

An idea whose time has come resonates globally. (See social.mathaba.net search #occupy or #ows). The masses in the western bankrupt states that bombed Libya for 8 months to destroy People's Power (Jamahiriya) there, are now calling for the same as what the Libyans had: power and wealth in their hands

by Stephen Lendman
November 17 marked two months since beginning in New York. Earlier Middle East and European protests inspired it. Now it's spreading everywhere across North and South America, Europe, Asia, Africa, and Oceania.
In America within weeks, hundreds of large and small cities in all 50 states got involved. Protesters weathered snow, rain, cold, pepper spray, tear gas, beatings, arrests, and evictions. Police confrontations, in fact, inspired larger turnouts.
Mother Jones magazine said participants represent "a horizontal, autonomous, leaderless, modified-consensus-based system with roots in anarchist thought." In fact, they're revolutionaries in the best sense of the term.

They've "tap(ped) into the rising feeling among many Americans that economic opportunity has been squashed by corporate greed and the influence of the very rich in politics."

One protester's sign read, "You can't shut down occupation - We're everywhere."
Another said, "You cannot evict an idea whose time has come."
Still another lifted high read, "OCCUPY EVERYTHING."
In fact, it's long overdue after decades of social injustice, heading America toward banana republicanization.

Wealth disparity is extreme. Ordinary people are increasingly marginalized, exploited, and left on their own to survive, sink or swim.
Jobs are harder than ever to find. Good ones paying living wages and benefits are disappearing. College students end up debt entrapped for life.
Super-rich crooks and corrupt politicians conspire to grab everything for themselves. Freedom is an endangered species. Growing poverty, hunger, homelessness and despair are increasing.

Federal, state and local officials plan budget cuts instead of help. Human deprivation isn't discussed in high places, only ways to grab more wealth and power. In plain sight, America's no longer fit to live in. Neither are other Western countries, depriving the many for the few.
Targeting Wall Street, corporate greed, and power brokers in high places, OWS protesters demand change. November 17 marked two months of activism. Occupy Wall Street.org called it a "Historic Day of Action for the 99%."

In New York, over 30,000 rallied. NYPD estimated 32,500. Likely it was thousands more, the most anywhere in America so far on one day. Protesters sense "a powerful and diverse civic movement for social justice is on the ascent."

Hopefully they're right. One protester spoke for others saying:
"Our political system should serve all of us - not just the very rich and powerful. Right now, Wall Street owns Washington. We are the (left out) 99%, and we are here to reclaim our democracy."

Dozens of other cities participated nationwide and globally. Occupy Police got involved. They call themselves part of the 99%. An anonymous sergeant said, "I'm a cop and I support the ideal of Occupy. We're on the same team."
A web site logo read, "We are the 99% protecting 100%." Philadelphia police captain Ray Lewis joined New York's OWS and got arrested. He vowed to stay involved when released. He doesn't fear arrest, he said, when people are starving or freezing to death on streets.

"All the cops are just workers for the 1%, and don't even realize they're being exploited," he said. "As soon as I'm let out of jail, I'll be right back here, and they'll have to arrest me again."
Occupy Marines (OccupyOMC) are involved, saying they'll "support the movement. We will support demonstrators with organization, direction, supply and logistics, and leadership." They feature a logo saying "Semper Occupare."

They also highlight Operation Returning Freedom, including a New Common Sense Charter for equality and participation in government for change. They represent the 99%'s "collective conscience" against "oligarchic" America.
Occupy Veterans, Veterans for Peace, Occupy Writers, and Occupy Filmakers are involved. So are people from all walks of life who care and want change. Fordham University Professor Paul Levinson said OWS represents direct democracy. Cornell University Professor Cornel West called it a "democratic awakening."

Over 1,000 writers signed an online petition, saying:

"We the undersigned writers and all who will join us, support Occupy Wall Street and the Occupy Movement around the world."
Celebrities are involved, including folk singer Pete Seeger, Joan Baez, and Arlo Guthrie.

Slovenian philosopher Slavoj Zizek said:

"They tell you we are dreamers. The true dreamers are those who think things can go on indefinitely the way they are. We are not dreamers. We are awakening from a dream which is turning into a nightmare."
World systems analyst Immanuel Wallerstein calls OWS "the most important political happening in the United States since the uprisings in 1968...."
Conditions are right. Accurately calculated, not Census data based on a long out-of-date threshold, poverty in America affects 100 million or more and rising. Unemployment's at 23%. Over 26 million Americans wanting work can't find it. Nothing's being done to help them.
Every social measure shows Depression-level human need. America's middle class is its working poor. People everywhere in need are mad. Global protests show it.

"It doesn't really matter" what spark ignited things. They're happening, growing, and inspiring others because real grievances demand addressing responsibly at a time politicians are turning a blind eye.
Asked what they wanted, people said long denied justice. Even the initially dismissive New York Times said "(e)xtreme inequality is the hallmark of a dysfunctional economy, dominated by a financial sector that is driven as much by sCheckpeculation, gouging and government backing as by productive investment."

It was a remarkable admission by the nation's leading establishment broadsheet - wealth and power's longstanding voice.

According to Wallerstein, "(t)he movement has become respectable," but with that comes "danger." Already, federal, state and local overt and covert counterattacks are apparent.

Success also breeds other problems, including a "diversity of views." At issue is not becoming "the Scylla of being a tight cult....too narrowly based, and the Charybdis of no longer having a political coherence because it is too broad."

No simple way exists to avoid either extreme or other  pitfalls. One is lack of leadership, including a national voice like Martin Luther King for civil rights. Another is a coherent, unified message, focusing on what matters most.
It's not enough to denounce Wall Street and corporate greed. Key is demanding real solutions and sustaining  long-term struggle. This one's the mother of them all.
Most important is returning money power to public hands where it belongs. Without it, little else is possible long-term.

It's vital to make banking a public utility, break up too-big-to fail giants, close or nationalizing insolvent ones, establish laws and regulations with teeth, and prosecute crooks when they're caught, especially high level ones so everyone knows grand theft won't be tolerated.

Other key issues include ending corporate personhood, getting money out of politics, ending duopoly power and imperial wars, making corporations and the rich pay their fair share, and forcing government, in fact, to be of, by and for everyone, not solely for America's privileged like now.

None of this can happen short-term. Decades perhaps are needed to transform today's America into a socially just new society. In other words, little is accomplished by achieving things part way. Total change is needed. Softening today's system won't work. It never did before and won't now because gains are easily lost.

Wage slavery replaced its chattel antecedent. Hard won labor, civil, and social gains are gone or on the chopping block to disappear. So aren't voting rights when corporate-controlled machines do it for us, yet does it matter under a duopoly money-controlled system offering no choice whatever.
Wallerstein believes "the movement (may go) from strength to strength." Perhaps it can "force short-term restructuring of what the government will actually do to minimize" real pain people experience.

Longer-term perhaps people will address capitalism's "structural crisis (and) the major geopolitical transformations" now occurring "in a multipolar world."
Even if OWS wanes, its legacy will last, like "the uprisings of 1968...." Better times are possible. Change never comes easily or quickly. Enough committed people can make a difference. OWS "is making a big difference."

Indeed, building a global movement is significant. Key though is giving it legs in the face of exhaustion, winter cold, police repression, and political leaders paying it little more than lip service so far while they slash social justice programs to continue serving wealth and power interests at the expense of all else.

Off to an impressive start, what's ahead for OWS isn't known. Given the state of today's America and where it's heading, the stakes are too high for failure. There's no turning back now!

Tribunal Finds Bush & Blair Guilty of War Crimes

KUALA LUMPUR, 22 November 2011 - The Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Tribunal (Tribunal) entered its fourth and final day of hearing war crimes charge of Crimes against Peace against George W Bush (former U.S. President) and Anthony L Blair (former British Prime Minister) in Kuala Lumpur. For the first time a war crime charge has been heard against these two former heads of state in compliance with due legal process, wherein complaints from war victims had been received, duly investigated and formal charges instituted by the Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Commission (Commission).

The Tribunal had decided the previous day that a prima facie case had been made out against both the accused. The Defence team presented their case and submission defending the accused. Some of the points submitted and argued are stated in the following paragraphs.

The Defence adopted their prior submissions and proceeded to raise additional grounds, relying additionally on the memoirs of the first and second accused. The Defence highlighted that as an amicus curiae, his function is to assist the Tribunal by raising points of law that are in doubt and to organise information or raise awareness of some aspect of the case that the Tribunal otherwise may miss.

No one knows what it is like to have the weight of the nation on his shoulders except a head of state. Both the accused, as former heads of state, took their nations to war. The question now is whether their actions amounted to the offence of Crimes against Peace. Did they ‘plan, prepared and invaded Iraq on 19 March 2003 in violation of the UN Charter’?

9/11 changed the world and cast it into a new atmosphere of fear. The world would be a different place. The Prosecution objected to the Defence attempts to show a video recording of the 9/11 attack, as there is no factual basis for the association of 9/11 with Iraq. The fact that the war occurred had been admitted. The war has taken its toll. The question is, was a crime committed by the accused. The Tribunal ruled that it has taken judicial notice (not having to tender evidence to established a fact) of the 9/11 attack and there was no need for the showing of the video.

The Defence submitted, that the first accused in his memoirs, on the issue of the absence of WMD, the accusation that ‘Bush lied, and people died’, would be illogical because he would not lead his nation to war on a lie which would be easily discernable after the war. 

The second accused in his memoir said that he understood the need for the 2nd UN resolution for political legitimacy but knew the difficulty in getting one due to the politics within the UN Security Council permanent members. And also that there was no UN resolution for the action in Kosovo. While the first accused was of the view that Saddam had not adhered to numerous UN Security Council resolutions

There was a moral ground that many critics of the war do not appreciate. Liberating the people of Iraq from Saddam seems to be lost on the critics. The Defence also referred that the first accused had said that Saddam was a threat. Saddam had invaded two neighbours, Iran in the 1980s and Kuwait in the 1990s. He had killed his own people. Had used chemical weapons. Had links with terrorists. And Saddam was developing WMD. And after 9/11, Saddam was a threat that could no longer be ignored.

Some have seen the brutality of war while many are fortunate to have experienced peace. In any event the Defence urged the Tribunal to evaluate the evidence and return a verdict of non-guilty.

Prosecution in their reply stated that everyone has a right to lead unmolested lives governed by law. And in the case before the Tribunal that law is international law. We have to adhere to treaties and conventions that govern international relations. From the documents tendered the first accused had conducted himself in manner that showed that he had decided to invade Iraq long before 2003. And this is also evident from his memoir, which amounts to an admission.

In a criminal trial such as this, there are two elements that need to be proven. The actus rea (the act), which was the war, which is an accepted fact. The mens rea (intention) is shown clearly from the planning and preparation as early as November 2001 when he had asked his Secretary of Defence to draw up plans for the invasion of Iraq.  And that in September 2002, the Defence Secretary had informed the first accused, who was the commander in chief that it would take six months to mobilise for invasion. On 4 November 2002, the UN resolution 1441 was passed and the invasion was launched on 19 March 2003. On 17 March 2003 the first accused stated “…Saddam Hussein and his sons must leave Iraq within 48 hours. Their refusal to do so will result in military conflict, commenced at a time of our choosing”. And on 19 March, the ‘shock and awe’ campaign called Operation Iraqi Freedom was launched.

The same is true of the second accused who had attacked Iraq. And that he had planned and prepared to invade since 1998. The reason is to bring freedom to the Iraqi people from Saddam through the use of military action.

There are 40 UN Security Council Resolutions against Israel but no action is taken. But Saddam had not adhered to 16 resolutions and Iraq is invaded. This is gangsterism.

This is a historic moment for the Tribunal to hear the distance drums of war rumbling even today due to the actions of the first and second accused. War criminals have to be dealt with, convict Bush and Blair as charged. A guilty verdict will serve as a notice to the world that war criminals may run but can never ultimately hide from truth and justice.

The Verdict

The Tribunal deliberated over the case and decided unanimously that the first accused George W Bush and second accused Anthony L Blair have been found guilty of the Crimes against Peace.

The second accused at the material time as heads of state launched an invasion on Iraq on 19 March 2003. The charge was duly served in accordance with the Charter of the Commission. The accused did not appear and an amicus curiae was appointed.

The evidence showed that as far back as 15 September 2001 the accused had planned to invade Iraq. Documents showed that this plan was conveyed by the first accused to the second accused. The accused had attempted to seek he UN approval for invasion. On 2 November 2002, UN Security Council Resolution 1441 did not authorise the use of force against Iraq.   Weapons investigators had confirmed that there were no WMD. It was also established that the Iraq had no WMD. Iraq was not posing any threat to any nation at the relevant time that was immediate that would have justified any form of pre-emptive strike.

Humanitarian intervention was not a basis for the invasion. The UN Security Council must authorise any use of force. An individual state cannot replace the UN in deciding the use of force. The 9/11 attack did not show any connection with Iraq but instead the US had used this as a pretext to invade Iraq. Invasion to effect regime change has no legal basis under international law.

The Evidence showed that the drums of wars were being beaten long before the invasion. The accused in their own memoirs have admitted their own intention to invade Iraq regardless of international law. Unlawful use of force threatens the world to return to a state of lawlessness. The acts of the accused were unlawful. 

The charge is proven beyond reasonable doubt. The accused are found guilty. The Tribunal orders that the names of the 2 convicted criminals be included in the war register of the KL War Crimes Commission. And the findings of this Tribunal be publicised to all nations who are signatories of the Rome Statue.

Despite all the facts both the accused had nevertheless invaded Iraq. A detailed written judgment will be published at a later date.

The trial was held in an open court from November 19-22, 2011 at the premises of the Kuala Lumpur Foundation to Criminalise War (KLFCW) at 88, Jalan Perdana, Kuala Lumpur.

Further Information

For further information, please contact:

Dato’ Dr Yaacob Merican
Secretary General of the KLWCC Secretariat
Tel: +6012-227 8680

Ms Malkeet Kaur
Media Representative of KLWCC
malkeet@dbook.com.my
Tel: +6012-3737 886

Libya - what is the truth today?

Timothy Bancroft-Hinchey
Pravda.Ru

After the criminal and inhumane terrorist attack by NATO and the gangs of bandits, rapists, murderers, looters, arsonists, terrorists and torturers it unleashed against the people of Libya, what is the truth today? We examine the stories coming out of Libya, whose people certainly do not want this scourge thrust upon them as a Government.

For a start, what “dictator” educates his people for free, sends them to Universities abroad, including in the countries which were endemically hostile to the Jamahiriya system of Government (direct rule by people’s communities), what dictator houses his people for free, what dictator gives them free healthcare, what dictator gives them 50% of the price of their first car, what dictator distributes the country’s wealth directly into his people’s bank accounts (in so doing annoying those who made a pretty penny through corruption and who then sided with NATO against Colonel Gaddafi)?

NATO has now fled with its tail between its legs, knowing it broke every rule in the book in Libya, knowing it breached the terms of its mandate, knowing it breached UNSC Resolutions, knowing it breached the UN Charter, knowing it breached the terms of the Geneva Conventions. NATO committed terrorist acts in Libya strafing civilian structures with military hardware, attacking water supplies, the factories which made pipes to repair them, bombing the electricity grid, interfering in communications, bombing schools, healthcare centers and hospitals.

The result is a massive indictment of NATO and its leaders for war crimes*, the result is a de facto defeat of NATO (for it was not able to achieve its goals by following the rules of engagement – you do not win a soccer match by strafing the opponents with machine guns and grenades and then packing the field with 50 players).

The result is that the tribes reject pleas from the Al-Qaeda, Salafist and Shiite fundamentalists which constitute the rats and the result is that the rats (terrorists supported by NATO – for those who claim otherwise, check their horrendous acts of cruelty throughout the campaign) do not enter Libya south of the coast. The Tuareg consider the rats as enemies, the Warfallah tribe considers the rats as enemies.

And what about the situation on the ground? While the rats deny it, Tajoura, Tarhouna and Bani Walid are under Green (Jamahiriya) control, because the people want to live in the Jamahiriya system and do not want to be controlled by gangs of terrorists and their foreign masters who wish to siphon off Libya’s oil. Rat graffiti is being replaced with Green walls.

The rats are showing clear signs that they are about to start a massive firefight amongst themselves. Benghazi wants to be independent from Tripoli, Misratah wants to become independent from Tripoli, Derna wants to be independent from Tripoli, Misrata brigades are now speaking about attacking Tripoli.

Meanwhile southern Libya is Green (pro-Jamahiriya and anti-rats) and the population is resolute to rid the country of traitors, terrorists and criminals who sold out to NATO so that the FUKUS countries (France, UK and US) could steal the country’s sovereign funds and its massive resources.

God writes the history book, never Satan.

Libya: Media blackout, why?

Libya: Media blackout, why?
Posted: 2011/11/17
From: Mathaba

Saif-al-Islam: The story is far from over.

By Timothy Bancroft-Hinchey

Has anyone noticed the virtual silence on Libya among western news agencies? If Libya was today quiet, and without any conflict, we could believe the Lies on Sky and friends incorporated that a dictator had been toppled and his enraptured people freed, living now in peace, preparing for democracy. But this is not the case...

What I am about to say comes as no surprise at all for those of us who know Libya, know Colonel Gaddafi and who warned NATO about the monumental mistake being made before the invasion began, as indeed was the case before Iraq in this column back in 2003. NATO, however, in its greed, just does not learn.

As the IAEA invents lies about Iran, and includes in its team elements who are wholly unqualified for the task to monitor the Islamic Republic's nuclear programme, we see the same old story being repeated. It begins with the lies about a bloodthirsty dictator or a dangerous regime posing a threat to the USA or its allies, the UNO is bullied into naming NATO as the world policeman, skulduggery and blackmail then replace diplomacy, after which NATO bombs the crap out of a country, murdering men, women and children alike, using DU, using cluster munitions, and breaching every rule in the book. Then in swing the kangaroo courts to clear up the mess and lo and behold, a country's sovereign funds have been literally stolen, its infra-structures destroyed with NATO military hardware, rebuilding contracts are handed out to bolster the economies of the invading forces and a nice puppet regime is installed.

However, in the case of Libya, the story is far from over.

For a start the terrorist forces NATO launched, the RATS, are continuing their horrendous human rights abuses, torching buildings, raping women and girls, destroying public and private property, murdering, torturing, stealing and looting and sowing chaos among the beleaguered citizens who were perfectly happy with the Jamahiriya (government through people's councils, the country's assets deposited in the citizens' bank accounts). Witness of this is the 70 per cent approval rating from unofficial polls in favour of the Jamahiriya, were Saif al-Islam al-Qathafi to stand in the next election. What do Obama, Cameron and Sarkozy have to say to that? Nothing.

NATO's democratic deficit

Would NATO allow the Libyans to include the Jamahiriya in a future election? No, because in a NATO-ruled Libya, no Government which protected the interests of the country would be allowed to participate, only a political force constituted by traitors willing to hand the resources over to foreigners. NATO's democratic deficit was shown most clearly by the refusal to allow the Jamahiriya to hold an election for people to choose between the old system and the RATS - bands of terrorists who sow havoc wherever they go. What do Obama, Cameron and Sarkozy have to say to that? Nothing.

NATO's terrorist darlings

Graffiti has now appeared in Benghazi telling Negroes to leave or be executed - proof once more, as if any were needed, that the RATS are racists and murderers. These are precisely the "people" who Obama, Cameron and Sarkozy supported. In plain English, Barack Obama, David Cameron and Nicolas Sarkozy supported terrorists, murderers and racists. The RATS call it "slave cleansing". The Misrata Brigade already committed ethnic cleansing in Tawergha, murdering all people with black skin. What do Obama, Cameron and Sarkozy have to say to that? Nothing.

The fight is not over, that is why NATO is still there

Exactly, yet again breaching international law, with its remit expired, NATO continues present in Libya with troops on the ground and with bombing raids. The bill for the British public must be somewhere in the region of two billion pounds by now. Wonderful, isn't it? Where is your hospital, your school, your medical centre, your supplementary benefit? It is in Libya. "Sorry Mr. Johnson, the NHS simply does not have the financing for your son's leukaemia treatment, I am afraid he will just have to die. You see, the money we waste on his treatment has to be invested in murdering Down's Syndrome children in Libya, to make us popular and so that the UK can get the rebuilding contracts". What do Obama, Cameron and Sarkozy have to say to that? Nothing.

NATO and its mercenaries' aircraft are operating from Sudan and Chad, while there are reports of direct flights from Tel Aviv. Tuareg camps have been strafed, military centers in the south have been attacked, more civilians have been massacred. These crimes will be added to the indictment drawn up and delivered to the ICC and the ECHR. Sources inside Libya linked to the Green Resistance have indicated that in the last two weeks, these NATO forces have lost 37 aircraft - 8 Israeli fighter planes, 13 Qatar Apaches, 11 French Mirage, 5 French Rafael fighters, shot down trying to evade and invade the Libyan Southern Airspace, with all their pilots and crew killed and enter into green Libyan Jamahiriyah territory.

Introducing the Libyan Green Resistance: The Libyan Liberation Front

The Libyan Liberation Front (LLF) is composed of elements of the Libyan Armed Forces loyal to the legitimate anti-terrorist Government of Libya (the Jamahiriya), the armed tribal forces and the volunteers who have taken up arms to protect their villages, towns and cities against the terrorists unleashed by NATO. Despite 9,000 murderous terrorist bombing raids by NATO's missile diplomacy approach, these heroic forces have stood firm and have inflicted massive casualties on the terrorists, racists, murderers, looters, torturers, sexists, arsonists, rapists and thieves that NATO calls the "rebels".

The Green Resistance recently liquidated the terrorist leader in Zlitan, Al-Berss Abuajaila; fighting was ongoing in Tripoli on Friday after prayers, in Green Square and Bab Al-Aziziya; Southern Misrata patriots are fighting against the terrorist traitors, North Misrata Brigades; LLF is active in Thawergah; LLF active in Tobruk, Zlitan, Gharyan and Sabha. Indeed, the LLF is active in all regions of Libya. The RATS know very well that without NATO's skirts to hide behind, they would not win a single battle. A traitor is basically a coward, the RATS are both.

Another NATO disaster. This time, supporting terrorists and racists, murderers and rapists. How low can NATO get? This time it will have consequences. NATO's reputation, along with thousands upon thousands of RATS, are buried beneath the sands of Libya, in tatters, while from the desert emerges a pride of lions, chasing the RATS back to the sewers of Qatar, Misratah and Benghazi, from which they emerged.

The Libyan War did not take place

The media and politicians have done all within their power to convince us that the Libyan situation is a civil war and a popular uprising.   By Jonas Thomsen Sekyere In 1991, during the historic events commonly referred to as the ”Gulf War”, the French intellectual Jean Baudrillard wrote an essay titled ”The Gulf War did not take place”. Baudrillard’s contention was that the UN-authorised mission in the Gulf was not an actual war, despite it being portrayed as such. According to Baudrillard, the kind of actions that normally fall within the ambit of war did not really take place. Instead, the conflict was monitored on maps and radar, and the use of force was decided far away from the battlefield. There was no real or grave risk involved for the US-led coalition, and there was never any doubt of an inevitable victory. Baudrillard called it an ”asexual surgical war, a matter of war-processing in which the enemy only appears as a computerised target”. As he provocatively noted, it was safer for the US soldiers to go to war than it was to stay at home due to the fact that more of the soldiers would statistically have died in traffic accidents in the US than by participating in Operation Desert Storm. Moreover, he argued it was an attempt by the West to rediscover and reinvent itself, to find and create a mission rather than remain stifled from the West’s lack of political vision and purpose. Notwithstanding the unwarlike operation, the media and the Western powers did all they could to try to show their populations that what was going on was actually dangerous, that it had an actual political purpose and that it was an actual war. Information dissemination By the same token, it could be argued that the Libyan Uprising did not take place. The media and politicians have done all within their power to convince us that the Libyan situation is in fact a civil war, a popular revolution and a battle between the good and the bad, the despots and the revolutionaries, the regime and the freedom fighters.  If we examine the role of media and information in the conflict, the picture might not turn out as black and white as it is portrayed. Libya became a matter of international urgency when it was reported that Gaddafi had used airstrikes against his own population. This information was presented both as fact and as an action to which the international community was required to respond. The widespread news of Gaddafi’s brutal and disproportionate use of air force against peaceful civilians gave rise to a no-fly zone over Libya, and thus the Western intervention commenced. What the media forgot to spread around just as vividly as the news of a massacre, were comments on March 1 by US Secretary of Defence Gates and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mullen that the had seen "no confirmation whatsoever" of Gaddafi's aerial assualt on his own people.  Indeed, Russian military satellite monitoring concurred with the high-ranking American officials. What has been referred to as the “media war” by Libyans and foreign journalists had begun, and conflicting information has seemed to characterise the conflict ever since. A continuation of the Arab Spring? Initially, the Libyan conflict was coupled with the Arab spring and reported as a natural consequence and identical to the movements in Tunisia and Egypt. This was questionable on two counts. Firstly, because the Tunisian and Egyptian protestors were mainly peaceful. The Libyan rebels, on the other hand, initiated their campaign to topple Gaddafi by burning and attacking government buildings and by taking up arms immediately - for example by breaking into military barracks and supplying themselves with heavy weaponry, making it hard to categorically affirm that this so-called popular uprising was ever really “civilian”. Secondly, the popular uprisings in Tunisia and Egypt have been identified as being caused by socio-economic factors such as unemployment, rising food prices and poverty. In Libya, arguably one of the most independent countries in post-colonial Africa, education is free, the GDP per capita is one of the highest on the continent, the country has no debt whatsoever (unlike European powers and the US), and offers fully-subsidised healthcare to all Libyan citizens. This is, among other things, a consequence of Libya getting amongst the most revenue globally out of its own oil resources in part due to the late Muammar Gaddafi’s policies. The comparison the media and governments have made is thus difficult to justify and misleading to say the least. The disingenuous portrayal of the events does not stop there. To name just a few other misleading media stories, “credible Western intelligence reports” claimed that Gaddafi had fled to Venezuela and Gaddafi was accused of bombing the “Mizda habour”. Aside from the (now obvious) truth that nothing indicated that Gaddafi had or was intending to leave Libya and the fact that Mizda does not have a harbour, other strange stories that are yet to be confirmed have emerged. In late August, NATO claimed that it had shot down four scud missiles fired by Gaddafi directed at the rebels. Other reports, however, state that shooting down a raging scud missile is a technical impossibility whilst others find that it is theoretically possible, but that it has never been done before in live conflict, let alone to four scud missiles. In the midst of this conflicting information, there have been instances in which the reality of the events have revealed themselves to great confusion to spectators. After Rwanda, Sierra Leone, Liberia and the Democratic Republic of the Congo, to name some regional occurrences, one would think that there would be no doubt if a civil war was taking place. That is also why the sudden appearance of Gaddafi’s son, Saif Al-Islam, standing in a crowd of supporters as big as any shown of the rebels was an almost disturbing scene. He was supposed to be caught, defeated and under rebel authority. The International Criminal Court had issued an official statement confirming that they were discussing his transfer to the Court. Instead, he rolled up in an armored white limousine claiming that all the allegations were part of an “electronic and media war”. In the same manner, the final rebel campaign to take over Sirte was billed as a final and classic showdown with guns blazing in urban warfare. Besides so-called “pockets of resistance”, there was hardly any fighting - maybe because NATO had already cleared the way. And all in one day, within nine hours on October 20, Gaddafi allegedly assembled 12,000 fighters to take back the country and reignite the war (that never took place) and hide in a drainage culvert wounded and defenseless in his last hours. Real combatants So why do the media have such a success with these stories? It could stem from the Western public having been taught that Gaddafi was a madman for decades. Why would he not slaughter his own people? After all, he wears strange clothes, brings tents to New York and is accompanied by Eastern European nurses. But while the conflict in the media and by governments have been reduced to a map with arrows pointing from Benghazi to Tripoli in the typical old good guy/bad guy fashion, with “frontlines” and percentage of control over cities constantly shifting on the TV screen, the actual combatants have been glossed over: Gaddafi and the NATO-coalition. While it is difficult to substantiate that the rebels were ever peaceful citizens, and while we have been led to believe that the conflict consists of “Gaddafi-loyalists” and “rebels”, disregarding that Libya is a nation with multiple interests: tribal, regional, political and so on: and that resistance towards the “rebels” does not automatically make you loyal towards or under the command of Gaddafi, NATO has been surprisingly honest towards the Libyan people. Then again, how do you fool those who are actually on the ground? You can’t. And that might be why, as the viewers in the West have been shown pictures of a civil war, the leaflets published by NATO and dropped over Tripoli showed the conflict as it really was. As the leaflet shows, this is an operation of computerised drones and Gaddafi’s army, not between civilians and the government. Another leaflet claims that Gaddafi has been indicted by the International Criminal Court. That was not true. The prosecutor had requested an indictment, something that must be decided on by the judges, who have refused to confirm charges before, for instance in the case of Sudanese president Al-Bashir. Future identities A civil war or popular uprising as seen in other parts of the Arab World did not take place. There was no risk on the part of the West and no question of defeat. The conflict may very well be the West’s attempt to reinvent itself. After the invasions in Iraq and Afghanistan, the human rights abuses in the “war on terror” and the declining financial power of the “free world”, the governments of Europe and the U.S. may have wanted to remind the people that they are still the world's arbiters. Because if that is not the identity and the role of the West, what is? Libya was quick and easy, and the Western populations were given a fairytale including dictators, human rights, rape, civil war, revolution and concerned Western leaders. The West is no longer reluctant to go into Africa if they feel that they need to, warnings of Western presence as neocolonialism has been replaced by the new principle of the Responsibility to Protect. US drone operations in Ethiopia, the Seychelles and Uganda seems to support this new presence. What the scenario has also shown is that even Nigeria, South Africa, China and Russia combined in the Security Council are not able to withstand the pressure of Western diplomacy and media as in the end they provided the necessary support to initiate the mission in Libya. The limits of the Security Council, NATO and international law have been expanded, and this reignited self-understanding of the West could mean that the decade we thought would be marked by Africa’s growing influence in the world will instead be replaced by renewed Western presence in Africa. As for Libya, just as the, now former, 'Interim Prime Minister' Mahmoud Jibril expressed recently, the risk of chaos breaking loose is very real, especially due to the spread of weapons among the public. Just because there has been no civil war does not mean that one is not waiting under the surface. Only time will tell.