Yes, the West will insist on a replacement for Gaddafi and one who is more reliable that he has been recently with respect to the three American hegemonistic requirements or pillars. These include the demand that the next leader must continue to supply the West with cheap oil, and unlike Gaddafi recently, the new regime must insure internal stability and not become an embarrassment for its partners. Also the US will demand that Libya's new government must not confront Israel seriously and it must be friendly toward US military projects and bases.
KZ: What are your viewpoint regarding the reaction of international community in general, and the United Nations in particular, to the developments in Libya? The UNSC authorized the use of a no-fly zone over Libya in its resolution 1973 and imposed some sanctions on the Gaddafi regime in the resolution 1970. Are these measures adequate to draw to an end the atrocities which are taking place in Libya? Overall, do you agree with a military option with regards to the Libyan question?
FL: No the military option, while "legal" in the sense that it was passed by the UN Security Council was not legitimate nor are they effective in terms of achieving the claimed objective of UNSC Resolution 1973. Other measures such UN sponsored dialogue and enforcement of a ceasefire were available and should have been employed. Daily the military option is being shown to be ineffective and is in fact deepening the tragedy. It is not too late for the UN to revise its resolution and insist on a ceasefire and dialogue among the factions and making use of the good offices of the Arab League and African Union. On 4/18/11, one month after UNSCR 1973 was adopted, UN Secretary-General Key Ban Moon called for an immediate UN enforced ceasefire. This should be implemented without further delay.
KZ: As you may admit, Bahrain has one of the blackest human rights records in the Persian Gulf region and its longstanding tradition of suppressing the Shiite majority is almost known to everyone. The Bahraini officials have accused Iran of interfering in their internal affairs and turned a blind eye to the wave of protests which is encompassing the whole country. What's your idea about the situation in Bahrain? Will the oppressed Shiite majority of Bahrain gain enough power to claim their rights and prosper in their uprising against the dictatorial regime?
FL: I think the people of Bahrain will absolutely succeed in their legitimate quest for dignity and freedom. It is apparent that the majority population in Bahrain is determined to succeed and the international community is, albeit too slowly, supporting their struggle. A recent University of Maryland poll shows that nearly 70% of the American public is supporting the Middle Eastern uprisings even if it means weakening Israel.
Meanwhile, the Obama administration hypocrisy toward the unarmed civilians being killed in Bahrain is flagrant and runs deeply counter to American values.
Speaking on 4/13/11 at the U.S.-Islamic World Forum , a gathering sponsored by Qatar and the Brookings Institution, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton assured the World that "America's core interests and values have not changed, including our commitment to promote human rights equally in every country."
Clinton's remarks prompted some groans from the audience, and one Georgetown University student impolitely blurted out "Tell that to the people of Bahrain and prove it lady!"
What the exasperated student, and others in the audience apparently found outrageous was Clinton's comment that, "We know that a one-size-fits-all approach to American values doesn't make sense in such a diverse region at such a fluid time" as she hailed Bahrain for what she called a "decades-long friendship which we expect to continue long into the future." Referring to the government crackdown, she added that "violence is not and cannot be the answer."
Clinton explained that the Obama administration will neither recall its ambassador to Manama nor threaten sanctions -- a striking disparity that is fueling -anti-U.S. sentiment among Bahraini opposition groups. The Obama Doctrine words are all about freedom and democracy and change, but in Bahrain, the reality is that the Obama Doctrine amounts to a protection for the dictatorship.
By contrast, Obama has repeatedly justified military attacks in Libya, saying: "Innocent people were targeted for killing. Hospitals and ambulances were attacked. Journalists were arrested. These acts are against core American values." But while the same human rights abuses noted by Obama are happening in Bahrain, the Obama Doctrine is not on the Presidents teleprompter.
It appears that core American values aren't so important when the regime being reformed houses the Fifth Fleet and has Saudi neighbors, themselves afraid of potential protests, according to the Wall Street Journal. What the rude Georgetown student at Clinton's speech this week understood, is that as Joe Stork, Deputy Middle East Director at Human Rights Watch noted a couple of days ago concerning yet another brutal Khalifa government killing of unarmed civilians, "Four detainee deaths in nine days is a crime, not a coincidence. The government tells families of detainees nothing about their whereabouts or well-being while they are alive, or about the circumstances of their deaths. "Emergency laws should not be used as a cover for brutality," Stork reminded the Obama administration that torture and killing of the peaceful protesters in Bahrain at the hands of both the Bahraini armed forces and the additional forces provided by Saudi Arabia are not supported by the American public.
Obama administration officials, like most of the US media, have been playing a game of criminal silence about the situation in Bahrain. Political institutions have been trying to stoke the fire of Shiite-Sunni sectarianism instead of trying to resolve the real issues -- the barbaric actions and unfair political and economic policies of the ruling family in Bahrain, a state of forceful repression.
KZ: What will be the impacts of Egyptian revolution on the future of Israel-Egypt relations? It's quite evident that the Zionist regime is immensely afraid of the establishment of an Islamic government led by a democratically-elected president in Egypt. They have clearly voiced their concern over the developments taking place in Cairo and are desperately trying to preserve the heritage of the Camp David Accords which they achieved painstakingly in 1987. Will a new Egyptian government threaten the interests of the Israeli regime in the Middle East? Will the United State intervene to preclude the destruction of relations between Israel and Egypt?
FL: Yes, I think both processes will occur. During the Tahrir Square uprising we heard much about the need for dignity of the Egyptian people and dignity for Arabs and Muslims. What captured the world's attention were the demands for jobs, democracy, freedom from fear of arbitrary arrest, torture and detention by the myriad security services and much more control of the economy by the Egyptian people.
Now were are hearing more about fundamental issues, such as the Camp David Accords, which have been festering among Egyptians and most Arabs for three decades. This treaty with Israel was nothing more than the Western bought Egyptian leadership accepting an American bribe in the amount of more than USD $3 billion per year to concede Palestine to the Zionists and abdicate Egypt's historic role.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
