Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

The San Francisco Murals and the Suicide of the Left

A section of the mural at George Washington High School in San Francisco, painted by Russian-American artist Victor Arnautoff, shows a dead Native American. Credit Jim Wilson/NYT
By Diana Johnstone • Unz Review • June 30, 2019

The decision of the San Francisco school board to obliterate the historic murals in George Washington High School is not just another instance of Identity Politics foolishness. It is also a terrifying illustration of the drastic mental decline of what is called “the Left”.

Back in the 1930s there was a Left that had brains. You could agree or disagree with it, you could love it or hate it, but it had ideas, purpose, talent, and a sense of common humanity. It was working for a just society that would end exploitation and benefit humanity as a whole.

As an example, there were the artistic projects of the Works Progress Administration (WPA), the principal New Deal program to combat the Depression, which extended from creation of the Tennessee Valley Authority to artistic enhancement of public buildings. A beneficiary of this enhancement was George Washington High School in San Francisco, which was blessed with a striking set of murals by a leading artist, Victor Arnautoff, a Russian immigrant who had worked with the Mexican master of socially conscience mural art, Diego Rivera. One would expect that the presence of these powerful murals would be a lasting cause of pride in their school for staff and students.

The WPA, not least in its art projects, was animated by leftists, and even downright Communists, like Arnautoff, who chose to depart from the sterilized “I cannot tell a lie” cherry tree myth and the crossing of the Delaware glorification of George Washington to introduce reminders of the forgotten victims of the foundation of the United States – the exploitation of African slaves and the violent expropriation of Native American lands. The murals were clearly part of the leftwing WPA intellectuals’ endeavor to raise social consciousness, a step toward the Civil Rights movement of the 1950s.

In the age of the House Un-American Activities Committee and Joe McCarthy’s drunken rampage, such red-tinged WPA projects exposing the less glorious side of the birth of the republic aroused hostile suspicion. And yet, the Arnautoff murals survived Nixon, HUAC and McCarthy witch hunts. It took Identity Politics to call for their destruction.

What is most shocking is that the African-American president of the San Francisco Board of Education, Stevon Cook, supports this destruction of the murals on grounds that they include “violent images that are offensive to certain communities.” Joely Proudfit, director of the California Indian Culture and Sovereignty Center in San Marcos, said it was not worth saving the art if one native student “is triggered by that”.

Everything is wrong with such a position. Education should include teaching people to analyze what they see rather than simply “be triggered”. The contemporary world is crammed with images that are deeply offensive. When a student can have an historic mural torn down because she or he is “triggered” by it, what sort of preparation is this for the future? School should not be a “safe place” for emotions but a preparation for using reason to master those emotions as one goes through life. The protesters have chosen the worst possible way of interpreting the murals instead of using their reason to understand them and place them in their context. Yes, slavery happened and yes, American Indians were slaughtered, and their descendants can think of the strength they needed to resist and survive, and draw from their tragic history a sense of compassion for all who suffer from comparable injustice today. The attack on the mural is a gesture of impotent spite.

What are the hurt feelings of a San Francisco high school student compared to the pain and hunger of a Yemeni child living under U.S.-supported bombing? George Washington is dead, but in the city named after him, American leaders are sponsoring the massacre of innocent civilians all around the world. Why don’t these super-sensitive American students use their sensitivity to oppose such ongoing crimes and develop their intelligence to figure out how to join with others in fighting to end the Permanent War State in Washington?

But the snowflake trend has no use for real strength, the strength of courage to overcome obstacles, and draws an artificial moral strength from perpetual emotional weakness. Instead of gaining strength from increased knowledge, a certain tendency of young persons who have NOT suffered as their forebears did cling to their victimhood as the key to their own privileges. This may bring a few momentary advantages but is disastrous in the long run.

A healthy society is based on a balance between respect for the individual, regardless of identity or origins, and awareness of belonging to humanity as a whole, with all its sufferings, joys, tragedies and aspirations. Closing oneself into a limited identity group denies both respect for individuals and awareness of universal humanity. It can only be a basis for endless conflict, “my people are better than your people”, “no, my people are better than your people”. Those who “win” a momentary victory by imposing on others a destructive act of iconoclasm are only confirming their identification as “losers” as their sole key to success.

With such divisions, the American people will be absorbed in tribal skirmishes, while their criminal rulers continue to spread devastation around the world.

June 30, 2019 Posted by | Timeless or most popular | | 1 Comment

Himalayan Glaciers–The Story The BBC Refuse To Tell You

By Paul Homewood | Not A Lot Of People Know That | June 30, 2019

image

Images from Cold War spy satellites have revealed the dramatic extent of ice loss in the Himalayan glaciers.

Scientists compared photographs taken by a US reconnaissance programme with recent spacecraft observations and found that melting in the region has doubled over the last 40 years.

The study shows that since 2000, glaciers heights have been shrinking by an average of 0.5m per year.

The researchers say that climate change is the main cause.

“From this study, we really see the clearest picture yet of how Himalayan glaciers have changed,” Joshua Maurer, from Columbia University’s Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory in New York, told BBC News.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-48696023

 

As usual the BBC fail to explain the wider picture.

Glaciers worldwide have been retreating since the mid 19thC, which marked the ending of the Little Ice Age. The Himalayas are no exception.

This is what the first IPCC Report had to say in 1990:

image_thumb91

https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar1/wg1/

Note the comment about the period 1920 to 1960.

They add this chart:

image_thumb92

And comment:

 

image_thumb93

 

And:

 

image_thumb94

 

In other words, glacier melt may in large part be due to natural phenomenon, rather than man-made.

The rate of recession since the 19thC has not always been constant, as the IPCC noted:

Wood (1988) found that from 1960 to 1980 the number of retreating glaciers decreased. This may be related to the relatively cool period in the Northern Hemisphere over much of this time (Figure 7 10)

In other words, the fact that the rate of retreat seems to have speeded up in the Himalayas in recent years is of little significance, at least for such a short period of time.

Moreover recent studies have found that many glaciers in the Himalayas have actually started growing again in recent years:

 

image

Contrary to the UN’s report that the Hima­layan glaciers would melt within a quarter of a centu­ry, a new study by research­ers at the Universities of California and Potsdam has found out that the Himala­yan glaciers are advancing rather than retreating.

Researchers studied 286 glaciers in six areas between the Hindu Kush on the Af­ghan-Pakistan border till Bhutan.

The report published in the journal Nature Geosci­ence found that the key fac­tor affecting the advance or retreat of the Himalayan glaciers is the amount of debris— rocks and mud— strewn on their surface and not the general nature of cli­mate change.

The report states that glaciers surrounded by high mountains and covered with more than two centimetres of debris are protected from melting.

Debris-covered glaciers are common in the rugged central Himalayas, but they are almost absent in sub­dued landscapes on the Ti­betan Plateau, where retreat rates are higher.

In contrast, more than 50 percent of observed glaciers in the Karakoram range spanning the borders be­tween Pakistan, India and China region in the north-western Himalayas are ad­vancing or stable, states the report.

“Our study shows that there is no uniform re­sponse of Himalayan gla­ciers to climate change and highlights the importance of debris cover for under­standing glacier retreat, an effect that has so far been neglected in predictions of future water availability or global sea level,” the authors wrote in the journal.

Contrary to popular be­lief, researchers have also discovered that half of the ice flows in the Himalayas are actually growing rather than shrinking.

The discovery adds a new twist to the row over whether global warming is causing the world’s highest mountain range to lose its ice cover.

The new study has found that half of the glaciers in the Karakoram range in the north-western Hima­layas are in fact advancing and that global warming is not the deciding factor in whether a glacier survives or melts.

https://web.archive.org/web/20110207213137/http://www.bhutanobserver.bt/himalayan-glaciers-not-retreating-says-new-report/

 

The real picture is much more complex than the BBC misleadingly portray.

June 30, 2019 Posted by | Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Science and Pseudo-Science | | 2 Comments

The Lie Of The Century

By Jafar M. Ramini | Counter Currents | June 29, 2019

Well, it’s happened. It’s real. Mr. Jared Kushner, the son-in-law and Senior Advisor of President Trump has delivered 136 pages of lies, suppositions and conjuring tricks to seduce or compel us Palestinians to accept our fate and surrender our rights. What rights? As far as this document is concerned, Palestinians have no rights whatsoever, and, as for a Palestinian perspective, what is that?

The Palestinians were not even invited to Manama, let alone considered. What about the Israelis? Were they there? Were they invited? On the face of it, no. But, in reality, they were amply represented. What is Jared Kushner if not the team captain for the Greater Israel Project? After all, he is Jewish, an ardent Zionist, an investor in the illegal settlements in Palestine and an advocate, par excellence, for Israeli survival and supremacy.

The Lie Of The Century, as I call it, is just that. A lie. From beginning to end, every word, every supposition of this long-winded deception is to ensure that the Greater Israel Project will advance unhindered, and we, the Palestinians, are to accept the crumbs off the table of our land-lords. Or perish.

But, hang on a minute. How could an occupier who seized our land by brute force be made a legitimate land-lord over us? The answer is simple. In the Trumpian universe, all that matters are power and Mammon. Isn’t this what the ‘Deal of The Century’ is all about? American/Israeli power exercised over us Palestinians without mercy? And, what about the money? Oh, yes. There is money, but it is not American nor Israeli money. It’s Arab money — to be extorted from despotic, Arabic regimes in the Gulf, as per usual. Trump demands and the Arab Regimes of the Gulf and Saudi Arabia oblige. If they don’t, as Mr. Trump intimated, their shaky thrones wouldn’t last a week without US protection.

Mr. Kushner promised $50 billion in Arab money to be divided between Palestine, Jordan and Egypt. Nowhere in the document was there any mention of Palestinian political rights, the right of return of the Palestinian refugees or even the Israeli occupation of Palestine. All was conveniently kicked into touch because it doesn’t matter, you see. What matters is Israeli survival and supremacy and the continued, rapid march of the Greater Israel Project.

I say ‘rapid march’ because who is to stop it? The Palestinians do not have an army, an air force, a navy or even a coalition to stop this march. Jordan has already succumbed to American threats and promises of prosperity. The same goes for Egypt, especially under the hand-picked President Abdul Fatah Alsisi, whose sole purpose is to neuter Egypt and serve as a facilitator for American and Israeli hegemony in our area.

Syria? Western powers, Israel and despotic Arab/Muslim states have made sure that Syria is taken out of the equation by embroiling it in a 7-year long devastating war.

The Gulf States? Saudi Arabia? Instead of stopping this advance of Greater Israel they are facilitating it by making a frantic rush towards normalization with Israel and to form a coalition of the willing to combat a perceived threat from another Muslim country, Iran. The honorable exception is the State of Kuwait, who refused to attend this farce and reaffirmed their total support of Palestinian rights and aspirations.

Let’s look closely at the word, ‘surrender’. Many of you might remember an article I wrote recently, entitled, ‘Surrender Or Die’. It didn’t take too long for the Israelis to prove me right. There it is. From the Grand weasel’s mouth, none other than Danny Danon, the Israeli Ambassador to the UN. In an article entitled, ‘What’s Wrong With Palestinian Surrender”, published in the New York Times on June 24th, one day before the Manama ‘Workshop’. “Surrender”, he wrote,” is the recognition that in a contest, staying the course will prove costlier than submission.”

There you have it. To the victor the spoils.

And, then, comes the other Grand Weasel, Mr. Jared Kushner, to deliver the message of surrender to a room full of weasels. All of these aforementioned weasels, who have been gnawing at our heels for over a century, omitted to consider one vital point: The Palestinian character and pride.

Surrender is not in our character. We’d rather die standing up, defending our rights than exist, kneeling at the feet of our self-appointed land-lords and benefactors.

Just in case any of those weasels calling for our surrender might have any interest in what we Palestinians want, here is how Executive Member of the PLO, Dr. Hanan Ashrawi, put it:

Jafar M Ramini is a Palestinian writer and political analyst, based in London, presently in Perth, Western Australia. He was born in Jenin in 1943 and was five years old when he and his family had to flee the terror of the Urgun and Stern gangs. Justice for the people of Palestine is a life-long commitment.

June 30, 2019 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism | , , , , | 5 Comments

Britain and global deaths in conflict – an estimate

By Mark Curtis | December 13, 2018

Table – Britain and global deaths in conflicts

The following table is taken from Mark Curtis’ book, Unpeople: Britain’s Secret Human Rights Abuses, published in 2004. It gives figures on the estimated number of deaths for which Britain bears ‘significant responsibility’. There are four categories of British responsibility:

  • ‘Direct responsibility’ is where British military and/or covert forces have played a direct role.
  • ‘Indirect responsibility’ is where Britain has provided strong support (through trade, arms exports, aid and/or diplomatic support) for allies engaged in aggression or killing.
  • ‘Active inaction’ is where Britain has specifically helped to block international action to halt killings (Note that this and the second category are different than merely ‘turning a blind eye’, which would include many other cases).
  • The ‘others’ category contains a solitary case, that of the Idi Amin regime’s state terror, a description of which is provided below.

Estimates on the number of deaths in any conflict always vary, often very widely. Where there is no footnote below, I have used the most commonly cited estimate. For others I have generally sourced the varying estimates. The overall figure is between 8.6 million and 13.5 million – or ‘around 10 million’. Of these, Britain bears ‘direct responsibility’ for between 4 million to nearly 6 million deaths.

Note that this figure is if anything likely to be an underestimate. For one thing, not all British interventions have been included, such as those in Oman in 1957-9 and in 1964-74 owing to lack of available on the scale of deaths. In the category of ‘indirect responsibility’, I have excluded many repressive regimes that Britain has backed throughout the postwar period; I have tended to include those cases on which I have focused in this and previous books. I have also not included US backing of the Guatemala regime from the 1960s to the 1980s, responsible for around 200,000 deaths. The reason is that while Britain strongly backed US policy in Central America, there is not as much direct and specific support for US policy in Guatemala as there was in the case of El Salvador and Nicaragua, explained in the third column.

The figures generally refer to the number of ‘enemy’ deaths rather than total deaths, where it has been possible to disaggregate the estimates.

Finally, I do not pretend this is a fully scientific analysis – the exclusion of certain episodes, the extent of British responsibility and the estimates on numbers of deaths are of course all open to interpretation, as in any table of this kind. Nevertheless, it gives a reasonably accurate reflection of British responsibility for a very large number of deaths in the postwar world.

Conflict Estimated number of deaths Britain’s role
     
Direct responsibility
2003 – invasion of Iraq 10,000-55,000[1] British forces played secondary role to US in military operations
2001 – bombing of Afghanistan 15,000 – 25,000[2] Ditto
1999 – bombing of Yugoslavia 1,000[3] British forces played secondary role to US in military operations as part of wider NATO campaign
1998 – bombing of Iraq 600 – 1,600[4] British forces played secondary role to US in military operations
1991 – Gulf war against Iraq over 100,000[5] Ditto
1982 – Falklands war 655 British military fought Argentina
1961-73 – war against Southeast Asia 2 – 3 million[6] Britain privately backed US strongly, regularly supported it publicly but also played several direct roles: providing military and ‘counter-insurgency’ advice to South Vietnam; British covert forces took part in the war; intelligence was passed to US military. The British role was therefore more ‘direct’ than ‘indirect’ (see Unpeople, chapter 12)
1962-70 – war in Yemen 100,000 – 200,000 British secret operation involving covert action and arms supplies (see Unpeople, chapter 16)
1964-7 – British suppression of Aden revolt 300 – 900 British ‘colonial’ government forces responsible
1965/6 – Indonesian army slaughters 500,000 – 1 million[7] Britain provided Indonesian generals with variety of direct, covert support, including ‘information’ operations[8]
1952-60 – war in Kenya up to 150,000[9] British colonial war and ‘resettlement’ operations[10]
1948-60 – war in Malaya 10,000 – 13,000 Ditto[11]
1957/8 – rebellion against Indonesian central government thousands[12] Covert operation with US to support the rebellion, including arms supplies (see Unpeople, chapter 11)
1956 – British invasion of Egypt 1,600 – 3,000[13] Military intervention with France and Israel
1948-55 – Uprising in Baltic states of the USSR 75,000[14] British covert operation to fund and support uprisings[15]
1953 – coup in Iran 300 Covert operation with CIA[16]
1950-3 – Korean war at least 1 million[17] Military played key role technically as part of UN force, in reality led by US
1944-9 – Greek civil war 65,000 – 80,000[18] Military/covert operations to support Greek government
1945-9 – war for Indonesian independence 5,000 – 80,000[19] Military involvement to suppress independence movement
SUB-TOTAL 4.03m – 5.71m
 Indirect responsibility
2000-present – Israeli killings in occupied territories 2,723[20] Blair government is strong supporter of Israeli policies, in various ways (see Unpeople, chapter 9)
1999-present – killings in Nigeria up to 10,000[21] Blair government is strong supporter of Nigerian policies, in various ways (see Unpeople, chapter 10)
1999-present – Second Russian invasion of Chechnya 15,000 – 25,000[22] Blair government is strong supporter of Russian policies, in various ways (see Unpeople, chapter 9)
1996-present – Nepal civil war 3,300[23] Blair government provides military/diplomatic support to Nepal government (see Unpeople, chapter 9)
1990- present – Colombia state killings 20,000 – 40,000[24] Blair and previous governments are strong supporters of Colombian policies, in various ways (see Unpeople, chapter 9)
1976-present – Indonesian attacks in Aceh province 15,000 Blair and previous governments are strong supporters of Indonesian policies, in various ways (see Unpeople, chapter 11)
1969-present – Indonesian attacks in West Papua province 100,000 ditto
1991-2003 – Sanctions against Iraq 500,000 – 1 million[25] Technically maintained by the UN; in reality supported virtually solely by Britain and US
1999 – Indonesian attacks in East Timor around 5,000 Blair government continued to support, and arm, Indonesia, throughout violence[26]
1984-1999 – Turkey’s campaign against Kurds around 30,000[27] Blair and previous governments are strong supporters of Turkish policies, in various ways[28]
1998 – US bombing of Sudan perhaps tens of thousands[29] Britain strongly supported US attack that destroyed  pharmaceutical factor producing most of Sudan’s life-saving drugs
1994-6 – Russian invasion of Chechnya 60,000 – 100,000 Major government provided strong support to Russia, in various ways
1948-94 – Apartheid South Africa state killings 10,000 – 20,000 British governments consistently backed South African regimes, in various ways[30]
1989 – US invasion of Panama 350 – 3,000[31] Britain provided strong diplomatic support
1980-88 – Iran/Iraq war 1 million Thatcher government effectively supported Iraq’s attack on Iran, supplying it with military equipment and financial aid
1987-8 – Iraq’s campaign against Kurds 100,000 Ditto[32]
1984/5 – Ugandan civil war 100,000 – 300,000 Britain provided strong support to Ugandan government and maintained military training programme
1984/5 – Indonesian state killings 5,000 Thatcher government was strong supporter of Indonesia, in various ways
Early 1980s – El Salvador civil war 75,000-80,000 Thatcher government provided strong diplomatic backing to US strategy supporting Salvadoran regime
1980s – US aggression against Nicaragua 30,000 Thatcher government provided strong diplomatic and other backing, including covert support, to US strategy[33]
1953-79 – Shah’s regime in Iran 10,000 British governments provided strong support to Shah’s regime, in various ways[34]
1975 – Indonesian invasion of East Timor 200,000 Wilson/Callaghan governments provided strong backing to Indonesia in various ways[35]
1973 – coup in Chile at least 3,000 Heath government welcomed coup and backed Pinochet regime, as did subsequent British governments (see Unpeople, chapter 14)
1967-70 – Nigeria/Biafra civil war 1 – 3 million Wilson government gave strong backing to Nigeria in various ways (see Unpeople, chapter 10)
1963 – Iraq killings 5,000 Macmillan government in effect supported massacres and welcomed new military government (see Unpeople, chapter 5)
1960s – Iraq campaigns against Kurds 12,000 – 100,000[36] British governments gave strong backing to Iraq in various ways (see Unpeople, chapter 5)
SUB-TOTAL 3.32m – 6.20m
Active inaction
1990s – Yugoslav civil wars 200,000 – 250,000 Major government played key role to prevent international action against Milosevic regime[37]
1994 – Rwanda genocide 800,000 – 1 million Major government played key role at the UN to prevent international action to prevent or stop genocide[38]
SUB-TOTAL 1m – 1.25m
Others
1971-9 – Ugandan state terror (Idi Amin era) 300,000 Heath government welcomed and supported Amin’s rule in its first year. Most atrocities were committed after this period but Britain bears significant responsibility in enabling Amin regime to consolidate its rule.
SUB-TOTAL 300,000
TOTAL 8.65m – 13.47m

REFERENCES (See Unpeople book for full references)

[1] See chapter 1

[2] Figures vary widely. The Guardian estimated 10,000-20,000 civilian deaths as an indirect result of the bombing. Estimates of the military deaths are usually in the 3,000-6,000 range. Web of Deceit, p.49

[3] Human Rights Watch estimates 500 civilian deaths (‘Civilian deaths in the NATO air campaign’, February 2000, www.hrw.org). Some estimates, which include military deaths, are often over 1,000. 20th Century Atlas: Alphabetical list of war, massacre, tyranny and genocide, www.users.erols.com

[4] 20th Century Atlas

[5] Figures vary very widely; see 20th Century Atlas.  Immediately after the war the US government estimated 100,000 deaths. Other independent estimates are much lower, others much higher.

[6] Figures vary very widely, from hundreds of thousands to 4 million. Most deaths were those of Vietnamese, with figures usually ranging from 1 – 3 million. Hundreds of thousands were also killed in Cambodia and Laos.

[7] Some estimates are as low as 300,000 but most credible figures are much higher and some estimate over a million.

[8] See Web of Deceit, chapter 20

[9] estimated number of deaths due principally to the brutal ‘resettlement’ operations. Estimates of number of Mau Mau killed in actual fighting vary from 10,000-13,000.

[10] See Web of Deceit, chapter 15

[11]  See Web of Deceit, chapter 16

[12] Figures unknown

[13] 20th Century Atlas

[14] Prados, p.43

[15] See Dorril, chapter  16

[16] See Web of Deceit, chapter 14

[17] Figures vary very widely. This is approximate figure for North Korean and Chinese deaths

[18] This is approximate figure for deaths on the rebels (ie, EAM/ELAS) side.

[19] Figures vary extremely widely. See 20th Century Atlas

[20] Figure from September 2000 (beginning of second intifada) to March 2004; Palestinian Red Crescent Society, http://www.palestinercs.org

[21] Nigerian police and army are complicit in many of these killings; See chapter 10

[22] Russia provided an official number of 15,000 Chechen deaths by August 2003 (AFP, ‘Russia underplays Chechnya deaths’, 8 August 2003). This is likely to be a severe underestimate, especially in light of the ferocious attack on Grozny in 1999/2000.

[23] Number of deaths by government forces from 1996-2002; Web of Deceit, p.81

[24] Figures vary. 35,000 – 40,000 is a commonly cited figure since 1990; some current estimates, however, state 15,000 in the past 10 years.

[25] The UN estimated half a million deaths of children under five as a result of the 1991 war and sanctions. Former UN Coordinator for Iraq, Denis Halliday, has given a figure, including adults, of over a million. Web of Deceit, p.29

[26] See Web of Deceit, chapter 21

[27] The Turkish government in 2001 gave a figure of 23,000 Kurds killed; www.harpers.org/warcrime.html; Independent estimates are usually higher.

[28] See Web of Deceit, chapter 1

[29] see Web of Deceit, p.111; Chomsky, Hegemony or Survival, p,206

[30] See Ambiguities of Power, pp.119-29

[31] The Central American Human Rights Commission estimates 2,000-3,000; Physicians for Human Rights estimates 300 civilian deaths and 50 military deaths (‘Panama: Operation Just Cause’, December 1990)

[32] See Web of Deceit, chapter 1

[33] See Web of Deceit, chapter 4

[34] See Web of Deceit, chapter 14

[35] See Web of Deceit, chapter 21

[36] Figures vary widely; 20th Century Atlas

[37] See especially Brendan Simms, Unfinest hour: Britain and the destruction of Bosnia, Allen Lane, London, 2001

[38] See Web of Deceit, chapter 18

June 30, 2019 Posted by | Militarism, Timeless or most popular, War Crimes | | 1 Comment

Libya’s GNA forces seize US missiles at captured Haftar base

Press TV – June 30, 2019

Military officials with Libya’s internationally-recognized government say they have seized sophisticated US missiles and weaponry at a base they captured from forces allied to renegade General Khalifa Haftar in the south of the capital, Tripoli.

The Tripoli-based Government of National Accord (GNA) retook the southern strategic town of Gharyan, home to the main supply base of eastern forces attacking the capital, from Haftar’s self-styled Libyan National Army (LNA) on Wednesday.

The GNA announced on Saturday that among the weaponry its forces had seized were four US-made Javelin anti-tank missiles packed in wooden crates marked “armed forces of the United Arab Emirates”.

The GNA officials said the markings indicated that the missiles – jointly manufactured by the arms giants Raytheon and Lockheed Martin – had originally been sold to the United Arab Emirates (UAE), a major buyer of US arms and one of Haftar’s main supporters.

“The seized weapons and ammunition have been sent to the specialized experts and have been documented,” Mohammed Qununu, spokesman of the GNA’s military operation, told reporters in Gharyan.

“The military commanders and the political leaders are now fully aware of these weapons and ammunition to make the right decisions that will be announced.”

United Nations reports have previously said that the UAE, Saudi Arabia and Egypt have been arming Haftar’s forces since 2014.

UN arms embargo violation

The New York Times, confirming the discovery of American missiles by the GNA in a report on Saturday, said the UAE’s Ambassador to the US Yousef al-Otaiba had declined to answer questions about the provenance of the missiles.

The American daily, however, said it would be in breach of both the terms of the sale and a UN arms embargo on the conflict-ridden Libya if the missiles were found to have been sold or transferred to forces under Haftar’s command.

The GNA has reportedly launched a fact-finding mission with the goal of producing a report that would be submitted to the United Nations as well as other international organizations.

Officials at the US State Department and the Pentagon also said they had opened investigations into how the weapons had ended up on the Libyan battlefield.

“We take all allegations of misuse of US origin defense articles very seriously. We are aware of these reports and are seeking additional information,” a State Department spokesperson said on condition of anonymity. “We expect all recipients of US origin defense equipment to abide by their end-use obligations.”

The US government’s support for Haftar, however, is beyond doubt.

Libya’s GNA headed by Prime Minister Fayez al-Sarraj has already called on US President Donald Trump to stop support for “aspiring military dictator”.

The US president, in a phone call with the military strongman in April, “recognized Field Marshal Haftar’s significant role in fighting terrorism and securing Libya’s oil resources.”

Forces loyal to Haftar launched an offensive on April 4 to capture Tripoli. Since then, fighting has killed 653 people, wounded more than 2,000 and displaced over 93,000, according to the UN.

Libya has been the scene of increasing violence since 2011, when former dictator Muammar Gaddafi was toppled from power after an uprising and a NATO military intervention.

His ouster created a huge power vacuum, leading to chaos and the emergence of numerous militant outfits, including the Daesh terrorist group.

The country has been divided between two rival governments, the House of Representatives based in the eastern city of Tobruk and the GNA in Tripoli.

June 30, 2019 Posted by | War Crimes | , , | Leave a comment