News Release Archive | Libya | Accuracy.Org

* Escalating Drone Strikes in Pakistan * State of Libya

JUNAID AHMAD, junaid.ahmad at lums.edu.pk
Ahmad is assistant professor of law at Lahore University of Management Sciences in Pakistan and is currently visiting the U.S. He said today: “The United States launched new drone strikes on Pakistan over the weekend, causing at least a dozen deaths in the tribal area of South Waziristan.

“The attack on Sunday included two drones that fired missiles into a home and a car in the Wana district of the northwestern Pakistan tribal area near Afghanistan. Ten people were killed, and another ten wounded.

“Media reports about the attacks portrayed all of the victims as ‘suspected militants.’ This is in line with the publication last week of a detailed article in the New York Times describing how President Barack Obama determines victims for targeted assassinations and personally authorizes a number of the so-called ‘signature strikes’ — those targeted not at clearly identified ‘suspects,’ but rather at gatherings deemed to be involved in ‘suspicious behavior.’

“The report disclosed that Obama had authorized a CIA policy of classifying any combat-aged male killed in a drone attack as a ‘militant,’ in the absence of clear proof to the contrary. This approach effectively allows for the murder of any adult male in the tribal areas identified as kosher for drone strikes.

“Sunday’s attack was the seventh drone strike since the NATO summit in Chicago last month. They have included a May 24 attack on a mosque that killed 10 people during worship. A May 26 strike murdered 4 persons in a bakery where supposed militants were purchasing bread.

“The intensification of the U.S. drone attacks comes in the context of the NATO summit in Chicago last month, where the U.S. and Pakistani governments failed to come to an agreement concerning the reopening of a supply route for U.S.-NATO occupation forces in Afghanistan. The route, which goes from the Pakistani port city of Karachi to Afghanistan, was closed by Islamabad in protest over U.S. air strikes that killed two dozen Pakistani soldiers last November.

“The supply lines through Pakistan were previously carrying over 30 percent of the materiel for the U.S.-NATO soldiers in Afghanistan and are perceived to be critically important for the withdrawal over the next two and half years of U.S.-NATO forces and their equipment.

“Also toward the end of last year, Islamabad shut down the covert Shamsi air base in Baluchistan that the U.S. relied upon to launch its drone strikes.

“Just last month, the Pakistani parliament passed a resolution stating that an end to the drone attacks will be the precondition for reopening the supply lines and calling on the United States to apologize for the killing of the 24 Pakistani soldiers. The Obama administration has rebuked both demands.

“The recent drone assaults are the most blatant expressions of American anger at Pakistan’s unwillingness to completely subordinate itself to U.S. diktat. The period after the Chicago summit has also witnessed repeated threats in Congress to halt all aid to Pakistan as well as a propaganda frenzy over a Pakistani court’s sentencing of a CIA informant who facilitated the Navy Seal raid that assassinated Osama bin Laden in May 2011.

“It should be obvious to the world by now that these ongoing drone attacks are viewed with disgust in Pakistan, and are blamed for killing thousands, mostly civilians.”

Reuters is reporting: “In a fresh challenge to the interim government’s weak authority, members of the al-Awfea Brigade occupied the airport for several hours demanding the release of their leader whom they said was being held by Tripoli’s security forces.”

REESE ERLICH, rerlich at pacbell.net
Recently back from Libya and available for a limited number of interviews, foreign correspondent Erlich, author of “Conversations with Terrorists: Middle East Leaders on Politics, Violence and Empire,” is currently writing a book on the Arab uprisings. He said: “The western-backed National Transition Council operates a weak and ineffective government. Some 60 militias are the real power centers. Unable to suppress the militias, the NTC uses some as auxiliary forces to be called out in time of emergency. Some are now allying with political parties, a very dangerous long-term trend because they will be much harder to dissolve.” Erlich’s article on the Libyan uprising and its political aftermath will appear in an upcoming issue of The Progressive.

“Exposed: The U.S.-Saudi Libya Deal”

PEPE ESCOBAR, [in Brazil] Skype: pepeasia
Escobar just wrote the piece “Exposed: The U.S.-Saudi Libya Deal,” which states: “You invade Bahrain. We take out Muammar Gaddafi in Libya. This, in short, is the essence of a deal struck between the Barack Obama administration and the House of Saud. Two diplomatic sources at the United Nations independently confirmed that Washington, via Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, gave the go-ahead for Saudi Arabia to invade Bahrain and crush the pro-democracy movement of their neighbor in exchange for a ‘yes’ vote by the Arab League for a no-fly zone over Libya — the main rationale that led to United Nations Security Council resolution 1973. …

“A full Arab League endorsement of a no-fly zone is a myth. Of the 22 full members, only 11 were present at the voting. Six of them were GCC [Gulf Cooperation Council] members, the U.S.-supported club of Gulf kingdoms/sheikhdoms, of which Saudi Arabia is the top dog. Syria and Algeria were against it. Saudi Arabia only had to ‘seduce’ three other members to get the vote.

“Translation: only nine out of 22 members of the Arab League voted for the no-fly zone. The vote was essentially a House of Saud-led operation, with Arab League secretary general Amr Moussa keen to polish his CV with Washington with an eye to becoming the next Egyptian President.

“Thus, in the beginning, there was the great 2011 Arab revolt. Then, inexorably, came the U.S.-Saudi counter-revolution.” [Brazil is one of a few non-Arab countries granted observer status at the Arab League.] Escobar’s books include “Obama Does Globalistan.” His recent writings for the Asia Times are at: http://atimes.com/atimes/others/Pepe2011.html .

The AP is reporting this morning: “Bahrain Wages Unrelenting Crackdown on Shiites.”

Also available to assess these developments and revelations:

HUSAIN ABDULLA
Abdulla is director of Americans for Democracy and Human Rights in Bahrain. He said today: “Despite the total regime crackdown, Saudi invasion, lack of attention or outside support, the protests in Bahrain are continuing.”

VIJAY PRASHAD, @vijayprashad
Author of The Darker Nations: A People’s History of the Third World, Prashad is the George and Martha Kellner Chair of South Asian History and director of International Studies at Trinity College, Hartford, Conn. He recently wrote the piece “Intervening in Libya.”

SAM HUSSEINI, @samhuseini
Communications director for the Institute for Public Accuracy, Husseini recently wrote the piece “U.S. Not Guilty of Double Standards.”

Background:

The British Telegraph reported this week: “Saudi officials say they gave their backing to Western air strikes on Libya in exchange for the United States muting its criticism of the authorities in Bahrain, a close ally of the desert kingdom.”

Former British ambassador Craig Murray wrote on March 14: “A senior diplomat in a western mission to the UN in New York, who I have known over ten years and trust, has told me for sure that Hillary Clinton agreed to the cross-border use of troops to crush democracy in the Gulf, as a quid pro quo for the Arab League calling for Western intervention in Libya.”

For more information, contact at the Institute for Public Accuracy:
Sam Husseini, (202) 347-0020; or David Zupan, (541) 484-9167

Libya: * Who Are the Rebels? * WikiLeaks

VIJAY PRASHAD
Author of The Darker Nations: A People’s History of the Third World, Prashad said today: “We should be very careful when we think of the rebels. We should not confuse all the rebellions across the Arab world and consider them all to be the same. There are some important differences. Also, the United States and NATO have their own agendas here. When one supports an intervention, one should be very careful to see whose intervention we are supporting. Is this on behalf of those young people, the workers and others? Or is it on behalf of NATO and the Libyans it may be attempting to install?

“So, for instance, when we talk about the rebel leadership in Benghazi, one should keep in mind that the two principal military leaders, one of whom was a former interior minister in the Gadafi regime, Abdel Fatah Younis. And the second, Khalifah Hifler, was a general who led Libyan troops in Chad in the 1980s and was then taken up with the Libyan National Salvation Front, went off to live in Vienna, Virginia, for 30 years, about a ten minute drive from Langley [where the CIA is headquartered], and returned to Benghazi to, in a sense, I think, hijack the rebellion on behalf of the forces of reaction. In addition to NATO members, it’s fundamentally Qatar and the UAE, the Saudis and the Gulf Cooperation Council that is behind this. That’s the principal Arab support for the Libyan intervention and is the same force putting down the uprising in Bahrain. You had the Saudi Prince Faisal Al Turki talking about the GCC becoming perhaps a NATO of the Gulf region. So part of this intervention is precisely to clamp down on the ‘Arab Spring,’ to take attention away, as well, from Bahrain and other places, rather than a part of the Arab Spring — exactly the opposite of what the U.S. administration is claiming.”

Prashad is the George and Martha Kellner Chair of South Asian History and director of International Studies at Trinity College, Hartford, Conn. He recently wrote the piece “Intervening in Libya.”

W. RANDY SHORT
Short is an independent researcher who holds a doctorate in African studies from Howard University and a masters of divinity from Harvard University. He said today: “As part of my research on Libya, I came across a WikiLeaks document that seems to have been largely overlooked with all the fuss about personalities surrounding the WikiLeaks disclosures. The document shows extreme U.S. interest in the prospect of a rebellion in the eastern part of Libya. … In terms of sources of information, possibly the most dangerous aspect of what we are currently seeing has been the role of al-Jazeera. It played a very positive role in Egypt, but when things came to Libya it did a complete 180. The sheikdom of Qatar — which funds al-Jazeera — is the only nation in the Arab League that is actually participating in the military attacks. Also, it has signed an oil deal with the Libyan rebels. So if Gadafi wins, an oil deal for Qatar goes bad.” Short is able to address other issues surrounding the war with Libya, including water, refugees and relations with other African countries.

Excerpts from the WikiLeaks document Short is referring to: “Frustration at the inability of eastern Libyans to effectively challenge Qadhafi’s regime, together with a concerted ideological campaign by returned Libyan fighters from earlier conflicts, have played important roles in Derna’s [town in eastern Libya] development as a wellspring of Libyan foreign fighters in Iraq. Other factors include a dearth of social outlets for young people, local pride in Derna’s history as a locus of fierce opposition to occupation, economic disenfranchisement among the town’s young men. Depictions on satellite television of events in Iraq and Palestine fuel the widespread view that resistance to coalition forces is justified and necessary. One Libyan interlocutor likened young men in Derna to Bruce Willis’ character in the action picture ‘Die Hard,’ who stubbornly refused to die quietly. For them, resistance against coalition forces in Iraq is an important act of ‘jihad’ and a last act of defiance against the Qadhafi regime. … [Read more...]

Libya: “Hidden Agendas” and “Vital Interests”

JAN OBERG, Skype: janoberg
Secretary of State Clinton is in London today at a conference with other governments participating in the bombing of Libya, including those of Britain, France and Qatar. Based in Sweden, Oberg, who is director of the Transnational Foundation for Peace and Future Research, recently wrote the piece “Libya: Contradictions, Foolish Assumptions and Flawed Humanism.”

PEPE ESCOBAR, Skype: pepeasia
Escobar’s books include Obama Does Globalistan. His recent writings for the Asia Times are at: atimes.com.

He recently wrote the piece “There’s no Business Like War Business,” which states: “Lies, hypocrisy and hidden agendas. This is what United States President Barack Obama did not dwell on [in his speech last night] when explaining his Libya doctrine to America and the world. … It’s easy to identify who profits from the war in Libya: The Pentagon, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, the ‘rebels,’ the French and al-Qaeda. But that’s only a short list of profiteers; control of an ocean of fresh water is crucial to the war mix and nobody knows who’ll end up getting the oil and the natural gas. … United Nations Security Council resolution 1973 has worked like a Trojan horse, allowing the Anglo-French-American consortium — and NATO — to become the UN’s air force in its support of an armed uprising. Apart from having nothing to do with protecting civilians, this arrangement is absolutely illegal in terms of international law.”

He also wrote the piece “Endgame: Divide, Rule and Get the Oil,” which states: “Odyssey Dawn is only happening because the 22-member Arab League voted to impose a no-fly zone over Libya. The Arab League — routinely dismissed in Western capitals as irrelevant before this decision — is little else than an instrument of the House of Saud’s foreign policy. Its ‘decision’ was propelled by Washington’s promise to protect the GCC [Gulf Cooperation Council] kings/sheikhs/oligarchs from the democratic aspirations of their own subjects — who are yearning for the same democratic rights as their ‘cousins’ in eastern Libya.

“This is exactly the same GCC, posing for Saudi Arabia that invaded Bahrain to help the Sunni al-Khalifa dynasty to crush the pro-democracy movement. … For Saudi Arabia this was a great deal; the perfect chance for King Abdullah to get rid of Gaddafi (the bad blood between both since 2002 is legendary), and the perfect chance for the House of Saud to lend a hand to a bewildered Washington.” [Brazil is one of a few non-Arab countries granted observer status at the Arab League.]

TOBY C. JONES, @tobycraigjones
Jones is an assistant professor of history at Rutgers University and author of the book Desert Kingdom: How Oil and Water Forged Modern Saudi Arabia. He said today: “While the United States has taken on a brutal dictator in Libya … its claims to be supporting Arab democratic movements elsewhere is belied by its policies in the Persian Gulf. Robert Gates remarked on Sunday’s Meet the Press that U.S. stands by its ally in Saudi Arabia and even justified a recent $60 billion arms deal to Riyadh. Meanwhile, Saudi Arabia has conspired to brutally repress a pro-democratic movement in Bahrain. Gates remarked that intervention in Libya was justified in part because it was not a ‘vital interest’ to the United States, while the Gulf is. The cost of our strategic relationships with the Gulf means more oppression, greater instability, and a potential escalation of hostilities with Iran. Perhaps it is time to rethink what is vital about our ties to brutal regimes in the heartland of oil.”

For more information, contact at the Institute for Public Accuracy:
Sam Husseini, (202) 347-0020; or David Zupan, (541) 484-9167

AFRICOM as Libya Bombing Motive

HORACE CAMPBELL
Campbell is professor of African American studies and political science at Syracuse University and is currently working on a book on AFRICOM (United States Africa Command). He said today: “U.S. involvement in the Libyan bombing is being turned into a public relations ploy for AFRICOM. AFRICOM is fundamentally a front for U.S. military contractors like Dyncorp, MPRI and KBR operating in Africa. U.S. military planners who benefit from the revolving door of privatization of warfare are delighted by the opportunity to give AFRICOM credibility under the facade of the Libyan intervention. No African country has agreed to let AFRICOM onto the continent. It has 1,500 people operating out of Stuttgart, Germany. If Libya is indeed partitioned, that new state could provide a base for AFRICOM.

“The U.S. needs to stop bombing Libya and meaningfully work with the African Union, which (less mailable to Western interests than the Arab League) has been pushed aside. Note that Egypt and Tunisia are not among the Arab states participating in the Libya bombing. The states participating are Saudi Arabia and others that are among the most repressive Arab countries. The attack on Libya is largely being used to undermine the revolutionary gains in Egypt and prevent such changes in other Arabic and African countries.” Campbell notes that the U.S. is continuing to back Bahrain, Saudi Arabia and other oppressive Arab regimes.

He added: “An additional problem has been racist attitudes in the discussion of so-called ‘African mercenaries’ in the Arab and Western media.”

EMIRA WOODS
Woods is co-director of Foreign Policy In Focus at the Institute for Policy Studies. She specializes in Africa. Woods said today: “AFRICOM makes its first major foray in Africa with massive air strikes on Libya. The velvet glove of humanitarian trainer has at last been taken off to reveal the fist of the military and its dominant role in U.S. Africa engagement. Established under the Bush administration and strengthened under Obama, AFRICOM has been rejected by African governments, scholars, and human rights champions. AFRICOM’s lead role in the assault on Libya will breed greater anti-Americanism while draining much needed monies and threatening civilian lives, with each bomb dropped.”

For more information, contact at the Institute for Public Accuracy:
Sam Husseini, (202) 347-0020; or David Zupan, (541) 484-9167

Libya and War Powers

ROBERT NAIMAN
Naiman is policy director of Just Foreign Policy. He just wrote the piece “Congress Must Debate the Libya War,” which states: “To put it crudely: as a matter of logic, if President Obama can bomb Libya without Congressional authorization, then President Palin can bomb Iran without Congressional authorization. If, God forbid, we ever get to that fork in the road, you can bet your bottom dollar that the advocates of bombing Iran will invoke Congressional silence now as justification for their claims of unilateral presidential authority to bomb anywhere, anytime.”

MARJORIE COHN
Cohn is a professor at Thomas Jefferson School of Law and just wrote the piece “Stop Bombing Libya,” which states: “The resolution authorizes UN Member States ‘to take all necessary measures … to protect civilians and civilian populated areas under threat of attack in the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, including Benghazi, while excluding a foreign occupation force of any form on any part of Libyan territory.’ The military action taken exceeds the bounds of the ‘all necessary measures’ authorization.

“‘All necessary measures’ should first have been peaceful measures to settle the conflict. But peaceful means were not exhausted before Obama began bombing Libya. A high level international team — consisting of representatives from the Arab League, the Organization of African Unity, and the UN Secretary General — should have been dispatched to Tripoli to attempt to negotiate a real cease-fire, and set up a mechanism for elections and for protecting civilians.”

Cohn’s latest book is The United States and Torture: Interrogation, Incarceration, and Abuse.

For more information, contact at the Institute for Public Accuracy:
Sam Husseini, (202) 347-0020; or David Zupan, (541) 484-9167

Declaration of War on Libya?

PHYLLIS BENNIS
A fellow at the Institute for Policy Studies, Bennis is author of Calling the Shots: How Washington Dominates Today’s UN. She said today: “Libya’s opposition movement faces a ruthless military assault. They have already paid a far higher price in lost and broken lives than activists in any of the other democratic uprisings shaping this year’s Arab Spring. They are desperate. So it is not surprising that they have urged, demanded, pleaded for international help, for support from the most powerful countries and institutions most able to provide immediate military aid. [Thursday night] the UN Security Council gave them what they asked for.

“Or did it? The legitimacy of the Libyan protesters’ demand does not mean that the decision by the United Nations and the powerful countries behind it was legitimate as well. The Libyan opposition, or at least those speaking for it, asked for a no-fly zone, for protection from the regime’s air force, to allow them to take on and defeat their dictatorship on their own terms. Many of us opposed that idea, for a host of reasons including the dangers of escalation and the threat of a new U.S. war in the Middle East. But whatever one thinks about that demand, the Security Council resolution went far beyond a no-fly zone. Instead, the United Nations essentially declared war on Libya.”

MICHAEL RATNER
President of the Center for Constitutional Rights, Ratner states that U.S. military action without Congressional authorization is unconstitutional.

MICHAEL MANDEL
Author of How America Gets Away With Murder, Illegal Wars, Collateral Damage and Crimes Against Humanity, Mandel said today: “This follows a depressingly familiar pattern: Create a righteous furor over a tragic third-world conflict, blame it all on a local strong man who you have directly or indirectly supported in the past, demonize him as a war criminal by referring him to your trusty attack-dog tribunal, in this case ICC, which has been very selective about who it prosecutes, all to justify unleashing the war machine. NATO motives are dressed up in humanitarian rhetoric but humanitarian military intervention usually causes more inhumanity than it prevents. Also, the execution always follows the geo-strategic goals, in this case pretty clearly a desperate attempt to control the course of the Arab revolutions and the oil. Gadafi is a petty thief compared to the monstrous criminality of what U.S. (and Canadian) leaders have done and continue to do in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere. Just yesterday, the U.S. military reportedly killed over 40 people in Pakistan.” Mandel is a professor of law at York University in Canada.

For more information, contact at the Institute for Public Accuracy:
Sam Husseini, (202) 347-0020; or David Zupan, (541) 484-9167

Debate on Libya and Intervention

ALI AHMIDA
Available for a limited number of interviews, Ahmida is a leading analyst and historian of Libya. He said today: “Given Libya’s brutal colonial past under Italian fascism, foreign interference could be disastrous. Many Libyans will oppose it and it would revive Qaddafi’s dying dictatorship. Instead, other countries could recognize the new government in Benghazi and send needed humanitarian relief. I strongly question the role of the anti-democratic and reactionary Saudi Arabian government in arming the rebels. The Saudi state has supported conservative and authoritarian regimes such as Egypt and Tunisia and above all [has oppressed] its own pro-democracy movement. Finally, I question the agenda of the exiled Libyan opposition groups outside who may undermine the uprising as did the discredited Iraqi opposition.” Ahmida is chair of the department of political science at the University of New England. His books include The Making of Modern Libya and Forgotten Voices: Power and Agency in Colonial and Postcolonial Libya.

AKRAM RAMADAN, [5 hours head of U.S. ET] 011-44-7-908-250-706,
A Libyan activist living in London, Ramadan has just returned to London from Libya via Egypt. Ramadan is calling for a “no-fly zone.” See his Twitter feed: @akrambenramadan – also, see the #Feb17 Twitter feed and other relevant feeds via: accuracy.org/uprisings

FRANCIS BOYLE
Professor of international law at the University of Illinois College of Law in Champaign, Boyle said today: “Without authorization by the United Nations Security Council and express authorization from the U.S. Congress pursuant to the terms of the War Powers Resolution, for President Obama to establish any type of so-called ‘no-fly zone’ over Libya would be illegal and unconstitutional.” While serving as the lawyer for the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina in 1993, Boyle procured the NATO no-fly zone over Bosnia. He is author of The Bosnian People Charge Genocide.

ROBERT NAIMAN

Naiman is policy director of Just Foreign Policy. He recently wrote the piece “In Libya, Diplomacy Could Save Lives and the World Economy.”

Background: “The Military Staff Committee: A Possible Future Role in UN Peace Operations?

For more information, contact at the Institute for Public Accuracy:
Sam Husseini, (202) 347-0020; or David Zupan, (541) 484-9167

U.S. “Hypocrisy” on Libya and International Criminal Court

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has called for the ouster of Muammar Qaddafi, citing “universal principles.”

MICHAEL RATNER
President of the Center for Constitutional Rights, Ratner said today: “While it appears that serious crimes against humanity are being committed by the Libyan government, the referral of those abuses to the International Criminal Court by the Security Council smacks of opportunism and hypocrisy.

“The Security Council, and particularly the United States, have little credibility in focusing their wrath on Libya. The Council, in large part, has lost its credibility because of the U.S. refusal to make such a referral when the Israelis slaughtered Palestinians in Gaza.

“Why Libya now and not Israel in 2009? Nor was the United States sanctioned for initiating an aggressive war against Iraq that killed hundreds of thousands. When justice is determined by the big powers, it is not justice, but politics.”

MICHAEL MANDEL
Author of How America Gets Away With Murder, Illegal Wars, Collateral Damage and Crimes Against Humanity, Mandel said today: “The ICC has been used as a way of putting Africans on trial while ignoring illegal attacks by the Western powers against countries in the global south.” Mandel is a professor of law at York University in Canada.

HOWARD FRIEL
Friel is coauthor with Richard Falk of Israel-Palestine on Record: How The New York Times Misreports Conflict in the Middle East and The Record of the Paper: How The New York Times Misreports U.S. Foreign Policy. He said today: “There is little question that crimes in Libya are being committed by its head of state, his associates, and his hired mercenaries against the Libyan people. Innocent people are being killed, and the Security Council, with the support of the United States, indeed was justified in referring the matter to the International Criminal Court to hold the criminals in the Libyan government personally accountable for their crimes. However, if subsequent to this action, international law still applies only to pirates like Qaddafi, but not to the American emperor, then the world will see the hypocrisy of the United States in supporting this resolution.

“Keep in mind that a ‘war of aggression,’ the supreme international crime according to the Nuremberg Principles, and an example of which is the illegal U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003, is currently outside the jurisdiction of the ICC, mainly due to U.S. demands. Note also that the Bush administration in 2002 ‘un-signed’ the U.S. signature on the ICC treaty. And the United States repeatedly beats back Security Council condemnations of Israeli aggression in the Middle East. So, yes, apply the law to Libya. But apply it henceforth universally, including to the United States and Israel.”

Friel recently wrote “The UN Voting Record of Susan Rice on Palestinian Rights, 2009–2010,” following the U.S.’s latest veto at the Security Council on behalf of Isreal on February 18.

Note: “In mid-1998, 148 countries met in Rome, following tough negotiations and voted overwhelmingly on establishing an international criminal court. … ICC was given the vote by 120 to 7. The seven who voted against were [the] U.S., China, Iraq, Israel, Libya, Qatar and Yemen.”

Also, see Glenn Greenwald “U.S. continues Bush policy of opposing ICC prosecutions.”

For more information, contact at the Institute for Public Accuracy:
Sam Husseini, (202) 347-0020; or David Zupan, (541) 484-9167

Libya

The following Libyan analysts are available for a limited number of interviews on the situation in Libya, its history and U.S. policy toward that country:

AKRAM RAMADAN, @akrambenramadan
A Libyan activist living in London, Ramadan is on his way to Libya. He is available for a limited number of interviews from 2 ET till 5 ET before he departs London. According to Al Jazeera English, his father — a nuclear physicist who refused to work for Gaddafi — was imprisoned for years and tortured by Gaddafi’s regime. Ramadan calls on Western governments to state that they will no longer buy oil from Gaddafi’s regime. He also likens the Libyan uprising to the Palestinian intifada.

ALI AHMIDA
Chair of the department of political science at the University of New England, Ahmida’s books include The Making of Modern Libya and Forgotten Voices: Power and Agency in Colonial and Postcolonial Libya — largely about the little-known Italian genocide in Libya of 100 years ago. He said today: “Despite the brutal backlash it is too late for the regime; Libyan people are rising and fighting for change.”

The new online journal Jadaliyya just posted an audio of an interview with Ahmida.

KHALED MATTAWA, @kmattawa
Mattawa, a Libyan poet, was interviewed on Democracy Now on Monday.

Ahmida and Mattawa were recently on Charlie Rose.

For more information, contact at the Institute for Public Accuracy:
Sam Husseini, (202) 347-0020; or David Zupan, (541) 484-9167