Increasing arms sales – but at what cost?
Anxious to sell for 7 billion euros worth of weapons by 2010, France has introduced measures to jump-start its international weapons sales. But it’s an aim that troubles human rights groups.
[...] Human rights at the center of French policy?
According to the Defense Ministry report, the government aims to “create an environment favorable to arms exports” and to take into account “commercial interests within the diplomatic relations maintained by France with our friends or allies.”
But according to the London-based NGO, Handicap International, France puts its arms exports above the prohibition of cluster bombs. On its Web site, the NGO states that France has “become the leader of a minority movement within the Oslo process which is not favourable to the total ban, without restrictions, on cluster bombs.” Clearly, for Handicap International, France wants to maintain its stock of cluster bombs in its arsenals.
But French Foreign Ministry spokesman Frederic Desagneaux categorically states that France’s defense policy is never made at the expense of human rights, stressing that the government only authorizes the “sale of weapons to countries that would not use them against their own population". /full article
Considering Gaddafi sponsored Sarkozy's election and considering his open friendliness prior to this conflict I have little doubt France supplied Libya with arms. The UK certainly did. Experts Fear Looted Libyan Arms May Find Way to Terrorists
C. J. Chivers
Security analysts say the armed uprising in Libya poses a long-term security threat — that weapons looted from government stockpiles could circulate widely, including heat-seeking antiaircraft missiles that could be used against civilian airliners.
Photographs and video from the uprising show civilians carrying a full array of what were once the Libyan military’s weapons — like the SA-7, an early-generation, shoulder-fired missile in the same family as the more widely known Stinger — that intelligence agencies have long worried could fall into terrorists’ hands.
They also show large groups of young men equipped with a complete suite of lightweight, simple-to-use and durable infantry arms, including assault rifles, machine guns and rocket-propelled grenades, which have been a staple of fighting in Africa and Asia since midway through the cold war. Mines, grenades and several types of antitank missiles can be seen as well.
Past examples of state arsenals being looted by civilians — whether in Uganda in 1979, Albania in 1997 or Iraq in 2003 — have shown that once these weapons slip from state custody they can be sold through black markets, swiftly and quietly, to other countries and groups for use in wars where they can present long-lasting and destabilizing problems. Analysts are particularly concerned about the heat-seeking missiles, known as Man-Portable Air-Defense Systems, or Manpads. /continues NYT Rothschilds/US Fund revolutions in Libya Egypt Bahrain Tunisia To Kill Islamic Banks
Islamic banks have been eating into the profits of conventional banks in the Middle East because: they don’t charge interest (Shariah Law), they are growing very rapidly, and (in these catastrophic economic times) they are more stable than western banks.
The New York Times article “Islamic banking rises on oil wealth, drawing non-Muslims” ( November 22, 2007) reported: “Rising oil wealth is lifting Islamic banking – which adheres to the laws of the Koran and its prohibition against charging interest – into the financial mainstream. . . . In addition to Islamic loans, there are Islamic bonds, Islamic credit cards …In Islamic banking, financiers are required to share borrowers’ risks, meaning that depositors are treated more like shareholders, earning a portion of profits. …And while the biggest Islamic banks are in the wealthy Gulf states, the most attractive potential markets are in Turkey and North Africa (emphasis added) and among European Muslims… .”
Most people of the world prefer the conventional banking model. They don’t mind paying 20% interest on small loans (credit card). They don’t want to share in their bank’s profits: they want their banks to grow even bigger and stronger and more powerful to compete on international markets. They don’t mind paying income tax to bail out monster banks (i.e. too big to fail) for their bad gambling debts (i.e. TARP in U.S.) [and because that bail out is added to the government’s debt, they don’t mind paying interest on the bail out to the Federal Reserve (whose policies created the crisis)]. They don’t mind children dying in Africa due to third-world usury (countries that can’t pay down the principle have gone further into debt instead of declaring bankruptcy).
With the support of their governments, Islamic Finance is the fastest growing sector in the MENA region (Middle East North Africa) with huge business opportunities ahead in the untapped Muslim populations in many countries. Middle East regimes threaten to derail the forces of globalization and unseat traditional banking because Islam is setting up an attractive alternate model to conventional banking. Suffering a setback after the “Battle in Seattle”, the globalists have wrapped themselves in the cloak of democracy to further their agenda. Conventional western bankers see regime change in the Middle East as an imperative to competing with the success of the Islamic banking system (Henry, Clement Moore, PhD. and Robert Springborg. Globalization and the politics of development in the Middle East, Cambridge University Press, 2001, 2nd edition 2010). /full story Puppet World
Amongst the non Libyans fighting western Libya I wonder how many Iranians there are.
My comment in today's DT Libya live