and it's just basically a civil war that has come to a stalemate so how would you assess nato's operations to date well it that's a civil resistance campaign to a dictatorship that somehow turned into an armed conflict because the that was the choice of defeat to a logically nadya's intervention came out of necessity calls from the. opposition fighters nineteenth of march the situation was quite bad there was the. forces were on benghazi given what given the history of level of oppression given what happened then. there was the likelihood of so i mean we all maybe let me ask you quickly do you think it's as if you think nato is playing a positive role right now. it's hard the whole situation is not positive the whole situation is obviously the far from ideal but relatively speaking there is some advancement on the ground given that with this started in

march. whether this will yield a military victory for the. sea the international council and the need to or whether it will end up in a political compromise by which gets out or some of these clans and some of his regime figures will be part of the future of libya this is what's that's the question that is. put forward now ok the other thing also is well how many negative consequences can happen in any armed campaign we can talk about you know what can happen in the post called defeat as well whether he stays in power or partly in power or whether. some of it is all whether he goes away in both cases there will be some negative consequences in aftermath of nature's intervention ok mark what do you think about nato intervention in libya to date. later in the program i'll quote some of the figures within nato all bickering among themselves and pointing fingers i guess they didn't think about it too far ahead when they started this

campaign go ahead. well nato always goes into places as i know very well from from previous experience of those interventions for his own reasons there's no concern there for any opposition however marginal or have a morally justified they may or may not be nato is. aggressive alliance which operates on the bases of that it wants to place its military in key areas of the world command and control resources and territory that's what it's there for it's not some kind of moral creature it's a beast really and when the nato powers can't make money and propaganda work for them and undermine governments abroad then they move on to the military machine and the propaganda the false atrocity stories the indictment by tame courts which should know better and all of these things have been done in many other countries and they've been done to libya now and at the expense of all the libyan people as

well i think we would have had a short conflict here perhaps there was a case for pressuring colonel gadhafi to listen to the demands for change within his own society but there is no case to launch a major war and an open ended one a new iraq. on the people of libya this will not lead to anything good it's not leading to anything good now but it was never designed to be designed to lead to occupation and division of libya by the nato pact that's what it's there for that's what it's going to do you know if i go to you in london also i mean nato didn't plan for this very well i mean and it certainly looks like they're bombing campaign is not only moving anything forward gadhafi is still there or they're just killing civilians now as well i mean is there is this public bombing campaign can it yield any final result can you bomb this country to peace. well every day that goes by labor has been called into bits and pieces the infrastructure has been damaged not to mention that the people are being displaced from their homes and people are living in abject fear well of course the longer it goes on the more likely the war

is meant to go bad against nato because it's very much about the hearts and minds how can you maintain the status quo how can you ensure you keep the coalition in the fashion it is currently with nato to get out and how are you going to be able to build on consensus internationally as you know currently the chinese the the indians russians and a few other countries are expressed reservations about nato bombing and the long as going to take it's going to cost a lot more money a lot of these countries are not in the mood for spending money and from a from a from an imagery perspective is damaging every second because more than likely you can make more mistakes you can get the coalition to get the wrong in form of these bombings and the campaign to go bitterly wrong against them so i think the long way to go the more likely nato is to find itself in hot water as we've been seeing over a period of time and the longer it does go gadhafi could think that he's been able to survive this long he could go go it's alone to the end but it's very very difficult to see how we can come out of this one simply because the the

overwhelming power is just way too much for him and well the thing is he's not we can enough to defeat the rebels and the rebels are clearly not strong enough to b.p. to defeat him so we have this stalemate situation which is not real benefit to anyone and i think the whole the libyan people are suffering. barcelona there's been some news reports that france is in indirect talks with members of the khadafi regime though just prior to that france condemned italy for calling for a ceasefire and then simultaneously have khadafi spokespeople say there should be a ceasefire should be approved prerequisite for some kind of negotiations so it looks like there is there are elements there that people want to talk what's wrong with the libyan proposal a cease fire to talk no more bombing and see what goes what do we have to lose. the main issue is that we have very serious credibility problem and credibility problem comes from forty two years. when when he was ruling but also credibility

long ago or more of a long long ago the west in the race mr gadhafi remember remember all the pictures with tony blair with you know obama with you know the elite of the west i mean so there is a credibility issue but i mean it goes back and forth right. yeah because of course here i mean. i think one of our colleagues just mentioned the west operates on bases of interests and when interests intersects then you know a lot of the human rights violations are looked not looked at but when the interests do not intersect then those human rights violations of us are highlighted and that's the case with libya obviously oil interests and other interests trump the moral outrage i mean we were talking now about the violations that has done throughout it all is rule but if you if you want to speak about an i.c.c. indictment the correct one that could have happened in july in june one thousand

nine hundred six when the deficit forces committed in that second a crime against humanity and obviously in prison in tripoli you were twelve hundred thirty political prisoners were gunned down with mass graves and i visited the area they did on in two thousand and ten and you would have stories from the outside as people outside the prison and stories from x. detainees who witnessed part of this mess that is so it's not like something that was nobody knew about but you had actual witnesses that heard and know some of the details of what's happening but this did not happen this was postponed until two thousand and eleven where the you know the interests with it not going to get it also it's a legally expedient so it's politically expedient marco if i go to you i mean why not why can't there be negotiations if they're on both sides of the conflict are talking about it why can't there be an attempt to talk and stop fighting i mean you don't have to like each other to have an agreement. well the basic reason is four

letters it's not not a talking organization you could say because basically if it was it would listen to the mandate it's been given the mandate security council resolution one thousand nine hundred three demands in very first clause the immediate establishment of a ceasefire so what part of that doesn't and nato not understanding cease fire and if nato ceases fire the rebels it supporting will cease fire gadhafi will also be forced to cease fire then you may before things get much worse have a chance of a dialogue which the resolution also calls for and then you may have a chance alternately for reconciliation between the peoples within libya before too much murder too much death has occurred and before too much foreign occupation and puppet governments have been installed so the best chance for libya is that this war stopped very quickly indeed but of course that isn't what nato wants because nato wants that the usual suspects within nato i should say the ones who attack everywhere and always use the same excuses want to do the same thing they did

elsewhere here they want to occupy libya they want to get their compliant puppet government in which will give them cheap deals good contracts they want they've got it all planned out and the libyan people will be the victims if they allow this war to continue and that will include the rebel side if i get a year it sounds interesting to me is it me iraq they didn't plan for after the invasion it seems like in this case with libya they have everything planned except for winning the war what do you think of that. well yes if there's one thing is that the americans and some of its allies have got to learn from the experiences that they saw in somalia not to major in afghanistan and iraq it's failed miserably in those areas and if it continues in the fashion it is with libya we're likely to go down that same route i think the concern all around is how do you ensure that you maintain that what the mandates the u.n. mandate clearly calls for which is not regime change is protection of civilians and property so i think it's going back to the blueprint how can we get nato to start

complying to international regulations in terms of maintaining the status quo rather than choosing and for me it's all it's own opinion as to whether they want to get rid of gadhafi or not mark or you want to jump in there. yeah it's not just international regulations it's international law and nato does believe that it cannot just manipulate its way to go all or deceive the security council once it's in there on any basis it's going to act on its own basis it's just arrogance by the western powers i believe it's about a colonial. background this is the new imperialism that we're faced with i think it's the biggest danger to a stable world simon both russia and iran i'm going to be here and the region here we're going to a break and after that short break we'll continue our discussion on libya stay with r.t. . if you. want to.

mission free credit cation free zones for charges free to make humans the free. free. to take a free. download free broadcast quality video for your media projects for free media and don carty dot com. hungry for the full story we've got. the biggest issues get a human voice face to face with the news makers. and.

welcome back across the uk i'm here all about the truman show we're talking about the protracted conflict in libya. and. i want to find back to you in barcelona isn't this kind of. attitude that absolute surrender total surrender of the gadhafi and his his going regime isn't that this short sided that doesn't that just keep the conflict going because what reason does he have he's going to be put on trial by western powers. for war crimes or what what interest does he have even do to you to give any room at all i mean human nature would say you have to then you have to stand and fight to the death which is continuous this civil war this protected war in libya. yeah i partly agree because but this is a pro conflict process you know we didn't start by an i.c.c. indictment or a started by you know putting him in is that those associates of his that

international wanted this didn't sound like that it started with again as if it is distance campaign mainly organized by local libyan people was it in benghazi or in tripoli or in. in other places in libya and then that apply was a vicious oppression campaign that you that seldon's of this and then organized on the campaign by the. sea and the demonstrators to me and i'm jealous oh not an intervention but the question. just to ask you if it if it was just a civil resistance campaign how were they able to take a city like six hundred seventy thousand people with a repressive regime and the organs of the religion is very much as i understand this at seventeen yes you're sure that seventeenth of february the conflict actually set up that by the end of february mainly because there was defections within the regime of death you know they did minister the head of the special

forces. the justice minister multiple diplomats throughout the world all of them saw that never off oppression and they were amazed at that level and you saw a series of defections which is. what led the situation to be armed because then you had that at the personnel saying that an office enough we're not going to shoot on our own people and they were siding with the people like what we saw similar situations in egypt in tunisia except that the army in egypt in tunisia acted as one unit so they decided that people took a point there was no you know if i could go to you i mean the thing is is that the west has chosen the side ok i've been to a do good comparisons to other situations don't really work because the united states and it's not nato allies chew a certain group of people rebels that actually human rights watch now so you're committing atrocities against their own people here is this just opportunism on the part of some people in libya and western powers. well i think to an extent it is

because let's go ahead. i think to an extent yes because the rebels. never really been able to show that they can control that country they've never really truly been able to show that they have the government skills to be able to control that country and i think the west is going to struggle seriously bringing all the various factions within libya as one on the one control post gadhafi than it is weather wise to remove gadhafi so i think it's a lack of foresight lack of understanding of the issues on the ground i'm going. to want to for haste to get into a conflict a confrontation that you know very little about and i think what's happening now with nato is that they realize that they've jumped into quickly conscious of taking sides too quickly when they should have stayed back and watch the situation and i know awfully over time they could have done so but i think it just shows that the the west. to occupy that land on to control the oil and. it would appear in this particular instance that's supporting the rebels who are clearly ill disciplined

poorly equipped who do not have the mandate to control that country is a poor decision because we can see now that it is going to achieve anything marco if i go to you maybe just to strap later on when we just heard it is nato look like the nato just think this is going to be a quick easy war i mean it can redeem itself after it's easy but humiliation i would say in afghanistan i mean or is it just domestically driven you know sort of cause he has to show that he's somebody you know that can stand up to dictators which though he embraces embraces dictators all of the time particularly before the arab spring i mean what is the main motivation in your in your opinion. i think the problem is. for nato that gadhafi is an independent ruler who would like to have an independent country and if possible an independent continent colonel gadhafi has come up with the idea of an african development bank and african gold dinar those moves which could hugely lessen the poverty in africa and the dead in debt to this old african nations to the i.m.f. it's a problem also because he plans on that as

a rival to the dollar and the euro that was a mistake saddam hussein tried a similar thing in two thousand and he was invaded as well so it's not a clever idea for a medium right country with oil in it to actually be planning your own currency because the big the big powers on the west on too keen on that scenario so really he was a threat to them or reserves were very attractive to them very close to them and very high quality so really he takes all the boxes for a good invasion plus they had old historical stalls to settle the goals gadhafi came to power on the basis of removing a pretty puppet rule in the first place so i would say if they want to get rid of him let's be elections in libya let's let the people decide let's out of there is a respect for the losers in those elections but let's hold elections and if mr gadhafi is so unpopular let the people tell us and if he's not let's find out. if we talk and add to that is going to be telling you that if gadhafi clearly shown that he has said that he will live and die in libya is there not said that several

times and because he is now being squeezed to the wall he's got no means of carrots to come out of this situation he can negotiate his way out of trouble i think that the future is very very own kind for libya and we could see a rogue state developing over time especially something similar to what we've seen in somalia so it's a very difficult time for everyone concerned i agree with that's very interesting omar think that this would continue on that point i mean we really creating a rogue state particularly if the country is partitioned i mean that is also a possible option here where you will have a partition is it was pointed out early in the program nato bombs fell on a country they didn't really know very much about. ok i'll give you the positive scenarios and the negatives one obviously that's an intriguing national council right and two dashes under interim because it didn't it did not say that it will take over power after a defeat says that it will be there then just on the transitional period after that

there will be a constitution police elections least a c.d.s. democratization process takes over in libya to transfer it from almost a fiefdom to a modern democratic country with with constitutions so that's the whole but obviously in any society there are too many variables going on and too many actors for the and you can have negative consequences one of them is obviously you visit tribalists society what happened and that was again. and we should not avoid the transition of a situation where there was peaceful demonstrations to a situation where is an armed conflict. conflict you have and that is and those are tribal society with arms around this is one of the problems obviously and especially for. the choice of staying is actually dangerous for him if he lost power if you lost control of the country because it now he has been that was almost every tribe whether in the east or in the west whether from its internal maslov old buddy ghazi and the little so that's one of the issues the tribal war that and that

the politics the other issue is as you say something here the issue of divisions mark i want to jump in there if i want to just say this isn't something colonel gadhafi has brought about deliberately on himself he clearly like most rulers including repressive one throughout the middle east wanted a quiet life the fact is this problem has been visited on him by somebody else's agenda and it's a western colonial power agenda which means all people to his country and i mean i know lots of examples throughout the world of repressive regimes who will gradually open themselves up to democratization and it's happening it didn't need a war it didn't need a nato attack you need to die. even before any of this happened and that's what we haven't got and it's all very well blaming mr gadhafi fall for the situation but let's remember he was in power for forty two years and pretty much it was stable and getting better he managed to create a man made river project which is the one of the key for my elements of independence for north africa ease that he's done

a great deal for his people subsidized housing market cheap free education i mean maybe he's a socialist leaning agenda didn't suit the us but i don't see too many things that he could have done differently and certainly i think now he was very much in favor of a peaceful transition to a better system and not the war one which nato proposes ok omar look like you want to disagree or go ahead but. quite disagree. game in one nine hundred sixty nine by a cool remove the border stayed there ousted most of the plotters with him jailed some of them most of them fled monaco and then you had a series of extreme the depressive campaigns throughout the seventy's from the mid seventy's the started during the eighty's and throughout the ninety's mainly opposition after opposition was sacked out including by the way the socialists and the leftists many of them that want to do the of the foreman that he will institutionalize it sounds for the middle east were ousted and including for folks

who are nationalists like the national. from all ideological colors most of them were ousted and this is how he stayed in power there was no elections there was no attempt to institute institutionalize that country we're talking about economical option this is a country that is ruled by a very small clique that benefits from exactly saudi arabia to lose i was always a starter is seen as a major reason why you're going to germany and learn to just been through this i just. did i used to polish in the middle east and they did all that typically in the middle but i don't want to have thought there are going to be so generally generally gentle reader centric. if you had the common sense the common sense approaches the fact that it's people power we've seen we've seen a movement across the north africa across the middle east where people are taking ownership and asking for change this is just an example of that gadhafi had been in power for forty two years his time was up nonetheless the people said they wanted change the question is not about people wanting change itself is where the change

can happen without foreign intervention is for the libyan people to determine their own cause to determine their own country and that's not what's happening currently . ok mark i'll give you the last word you had what brought the plane into the valley so i say spots a folder libyan people are against him as omar suggests that how is that he's managed to zero in the entire city of tripoli how is it that they clearly are on his side in those mass demonstrations going on over the layout we don't look at falsify they look as genuine as anything else i've seen coming out of libya he clearly has a huge amount of popular support as well let's not blind ourselves so that omar. i didn't say the old age of shit all they be and it's called the f.b.i. didn't say that i said the overwhelming majority want to change. the country all right gentlemen we've run out of time it was a look like just to be treated just like the war in libya is going to end many thanks to my guest today in london and in barcelona and thanks to our viewers for watching us here r.t. see you next time and remember crosstalk rules. and you can.

still. wealthy british style. this time because free. markets why not. find out what's really happening to the global economy with max cons are no holds barred look at the global financial headlines tune into cars a report on our. in

india oh geez available in the movie the joint people chose the movie that's the gateway to the brandon period truly george weston. you can

a little toe to toe see don't need to go and. read this in the candle was her job as a retreat. the taliban take out another target on their nato collaborators list as foreign troops began as drawing while leaving a questionable local force in charge. one thousand out while another is veiled the murder misconduct sees britain's most senior policeman quit x. news international treaty for back to bergson is arrested. a cosmic campaign ian for the hubble telescope as russia's own eye in the sky gets ready to seek out the secrets of our universe.

this is our coming to live from moscow with josh a senior advisor to the afghan president has been assassinated by the taliban in the capital kabul one of the country's lawmakers was also killed in the attack the das come less than a week after hama karzai is have brother who ran the south of the country was gunned down the taliban is stepping up its assault on afghan officials as nato combat troops begin their was drawl from the war zone but u.s. intervention expert stephen leatherman says washington will want to keep its grip on of ghana stan because waging war is a lucrative. if i'm not. the president i don't history with a small security detail not a practical a marine division mc i see him he would last five minutes the resistance in afghanistan want to liberate the country don't take any opportunity they care to tie get any official in any level in any time not only other one hundred thousand

u.s. troops about thirty or forty thousand other troops there are well over one hundred thousand private security contractors you never hear is discussed in the major media so combat forces may come out private security forces may go in to take their place america wages wars not just to win them but to wage them because the profits to celebrate the war profiteers want these wars waged ten billion dollars we know of poor down a rathole every month besides the regular affairs appropriations for the afghans for all of us defense operations this is money down are after all owing to the war profiteers. analysts also say the violence in afghanistan is being pursued potato by local security forces which contain drug addicts and those connected to the taliban spy this nato be.