pretty anymore and it's just basically a civil war that has come to a stalemate so how would you assess nato's operations to date. that civil resistance campaign to a dictatorship that somehow turned into an armed conflict because the that was the choice of their feet or logically needed 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. there was the likelihood of so i mean look at 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 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 he gets out or some of his clans and some of his regime figures will be part of the future of the 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 of death he does well whether he stays in power or partly in power or whether. some of it is or whether he goes away in both cases there will be some negative consequences in aftermath of nature's intervention ok mark and what do you think about nato intervention in libya today. 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 however morally justified they may or may not be nato is. aggressive alliance which operates on the basis 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 is 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 so that's what it's there for that's what it's going to do iow if i go you in london also i mean the 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 they're just killing civilians now as well i mean is there is this public bombing campaign can it be 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 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 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 on the rebels are clearly not strong enough to b.p. to defeat him so we have this stalemate situation which is not a real benefit to anyone and i think the as a whole the libyan people are suffering omar as if. barcelona there's been some news reports that france is in indirect talks with members of the gadhafi 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 cease fire 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 where we go 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 of history when he was ruling but also

a credibility problem long ago or more of a long long ago the west is race mr gadhafi remember remember all the pictures with tony blair with you know obama with you know the elite of the west yes i mean so there is a credibility issue but i mean it goes back and forth right. yeah of course yeah 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 a correct one that could've happened in july in june one thousand nine hundred six when the deficit forces committed to my second a crime against humanity in obviously in prison in tripoli where 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 aren't 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 ultimately 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 go to a year it sounds very interesting to me is it me or 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 measure 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 get the un 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 stop 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 ignore 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 got a colonial. background this is the new imperialism that we're faced with i think it's the biggest danger to a stable world that simon both russia and i i'm going to jump in here and still remain here we go to a break and after that short break we'll continue our discussion on libya stay with r.t. . and you can. download

the official tally cation to your i pod touch from the top story. on the. video on demand. and r.s.s. feeds now in the palm of your. machine on the dot com. we'll. bring you the latest in science and technology from around the world. we've got the future covered.

and you can. still. welcome back across the uk i'm here all about the true mind you were talking about the protracted conflict in libya. i want to find out to you back to you in barcelona isn't this kind of. attitude that absolute surrender total surrender of the khadafi and his his gun regime isn't that just 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

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 portrait of 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 are international wanted this didn't stop like that it started with again as if it is distance campaign mainly organized by local libyan people was it in benghazi order in tripoli or in old and other places in libya and then that apply was a vicious oppression campaign that seldon's of this and then an organized campaign by the. demonstrators to us or and i'm zealots i don't know that 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 of six hundred seventy thousand people with

a repressive regime and the organs of the relations are 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 the deaf you know they did minister the head of the special forces. the justice minister multiple diplomats throughout the world all of them saw the level of oppression and they were amazed at the evidence you saw a series of defections which is. what led the situation to be armed because then you had that if any personnel saying that an officer enough we're not going to shoot on our own people and they were siding with 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 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 need. 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 it 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 governance skills to be able to control that country and i think the west is going to show who 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 that 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 watched 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 extrapolate there and when we just heard it is nato look at 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 out 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 british 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 this very interesting omar 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 then to the ashes on their 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 based 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 fleeing and you can have negative consequences one of them is obviously you visit tribalists society what happened and that was again called the death is choice and we should not avoid that the vision of a situation where there was peaceful demonstrations to a situation was an armed conflict. forced armed conflict through our vendettas and

those are tribal society with arms around this is one of the problems obviously and especially if. 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 there was almost every tribe whether in the east or in the west whether from is internal maslov. 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 that repressive regimes will gradually open themselves up to democratization and it's happening it didn't need

a wall it didn't need a nato attack you need to die. even before any of this happened and that's what we have 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 one of the key for my elements of independence from north africa he's the 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 oppressive 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 give the foreman that he will institutionalize a sound standard 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 the 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 an artist i was seen as a major reason why you don't have as your grandmother just been i think as i just. did i use the approach in the middle east and it objectively in the way that all come about but i don't want to have all the money so generally generally in general

rather sad to. oh my oh go ahead if you had the common sense the common sense approach is 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 have taken ownership and asking for change this is just an example of that gadhafi had been in power for forty two years he's 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 other side is a split second hold the libyan people are against him as omar suggests that how is it that he's managed to arm 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. i didn't say the all the gyptian all they get it gets caught there for you i didn't

say that i said the overwhelming majority want to change the want to force the country all right gentlemen we've run out of time unless it looks 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 rostock rules. and you can. still. be. hungry for the full story we've got it for. the biggest issues get the cuban voice safe to face with the news makers.

wealthy british style. market. scandal. find out what's really happening to the global

economy because a report on. the former news of the world journalists who blew the whistle on phone hacking at the british tabloid is dead it is hope because of the storm around rupert murdoch's media empire turns its focus on the police and the prime minister. the taliban assassinates more high ranking officials in afghanistan as nato begins to hand over control of the country's provinces to local forces facing huge question marks over their ability to cope. with russian security forces for a major terror plot that is believed could have caused a huge loss of life. midnight

here in moscow welcome you watching our. first this hour a former news of the world reporter who was the paper's first to say that senior executives encouraged phone hacking has been found dead at his home sean hoare said that illegal phone tapping was widely used as a means of finding stories and a former editor andy cole said something cool since tonight. joining us live now in london with these latest developments tonight laura what more do we know about this dramatic development what are the police saying. we don't know very much at the moment kevin we do know that it was found dead along the road where sean hoare lived police haven't confirmed that it was in fact him yet they found they found a body dead at home in watford just outside london they say they are not treating the death as suspicious they don't think that any other party was involved but they say they are looking at the possibility that it might have been suicide now

obviously this comes at a very unfortunate for the whole phone hacking scandal as it unfolds sean hoare as you said is a former news of the world journalist who worked on and. when he was editor of the news of the world on tickles and of course subsequently became david cameron the prime minister's communications director before he quit that post in january he was a show business reporter and he was the first named journalist to say that course and had been very aware and actively encouraged to phone hacking jaring his time as editor of the news of the world sean hoare told the new york times and also the b.b.c. that he was directly asked by andy cool son to hack into phones in pursuit of stories that that was a practice that was actively encouraged to the paper and that during working on the course and he had actually played him messages that he had tapped particularly from celebrities telephones cools said of course that this was.