1. Woe from wit, paranoia, or deliberate provocation?

Recently the popular Ukrainian weekly "Mirror of week" has published an article by Viktor Kaspruk "Libya: will it be possible to neutralize Gaddafi?". Do not feel justified to give her a comprehensive evaluation, but the overall impression of its content – the "thoughts" of the author in a slightly paraphrased form are not more than ready and one-sided cliches, translated from the articles, many of which now filled the Western media. Anyway, those who read the publications mentioned in the source, will confirm our view.

In fact, we were ready to forget about this article immediately after reading it, if our attention was not drawn to some conclusions. In particular, we are talking about the justification of the possibility of capture or physical elimination of Muammar Gaddafi forces "spetsnaz": "Maybe the coalition is making a mistake, not daring to enter the special forces, who smoked like Gaddafi from his refuge. Indeed, the continued opposition of the Libyan dictator with the people will take the lives of thousands of people who seek democracy and justice".

Further, the author offers the "original" recipes of struggle with "unwanted" leader: "it is Likely that this is the case of the Western coalition would be through diplomatic channels hard to put Muammar Gaddafi before a choice: or he soon publicly renounces power and leaves the country, or the conflict takes on a new dimension, and introduces ground in Libya by NATO troops, including spetsnaz".

And in the end we must just "exclusive" offer: "Maybe, after the uprisings of the "Arab spring" should speak not only about the establishment of the international anti-terrorist forces, but also on the formation of international antidictatorship rapid reaction force? They would be quite able to save tens of thousands of lives of civilians during the popular uprisings against dictators around the world.

As demonstrated by the successful experience of U.S. special forces to kill Osama bin Laden, forces, spetsnaz is able without loss to solve the problem, which, as the publicity would have taken many lives. Now it is obvious that the international law of the times of a globalized world must be quite different from similar rights of the past.

All the current signs Libyan conflict indicate that if Gaddafi does not apply non-traditional methods, the confrontation can turn into a protracted tragic stage, the consequence of which can be regional instability, humanitarian crisis and empowerment in Libya of Islamic extremists".

The engaged reader is simply amazing fact, the ease with which the author operates with such ideas as "the formation of international antidictatorship rapid reaction force". But if someone can find a reason for the actions of such forces on the territory of Russia, Ukraine, Belarus, etc.? To find these "liberators" with bread and salt, as did some of our fellow citizens in the distant 1941? Even if we put aside legal assessment of such ideas, it is enough only one moral and ethical component to understand the inadmissibility of implementation of such scenarios.

Following the position of the author of the mentioned article, it turns out that theoretically, someone can obtain de jure the right to use "SWAT" to the right and to the left on the territories of sovereign countries. This despite the fact that de facto such a right some countries led by the United States has already appropriated, forgetting that it is fraught with consequences comparable to the events of September 11, 2011 in new York.

And the question arises: do politicians and experts the cart before the horse, discussing the intricacies of the power aspects of international relations, not having the minimum necessary legal basis for such action and a clear understanding of what conditions may be the legitimate intervention of the international community in the internal Affairs of a sovereign state.

2. Everything You say can be used against You...

To deal with legitimacy by the United Nations and NATO reasons of force against Libya, we had to dig into some sources of information that deserve attention because this is not a personal evaluation of events, for example, Ukrainian nurses, Muammar Gaddafi, and serious informational and analytical materials of the think tanks of the Western world. Which, as you know, in their research not in a hurry to gloss over the events in "the countries–derelicts" or States suffering from a "lack of democracy".

For example, in 2010, the international research center Gallup ("Gallup International") has made a rating of the happiest countries on the planet — "The Worlds Happiest Countries". The results of a study published authoritative American magazine "Forbes".

The study was conducted from 2005 to 2009 and is not based on economic index and other indirect indicators, and on sociological surveys, in which participated, in total, tens of thousands of respondents from 155 countries of the world. During the interviews the respondents were asked whether they are satisfied with their lives, and were asked to rate their level of well-being and life satisfaction on a scale from 1 to 10. Respondents with high life satisfaction sociologists have described as "thriving", but with high levels of frustration and tension to "suffering". The percentage "thriving" and "suffering" of the people determined the final ranking of each country.

The happiest country in the world, the researchers called Denmark. Behind her in the ranking and other Scandinavian countries: the Netherlands, Sweden, Finland and Norway, which generally has not caused us much doubt. For comparison, Russia in the ranking divides 73 position with Ukraine, Romania, Slovakia, and South Africa. Completing the list of Rwanda, Niger, Burundi, the Comoros and Togo — the last 155. For us the most important thing is that "unfortunate" Libya in this rating was on place 67, surpassing their level of well-being many respected country in the world. Therefore, following the logic of the author of "Mirror of week", before introducing "international task force" in Libya, it is first necessary to send to other, more "poor countries" such as Japan, Russia, Turkey, etc...

Not to be unfounded, we present a fragment of a rating of "The Worlds Happiest Countries":

Other international non - governmental organization "reporters without borders" ("Reporters Without Borders") has submitted its ranking of press freedom in the world — "world press freedom index" of 2009 ("Worldwide Press Freedom Index 2009"). It includes information on 175 countries for the period from 1 September 2008 to 1 September 2009. In this rating the most free media in Denmark. The last items in the list are Turkmenistan (173), North Korea (174) and Eritrea (175). A country's position in the ranking depends on how free are the journalists and media in General, and what steps are being taken by authorities to create comfortable conditions for work of the press. To determine the index, the researchers make a questionnaire with 40 questions in categories relating to different types of violations against journalists and mass media, facts of censorship in relation to media and level of self-censorship in the publications, the degree of financial dependence of the media, legislation in the sphere of mass media and so on.

Oddly enough, Libya is once again the list far not the worst place to position 156, followed by China, Uzbekistan, Pakistan, etc. And this despite the fact that many politicians and public figures not just skeptical about the ratings of press freedom, "Reporters without borders" in which some countries, such as Russia is unreasonably low places — near the very very dysfunctional third world countries.

A fragment of the world press freedom index 2009:

We continue our search further and find the Institute for Economics and peace ("The Institute for Economics and Peace") the University of Sydney (Australia) and the company "The Economist Intelligence Unit" (the analytical division of British magazine "Economist") in may 2011 goodpractice "Rating peace of the world 2011" ("Global Peace Index 2011"). This rating shows the level of violence within the state and aggression of its foreign policy.

Peace index based on 23 qualitative and quantitative indicators, grouped into three main groups: the availability and scale of conflict, stability and security within States, the level of militarization of the state.

This year's most peaceful country in the world, experts have called Iceland. At the same time, three of the world's major military and political center (not counting the European Union) continue to rank relatively low position: China is on the 80th place, United States at 82 and Russia at 147. And again we find that Libya is not the worst in the world - 143 position.

A fragment of the rating of peaceful countries in the world in 2011:

Two leading American political Institute, the influential American magazine "Foreign Policy" and public organization American Foundation of the World ("The Fund for Peace)", in June 2011 has published the seventh expert rating of the "failure" States of the world — "Failed States Index 2011", which reflects the ability (and inability) of authorities to control the integrity of the territory, as well as demographic, political and economic situation in the country. First place in the ranking took the 35 most disadvantaged States in the Chapter with Somalia. At the same time, 12 countries headed by Finland forms a zone of welfare and stability of state institutions.

Note that the index disability States, which has been published since 2005, claims to be a scientific approach. In its drafting experts during the year are analyzed state by means of special system of evaluation tool of conflict ("Conflict Assessment System Tool"). The analysis is based on 12 criteria — the so-called indicators of the "failure" States, which are United in three groups: social, economic and military-political. For a General assessment of the country experts analysed the ability of five key state institutions and political leadership, the army, the police, the judiciary and the civil service — to ensure the security of the state and its citizens.

A fragment of rating disability of the States of the world in 2011:

Again, we have no specific reason to doubt the accuracy of the data. Because in all cases the study was carried out of the structure, which cannot be suspected of any sympathy and very good attitude to Libya. Moreover, independent experts note a certain embellishment of the situation in the mentioned ratings in the countries of the Western world and "a condensation of paints" in relation to "problematic" countries with "low democracy".

3. The American theory of "dangerous space"

Changing geopolitical and geostrategic situation in the world, as well as the transformation of national strategies of the U.S. forces the Pentagon to develop new concepts in the realization of their goals in the military sphere, to ensure the leading position of the USA in the reconstruction of the world in this century.

In works of some Russian scientists stated that the status of the U.S. as leader of the new world order will largely depend on how successfully will develop the processes of globalization in the modern world. Since the end of the Cold war, the U.S. government faced the need for a new approach to running the world and required to implement military strategy. As we have seen, globalization was a suitable tool that was found in the mid 90-ies of XX century. Now it is enshrined in the fundamental regulations of the U.S. Department of national and military security. And today, among the military-political leadership of the USA is dominated by approaches that only with the spread of globalization all over the world, the US leading position is likely to persist for the indefinite future.

As a consequence, the part of the modern world, which embraced the model of globalization imposed by the United States, today becomes controlled by non-military means and, above all, by means of information exposure. And of course, one of the world's population that has not embraced the processes of globalization, should be attached to it, including force if necessary.

According to experts of the "Center for strategic assessments and forecasts", the key paradigm of the new strategy is the thesis of "Disunity is a danger" ("Disconnectedness defines danger"). So, for example, at one time Saddam Hussein was dangerously remote from the globalizing world, from its rules of conduct, norms and ties that bind countries together in a United, controlled by the United States, the mechanism. That is why the war with Iraq had nothing to do with the disarmament of Iraq, or the continuation of the U.S. global war on terrorism. This war was the turning point, from which Washington began to implement a new strategy of domination in the era of globalization.

In this regard, the experts rightly claim that the true reason for war with Libya is not that its leader is a tyrant, and that his regime "supported terrorist networks." The real reason is that folding is not in favor of America's economic and political situation in the world forced the U.S. government to deal with "rogue" countries as a strategic space from which to pose a threat to the very existence of America.

As we can see from the above ratings, the overall situation in Libya prior to the NATO aggression was much better than in many countries of the world. But why-that the international "task force" propose to send against the Libyan leader, and not against, for example, the leadership of China or Japan. And following the logic of the author of the mentioned publication in "the Mirror of week", in Russia and most other countries in the CIS NATO troops should be introduced immediately how things are bad even compared to Libya...

The reason mentioned and quite a few encouraging situation, we see in the policy of double standards that the Western world applies in respect of those States that are not included in the "inner circle" countries of the "democratic camp". All this is nothing but the implanting of the "time bomb" under the well-being of these democracies. And some "advanced and forward-thinking" journalists in the pursuit of "big money" ready to hang "noodles" to our gullible citizens, not much bothering to search for the truth, impartiality and basic human ethical norms.

Sergey Alexandrov

Tags: Libya