nice, dlish. interesting blog...look forward to tracking it.
here's another blogger who's tracking opposition politics as it's taking shape/surfacing in saudi arabia.
Now we’re talking Saudi Jeans
it looks like the "post-islamicist" character of these actions could carry over to saudi as well...
meanwhile, tunisia continues to be the most advanced of the revolts; demonstrations over the weekend forced to prime minister and minister of industry and commerce to resign. that makes 2 people left who were in government under ben ali. so the pressure from below is forcing the oligarchy to relinquish power by degrees. this is a very good thing.
---------- Post added at 04:00 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:57 PM ----------
=======================
some additional factoids for your delectation.
1. of course, there is the trans-national armaments bazaar, pillar of neo-liberal states, center of the national-security state model, product of conservative patronage everywhere and a strong reason for advocating the breaking up of the "globalizing capitalist" system as it currently exists. it routinely produces this sort of result:
Western arms helping Libyan forces massacre anti-regime rebels, EU documents reveal - Telegraph
and this is not to begin speaking about the french foreign minister who was forced to resign on the weekend for offering direct aid to ben ali's government to suppress those pesky demonstrators. this before things took off, of course. back in the days of the old status quo. when such things were still routine.
2. it turns out that in the recommendation that was sent along to the international criminal court that recommended prosecution of gadhafi and/or the regime for war crimes, that there's an exemption for "mercenaries" who originate in countries which are not signatories of the rome protocol that authorizes the icc itself.
why is that?
Quote:
Why would a clause be inserted to expressly protect war crimes-committing mercenaries on Gadaffi's payroll from international prosecutions? Because, as The Telegraph's John Swaine reports, the Obama administration insisted on its inclusion -- as an absolutely non-negotiable demand -- due to a fear that its exclusion might render Bush officials (or, ultimately, even Obama officials) subject to war crimes prosecutions at the ICC on the same theory that would be used to hold Libya's mercenaries accountable:
[T]he US insisted that the UN resolution was worded so that no one from an outside country that is not a member of the ICC could be prosecuted for their actions in Libya.
This means that mercenaries from countries such as Algeria, Ethiopia and Tunisia -- which have all been named by rebel Libyan diplomats to the UN as being among the countries involved -- would escape prosecution even if they were captured, because their nations are not members of the court.
The move was seen as an attempt to prevent a precedent that could see Americans prosecuted by the ICC for alleged crimes in other conflicts. While the US was once among the signatories to the court, George W. Bush withdrew from it in 2002 and declared that it did not have power over Washington. . . . It was inserted despite Susan Rice, the US ambassador to the UN, saying that all those "who slaughter civilians" would "be held personally accountable".
Speaking to reporters outside the council chamber, Gerard Araud, the French UN ambassador, described the paragraph as "a red line for the United States", meaning American diplomats had been ordered by their bosses in Washington to secure it. "It was a deal-breaker, and that's the reason we accepted this text to have the unanimity of the council," said Mr Araud.
|
U.S. shields foreign mercenaries in Libya to protect Bush officials - Glenn Greenwald - Salon.com
Libya: African mercenaries 'immune from prosecution for war crimes' - Telegraph
3. this, which i was tipped to via the greenwald column above, speaks for itself:
Eschaton
sadly.