Colonizzazione Italiana: La guerra in Libia del 1911 constitui il primo conflitto "mediatico"

Convegno all'Università di Tor Vergata sulla "copertura mediatica" della conquista italiana della colonia in Africa. Ritrovati nel museo di Porta Pia due filmati inediti. Un modello di comunicazione mai realizzato prima che anticipa lo sforzo propagandistico del regime fascista

Cento anni fa l'Italia dava il via, con la guerra di Libia, ad una delle pagine più controverse della sua storia. Per molto tempo quel conflitto è rimasto sepolto sotto il peso di altri momenti importanti del Novecento, prima fra tutte l'immediatamente successiva Prima guerra mondiale. Eppure quei due anni di campagna coloniale hanno cambiato radicalmente,  e non solo per l'Italia, il modo di fare e di raccontare la guerra. 
Per la prima volta l'innovazione nella tecnologia bellica, che fu enorme,  cedette il passo all'uso propagandistico della stessa. Corazzate, sommergibili, automobili, mezzi cingolati, draken ballon, dirigibili e perfino aerei (che in questo conflitto iniziarono a lanciare bombe), vennero infatti fin da subito affiancati, con l'intento di potenziarne l'effetto, da mezzi e strategie di carattere più strettamente mediale. Ecco dunque arrivare il volantinaggio sul nemico dall'alto (provato solo poche settimane prima nella guerra franco-marocchina), il radiotelegrafo mobile (usato qui per la prima volta in battaglia grazie all'arruolamento di Guglielmo Marconi come ufficiale "in servizio non effettivo"), la prima rete di servizi nazionali di Intelligence (a lungo creduta invece di formazione più tarda), la fotografia giornalistica (che grazie anche alla grande diffusione delle macchina Kodak trovò subito una grande estensione), il pezzo sulla stampa quotidiana (che arrivò a fagocitare insieme a brillantissimi reportage di guerra, anche decine e decine di lettere di soldati dal fronte, facendo emergere, in modo esplosivo, l'esistenza di una scrittura popolare), le canzoni a tema nazionalistico (ora anche veicolate dal nuovo strumento del disco) e soprattutto la presenza costante, sul teatro della guerra, di operatori cinematografici, un fenomeno questo che solo adesso trova un ampio spazio organico all'interno della comunicazione delle notizie belliche.

La colonizzazione della futura terra libica si trasformò, quindi, in un processo di comunicazione a due tappe dall'Oltremare  verso l'Italia e da questa verso il resto del mondo; diventando qualche cosa di più di una semplice avventura coloniale e arrivando a giocare un ruolo fondamentale in quella costruzione del senso di unità nazionale, che tendeva ad avvincersi intorno al tema del grande balzo tecnologico, del nuovo ruolo di protagonista dell'Italia nella scena della modernità.
Vari, com'è noto, furono gli interventi di importanti letterati italiani in lode di questa guerra, dal discorso di Pascoli alle canzoni di d'Annunzio alle prose sulla battaglia di Tripoli del futurista Marinetti, che arrivato come corrispondente del francese "L'Intransigeant", qui, per la prima volta,  vide in un sol luogo mitraglie, aerei, radiotelegrafi, e macchine cinematografiche, elaborando in breve quello che sarà il nucleo poetico dello "Zang Tumb Tumb". E vari furono anche gli interventi polemici o fortemente critici di giornalisti di rilievo come Papini, Prezzolini, Salvemini. Questo conflitto senza precedenti, ha però lasciato, anche al di fuori di sentieri battuti come quelli della grande letteratura, molte tracce di sé, in gran parte ancora inesplorate. Fra queste: fotografie, quotidiani, diari di guerra, lettere, canzoni di guerra e canzoni di protesta, cartoline postali, cine attualità e cine-cartoline, questo ultimo caso unico di cinematografie fatte per conto del Governo ai parenti dei militari rimasti in Italia per essere a essi proiettate nelle zone di guerra. Molte di queste tracce, tra le quali una pellicola ritrovata nel museo dei Bersaglieri di Roma (Porta Pia) e restaurata dalla Cineteca di Stato, verranno presentate nel corso del convegno, con l'idea dare la giusta importanza ad una guerra per troppo tempo dimenticata.
Fra il 28 dicembre 1911 e l'8 marzo 1911, vennero realizzate in tutta Italia, a titolo gratuito numerose riprese ai parenti dei militari in guerra. Esse avevano lo scopo preciso di venire proiettate a stretto giro di posta ai soldati impegnati sul fronte libico. L'iniziativa venne realizzata dalla Casa xinematografica Cines e promossa dal Ministero della Guerra (per volere del generale responsabile delle operazioni Carlo Caneva e probabilmente, dello stesso Giovanni Giolitti)
In quel periodo infatti, anche per la coincidenza con le festività natalizie, le caserme italiane vengono letteralmente subissate di lettere di madri e di familiari che chiedono notizie dei loro cari al fronte. Di questi  ragazzi, in patria, a causa del disordine postale dell'Italia del Primo Novecento e nella latitanza della struttura militare ancora impreparata per questo genere di evenienze, non si sa spesso più niente e che si teme siano morti o dispersi.
La notte del 24 dicembre, un telegramma partito dal Ministero della Guerra e della Regia Marina, informa tutte le famiglie  con congiunti militarizzati in Libia che, entro breve, inzierà una vasta campagna per la raccolta capillare di cinematografie di familiari da inviare al fronte.
Due giorni più tardi, sempre a mezzo stampa, le famiglie di Roma e Torino, le prime a beneficiare dell'iniziativa, vengono informate anche sulle procedure da espletare per parteciparvi. Il 30 dicembre, sempre nelle stesse due città, si realizzano le prime riprese, estese poi nelle settimane successive a varie altre parti del paese (Firenze, Milano, Napoli, Palermo, Venezia, La Spezia). Durante le riprese i famigliari salutano i figli, i fratelli e i mariti lontani mostrando loro qualche piccolo ricordo della vita in patria o qualche oggetto importante: un fiasco di vino da bere al ritorno, figli nati o cresciuti durante la loro assenza e cartelli con messaggi affettuosi. Tutti gli strati sociali vengono coinvolti con la stessa attenzione. Al fronte, la notizia giunge velocemente, e molte sono le lettere inviate dai soldati ai quotidiani nazionali che testimoniano con quanta ansia queste cinematografie fossero attese. Non mancarono, soprattutto dalla parte dei socialisti, le polemiche: si riteneva infatti che potesse essere doloroso e di nessuna utilità mostrare ai militari impegnati in una guerra tanto dura, la serenità famigliare lontana. Le cine-cartoline ebbero un impatto importantissimo sulla percezione della prima guerra di massa che l'Italia, giovane nazione, affronta in terra straniera.
Immensa cartografia di facce e volti dell'Italia alla fine della Belle époque, le cine-cartoline non ebbero nessun seguito durante le guerre successive. Tutta via possiamo considerarle come le antenate di altre forme di comunicazione tra patria e fronte di guerra, come L'ora del Soldato degli '40 (trasmissione radiofonica che l'Ente Italiano audizioni radiofoniche dedicava alle forze armate ) o i più moderni contatti per mezzo di web cam tra i soldati e le famiglie a casa.
Purtroppo, ad oggi, di questi film, non rimane traccia, tuttavia grazie ad un attento lavoro di ricerca (svolto dall'Università di Tor Vergata) sui quotidiani nazionali, è stato possibile ricostruire con la storia di queste straordinarie lettere animate
Grazie alle notizie ritrovate sulla stampa dell'epoca che riportano traccia dell'intenzione della Cines e dalle altre case cinematografiche di donare tutti i materiali relativi alla guerra di Libia in loro possesso allo Stato maggiore dell'Esercito Italiano, è stato possibile individuare presso il Museo dell'Arma dei bersaglieri di Roma (Porta Pia) una pellicola di 15', colorata (imbibita), relativa alla guerra di Libia, ed in particolare al ruolo dei bersaglieri nell'impresa coloniale. La pellicola fu donato dalla Cines, già in forte rapporto con i militari, al museo nel febbraio/marzo 1912 seguendo l'esempio della Giorgio Films- F.lli Parodi di Genova che aveva donato al Museo, in occasione di una matinée speciale riservata alle reclute dei bersaglieri e tenutasi l'8 gennaio 1912 in occasione del  genetliaco della Regina Elena (presso il cinema Moderno di Roma), una cineattualità dal titolo Sbarco delle salme dei generali A. La Marmora e R. Montevecchio a Genova  (dedicata appunto al rientro in patria della salma del fondatore dell'Arma, il generale Alessandro La Marmora, morto di colera in Crimea e traslato nell'estate del 1911)
Questo piccolo fondo, destinato si disse allora, ad allargarsi con lo scopo di creare un "Museo vivente della storia passata e futura", rimase, pare, fermo a questi due soli titoli. Costituisce, tuttavia, la documentazione di un precocissimo tentativo, pioneristico a livello mondiale di costruzione di una cineteca/museo.
Della necessità di fondare degli "archivi cinematografici della storia", si parlò infatti (non a caso in ambito militare, con discussione che giunse anche in Italia) fino dal 1898, ma nessun azione in tal senso si concretizzò prima della fine della Prima guerra mondiale e le prime cineteche nazionali sorsero solo negli anni Trenta.
Attualmente il film, in ottimo stato di conservazione (fatto rarissimo, perché le copie delle cineattualità del tempo sono quasi tutti distrutti o incompleti), è in restauro grazie ad un'iniziativa promossa dall'Ufficio Storico dello Stato Maggiore (proprietario delle copie), L'Università degli studi di Tor Vergata (autrice del ritrovamento grazie al lavoro del ricercatore Luca Mazzei e alla collaborazione con l'Ufficio storico dello Stato maggiore dell'Esercito) e alla collaborazione fattiva con la Cineteca nazionale (responsabile del restauro).  Il film restaurato sarà pronto già dai giorni immediatamente successivi alla manifestazione.
Nel corso della giornata di studi interverranno: Nicola Labanca (Università degli Studi di Siena), Pierre Sorlin (Université Paris-Sorbonne), Coll. Antonino Zarcone (Capo Ufficio Storico Stato Maggiore Esercito), Ten. Coll. Filippo Cappellano (Ufficio Storico Stato Maggiore Esercito), Marina Formica (Università degli Studi di Roma "Tor Vergata"), Giovanni Spagnoletti (Università degli Studi di Roma "Tor Vergata"), Francesco Piva (Università degli Studi di Roma "Tor Vergata"), Enrico Magrelli (CSC-Cineteca Nazionale),  Cristiano Tinazzi (giornalista freelance),  Lucia Ceci (Università degli Studi di Roma "Tor Vergata"), Elena Degrada (Università degli Studi di Milano), Serena Facci (Università degli Studi di Roma "Tor Vergata"), Sarah Presenti (Università degli Studi di Torino), Giovanni Lasi (Cineteca di Bologna), Luca Mazzei e Sila Berruti (Università degli Studi di Roma "Tor Vergata").

La Repubblica

Guerra in Libia: La legge del piombo fuso in un mondo senza padroni!?!

Il piombo fuso per il petrolio

L’intervento occidentale in Libia segna l’inizio di una nuova epoca nei rapporti internazionali: l’uso spudorato della forza ovunque si profilano interessi energetici per le varie multinazionali che si alimentano di “sangue” dei popoli sotto dittature, o regimi non conniventi con l’Occidente. Tutto ciò avviene con il consueto beneplacito dell’ONU, che non è altro che l’espressione del potere economico e militare dei vincitori della II guerra mondiale. Per dirla: “abbiamo vinto la guerra mondiale, adesso governiamo il mondo come ci pare e come ci piace”. Da queste considerano troviamo alcune domande giuste da farsi: Fin quando durerà questa situazione? Quante guerre “umanitarie” vedremo ancora? Fin dove i nuovi poteri forti del mondo supporteranno l’Occidente? Perché la Cina, uno dei maggiori investitori in Libia non ha alzato la voce? Perché i paesi africani stanno tutti zitti? Quali sono le vere ragioni della guerra in Libia? Chi controlla la Corte penale internazionale? I soldi delle guerre perché non vengono investiti nei paesi poveri? Quanto contano i poteri forti occidentali (multinazionali, mafie, massonerie varie) nelle decisioni di guerre?

Dopo la guerra fredda tutti si aspettavano un mondo più pacifico perché sotto la “Pax Americana”, il vincitore della guerra fredda, ma così non è stato. L’America si è rivelata incapace di governare un mondo senza padroni, senza l’equilibrio del terrore. Un mondo dove crescono a dismisura varie bande dedicate alla vendita di armi e di “morte” ovunque si vuole. Nel giro di pochi anni abbiamo assistito guerre etniche senza precedenti, come è stata quella del Ruanda e poi quella dei Balcani. Sulla stessa scia, ma senza cause di divergenze etniche, l’Angola ha vissuto alcuni dei suoi peggiori anni con una guerra civile estesa in tutti gli angoli del paese, eventi che non avrebbero successo se non fosse caduto il muro di Berlino ed imploso l’Impero russo.

A ragion veduta, il caos nella relazione tra i paesi è frutto dell’assenza di un equilibrio che limita lo strapotere di alcuni sugli altri. Molte iniziative guerrafondaie che oggi vediamo non avrebbero luogo se ci fosse ancora l’equilibrio sopracitato. La mia non è una difesa della causa russa, ma sì un’analisi della realtà attuale dove vige la legge del più forte, il più forte comunque.

Non rimpiangiamo quella pace/armata ossia l’equilibrio del terrore, considerando che il contenimento delle due super-potenze era determinato da una possibile guerra atomica che avrebbe spazzato via tutto ciò che conosciamo di normale in questo mondo. Ma bisogna pur sottolineare quanto quell’equilibrio aiutò a lungo il mantenimento di un certo rispetto tra le nazioni. Nessuno decideva di bombardare un paese per libera iniziativa, così come, anche in presenza di un mandato ONU, l’azione era dosata secondo il leader della zona d’influenza. Così per più di cinquant’anni l’America e la Russia hanno mantenuto la “Pax nucleare”. Ma che pace…

Stiamo vivendo una situazione molto critica perché il mondo è cambiato ma gli l’Occidente continuare ad agire indisturbato come se nulla fosse successo. L’America/l’Occidente, come abbiamo appeno sottolineato, ha avuto la sua opportunità di guidare il mondo come unica super-potenza, ma i risultati sono stati catastrofici: incremento delle guerre di stampo etnico (dividere per meglio regnare), incremento del traffico di armi e di droga, interventi militari arbitrari ovunque si profilavano guadagni, apertura di nuove basi militari a bene o male, etc. Per meglio sfruttare il proprio potere, l’Occidente ha accelerato i processi di globalizzazione, un meccanismo che ha permesso alle multinazionali di meglio sfruttare la mano d’opera quasi gratuita e le risorse naturali di molti paesi poveri. Questo processo ha portato molti paesi alla banca rotta così come ha aumentato le disuguaglianze in tutte le parti del mondo, compreso in Occidente. L’economia ha preso in mano la politica ed ogni iniziativa internazionale cominciò ad essere improntata secondo quanto si guadagnava.

Così, i suddetti processi di globalizzazione (conseguenza positiva) hanno contribuito anche alla nascita di nuovi soggetti internazionali, nuovi centri di potere, portando il mondo ad una situazione di è multipolarità, ma purtroppo l’Occidente continua ad agire come se niente fosse cambiato. Nel nuovo panorama mondiale ci sono i BRIC: c’è la Cina, che da sola produce beni per quasi tutto il mondo, c’è l’India, c’è il Brasile e c’è la vecchia Russia, che stenta a camminare, ma continua un paese importante nello scenario internazionale visto che ha in suo possesso una quantità enorme di bombe atomiche sufficienti per distruggere la metà del pianeta. Ci auguriamo che presto le potenze tornino a parlarsi ed imporre maggiore serietà nei rapporti internazionali, con la conseguenza di maggiore attenzione ai veri interessi di ogni popolo: vera democrazia, benessere sostenibile ed vita lunga e felice.

L’intervento militare dell’Occidente in Libia ha trasformato l’essenza dei BRIC da entità economica ad alternativa politica dell’occidente. Il cambiamento è avvenuto in sede ONU, nell’ambito del Consiglio di Sicurezza, dove i BRIC si sono astenuti di votare la risoluzione presentata dalla Francia chiedendo l’intervento militare in Libia. I quattro hanno presentato le proprie perplessità e chiesto all’ONU perché l’intervento dell’Occidente non si trasformi in opportunità di depredazione delle risorse petrolifere libiche, nonché l’eliminazione fisica di Gheddafi. Guarda caso è proprio questo l’intento dell’intervento.

Di Barack Obama non spendo più di due righe: ha deluso. Si è lasciato intimidire dalla Multinazionali e dei poteri forti. si è bruciato prima di cominciare.

Uno dei grandi assenti in questa guerra, se non il principale, è l’Unione africana. Quest’ultima, super dipendente dai soldi del governo di Gheddafi per gli assunti africani – Cfr. finanziamenti per le truppe dell’UA in Somalia e in Sudan -, non riesci ad imporre una propria linea (cessate il fuoco e negoziazione). Da una parte molti paesi africani continuano a dipendere vergognosamente da Parigi, e dell’altra molti governi sono costituiti da uomini incapaci di distinguere gli assunti interni di ogni paesi, quelli regionali e quelli internazionali. Insieme all’ONU, anche l’Unione africana ha bisogno di ripensare il proprio futuro.

Per Kingamba Mwenho

Diplomats discuss Libya's future as Italy plots Gaddafi's escape route

Belgian defence minister Pieter De Crem by a Belgian F16 fighter at Araxos, Greece. Diplomatic pressure on Gaddafi to go is mounting. Photograph: Yves Herman/Reuters

Efforts appear to be under way to offer Muammar Gaddafi a way of escape from Libya, with Italy saying it was trying to organise an African haven for him, and the US signalling it would not try to stop the dictator from fleeing.

The move came amid mounting diplomatic and military pressure on Gaddafi as Britain tries to assemble a global consensus demanding he surrender power while intensifying air strikes against his forces. An international conference in London – including the UN, Arab states, the African Union, and more than 40 foreign ministers – will focus on co-ordinating assistance in the face of a possible humanitarian disaster and building a unified international front in condemnation of the Gaddafi regime and in support of Nato-led military action in Libya.

On the eve of the conference, Italy offered to broker a ceasefire deal in Libya, involving asylum for Gaddafi in an African country. "Gaddafi must understand that it would be an act of courage to say: 'I understand that I have to go'," said the Italian foreign minister, Franco Frattini. "We hope that the African Union can find a valid proposal."

A senior American official signalled that a solution in which Gaddafi flees to a country beyond the reach of the international criminal court (ICC), which is investigating war crimes charges against him, would be acceptable to Washington, pointing out that Barack Obama had repeatedly called on Gaddafi to leave.

"I can't say I know of active efforts to find him a place to go, but I would not say it has been ruled out," the official said. "The ICC has said it will ready to pursue the case, but there are also the rules of the ICC," he added, pointing out that some countries do not recognise the court's jurisdiction.

British officials said they would rather see Gaddafi face trial, but if his escape was the price of a peaceful settlement they would be able to live with that.

David Cameron and Nicolas Sarkozy tried to ratchet up the pressure on Gaddafi, issuing a joint statement on the eve of the conference declaring his era over, and indicating that his lieutenants might escape prosecution if they abandoned him immediately. "We call on all his followers to leave him before it is too late," they said.

Meanwhile Obama gave a televised speech to the American people in which he explained why the US was involved in the conflict, as a response to his domestic critics over the crisis. The US president increased the pressure on Gaddafi by saying it was imperative his rule be ended. "We continue to pursue the broader goal of a Libya that belongs not to a dictator but to its people," he said. "Gaddafi has not yet stepped down from power and until he does Libya will remain dangerous."

He also used his speech to emphasise that strikes against Gaddafi's forces would continue even as American leadership of the campaign transferred to Nato tomorrow. "Our coalition will keep the pressure on Gaddafi's forces," he said.

Meanwhile, with the Libyan regime's forces and rebels squared for a battle around Gaddafi's birthplace of Sirte, British planes taking part in the coalition campaign stepped up their bombardment.

RAF Tornados hit 22 tanks, armoured vehicles and artillery pieces over the weekend, the Ministry of Defence said. Early Monday, they struck ammunition bunkers near Subha in southern Libya, according to Major General John Lorimer, the MoD's chief military spokesman. Defence officials said the higher tempo was the result of more intelligence surveillance and assessments from reconnaissance aircraft.

Discord over the air strikes threatens to undermine the consensus the UK will attempt to construct at the Lancaster House conference. Russia denounced the air campaign, arguing it violated UN security council resolution 1973, which permitted "all necessary measures" to protect civilians. Foreign minister Sergei Lavrov said: "We consider that intervention by the coalition in what is essentially an internal civil war is not sanctioned."

Turkey's prime minister, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, was also critical, and in a symbolic blow to the London conference, it emerged that Amr Moussa, the secretary general of the Arab League – whose support for military action was deemed crucial by Washington and its allies – would not be attending, sending a deputy instead.

The joint statement issued by Cameron and the French president was intended in part to heal discord over the command of the air campaign and France's recognition of the Benghazi-based National Libyan Council. The rebels are not invited to the conference, but William Hague is expected to meet one of their leaders, Mahmoud Jibril. The shadow defence secretary, Jim Murphy, will warn today: "The bravery of the Libyan opposition is not in doubt. What is unclear is the motives of some, other than the removal of Gaddafi. As the opposition move westwards across Libya it is crucial that we better understand who they are and their wider ambitions."

Via | www.guardian.co.uk

Online advertisers in the UK (Web advertising) spend tops £4bn for first time

Online advertisers in the UK took their annual spend to more than £4bn for the first time last year as the digital market share hit a record high.

Research published today by the Internet Advertising Bureau (IAB) and the accountant PricewaterhouseCoopers showed that online advertising grew by 12.8 per cent, from £3.5bn in 2009 to £4.1bn a year later. Joshua March, a social media entrepreneur, said: "This is still the tip of the iceberg in terms of how much spending will swing into digital in the future."

The digital share of the UK's total advertising spend of £16.6bn last year rose to 25 per cent. Internet advertising spending is closer to 15 per cent in Europe and 16 per cent in the US.

Guy Phillipson, head of the IAB, said the market was "almost back in its pre-recession heyday" and online spending was "higher than I expected". "In 2009, brands really began to understand how to use the internet. That has improved in 2010 – a year when budgets have also grown," he said. The total advertising market grew by 7.2 per cent, with 77 of the top 100 advertisers increasing their spending last year, according to the research group Nielsen. Consumer goods and retail companies raised their online budgets to become two of the four largest spenders on display advertisements. However, the financial sector spent the most in 2010, overtaking entertainment and media, with a 15.2 per cent share, the report said.

While the online market may not continue to grow quite so aggressively as in recent years, Mr Phillipson said he expected spending to breach £5bn "in the next few years". The consensus expectation for online advertising for this year is growth of 7.7 per cent, although the IAB said its internal predictions were more optimistic.

Much of 2010's online growth was driven by display advertising, which increased by 27.5 per cent from a year earlier to £945.1m, as more and more companies shifted spending on to the web. This reflected an increase in the number of active internet users in Britain, which stood at 40.3 million in December, according to Nielsen and the UK Online Measurement Company. Today's IAB/PwC survey also suggests that improvements in internet infrastructure have supported the growth of online advertising.

Search advertising continues to dominate online advertising spending in the UK, which rose 8 per cent in 2010 to £2.3bn. Mr Phillipson said the UK's search advertising market was "the most advanced in the world in terms of market share".

The rise of social media was also reflected, with advertising spending in this sector rising nearly 200 per cent. Computer users in the UK spend a quarter of their time online visiting networking sites such as Facebook.

Mr March, the founder and chief executive of Conversocial, a software company that helps brands to manage their marketing and support on Facebook and Twitter, said: "The cost effectiveness of online ad spend, especially with social media, gives companies the opportunity to build up a fan base that they can then communicate with for free, and makes it more attractive than other forms of media."

"This is combined with the increasing ability to tie online advertising spend directly to results such as purchases or actions."

Facebook has stepped up its drive to attract advertising executives to the social network with the launch of a new site called Facebook Studio.

In its report, the IAB pointed to "stellar growth" in mobile advertising, which more than doubled to £83m. Mr Phillipson said mobile was "finally coming of age". Growth was seen in adverts around online videos, up from £28m in 2009 to £54m a year later.

Despite pressure on the housing, jobs and car markets, online classified advertising "bounced back" in 2010, growing by 9.7 per cent to £751m, though its share of the market fell by one percentage point to 18 per cent.

The Independent/By Nick Clark

Libya/Civil War: Libyan rebel leader spent much of past 20 years in suburban Virginia

WASHINGTON - The new leader of Libya's opposition military spent the past two decades in suburban Virginia but felt compelled — even in his late-60s — to return to the battlefield in his homeland, according to people who know him.

Khalifa Hifter was once a top military officer for Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi, but after a disastrous military adventure in Chad in the late 1980s, Hifter switched to the anti-Gadhafi opposition. In the early 1990s, he moved to suburban Virginia, where he established a life but maintained ties to anti-Gadhafi groups.

Late last week, Hifter was appointed to lead the rebel army, which has been in chaos for weeks. He is the third such leader in less than a month, and rebels interviewed in Libya openly voiced distrust for the most recent leader, Abdel Fatah Younes, who had been at Gadhafi's side until just a month ago.

At a news conference Thursday, the rebel's military spokesman said Younes will stay as Hifter's chief of staff, and added that the army — such as it is — would need "weeks" of training.

According to Abdel Salam Badr of Richmond, Va., who said he has known Hifter all his life — including back in Libya — Hifter -- whose name is sometimes spelled Haftar, Hefter or Huftur -- was motivated by his intense anti-Gadhafi feelings.

"Libyans — every single one of them — they hate that guy so much they will do whatever it takes," Badr said in an interview Saturday. "Khalifa has a personal grudge against Gadhafi... That was his purpose in life."

According to Badr and another friend in the U.S., a Georgia-based Libyan activist named Salem alHasi, Hifter left for Libya two weeks ago.

alHasi, who said Hifter was once his superior in the opposition's military wing, said he and Hifter talked in mid-February about the possibility that Gadhafi would use force on protesters.

"He made the decision he had to go inside Libya," alHasi said Saturday. "With his military experience, and with his strong relationship with officers on many levels of rank, he decided to go and see the possibility of participating in the military effort against Gadhafi."

He added that Hifter is very popular among members of the Libyan army, "and he is the most experienced person in the whole Libyan army." He acted out of a sense of "national responsibility," alHasi said.

"This responsibility no one can take care of but him," alHasi said. "I know very well that the Libyan army especially in the eastern part is in desperate need of his presence."

Omar Elkeddi, a Libyan expatriate journalist based in Holland, said in an interview that the opposition forces are getting more organized than they were at the beginning up the uprising. Hifter, he said, is "very professional, very distinguished," and commands great respect.

Since coming to the United States in the early 1990s, Hifter lived in suburban Virginia outside Washington, D.C. Badr said he was unsure exactly what Hifter did to support himself, and that Hifter primarily focused on helping his large family.

Read more: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2011/03/26/111109/new-rebel-leader-spent-much-of.html#ixzz1HwwRBVOC

By Chris Adams | McClatchy Newspapers

Libya/War 2011: Allies target Libyan ground forces after decimating air force

The massive strikes on Col. Qaddafi’s ground forces, including his big Armada of tanks, mobile rocket launchers, heavy guns and short range battle missiles, mark the second phase of operation ‘Odyssey Dawn’, British Air Vice Marshal Greg Bagwell said.

U.S. and allied forces today shifted focus on hitting Libyan ground forces, targeting tanks and artillery to obliterate Muammar Qaddafi’s war waging machine, as French Foreign Minister Alain Juppe warned that the campaign may go on for weeks.

The shift to attack the ground forces came after coalition commanders claimed that Libyan air force had been completely destroyed and that the U.S. and NATO warplanes had total sway of the Libyan sky.

The massive strikes on Col. Qaddafi’s ground forces, including his big Armada of tanks, mobile rocket launchers, heavy guns and short range battle missiles, mark the second phase of operation ‘Odyssey Dawn’, British Air Vice Marshal Greg Bagwell said.

Col. Qaddafi’s air force “no longer exists a fighting force,” Air Vice Marshal Bagwell said as a flotilla of NATO warships patrolled Libya’s coast to enforce an arms embargo against Qaddafi.

As the allied operation entered the sixth day, French Foreign Minister Juppe said the campaign would continue.

“It will last for days and weeks. But, not months,” he said, spelling out for the first time the expected duration of the military campaign.

The French Minister was speaking to reporters in Brussels ahead of a crucial EU—NATO meeting to discuss how to coordinate airstrikes on Libya.

The coalition warplanes pounded the rebel—held city of Misruta, forcing Col. Qaddafi’s forces to pull back from the outskirts of the city, but residents said by nightfall the tanks and artillery had renewed their the shelling on the city which is virtually under siege.

Similar strikes were aimed at Col. Qaddafi’s forces stalking the towns of Adjabiyah and Zintan. “We are interdicting and putting pressure on Qaddafi’s forces that are attacking population centres,” said Rear Admiral Gerard P. Hueber, the Chief of Staffs for the American—led operational command.

“The air attacks continued day and night yesterday and resumed this morning on Qaddafi’s ground forces in both Misurata in the west and Adjabiyah in the east,” the Admiral said as NATO’s top military commander U.S. Admiral James Stavridis flew into Turkey to hold talks with Turkish military leaders who are holding up an agreement for NATO to take over command of Operation Odyssey.

The allied forces also continued Tomahawk missile strikes and air bombing of the Libyan capital Tripoli.

A BBC correspondent said the city was rocked by seven explosions and witnesses said a military base at Tajura, 32 km. east of the capital was hit.

Al Jazeera said eight explosions were also heard in the east of the capital last night.

The official JANA news agency said coalition raids on Tajura had killed a large number of civilians. Tajura, which houses a massive military complex, including a missile base, has been hit thrice.

JANA said the latest raid had targeted rescue workers who were trying to remove the dead and wounded from the rubble left by the first two raids.

Although the endgame in Libya remains unclear, U.S. Defence Secretary Robert Gates, now on a farewell visit to Egypt, said that mounting pressure on Col. Qaddafi could encourage his inner circle and even members of his family to turn on him.

“I think there are any number of possible outcomes here, and no one is in a position to predict them,” Mr. Gates said.

A U.S. commander said the allies flew 175 sorties in 24 hours, and the U.S. flew 113 of those. French defence minister Gerard Longuet, meanwhile, said France had destroyed about 10 Libyan armoured vehicles over three days.

However, there was no let up in Col. Qaddafi's forces’ shelling of the rebel—held cities.

In the coastal city of Misurata, around 200km east of Tripoli, government snipers fired indiscriminately, killing 16 people, Al Jazeera reported.

It quoted a rebel spokesman as saying that four children were killed in the city on Tuesday as regime forces pressed their siege.

Via | Thehindu.com

El descaro de los invasores a Libia: “Vengan con nosotros y únanse a esta ‘transición democrática’”

La invasión trasladó por primera vez sus operaciones a las ciudades de Al Yubra y Sebha, bastiones de la tribu Guededfa, de la que forma parte el líder libio. Francia desmintió la caída de uno de sus aviones. ”Los bombardeos empezaron a partir de las 02H00 locales. Hemos escuchado aviones y disparos de baterías antiaéreas y luego varias explosiones”, relató un habitante de Sehba citado por agencias internacionales.

Es la primera vez que la invasión que lideran EEUU, Francia y el Reino Unido, realizan operaciones en ciudades ubicadas al sur de Trípoli, una región bajo dominio absoluto del gobierno. El líder libio ha centrado sus ataques en las ciudades del este controladas por la oposición.

Al mismo tiempo, el diario digital libio Al Watan había informado sobre la caída de un avión de avión francés en la ciudad natal del líder libio. “Ningún avión francés fue derribado en Sirte la noche pasada”, dijo el coronel Thierry Burkhard, vocero de las Fuerzas Armadas de Francia.

El aparato de propaganda del gobierno ha acelerado su campaña contra los ataques aliados. La televisión mostró imágenes de cadáveres parcialmente carbonizados. Fuentes opositoras rechazaron, sin embargo, que se tratara de civiles muertos en los ataques aéreos de la invasión internacional.

Desde que comenzaron los ataques aéreos para imponer una zona de exclusión aérea sobre Libia, el sábado pasado, la oposición ha tildado de falsas las informaciones de los medios estatales sobre supuestas víctimas civiles. En tierra, los enfrentamientos entre las tropas leales a Gadafi y los rebeldes se centran en estos momentos en las ciudades de Aydabiya y Misurata, al este de Trípoli.

El Pentágono insistió este jueves en que había establecido con éxito una zona de exclusión aérea sobre las zonas costeras de Libia y afirmó que había pasado a atacar la artillería de Gadafi. En sintonía, Gran Bretaña señaló que había lanzado misiles guiados Tomahawk desde un submarino clase contra defensas aéreas libias. Y el ministro de Defensa francés, Gerard Longuet, indicó que su país destruyó unos 10 vehículos blindados libios durante tres días.

Mucho más lejos fue el oficial de alto rango de la Royal Air Force británica, Greg Bagwell, quien señaló que la aviación libia “ya no existe como fuerza de combate”. Sin embargo, los tanques de Gadafi se acercaron a la estratégica ciudad de Misrata, la tercera más grande del país, aún en poder de los rebeldes. Al amparo de la oscuridad, comenzaron a disparar contra el área cerca del hospital principal, dijeron residentes y rebeldes, con lo que reanudaron su ataque luego de que sus armas fueran silenciadas durante el día por los bombardeos aliados.

En la capital, la defensa antiaérea del gobierno comenzó a disparar en la madrugada local y se escucharon luego varias explosiones. A su vez, al comenzar la noche, se había producido una fuerte explosión en una base del ejército libio, a 32 kilómetros al este de Trípoli. Luego los testigos vieron llamas en el lugar.

La agencia oficial Jana había indicado, entonces, que los bombardeos de la coalición internacional en los suburbios de Trípoli el miércoles por la noche, que tuvieron como objetivo “un barrio residencial”, dejaron “una importante cantidad de muertos entre los civiles”. Según la agencia, un “tercer bombardeo” de la invasión “tomó como blanco a los socorristas que estaban trabajando para extraer los muertos y heridos” en el lugar. También denunció que hubo muertos civiles en Jafra, en Jemil, en Misrata y al sur de Bengasi.

La información fue desmentida por el Pentágono. En sintonía, al ser interrogado sobre los disparos de la invasión que afectaron a civiles, el canciller francés Alain Juppé, respondió que lo que se produjo “es exactamente lo contrario”. Sin embargo, fuentes distintas afirmaron que la invasión a Libia ha cobrado más civiles inocentes que personas cercanas a Gadafi.

El líder libio niega que su ejército esté realizando cualquier operación ofensiva y sostiene que sus tropas sólo se están defendiendo cuando son atacadas. Pero un residente en Zintan, al suroeste de Trípoli, dijo que las fuerzas del Gadafi están reuniendo más tropas y tanques para bombardear a los invasores.

Mientras, las fuerzas rebeldes en el este aún están detenidas afuera de Ajdabiyah, una ciudad clave, luego de intentar recapturarla por más de tres días.

“Nosotros continuaremos los ataques aéreos. Tomamos como blanco a los medios militares y nada más”, afirmó el ministro de Relaciones Exteriores francés, Alain Juppé, a la emisora RTL. “Esto continuará el tiempo que sea necesario”, agregó, considerando que el comienzo de las operaciones desde el sábado pasado era “un éxito”.

“La solución puramente militar no existe. En un momento dado, deberá esbozarse un proceso político”, afirmó, de su lado, la presidencia gala en un comunicado.

No obstante, indicó que “no incumbe a los europeos dictar el proceso a los libios”. Y concluyó: “En cambio, animamos a los libios a desertar, unirse a las oposiciones que se expresan, a unirse en un proceso de transición democrática”.

http://wmaracaibo.com/?p=22942

Russia Today: Dancing queens; The most beautifull russian girls are learning to waltz

Libya/Crisys: NATO, war, lies and business

REFLECTIONS OF FIDEL -  (Taken from CubaDebate)

AS some people know, in September of 1969, Muammar al-Gaddafi, a Bedouin Arab soldier of unusual character and inspired by the ideas of the Egyptian leader Gamal Abdel Nasser, promoted within the heart of the Armed Forces a movement which overthrew King Idris I of Libya, almost a desert country in its totality, with a sparse population, located to the north of Africa between Tunisia and Egypt.

Libya’s significant and valuable energy resources were progressively being discovered.

Born into the heart of a Bedouin community, nomadic desert shepherds in the region of Tripoli, Gaddafi was profoundly anti-colonialist. It is known that a paternal grandfather died fighting against the Italian invaders when Libya was invaded by the latter in 1911. The colonial regime and fascism changed everyone’s lives. It is likewise said that his father was imprisoned before earning his daily bread as an industrial worker.

Even Gaddafi’s adversaries confirm that he stood out for his intelligence as a student; he was expelled from high school for his anti-monarchical activities. He managed to enroll in another school and later to graduate in law at the University of Benghazi, aged 21. He then entered the Benghazi Military College, where he created the Union of Free Officers Movement, subsequently completing his studies in a British military academy.

These antecedents explain the notable influence that he later exercised in Libya and over other political leaders, whether or not they are now for or against Gaddafi.

He initiated his political life with unquestionably revolutionary acts.

In March 1970, in the wake of mass nationalist protests, he achieved the evacuation of British soldiers from the country and, in June, the United States vacated the large airbase close to Tripoli, which was handed over to military instructors from Egypt, a country allied with Libya.

In 1970, a number of Western oil companies and banking societies with the participation of foreign capital were affected by the Revolution. At the end of 1971, the same fate befell the famous British Petroleum. In the agricultural sector all Italian assets were confiscated, and the colonialists and their descendants were expelled from Libya.

State intervention was directed toward the control of the large companies. Production in that country grew to become one of the highest in the Arab world. Gambling was prohibited, as was alcohol consumption. The legal status of women, traditionally limited, was elevated.

The Libyan leader became immersed in extremist theories as much opposed to communism as to capitalism. It was a stage in which Gaddafi devoted himself to theorizing, which would be meaningless to include in this analysis, except to note that the first article of the Constitutional Proclamation of 1969, established the "Socialist" nature of the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya.

What I wish to emphasize is that the United States and its NATO allies were never interested in human rights.

The pandemonium that occurred in the Security Council, in the meeting of the Human Rights Council based in Geneva, and in the UN General Assembly in New York, was pure theater.

I can perfectly comprehend the reactions of political leaders embroiled in so many contradictions and sterile debates, given the intrigue of interests and problems which they have to address.

All of us are well aware that status as a permanent member, veto power, the possession of nuclear weapons and more than a few institutions, are sources of privilege and self-interest imposed on humanity by force. One can be in agreement with many of them or not, but never accept them as just or ethical measures.

The empire is now attempting to turn events around to what Gaddafi has done or not done, because it needs to militarily intervene in Libya and deliver a blow to the revolutionary wave unleashed in the Arab world. Through now not a word was said, silence was maintained and business was conducted.

Whether a latent Libyan rebellion was promoted by yankee intelligence agencies or by the errors of Gaddafi himself, it is important that the peoples do not let themselves be deceived, given that, very soon, world opinion will have enough elements to know what to believe.

In my opinion, and as I have expressed since the outset, the plans of the bellicose NATO had to be condemned.

Libya, like many Third World countries, is a member of the Non-Aligned Movement, the Group of 77 and other international organizations, via which relations are established independently of economic and social system.

Briefly: the Revolution in Cuba, inspired by Marxist-Leninist and Martí principles, had triumphed in 1959 at 90 miles from the United States, which imposed the Platt Amendment on us and was the proprietor of our country’s economy.

Almost immediately, the empire promoted against our people dirty warfare, counterrevolutionary gangs, the criminal economic blockade and the mercenary invasion of the Bay of Pigs, guarded by an aircraft carrier and its marines ready to disembark if the mercenary force secured certain objectives.

Barely a year and a half later, it threatened us with the power of its nuclear arsenal. A war of that nature was about to break out.

All the Latin American countries, with the exception of Mexico, took part in the criminal blockade which is still in place, without our country ever surrendering. It is important to recall that for those lacking historical memory.

In January 1986, putting forward the idea that Libya was behind so-called revolutionary terrorism, Reagan ordered the severing of economic and commercial relations with that country.

In March, an aircraft carrier force in the Gulf of Sirte, within what Libya considered its national waters, unleashed attacks which destroyed a number of naval units equipped with rocket launchers and coastal radar systems which that country had acquired in the USSR.

On April 5, a discotheque in West Berlin frequented by U.S. soldiers was the target of a plastic explosives attack, in which three people died, two of them U.S. soldiers, and many people were injured.

Reagan accused Gaddafi and ordered the Air Force to respond. Three squadrons took off from 6th Fleet aircraft carriers and bases in the United Kingdom, and attacked with missiles and bombs seven military targets in Tripoli and Benghazi. Some 40 people died, 15 of them civilians. Warned in advance of the bombardments, Gaddafi gathered together his family and was leaving his residence located in the Bab Al Aziziya military complex south of the capital. The evacuation had not been completed when a missile directly hit the residence, his daughter Hanna died and another two of his children were wounded. That act was widely rejected; the UN General Assembly passed a resolution of condemnation given what was a violation of the UN Charter and international law. The Non-Aligned Movement, the Arab League and the OAU did likewise in energetic terms.

On December 21, 1988, a Pan Am Boeing 747 flying from London to New York disintegrated in full flight when a bomb exploded aboard, the wreckage fell on the locality of Lockerbie and the tragedy cost the lives of 270 people of 21 nationalities.

Initially, the United States suspected Iran, in reprisal for the death of 290 people when an Airbus belonging to its state line was brought down. According to the yankees, investigations implicated two Libyan intelligence agents. Similar accusations against Libya were made in the case of the French airline on the Brazzaville-N’Djamena-Paris route, implicating Libyan officials whom Gaddafi refused to extradite for acts that he categorically denied.

A sinister legend was fabricated against him, with the participation of Reagan and Bush Senior.

From 1975 to the final stage of the Regan administration, Cuba dedicated itself to its internationalist duties in Angola and other African nations. We were aware of the conflicts developing in Libya or around her via readings and testimonies from people closely linked to that country and the Arab world, as well as impressions we retained from many figures in different countries with whom we had contact during those years.

Many known African leaders with whom Gaddafi maintained close relations made efforts to find a solution to the tense relations between Libya and the United Kingdom.

The Security Council had imposed sanctions on Libya which began to be overcome when Gaddafi agreed to the trial, under specific conditions, of the two men accused of the plane sabotage over Scotland.

Libyan delegations began to be invited to inter-European meetings. In July 1999 London initiated the reestablishment of full diplomatic relations with Libya after some additional concessions.

In September of that year, European Union ministers agreed to revoke the restrictive trade measures imposed in 1992.

On December 2, Massimo D’Alema, the Italian prime minister, made the first visit to Libya by a European head of government.

With the disappearance of the USSR and the European socialist bloc, Gaddafi decided to accept the demands of the United States and NATO.

When I visited Libya in May 2001, he showed me the ruins left by the treacherous attack during which Reagan murdered his daughter and almost exterminated his entire family.

In early 2002, the State Department announced that diplomatic talks between the United States and Libya were underway.

In May, Libya was once again included on the list of states sponsoring terrorism although, in January, President George W. Bush had not mentioned the African country in his famous speech on members of the "axis of evil."

At the beginning of 2003, in accordance with the economic agreement on compensation reached between Libya and the plaintiffs, the United Kingdom and France, the UN Security Council lifted its 1992 sanctions against Libya.

Before the end of 2003, Bush and Tony Blair reported an agreement with Libya, which had submitted documentation to British and U.S. intelligence experts about conventional weapons programs and ballistic missiles with a range of more than 300 kilometers. Officials from both countries had already visited a number of installations. It was the result of many months of conversation between Tripoli and Washington, as Bush himself revealed.

Gaddafi kept his disarmament promises. Within five months Libya handed over the five units of Scud-C missiles with a range of 800 km and hundreds of Scud-B which have a range exceeding the 300 kilometers of defensive short-range missiles.

As of October, 2002, a marathon of visits to Tripoli began: Berlusconi, in October 2002; José María Aznar, in September 2003; Berlusconi again in February, August and October of 2004; Blair, in March of 2004; the German Schröeder, in October of that year; Jacques Chirac, November 2004. Everybody happy. Money talks.

Gaddafi toured Europe triumphantly. He was received in Brussels in April of 2004 by Romano Prodi, president of the European Commission; in August of that year the Libyan leader invited Bush to visit his country; Exxon Mobil, Chevron, Texaco and Conoco Philips established renewed oil extraction operations through joint ventures.

In May of 2006, the United States announced the removal of Libya from its list of nations harboring terrorists and established full diplomatic relations.

In 2006 and 2007, France and the U.S. signed accords for cooperation in nuclear development for peaceful ends; in May, 2007, Blair returned to visit Gaddafi in Sirte. British Petroleum signed a contract it described as "enormously important," for the exploration of gas fields.

In December of 2007, Gaddafi made two trips to France to sign military and civilian equipment contracts for 10 billion euros, and to Spain where he met with President José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero. Contracts worth millions were signed with important NATO countries.

What has now brought on the precipitous withdrawal of U.S. and other NATO members' embassies?

It all seems extremely strange.

George W. Bush, father of the stupid anti-terrorist war, said on September 20, 2011 to west Point cadets, "Our security will require … the military you will lead, a military that must be ready to strike at a moment's notice in any dark corner of the world. … to be ready for preemptive action when necessary to defend our liberty and to defend our lives.

"We must root out terrorist cells in 60 countries or more … with our friends and allies, we have to stop their proliferation and confront regimes which harbor or support terrorism, as is required in each case."

What might Obama think of that speech?

What sanctions will the Security Council impose on those who have killed more than a million civilians in Iraq and those who everyday are murdering men, women and children in Afghanistan, where just recently the angry population took to the streets to protest the massacre of innocent children?

An AFP dispatch from Kabul, dated today, March 9, reveals, "Last year was the most lethal for civilians in the nine-year war between the Taliban and international forces in Afghanistan, with almost 2,800 deaths, 15% more than in 2009, a United Nations report indicated on Wednesday, underlining the human cost of the conflict for the population.

"… The Taliban insurrection has intensified and gained ground in these last few years, with guerrilla actions beyond its traditional bastions in the South and East.

"At exactly 2,777, the number of civilian deaths in 2010 increased by 15% as compared to 2009," the UN Assistance Mission in Afghanistan annual report indicated.

"On March 3, President Barack Obama expressed his profound condolences to the Afghan people for the nine children killed, as did U.S. General David Petraeus, commander in chief of the ISAF and Secretary of Defense Robert Gates.

"… The UNAMA report emphasizes that the number of civilian deaths is four times greater than the number of international forces soldiers killed in combat during the same year.

"So far, 2010 has been the most deadly for foreign soldiers in the nine years of war, with 711 dead, confirming that the Taliban's guerilla war has intensified despite the deployment of 30,000 U.S. reinforcements last year."

Over the course of 10 days, in Geneva and in the United Nations, more than 150 speeches were delivered about violations of human rights, which were repeated million of times on television, radio, Internet and in the written press.

Cuba's Foreign Minister Bruno Rodríguez, in his remarks March 1, 2011 before Foreign Relations ministers in Geneva, said:

"Humanity's conscience is repulsed by the deaths of innocent people under any circumstances, anyplace. Cuba fully shares the worldwide concern for the loss of civilian lives in Libya and hopes that its people are able to reach a peaceful and sovereign solution to the civil war occurring there, with no foreign interference, and guarantee the integrity of that nation."

Some of the final paragraphs of his speech were scathing.

"If the essential human right is the right to life, will the Council be ready to suspend the membership of states that unleash war?

"Will it suspend states which finance and supply military aid utilized by recipient states for mass, flagrant and systematic violations of human rights and attacks on the civilian population, like those taking place in Palestine?

"Will it apply measures to powerful countries which are perpetuating extra-judicial executions in the territory of other states with the use of high technology, such as smart bombs and drone aircraft?

"What will happen with states which accept secret illegal prisons in their territories, facilitate the transit of secret flights with kidnapped persons aboard, or participate in acts of torture?

We fully share the valiant position of the Bolivarian leader Hugo Chávez and the Bolivarian Alliance for the Peoples of Our America (ALBA).

We are against the internal war in Libya, in favor of immediate peace and respect for the lives and rights of all citizens, without foreign intervention, which would only serve to prolong the conflict and NATO interests.

Fidel Castro Ruz

March 9, 2011

9:35 p.m.

Translated by Granma International