Zuma plays it safe over Libya

2011-08-27 14:53

Johannesburg - All groups claiming authority over Libya must come together to bring peace and stability in the country, President Jacob Zuma said on Saturday.

"They must all come together and negotiate a peaceful process that will lead to the formation of an inclusive transitional government and democracy in Libya," Zuma said on his return from the African Union (AU) Peace and Security Council meeting in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.

Zuma chaired a meeting on Friday, where he announced that the AU would not recognise Libyan rebels as the legitimate government.

He said the AU believed that its road map was still relevant for Libya.

"We need inclusivity, a situation where all groups involved in the conflict sit around the table and solve the problem together," he said.

Zuma said if an inclusive transitional government was formed, it would then occupy Libya's seat in the AU.

Article 30 of the Constitutive Act of the AU, which states that governments that come into power through unconstitutional means, would not be allowed to participate in the AU, Zuma said.

"We cannot act outside of that."

The AU would continue to work with all Libyan counterparts and support efforts towards stabilising the situation in that country, he said.

It also encouraged a process leading to the formation of an all-inclusive transitional government.

The AU would continue to work with the United Nations, the League of Arab States, the Organisation of the Islamic co-operation, the European Union and Nato to support Libyans, Zuma said.

  • Neil - 2011-08-27 14:59

    Since when has this clown become the little concerned president, worrying about everything else except his own pocket? Wish he was as concerned about South Africans the way he is about Libya. Wonder why all of a sudden is he so concerned about Libya? Might there be a financial knock coming his way, won't be surprised.

      eugenet43 - 2011-08-27 15:03

      AU is buggered JZ is worse I just wonder if the ANC et al who received their training and financial support from Gadaffi will also be tried for crimes against humanity....

      ahpretorius - 2011-08-27 15:06

      Could someoneremind the idiot, Zuma, how Gaddai came to power... If section 30 applies then it is Gaddai, who came to power through a violent Coup, that should be sanctioned.

      Claude - 2011-08-27 15:25

      So true, only this clown could not even perform in any circus around the world.

      Neil - 2011-08-27 15:27

      @eugenet43: Like I said last night and my statement was removed. I wish they impose the corruption law in SA which is currently used in Ghana. Hang corrupt officials or send them to prison for the rest of their lives. Quick way to land nearly entire goverment behind bars..

      onetickie - 2011-08-27 16:09

      Wonder how much of Gadaffi/Libya's money is being spent by those who think they are the high and mighty here in SA????

      Boer - 2011-08-27 22:13

      Neil I agree with what you say. Also should he not be more worried about the povery and crime in South-Africa? I mean he can't control crime in his own country, where does he get of by dictating how things should be handeld in Lybia?

  • Dominic - 2011-08-27 15:00

    "Article 30 of the Constitutive Act of the AU, which states that governments that come into power through unconstitutional means, would not be allowed to participate in the AU" Gaddafi came into power in a military coup!

      Newsferret - 2011-08-27 15:17

      Yes, but that was during the time of the OAU and not the AU that replaced the former.

  • JC - 2011-08-27 15:02

    What an embarrassing chop we have for a president; including the Polokwane chops who appointed him: "The danger to South Africa is not Jacob Zuma but a citizenry capable of entrusting a man like him with the Presidency. It will be far easier to limit and undo the follies of a Zuma presidency than to restore the necessary common sense and good judgment to a depraved electorate willing to have such a man for their president. The problem is much deeper and far more serious than Mr. Zuma, who is a mere symptom of what ails South Africa. Blaming the prince of the fools should not blind anyone to the vast confederacy of fools that made him their prince. The Republic can survive a Jacob Zuma, who is, after all, merely a fool. It is less likely to survive a multitude of fools such as those who made him their President"

      O'forth - 2011-08-28 22:23

      Very good and true observation JC. Now for the hard job of winning that battle. Believe it or not, even that is possible.

      donutface - 2011-09-01 13:36

      And this is exactly why democracy isn't suitable for every nation on earth.

  • marco - 2011-08-27 15:06

    Read the African Union peace plan which included a cease-fire,an end to NATO air strikes,humanitarian aid,and political reforms.Both Nato and the Rebels have rejected the African Union peace plan and yet the Rebels asked the African Union to recognize and accept their National Transitional Council.Go on then and go ask NATO for things don't ask the AU.You've made your bed and now lie in it please. NATO thinks solving the world's probems is by engaging in kinetic military actions.This Cold War rationale of NATO is arrogant,reckless,cowardly,wasteful,foolish and illegal.Wasteful indeed as it's costing NATO Countries taxpayers $6 million(US)a day about $1bn(US)over six months.The West spend all this money on wars and yet 12million people in East Africa are starving to death.Just $1.85million could get much-needed essentials like food,clean water,shelter,sanitation,survival kits and emergency feeding and nutrition for refugees fleeing Somalia,Ethiopia and others in the Horn of Africa. Shows you where the priority of the world lies at the minute in'it?NATO is spending more money on this war than any other.UNICEF,the United Nations Children’s Fund had warned that tens of thousands of children were at risk due to intense fighting,most of them under the age of 10 had lost their lives thus far.The Rebels wanted NATO to hand over control of Libya to them on a PLATE and install a regime that is a reliable servant to Western oil interests.

      Dominic - 2011-08-27 15:16

      SA government donated R4 million to Somalia famine relief. Check out how much NATO countries have donated. SA paid R100 million for a youth party. AU Heads of state spend much time and money on eating, drinking and talking but do they actually DO anything to help anyone else?

      Newsferret - 2011-08-27 15:19

      Marco you forgot to mention that the West (NATO in essence) is the major donor of the drought stricken Horn of Africa area.

      raubies - 2011-08-27 15:43

      I can see no reason why South Africa should support America in their oil wars. They hi-hacked the Libyan uprising for their own vile purposes. Zuma is doing the right thing here.

      gerrie - 2011-08-27 16:03

      O.K, so I don't get it. If my neigbour spend his money foolishly and have to many kids is it my duty to help him financially? If you feel so strongly about it why don't you send all your money to them?

      slg - 2011-08-27 17:29

      The Rebels don't need the AU. It's largely a corrupt and useless organization, especially when it comes to ending brutal dictatorships. I don't remember the Rebels asking for a plan or any intervention by the AU. Do you? In any event, the plan was conceived beyond the point of no return. Anyone who would accept it while Gadhafi was ranting that he'd armed six million Libyans, would fight to the death, would hunt down like rats all Libyans who wanted nothing more than to vote, would show no mercy, etc. would have to be naive.

      slg - 2011-08-27 17:32

      raubies, was there oil in Tunisia and Egypt? No. This is about the new generation of the Middle East reclaiming their power, wanting to live free from oppression and vote for their leaders You're on the wrong side at the moment and are going to be killed with your brother leader, unless you change.

      feppie - 2011-08-27 18:32

      Eish Marco. Just put your usually good ideas on the table. Don’t waste energy trying to convince idiots. Most idiots here are nothing but sounding blocks for the CNN, BBC, SKY and lately Al Jazeera. The AU was correct to kick the NATO/US in the teeth! For 6 months NATO/US waged an illegal WAR through nightly bombing sessions of most of Libya(with the usual “collateral” damage – that went under-reported) and secretly using special ops on the ground throughout Libya. Then they sent in these gangs called Rebels to round up the last of Gaddafi’s forces and try and sell them as freedom fighters! My word. And now they want the rest of the world to accept these NATO-puppets(gangs aka TNC) as the new representatives of Libya! Most of these idiots on this forum are whites who refuse to accept that they are Africans. With their feet on Africa's soil but their souls in Europe they happily repeat the same "western" spin and hope us Africans will shut-up, "know our place" and receive their wealth of knowledge. In this case a growing African think tank of academia has put enough pressure on the AU-leadership not to cow to Western bullying tactics! Viva Africa! Viva!

      slg - 2011-08-27 18:46

      feppie, would you explain what happened in Tunisia and Egypt, and what is happening in Syria then?

      umhlopo - 2011-08-27 18:49

      nato only got involved because of the oil,if a country has nothing that nato needs they dont even give it the time of day

      slg - 2011-08-27 19:19

      Umhlopo, the Arab League is part of Nato's intervention in Libay. Is it there just for the oil too?

      The Oricle - 2011-08-29 10:23

      @feppie..... Africans have the collective intelligence of a toaster. Whites are NOT Africans! Go back to your chores in the garden...BOY!

  • Piet Skiet - 2011-08-27 15:12

    But Zuma, your governemnt supplied the Libyans with sniper rifles, that were used to massacre the rebels. There is blood on your hands, you piece of corrupt filth.

      raubies - 2011-08-27 15:45

      The corrupt filth in this case are the Americans, who invaded another country in one of their despicable oil wars. They hijacked the Libyan uprising and plan to institute a puppet regime, exactly like they did in Iraq.

      Maleo - 2011-08-27 16:12

      @raubies: You're talking a lot of rubbish...

      john - 2011-08-27 16:36

      raubies, an Iraqi puppet government that has given five times as many oil contracts to China as it has to the US? You're on the same intellectual and education level as Zuma.

      slg - 2011-08-27 17:33

      raubies, the US is hardly involved in the war. Are you not aware of this? The Arab League is, and so is Turkey. Are they engaged in an oil war? Surely not.

  • Newsferret - 2011-08-27 15:16

    By hook or by crook they want Gaddafi in the book.

  • marco - 2011-08-27 15:22

    And for those of you who audaciously claims that it's not about NATO's Oil interest in Libya think again before you speak as the facts shows otherwise. From Reuters News Agency: USA oil companies have been awarded most of the contracts on offer at the first open licence auction in Libya.Companies like Occidental and Chevron Texaco returned to Libya for the first time in more than 20 years in 2006.Libya has Africa's largest oil reserves even though it only produces 1.7million barrels of oil a day.Occidental,in conjunction with different consortiums,had a total of nine successful bids in Libya.Occidental acquired 5 licences bidding alone,and another in conjunction with the Australian company,Woodside Petroleum Ltd. ChevronTexaco explore the Marzouk basin south of Tripoli,with Amerada Hess being the other USA company to win a licence.India Ltd and India Corp won the bid for the Syrte region.Canada's Verenex Energy Inc, Algeria's Sonatrach,Medco Energy International of Indonesia,United Arab Emirates' Liwa and Brazil's Petrobras won the other bids. CONOCOPHILLIPS ConocoPhillips, the third-largest U.S. oil company, holds a 16.3 percent interest in Libya's Waha concessions, which encompass nearly 13 million gross acres. Net oil production from Libya averaged 45,000 barrels per day in 2009 --or 2 percent of worldwide output--down from 47,000 bpd in 2008.

      Dominic - 2011-08-27 15:27

      Just shows how stupid SA have been to back the wrong horse, if nothing else. Our government has screwed up any chance for the likes of Sasol to get involved.

      raubies - 2011-08-27 15:46

      Of course Libya is all about oil. It's blood for oil again, exactly like it was in Iraq. Every day I despise America and their NATO cronies more.

      Dominic - 2011-08-27 15:55

      One of a government's primary responsibilities is to support its economy and give opportunities to its industries. I don't see how supporting a dictator against NATO in a liberation war helps us in any way. If we continue our envious and outdated Soviet-style antagonism to the West we can only lose.

      john - 2011-08-27 16:05

      So because US companies ALREADY had the most oil concessions in Libya under Gaddafi's rule, they sought to eliminate him? That's as logical as saying that Julius Malema wants to eliminate the tender committees in Limpopo who are ALREADY giving him tenders. If someone is favouring you, you keep them IN power, you don't kick them OUT. The new Iraqi government has awarded the most oil rights to China and Russia, the US got only one concession. So much for the Iraqi government being a "US puppet", huh? BTW, note how many other countries had oil rights in Libya: Canada, Australia, Algeria, Indonesia, UAE and Brazil. This is what they mean when they say "open licence auction". EVERYBODY is allowed to bid and the bids are judged by the govt and awarded according to merit, much like a tender. Exactly the same thing has happened in Iraq. Loads of different companies have won bids, based on what they offered. Nobody has been advantaged.

      slg - 2011-08-27 17:38

      Libya produces a tiny proportion of the world's oil. Oil is not the issue here, just as it wasn't in Tunisia and Egypt. Even if it was, what happens to the oil revenues? The lion's share is paid to the government for the benefit of the country. Oil-rich countries are among the wealthiest on Earth.

      Spud - 2011-08-27 22:17

      15 years ago Gadhafi was a bastard; funding all sorts of terrorism. Six months ago he was a team player; making deals & operating with the West in a functional & positive way. (Mugabe is just the reverse...). If there are riots in Libya, NATO declares no-fly zones. Suprisingly Gadhafi's 'compound' is hit by NATO fighter-aircraft missiles time after time. Why is this allowed? Should Iran not declare a no-fly zone over London to stop police from defending property against the rioters? Gadhafi's tunnels under the 'compound' are shown on TV in an attempt to ridicule him. What about the bunker & tunnel system under the White House (Obama's compound...). Is it not the same thing? The arrogance of The West reveres the one but ridicules the other! How come? This is not about Gadhafi - it's about the oil! Again. (Not having oil is the only reason Mugabe still walks the planet) The US are playing us all like a banjo - again. The power vacuum when Gadhafi (inevitably) departs will be immense. These rebels have no plan, no cohesion, no clear leader. America will pick up the pieces. Again. The UK Home Secretary had talks last week with Twitter, Facebook & Blackberry. They were discussing limiting those services when there are riots. Good idea - except if China does it!!! The West have become power-drunk in their arrogance. We will be paying dearly for it. Madiba: "I consider George Bush a bigger threat to World Peace than Sadam Hussein". True. Again. I watch with interest.

      john - 2011-08-27 23:04

      Spud, neither George Bush nor Saddam Hussein is a threat to world peace. The former because he's retired and the latter because he's dead. Try to keep up.

      slg - 2011-08-28 05:16

      Spud, with respect, this is a ridiculous world view. It lacks discernment. Gadhafis' compound is being bombed because he declared war on Libyans who wanted nothing more than the right to vote, and followed this up by killing thousands of civilians, detaining tens of thousands of others, and causing the rape into submission of thousands of Libyan women. What would you want the world to do? Nothing? Did we not learn from Ruwanda. What has Iran got to do with riots in London? Nothing. Plus the Iranian regime comprises a few hundred thugs, who have hijacked the state with its resources. It's the world's biggest funder of terrorism. Gadhafi's bunker and tunnels are definitely not the same as those at the White House. Gadhafi is a brutal dictator who has been in power for 42 years, without allowing Libyans the right to elect their leaders, while pocketing billions of dollars that belong to the Libyan people. It's not surprising that you'd end up thinking this war is about oil. Having discarded all other contrasting factors, there can be only one mis-explanation: oil. Was there oil in Tunisia or Egypt? No, yet those dictators are gone. Why? Because they were dictators and the people of those countries had had enough and took to the streets. Bin Ali (Tunisia) and Mubarak (Egypt) had the good sense to step down before a blood-bath occurred. Not so Gadhafi. He declared war. We are living the result.

      slg - 2011-08-28 05:24

      You say the West has become power-drunk. Yet the Arab League comprising 340 million people is heavily involved in the Libyan intervention, as is Turkey, a country of 73 million Muslims. You just lumped 410 million Middle Eastern people together with the West, more than the population of the US. How then can the West be "power-drunk in their arrogance"? It's not even the West we're talking about that has intervened in Libya. With respect, I think you're watching with lack of discernment. Everything is smushed together.

      O'forth - 2011-08-28 23:03

      @Raubies: Many people dispise the American agression in the world, and even those who support the idea that US oil companies do not have vast consetions in Iraq must admit that a section of the US Industrial complex do substantially benifit from the invation of Iraq. This is now widely acknowledged to have been done in an illegal invasion supported by cooked information. Those resposible for this will probably never be brought to book but history will judge them. The historical bond between Europe and North Africa is much closer and equal than the relations between North and sub-Saharan Africa. 16 AU member countries now openly support the NTC of which Nigeria, our strongest competitor for economic superiority in Sub-Saharan Africa is one. This has got everything to do with those countries self interest, same as the USA and very little with the Libyans people. However the dynamics of the choices those States make will not only impact on the peoples of those countries, but also the Lybians as well. To somehow deny the obsolution of Gaddafi and the dictatorial regimes of Cold War simply because you dispise the general consuct of another is as stupid as those voters who voted ANC simply because they have loyalty. Look how the President lied about sorting the corrupt electoral process out in the past elections. There is good grounds to argue that the elections were not free or fair until by-elections are held. This blind loyalty as is the case of the AU is uncreative.

  • marco - 2011-08-27 15:22

    MARATHON OIL CORP Marathon has a 16 percent interest in the outside-operated Waha concessions in the Sirte Basin. Its 2009 exploration program included the drilling of four wells, along with five development wells. Net liquid hydrocarbon sales from Libya were 46,000 bpd in 2009, or 19 percent of its total. Marathon said on Tuesday its Waha production was normal. HESS CORP In 2009, Hess produced 22,000 bpd of crude from Libya, or 8 percent of its crude output. At the end of 2009, 23 percent of its proved reserves were in Africa, with Libya making up 11 percent of that. Along with its Oasis Group partners, Hess has operations in Waha, with an interest of 8 percent. Hess also owns all of Area 54 offshore, where it drilled an exploration well in 2008, followed in 2009 by a down-dip appraisal well. OCCIDENTAL PETROLEUM CORP Occidental, the fourth-largest U.S. oil company, earned $243 million in net sales from Libya in 2009, or less than 2 percent of its total. Production increased in 2010, and Oxy has plans to double its output from Libya by 2014.

      john - 2011-08-27 16:09

      So US oil companies were working with Gaddafi's government on oil contracts. And the reason the US would want Gaddafi out of power because of this is...? As I said above, if you are getting oil deals unfairly, you seek to keep the person who is giving you those deals IN office. If you were a corrupt service provider who was winning tenders unfairly from a corrupt official in govt dept X, what would you do - hope that corrupt official stayed in his post or hope that he gets fired? According to you, you'd hope that he gets fired.

      marco - 2011-08-27 17:20

      @john On the matter of OIL here is:America wages wars to exploit the resources of other nations for its own large corporations.That's a known fact.In the decade between the two Iraq wars,America wouldn’t let Saddam Hussein sell any of his oil except for food.Washington’s sanctions on Iran's oil were costing America $76 billion annually in lost revenue.America had sworn off Libyan oil up until 2003 when Gaddafi abandoned his plans to develop weapons of mass destruction and compensate the victims of the Lockerbie terrorist bombing.The U.S. alone consumes 20 million barrels a day.Which means America's greed for oil is arguably far more a force for belligerence than timidity in the middle east.Up until this war in Libya,America had the bulk of the drilling contracts in Libya.Gaddafi on the otherhand threatened to hand these contracts to India,China and Brazil.Coddling Gaddafi wouldn't work so an all out attack was by far the better strategy for NATO going forward.The humanitarian hoax behind the assault on Gaddafi's OIL and the desperately concocted impending genocide to rally international support by The Rebels is what globalist forces feared most and is what has happened since.

      john - 2011-08-27 17:38

      How many oil contracts have US firms received from their so-called "US puppet regime" in Iraq? Do you even know? I bet you don't. google it and open your eyes. If the US invasion of Iraq resulted in exactly ONE concession for US oil firms (many more to China and Russia), what makes you think invading Libya and installing a "puppet regime" (even though the US has stressed repeatedly that it wants nothing to do with post-war Libya's affairs and democratisation) would deliver a result any different than Iraq? It's called the oil BUSINESS and not the oil CHARITY for a reason. Companies bid for rights, make a business offering, and the govt who owns the oil picks the winner from among the bids. Pretty much like an open public tender. Nobody TAKES anything and nobody GIVES anything. It is negotiated just like any other business deal. The reason that the US intervenes is not to "steal the oil", it's to keep supplies secure when unrest in a major oil-producing country threatens to disrupt production. Although they don't support such actions, countries like China have no problem with it. China scored a bonanza in Iraq. They didn't have to spend a cent on military invasion, waited until the US had overthrown Saddam thus opening up Iraq's oil production again - and then moved in and capitalised by offering the cheapest bids for Iraqi oil. Again, there's nothing underhand. If the US is happy doing all the heavy lifting only for CNPC to profit, that's business.

      john - 2011-08-27 17:51

      Some have suggested the Iraq "punished" the US by not giving them oil concessions, which is as much hogwash as "America stole the oil". If Iraq had wanted to punish the US, they wouldn't even have given them the one concession they got. The reality is that Iraq set the bar very high. They have a mountain of debt and rebuilding to do (the Iran war alone almost wiped out their economy and that was BEFORE the oil sanctions). So they are squeezing the oil companies to take as little profit as possible. Most US companies didn't feel that low-profit operations in high-risk areas (security) was worth their while so they didn't even bid. China has lower wages and they're not as squeamish as the US is about sending workers in to high-risk areas. So they can work to lower profit margins in more dangerous areas. Hence the bonanza for CNPC, the Chinese state oil company. But even the Chinese draw the line somewhere. Iraq opened bids for one oilfield in the east of the country (very bad violence ongoing) and NOBODY bid on it. Not even the Chinese, lol. Now you must know how bad it is around that area. The Iraq oil situation has been very interesting to read about. It's too bad that most South Africans can't be bothered to find out about it and prefer to believe in rubbish like "America stole Iraq's oil". It hampers their understanding of the world. Ignorance is never a good thing.

      slg - 2011-08-27 17:56

      It's a known fact by you, Marco, that the US wages wars for its large corporations. It's your opinion. In actual fact, the US has always had an isolationist policy, to the extent that it had to be dragged into WW2. It's only since 9/11 that it changed this, and adopted a proactive engagement policy. How does Saddam only being allowed to sell oil for food and humanitarian products prove the US declared war on Iraq for oil? It doesn't compute. The US imports a minuscule 1% of its oil needs from Libya. And it is also hardly involved in this war. There's quite strong opposition to it among Democrats, who control the Senate. Arguing that oil consumption by the US makes it a force for belligerence is only your opinion. Why would the US care if Gadhafi threatened to sell his oil to China instead of to the US? It only imports 1% of its needs from Libya.

      john - 2011-08-27 17:59

      Incidentally, here is an interesting article on how China is approaching oil contracts and reaping the benefits in Iraq:

      marco - 2011-08-27 18:59

      @john You said: 1."what makes you think invading Libya and installing a "puppet regime"(even though the US has stressed repeatedly that it wants nothing to do with post-war Libya's affairs and democratisation) would deliver a result any different than Iraq?" 2."How many oil contracts have US firms received from their so-called "US puppet regime" in Iraq? Do you even know? I bet you don't google it and open your eyes." 3."The reason that the US intervenes is not to "steal the oil", it's to keep supplies secure when unrest in a major oil-producing country threatens to disrupt production. Although they don't support such actions, countries like China have no problem with it". Well lets analyze your comment and take a closer look at it shall we? Professor Zoltan Grossman wrote in his International Environmental Problems & Policy at the University of Wisconsin-Eau Claire, USA: Oil is seldom mentioned for the reason why the U.S. invaded Iraq,but it is one of the many reasons.In the Bush Administration,Vice President Cheney,have had extensive connections to the oil industry.Donald Rumsfeld,Paul Wolfowitz,Richard Perle and others joined together in the Project for a New American Century,which advocated "regime change" in Iraq and other countries.A 1998 letter by Project members stated that "we should establish and maintain a strong US military presence in the region,and be prepared to use that force to protect our vital interests in the Gulf—and,if necessary,to help remove

      marco - 2011-08-27 19:00

      Saddam from power."Most Middle Eastern oil goes to Europe and Japan,but the U.S. and British companies pump most of the oil for sale.Having used military force in Iraq to remove Saddam had put the U.S. and U.K. in control of Iraq's huge oil reserves.American control over the oil in Iraq would limit the U.S. dependence on OPEC(Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries),and increase the production of Iraqi oil, which was limited after economic sanctions were put on Iraq in 1990.OPEC members are required to make an agreed upon quota of oil to keep the price high enough to make a profit but not too high where the West has to go other places or conserve.American oil reserves(at current production levels) would only last a decade if the U.S. was cut off from all other oil sources in the world.Iraqi oil reserves(at their current use levels)compared to America's would last about 526 years.Iraq has a reserve of 112 billion barrels of oil.Iraqi oil industry came up for grabs with the romoval of Saddam Hussein says oil consultant Rob Sobhani,a professor at Georgetown University in Washington.On May 9,2003,the European Union's EU Commissioner for Development and Humanitarian Aid,Paul Nielson,visited with the U.S. military commander in Baghdad,and said that the U.S. "will appropriate the oil.It is very difficult to see how this would make sense in any other way.I think that the United States is on its way to becoming a member of OPEC." Grant Goodman the 2001 EPA Local Entrepreneur

      marco - 2011-08-27 19:00

      Award Winner wrote:"Let's start with national security--the billions andbillions we waste dancing around the issue, protecting those pipelines, invading Iraq, doing whatever else we're doing in the Middle East. It all gets down to continuing the flow of oil to this country." US oil majors like ChevronTexaco reported a 300% rise in the run-up to war.Condoleezza Rice,at one time Bush's National Security Adviser,used to work for ChevronTexaco as a member of its board.And 5 years later after she'd left the firm,Chevron CEO Kenneth Derr,a colleague of Rice, said:"Iraq possesses huge reserves of oil and gas-reserves I'd love Chevron to have access to." Ahmed Chalabi(Iraqi)wrote in The Age magazine:"American companies will have a big shot at Iraqi oil" under a new regime.Once an American regime is installed in Baghdad,our oil companies will have access to 112 billion barrels of oil." As Michael Renner of the Worldwatch Institute wrote:US oil deposits are increasingly depleted,and many other non-OPEC fields are beginning to run dry.The bulk of future supplies will have to come from the Gulf region.70% of the world's proven oil reserves are in the Middle East.Under a U.N. oil-for-food programme,Iraq was permitted to produce only 3 to 3.5 million barrels of oil a day.Having it tis way,America was able to ensure that Saudi Arabia and Kuwait are benefited,as they were able to raise their production to meet the shortfall and earn more revenue." Time magazine wrote:

      marco - 2011-08-27 19:01

      For more than a half-century,misguided American foreign policy dealing with oil has typically been manipulative and often both at the same time.In 1973,Iraq nationalised all oil companies.By displacing Saddam Hussein and installing a friendly regime,U.S. and British companies would be able to re-enter the country and get a major share of its oil industry."U.S. ambassador Saudi Arabia Chas Freeman once said:You have to control resources in order to have access to them.Unlike the oil beneath Alaska's frozen tundra,locked away in the steppes of central Asia,or buried under stormy seas,Iraq's crude is readily accessible and, at less than $1.50 a barrel,some of the cheapest in the world to produce. Since the 1991 Gulf War,many companies from over 12 countries have been signing deals to develop the Iraqi oil reserves,as part of the limited United Nations "Oil-for-Food" program.Since 1950's U.S. officials' had been secretly writing tax laws so the Saudi royal family could collect more money from the sale of its oil and American companies could write off the added payments on their tax returns to overthrowing a government that showed too much independence in handling its oil sales.In 1953,in Iran,the 71-year-old Premier was overthrown.The American-friendly Shah, Mohammed Reza Pahlavi,who had earlier fled the country,returned triumphantly,resumed the throne and reasserted his control over Iran.The CIA's fingerprints were everywhere in this sordid affair.

      slg - 2011-08-27 19:23

      Marco, what does any of that have to do with Tunisians, Egyptians and Libyans freeing themselves from decades of dictatorship and securing for themselves the basic human right to vote? There is no oil in Tunisia, nor any in Egypt.

      john - 2011-08-27 20:37

      marco, none of what you wrote came to pass. I'll select some key statements: "Having used military force in Iraq to remove Saddam had put the U.S. and U.K. in control of Iraq's huge oil reserves." But it hasn't. Iraq's oil belongs to Iraq. Iraq runs the auctions to determine who works the oilfields, not the US and UK. This is easily verifiable by a google search. "American control over the oil in Iraq would limit the U.S. dependence on OPEC..." Um, you do realise that Iraq is a member of OPEC, yes? "said that the U.S. "will appropriate the oil.It is very difficult to see how this would make sense in any other way.I think that the United States is on its way to becoming a member of OPEC." Has America appropriated the oil? Has America become a member of OPEC? No and no. "Chevron CEO Kenneth Derr,a colleague of Rice, said:"Iraq possesses huge reserves of oil and gas-reserves I'd love Chevron to have access to." Yes, and I've love to have access to the gold in Fort Knox. Does this mean that I DO have access to the gold in Fort Knox? "Ahmed Chalabi(Iraqi)wrote in The Age magazine:"American companies will have a big shot at Iraqi oil" under a new regime." When you steal something, you don't "have a big shot" at it. You have it, period. You only have a "big shot" at something if you are competing against others. If you control oil, you don't have to compete against others. If you have stolen oil, you don't have to compete against others. Cont'd below.

      john - 2011-08-27 20:47

      In short, all the statements you posted are from the early 2000s, when the Iraq invasion was still being discussed or the invasion was still underway. I am not working on outdated data or from interview segments with people. I'm working on factual up to date data of what has happened in the Iraqi oil auctions. Yes, of course America WANTED to be a big oil player in Iraq. Of course the US was HOPING to get many Iraqi oil contracts. I want to win the lottery and hope that it happens. That doesn't mean it HAS happened, nor even that it WILL happen. Wishful thinking does not mean that it happens. All your quoted statements prove is that the US is a major oil player who wanted a slice of the action in Iraq. You don't need to quote statements to prove that, it's self-evident that ALL major oil players (the US, France, UK, Russia, China, Malaysia, etc) wanted Iraqi contracts. They're businessmen, OF COURSE they want contracts. Getting big contracts is how you succeed in business, whether you're American or any other nationality. So no, I don't deny that the US WANTED Iraqi oil. Everybody did. However, WANTING something doesn't mean that you get it. What the conspiracy theorists are doing is taking evidence that the US wanted Iraq's oil and then extrapolating that to conclude that the US has stolen the oil. They haven't. There's a huge difference between wanting something and getting it.

      john - 2011-08-27 21:01

      However, the most obvious indicator that the US hasn't stolen Iraq's oil doesn't even need to be googled. You can deduce it from sheer common sense. Oil is a global resource that every country needs in order to maintain its industrialies. Iraq has the fifth-highest known reserves. Do you honestly think China, Russia and others would just sit by idly and allow the US to steal such massive reserves? To get for free what China and Russia and everybody else has to pay for? You don't think China or Russia would, I dunno, mention something about it at the UN? Or have their leaders make statements about it to the world's media? You don't think the UN would take the matter up with the US? You don't think EU countries like Britain, France, Italy, Germany, Spain would have something to say about it? The US drew worldwide condemnation over the past years for refusing to agree to Kyoto emission reductions. Leaders of many countries came out openly and slammed the US in the media. China also recently slammed the US for its addiction to debt. So let me see: world leaders will condemn the US for not agreeing to Kyoto cuts, but they won't say a word when the US steals the entire oil reserves of Iraq?? China has major problems with the US debt, but has nothing to say about the US stealing Iraq's entire oil output? Does that sound logical to you? Is it how sane and rational people behave?

      john - 2011-08-27 21:23

      OBVIOUSLY the US hasn't "stolen Iraq's oil". If they had, then Iraq wouldn't be handing out contracts to dozens of different non-US oil companies. OBVIOUSLY the US doesn't "control Iraq's oil". If they did, they'd be giving the contracts to their own US companies, not to Russian and Chinese companies. OBVIOUSLY Iraq's government is not a "US puppet". If it was, they'd give all the contracts to US firms, nobody else. OBVIOUSLY if Iraq has been allowed the sovereign right under international law to retain ownership and control of their oil despite the US invading them, then Libya will get the same right - regardless of whether they are invaded or not, and regardless of whether it's the US who does the invading or not. It's Libya's oil, they will decide which foreign companies they want to work with and they will benefit from the profits of the oil. That is not going to change. It may have worked differently back in the 1950s when some oil-producing countries were colonies of Euro powers, who then exerted domain over the colony's natural resources. But that was then, this is now. There are no colonies anymore. All oil-producing countries are independent, autonomous states. Their resources belong to nobody but themselves.

  • aperiozar - 2011-08-27 15:39

    I agree with Zuma 100% in this particular case. Why should South Africa recognise the puppet regime in Libya set up by America? Why should we support their oil wars? More than 2000 people are now dead in Libya because they couldn't keep their hands off Libya's oil.

  • PinkAndProud - 2011-08-27 15:48

    I've got a bottle of champagne on ice and can't wait to pop the cork as soon as the psychotic Gaddafi is dead. Actually I've got a whole lot of champagne bottles and the rest have ANC members names on them.

      raubies - 2011-08-27 15:50

      I wonder exactly who the psychotic one is here...I have words to describe your type which I would not be allowed to use on news24.

      gerrie - 2011-08-27 16:07

      Hi PinkandProud, I will join you and Raubies can go and drink dettol.

      PinkAndProud - 2011-08-27 16:13

      @Raubies ~ LOL! Anyone who cannot see how delusional and out of touch with reality Gadaffi is needs to be locked up. @Gerrie ~ Great stuff, make the circle beeeeeger!

      The Oricle - 2011-08-29 13:56

      Give that man a Bells...... sorry, Moet Chandon!

  • neelsf - 2011-08-27 15:53

    The purpose of this new tactic is to get the Libyan mass murderer in, through the back door to negotiate? The SA and AU approach has backfired on SA an the AU, big time. From reading some other overseas websites, it seems like SA buckled under pressure from the West. How did we think we can ever stand up to the whole world, with this stance we had? The responsible minister and her media team should be fired on the spot for total disregards of human suffering in the worst degree, in Libya. I do not think the West or world, will ever again trust SA with anything of importance, after this blunder delux.!!

      raubies - 2011-08-27 15:57

      What a stupid, stupid post. You don't even have the vaguest clue what you are talking about. America and their NATO lapdogs have invaded Libya in what is essentially no different from what happened in Iraq. As in that country, the American hired killers have no regard for human life. So far 2000 people had to die once again because of American oil greed. Despicable, to say the least.

      PinkAndProud - 2011-08-27 16:16

      @Raubies ~ just think how many more would have died had NATO not helped the rebels and stopped Gaddafi from bombing HIS OWN PEOPLE??? I also despise America but thank god they helped the people of Libya overthrow this tinpot dick-tator.

      john - 2011-08-27 16:26

      raubies, it might help if you got a clue before accusing others of the same. American companies got exactly one oil concession in Iraq, China and Russia have received far more. Stop taking your view of the world from Chappies wrappers and conspiracy theory sites. If you want to know what has happened in the Iraqi oil industry since the new government took power, just google it. The information is all there for your education and edification. If you're too lazy (or too afraid of reading something that contradicts your boilerplate ideology), then here, I'll do it for you:

      raubies - 2011-08-27 16:39

      Please John, don't insult my intelligence. Anyone trying to justify the American invasion of Iraq, even after nearly a million people died, deserve to be ostracized from society. I despise NeoCons, their vile world view and everything they stand for.

      john - 2011-08-27 17:09

      So no answer to my trashing your claims that US companies have got all the Iraq oil rights then? Nope, I didn't think you'd be able to answer that. I haven't met a single one of the "America stole Iraq's oil" faction on these forums who has been able to answer me. They just drop out of the discussion and then surface in another thread - making exactly the same claims again. I'm not insulting your intelligence because you don't have any. The baseline requirement for sentience is the ability to modify your beliefs when evidence is presented that your beliefs are wrong. This, indeed, is the basis of science. I initially believed that the US invaded Iraq to get all the oil rights. The evidence I've seen shows me I was wrong. So I have modified my beliefs accordingly. That is what sentient species do. I do not dispute that the Iraq invasion was terribly handled and resulted in thousands of unnecessary deaths. I was no fan of Bush and considered him the worst POTUS in history. But none of that changes the fact - and this is the point of this discussion - that the US manifestly DID NOT "steal Iraq's oil". It still belongs to Iraq and is being sold for their benefit. That is fact. Refusing to believe it means that your intellect is not open to fact, logic or reason, and you thus cannot claim to be sentient.

      slg - 2011-08-27 18:01

      raubies, exactly who killed all those people in Iraq?

      TruthMonger - 2011-08-27 19:52

      @ John - The Americans who benefit from the WARS in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya are the arms and weapons manufacturers, sub-contractors, construction companies to re-build all that was destroyed, defense specialists and most importantly, the Federal Reserve Bank who lends America all its money at interest, and who had to lend Trillions of dollars to support a war designed to go nowhere.. No its not all about oil, but it is all about money and control, don't be disillusioned by micro-analysing the relationship between these WARS and oil. There is a much bigger picture that all can see right in front of us. You just have to open your eyes. Its the American taxpayer who foots the bill and the rest of the world that has to deal with the consequences through recession.

      slg - 2011-08-27 20:36

      Truthmonger, I recommend that you study more how the financial markets work. They do not work the way you describe them. It is true the military manufacturers benefit from wars, but they do not drive US foreign policy. They influence it, sure, but the decisions are made by the Executive of the US Government, basically the President and the Cabinet. They are guided and bound by the US Constitution which specifically excludes invasion of foreign countries for personal gain. In any event, what does this have to do with Tunisians, Egyptians and Libyans demanding the right to elect their leaders and live free from oppression?

      Bill - 2011-08-27 21:10

      @TruthMonger...well said, Sir!

      john - 2011-08-27 21:59

      Truthmonger, that being the case, why doesn't the US just invade everybody then? Why didn't they invade Russia during the Cold War? Why don't they invade China now? Why don't they invade Iran, Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, Brazil? Heck, why don't they invade South Africa, come to think of it? If their economy is all about profits for arms companies, sub-contractors and defense experts, think of the money they could make from these ongoing wars!! The reason the US doesn't do this - and this might be something you haven't thought of - is that the US doesn't get funded by Santa Claus to wage wars. US defense contractors don't get paid by the Tooth Fairy, they get paid by the taxpayer. And Americans generally don't like having to pay extra taxes to fund wars. They're kinda funny that way. So when they get the notion that a sitting President has led them into a wasteful war - and is now asking them to pay for it - they can get uppity. They can change their vote and, before you know it, a certain party that invaded Iraq can be replaced by another party with a black leader. Which is kinda what happened. And which is also kinda why American Presidents think quite carefully before committing to wars. Unfortunately not all their voters are defense contractors. Claiming that war benefits the US because defense contractors make money is like claiming that rape benefits SA because it creates jobs for rape counselors. It might make sense to you. It doesn't make sense to many others.

      john - 2011-08-27 22:15

      Further to the above, TruthMonger, you seem to be labouring under the belief that the Pentagon and White House operate independently from the taxpayer. This may again be news to you, but it is the taxpayer who determines who sits in the White House. And, consequently, whose policies govern the Pentagon. It's not like Africa where the President is President for Life and retains power no matter what happens. US Presidents can be, and are, voted out of power. So they need to keep the taxpayer satisfied. And any half-baked US political analyst will tell you that the fastest way for any POTUS to alienate the electorate is to engage in a war where US taxpayers don't see the value. google Lyndon Johnson if you want more details. On a more contemporary note, GW Bush left the White House with one of the lowest approval ratings ever. And much of that was discontent that he had spent more than a trillion dollars on a war that most Americans felt was pointless. That is why Obama downscaled US involvement immediately when he came into power. It's why Obama wanted to limit US involvement in Libya to as little as possible while staying onside with NATO. You might believe that endless and multiple wars are the key for a thriving American economy. American voters respectfully reserve the right to disagree with you. Incidentally, it wasn't the Iraq war costs that drove the US into recession. It was the toxic debt accumulated by the US national mortgage companies.

  • Godfrey - 2011-08-27 15:56

    Zuma before you comment on Libya, why cant you resolve the problem in Zimbabwe.

      Bill - 2011-08-27 21:13

      It's okay Godfrey, Gaddafi is there now...he will sort out Zim...!

  • onetickie - 2011-08-27 16:06

    This brainless idiot cannot effectly manage/run South Africa or control its own youth let alone make comments about other countries. He has no comprehension whatsoever about politics and should keep his ignorant mouth shut.n Wait until the situation in Libya is reinacted here in SA by the people who are sick and tired of seeing their money go into the pockets of ANC government officials and their cronies. All started in North Africa and will end with South Africa ...

  • crackerr - 2011-08-27 16:07

    @ marco You still do not get it? The fact that American or other companies have interests in Libyan oil extraction and distribution does not make the support against Gaddafi and his clan oil-motivated. We saw what was going on in Libya. We see what is now taking place. The incidents are not invented or stage-played. You simply buy the oil if you want it. The supply or purchase arrangements were not in danger. In fact, the opposite is true. The gamble taken by the US and Nato may well backfire against the security of oil supply. Whose voice and body did we see on TV when the announcers said it was Gaddafi, the Libyan leader? We saw what he and his family are and we saw their actions against Libyans. Facts: Gaddafi for 42 YEARS deprived the Libyans of the right to freely elect leaders of their choice. Gaddafi is a criminal who killed and executed political opponents. Gaddafi's mental capacity was on clear and unambiguous display on world TV for all to see. Not nice. You do not get into expensive and politically risky military adventures if you can simply get the oil by buying it. It is a lie that oil is the reason for the military assistance. No evidence whatsoever except the usual propaganda. Where is the evidence? Not speculation and constructs according to taste placed on VERY well known generalized theories and geographical knowledge. Something more substantial and in accordance with intelligence is required.

      PinkAndProud - 2011-08-27 16:19

      Crackerr, in all fairness, how can you possibly expect the schtweeeepit to realise how dof they really are?

      crackerr - 2011-08-27 16:42

      Hi PinkAndProud, You know what? I am actually becoming concerned about the perverse joy I feel fushing up inside me every time I post a reply to the retard propagandists. They never quite know how to respond. You will notice that they tend to shut up for the rest of the particular discussion. Very satisfying!!!

      PinkAndProud - 2011-08-27 16:52

      Hey Cracker - Yes I have noticed that, particularly this 'raubies' cretin. It can't come back and justify what it's written once all the faults are pointed out and prefers to start a whole new comment. Obviously it can't back up what it's saying. Reminds me of VrotCabbage in many ways.

  • jweer42 - 2011-08-27 16:10


  • raubies - 2011-08-27 16:10

    The more I read the response from white South African's on here the more I am convinced they have still not learned right from wrong. What Zuma suggests makes sense - it's the logical, sane option. The gunslinger, Wild West approach we see from America is identical to what they did in Iraq - and it will inevitably lead to the same massive bloodshed and instability.

      pisang - 2011-08-27 16:49

      @Rabies: so its ok to leave people suppressed under a dictatorship? Isn’t that like apartheid? Is it not wrong to support a dictator like Gadhafi? YOU are racist! How do you know which posts are from 'white' people and which are not?

      john - 2011-08-27 16:50

      raubies, the difference is that some of us actually take the time and trouble to find out about the world around us. When the US invaded Iraq, I kept a very close watch on what happened in the Iraqi oil industry because I wanted to see what would happen when the new government started awarding contracts. When they did, I (like many others) was surprised to learn that US firms only got one concession, far more were awarded to China and Russia. Nothing underhand about that, it's a business deal in which companies bid for rights and the Iraq govt awards rights based on the merits of the bid. However, it did put to bed any suggestion that US firms were going to be favoured by the new govt. This is not secret information, the oil auctions were broadcast on Iraqi TV, the results published on the web by the Iraq govt and reported on by media all over the world. The fact that you mindlessly repeat the mantra that "the US stole Iraq's oil" - without ever bothering to check the facts - tells me everything about you. Like so many others on these forums, you choose to keep believing in and repeating propaganda fairy tales when five minutes on google would open your mind to the truth. But then, opening your mind to anything other than the anti-US ideology that you spout would be a loathsome proposition for you, wouldn't it? If you find official sources of info to inform me that US companies got all (or even most) of the oil rights in Iraq, I'm all ears.

      RGL - 2011-08-27 17:54

      Racist ! Why the hell bring race into this? Is this the limit to your argument? Strange how this happens with ignorant people.

      slg - 2011-08-27 18:06

      It was Gadhafi who adopted a "wild west approach" unlike Bin Ali of Tunisia and Mubarak of Egypt who had the good sense to step down. You're blinding yourself to the mass uprisings by ordinary people in these countries for freedom and the right to vote. South Africans know all about this. Do you really think you can sell your dictatorship-preach to South Africans?

  • sipholess - 2011-08-27 16:14

    Fcuk off Zuma !!!!!!!!

  • Anton - 2011-08-27 16:18

    "Article 30 of the constitutive act of the AU, which states that governments that come into power through unconstitutional means, would not be allowed to participate in the AU" "We cannot act outside that" Mr Zuma, this must be the most crazy , absurd, laughable statement you have ever made. YOU CANNOT BE SERIOUS !!!!!!!!!!

      jweer42 - 2011-08-27 16:21

      Exactly, isn't Zim part of the AU? Just asking.

      raubies - 2011-08-27 16:22

      How much are your NeoCon American masters paying you per post Anton? How do people like you even sleep at night? Your hatred for black people makes you blind to when they are right - as is the case now with Zuma.

      john - 2011-08-27 16:55

      The NeoCon faction in US govt (Perle, Rumsfeld, Wolwowitz, Feith et al) all lost their jobs even under Bush. And even if they'd kept their jobs till the end of Bush's tenure, they'd have lost them when Obama and the Dems took power. The mere fact that you refer to them as NeoCons tells me that your world view is formed by reading WhatReallyHappened, Rense, Global Research and other conspiracy theory sites. And that you are thus wearing a tinfoil hat and constantly changing location to avoid the UN black helicopters and the Illuminati from tracking you. That is your prerogative. Just don't expect informed adults to take you seriously for it.

      slg - 2011-08-27 18:51

      I venture to say that Anton sleeps at night because he knows he's part of helping Libyans free themselves from 42 years of dictatorship and he remembers what South Africans went through under Apartheid.

      emile.marais - 2011-08-27 19:30

      john absolutely brilliant comment.

      TruthMonger - 2011-08-27 20:27

      @ John - Rumsfeld went on to publish his memoirs, Perle wrote several books and has continued business interests involving the middle east and Wolfowitz went on to become president of the World Bank, it doesn't seem like they did to bad for men who "lost their jobs". The political buddy system in the US makes them forever employable as long as they serve the interest of the men with the money first. The American public and world interest don't feature on their agendas.

      slg - 2011-08-27 20:38

      Truthmonger, what does any of that have to do with Tunisians, Egyptians and Libyans? Nothing.

      john - 2011-08-28 00:52

      TruthMonger, Rumsfeld used to be Secretary of Defense and Perle held the top civilian post in the Pentagon. Both had very influential jobs in the US military machine under Bush. Are you seriously suggesting that them now writing books gives them the same level of influence? They were fired, plain and simple. Even Bush couldn't justify keeping them on, given their incompetence. Yes, of course they've found other jobs. But none of those jobs has any clout in the Obama administration. There are no neocons in Obama's team. So raubies' insinuation that neocons still somehow run policy in the US is nonsensical.

      Anton - 2011-08-28 04:55

      raubies, Sorry, I was asleep when you posted this comment......... To many of us , the Lybian issue is very very simple. When we hear an (unelected) leader say to his oppostion; that "their blood will flow in the streets of Libya" and that "we will go door to door and flush out these rats" it is totally clear to us, that this leader has lost any ligitamacy, to rule a nation. We don't have to read the history of this country, We don't have to compare Libya with any other nations, And we don't have to check what percentage an American or European oil company, has a share in Libyan oil. ALLL THAT IS IRRELEVANT. This leader should be removed, with or without the help of other countries. ITS SIMPLE LIKE THAT, NO IFS OR BUTS, THAT'S IT, FULL STOP!!! And re your comment re Black people and myself; Will you in future, please be so kind not to spew your sick disturbed racism and hatred towards me. If you manage to show that you have got just one grain of decency in you, I would appreciate that. Thank you.

  • Ryan Tunney - 2011-08-27 16:21

    You and your "roadmap"....can you shut your cake hole Zuma? We all know what your roadmap is made of.

      raubies - 2011-08-27 16:27

      Another whitey so blinded by his hatred for black people that he can't see the wood for the trees. I pity your type, Ryan. America is the aggressor here - they and their NATO lapdogs. Once again they have killed for oil, just like in Iraq. May they burn in hell!

      PinkAndProud - 2011-08-27 16:36

      Rabies, it's obvious you can write, but can you read? Usually the two go hand in hand. I suggest you scroll up a bit and read the responses people have written to your bizarre comments. While doing so, try taking your racists ideas out of the picture. You might just learn something.

      pisang - 2011-08-27 16:50

      @Rabies: Where is America the aggressor? They did not cause or start the uprising, they simply support it, and so do most/all other european countries

      sipholess - 2011-08-27 17:01

      raubies is just another darkie that is happy in his 3rd world existence, give this thing a piece of boerewors and few quarts each weekend and that's the pinnacle for this arsewipe.

  • BES - 2011-08-27 16:25

    On behalf of all Libyans we would like to declare that Mr. Zuma is not and shall never be welcome again in Libya. A friend in need you are not. You showed neither courage nor foresight and your position has only caused further deaths in Libya and as such Libyan blood is on your hands.

      raubies - 2011-08-27 16:32

      What a complete fool you are! You don't even speak on behalf of a single Libyan. How much are your American CIA masters paying you to post such drivel?

      slg - 2011-08-27 18:09

      Neither do you. In any event, Libya's celebration is clear for all to see.

      Albo - 2011-08-29 13:02

      @raubies - please go live a month in the U.S. and then live a month in Libya and then decide who is running things correctly.

  • Richard - 2011-08-27 16:27

    I don't know what Zuma is trying to prove. He's out of touch with reality. Gaddaffi is over. SA is standing with Venezuela, Iran, Russia, Cuba and China. Is this good for SA?

      raubies - 2011-08-27 16:42

      Shame Richard. You still live in the era when America ruled the world, don't you? When they farted we all had to say 'thank you sir'. That time is over..Iraq and Libya were the last convulsions of a dying empire. The sooner their economy collapses completely, the sooner their president have to scrounge for bread crumbs on the street, the better it will be for the world. By the way, you apparently do not know that South Africa belongs to BRIC, so we are standing with our partners Brazil, Russia, India and China on this. Congratulations Mr Zuma.

      Dominic - 2011-08-27 18:13

      @Raubies just for the hell of it I'll refute your false claim. South Africa was the only one of 15 members of the UN Security Council to vote against the release of Libyan assets to the TNC. Brazil, Russia, India and China are in the security council and they all voted for the release. The other African countries (Gabon and Nigeria) in the security council also voted for it. To correct your ignorance: South Africa voted against BRIC.

      slg - 2011-08-27 18:13

      America has never "ruled the world". I'm sorry you felt such shame that you felt you had to bow down to it. There is no American empire and empire is not a goal of the US. I recommend that you read its constitution, which guides its actions and is its raison d'être. Russia and China have just come out of Communism, one of the most oppressive systems of government ever devised. Raubie, you're on a South African website. Gadhafi denied Libyans the right to vote for their leaders. Are you saying South Africans should support this notion?

  • Mariosorbini - 2011-08-27 16:42

    First lead by example Jacob Zuma and all political leader note Gaddafi Mobarak down fall the people are speaking Those that comment be respectfull irrespective of your ,our frustrations We All. Not Named EG Whites Blacks ?.. Indian ETC All South Africans Want a future Let's work together Not criticize by disrespect but by reasonable debate Lead by Example Thank you

  • Roy - 2011-08-27 16:42

    So how did Gadaffi get his seat, through Democratic means, i think not, and Zimbabwi, was this through an electoral process. I am afraid this is just retoric which amounts to rubbish. The AU is just a money grabbing and corrupt organisation.

      raubies - 2011-08-27 16:48

      It would be futile for Libya to exchange one dictator for another. The people in Iraq are a thousand time worse off today than before. Nearly a million of them died in the American oil grab and still the country is perpetually on the edge of a civil war. Zuma is right: there can only be a negotiated settlement, not an American empire handing the Libyan government to its cronies.

      slg - 2011-08-27 18:15

      Again, exactly who has caused the overwhelming majority of civilian deaths in Iraq?

  • not4sale2 - 2011-08-27 16:55

    Hardly surprising given Zuma's and AU's track record.. 'what we need is inclusivity'. What we need is proper leadership! The AU is a joke

      raubies - 2011-08-27 16:58

      I am glad you support 'inclusivity' - this means that you will also realize that Zuma is right about Libya and that no American puppet regime should be installed unilaterally.

      slg - 2011-08-27 18:17

      raubie, the Libyan people will devise their own constitution and create their own government. They will do the latter by voting for their leaders, which Gadhafi disallowed them from doing for 42 years.

      Rev. H-Cubed - 2011-08-27 18:28

      raubies, you're trolling so hard, you can't even recognise a quote. Slow down, pay attention.

  • Joe - 2011-08-27 17:04

    Sheesh. Like Zuma here knows anything about 'democracy' and good governance! Ever since the ANC was GIVEN the reigns South Africa has gone nowhere but DOWN. No aspect of SA life has improved under ANC 'rule'. Even the so called 'liberated' are worse off than before.

      raubies - 2011-08-27 17:06

      This thread is not about your hatred for black people, Joe. In case you haven't noticed, it's about the invasion of Libya by American puppets.

      slg - 2011-08-27 18:19

      That's your perspective, raubie. It's not what this thread is about. That you think the EU, Arab League, and NATO are American puppets is disrespectful to hundreds of millions of people who make up these organizations and regions of the world. It's also an immature view of how the world works. Did you miss the mass uprisings by Tunisians, Egyptians and Libyans for freedom and the right to vote?

  • Derrick O - 2011-08-27 17:10

    @ Raubies Son, you do not have an opinion, you have a prejudice. Therefore the following facts will have no effect on you because facts are irrelevent to your prejudice but one must try to educate the ignorant. Gaddaffi was selling oil to the west, mostly Europe as the US does not get oil from Libya. He did this even when he was a pariah. Anyone in power will sell the oil because that is all you can do with it - even while the US was supporting UNITA, Angola still sold them oil! In short, nobody gets invaded for oil, unless you are going to annex the place like Saddam tried in Kuwait. Supporting a rebellion against Gaddaffi was risky because it endangered the oil flow through instability - the only thing that will ever stop a country selling oil. Neither the US nor NATO has invaded Libya. NATO has not hijacked the rebellion, the rebels are making their own choices. NATO kept them alive. Zuma's roadmap was rejected by the rebels and everyone else because it was a bad joke. The rebellion only became violent because he would not negotiate with protesters, he preferred to kill them! How can you include Gaddaffi when all he wants to do is kill everyone who threatens his power? Or do you believe that a good African leader is a strong butcher who treats his people like cattle? That would explain much. Or perhaps whites getting involved in African liberation struggles are your problem - except of course for Soviets before 1990, that's different, right? Bleh, why do I bother?

      raubies - 2011-08-27 17:16

      Having oil contracts is not the same as having the real oil virtually for free. And of course the land to use for further military bases - as if 700 around the world are not enough. The day you convince me about the bona fides of the American empire, Derick, hell will freeze over. I will only invite you to the party when their economy finally collapses and they slide into third world impoverishment.

      raubies - 2011-08-27 17:18

      By the way: Read what Dennis Kucinich have to say about the matter.

      slg - 2011-08-27 18:24

      raubies, exactly how does the US get its oil for free? I'm sure the American people would love to hear this because right now there's a movement in the US to free the country from its dependence on foreign oil which makes up about 50% of its oil needs. US military bases are established by permission from the countries in which they exist. That you want the US to slide into impoverishment is stupid, no disrespect to you personally, I;m talking about this idea. Do you realize that you would slide into impoverishment too? The US is the world's biggest economy by far. It's Gross National Product is nine times larger than China's. The entire world economy would collapse.

      john - 2011-08-28 01:37

      "Having oil contracts is not the same as having the real oil virtually for free." Nobody gets oil for free, you muppet. If anybody was going to give the US oil for free, it would be Kuwait. Their rulers were, after all, returned to power thanks to US intervention after Saddam invaded. Today, Kuwait's economy is marked by the following characteristics: A GDP of US$167.9 billion and a per capita income of US$81,800, making it the 5th richest country in the world per capita. According to the 2008 Index of Economic Freedom, Kuwait has the second-most free economy in the Middle East. In March 2007, Kuwait's foreign exchange reserves stood at US$213 billion. The Kuwait Stock Exchange, which has about 200 firms listed, is the second-largest stock exchange in the Arab world with a total market capitalisation of US$235 billion. In 2007, the Kuwaiti government posted a budget surplus of US$43 billion. Yep, sure looks like those evil Americans took all of Kuwait's oil, leaving them bankrupt and starving.

  • letsee - 2011-08-27 17:12

    Is anyone listening? Clever countries side with winning sides and Africa is not one of them neither good example beyind talking, talking, talking... The AU and South Africa lost their credibility. PERIOD.

      raubies - 2011-08-27 17:17

      Do you really, really think anyone cares about whom you find credible or not?

      slg - 2011-08-27 18:25

      That you don't rabies, doesn't mean others don't too. I do. I enjoy reading letsee's thoughts.

  • letsee - 2011-08-27 17:16

    Here is a deal: Sort out Syria and the world will regret having ignored Africa in Libya.

      raubies - 2011-08-27 17:25

      "Sort out Syria": What exactly do you mean by that? Let America invade that country, kill a million civilians and install a puppet regime answerable only to Washington? Is that your recipe for Libya as well?

      slg - 2011-08-27 18:28

      I think she means help Syrian free themselves from Asad's brutal regime that has brutalized Syiran for 48 years (longer than Apartheid) and has denied Syrians the right to vote for their leaders. Unarmed Syrians are taking to the streets in large numbers and more than 2,000 have been slaughtered by Asad, and tens of thousands more have been detained and tortured. Letsee is suggesting and hoping that SA will step-up to the plate and help human beings going through the same thing South Africans went through under Apartheid.

  • raubies - 2011-08-27 17:36

    If you want to know the truth about what's happening in Libya, follow Fernando Baez on Twitter - @baezfer - and find out what the American invaders and their hired NATO guns do not want you to know.

      slg - 2011-08-27 18:29

      No thanks. It's immature and wrong.

  • raubies - 2011-08-27 17:38

    Libya's 'Rebels': Has the West armed a racist lynch mob & called them freedom fighters?

      slg - 2011-08-27 18:32

      No, Libyans took to the streets to demand the right to vote for their leaders and freedom from oppression, following upon the same demands made in Tunisia and Egypt that were successful. It was only when Gadhafi had circled Benghazi and from his weird balcony openly threatened to slaughter anyone making these demands that the international community stepped in. This included the Arab League and Turkey, a nation of 73 million muslims. South African was a co-creator of UN Resolution 1973 that authorized Nato to intervene, as it is now doing.

      raubies - 2011-08-27 18:50

      Hahaha. That's the official NATO version you got off BBC and CNN. Read here what really happened in Libya

      slg - 2011-08-27 19:25

      No thanks. It's biased and wrong.

  • jasmin.haumann - 2011-08-27 17:57

    Zuma you should clean you own house first before,thinking of cleaning some body else's house like the time bom Juju

  • raubies - 2011-08-27 18:21

    Did Wikileaks Just Reveal the US blueprint for Libya?

      slg - 2011-08-27 19:27

      You're so opposed to mass media for their biased reporting, but recommend The Electronic Intifada as a non-biased source. This doesn't make sense. It's even more biased.

  • aryantoo - 2011-08-27 18:27

    Hey clown get your own house in order before pointing fingers at peopel with an IQ

      raubies - 2011-08-27 18:34

      You are obviously not referring to yourself here.

      PinkAndProud - 2011-08-27 18:45

      @Raubies - OMG, are you still at it you rabid brainwashed wanker?

      raubies - 2011-08-27 18:51

      If you want to wank go right ahead. Leave me out of it.

      PinkAndProud - 2011-08-27 19:00

      @Raubies ~ Not necessary as I have a wonderful wife. You on the other hand seem like a very lonely little man who has nothing better to do than try and spread his brainwashed ideas on the internet. Shame boet. Try crossing over to the real world and you might get a life ... and maybe even some friends. There's always Vegetarian who might be interested - you're both equally as ignorant.

  • umhlopo - 2011-08-27 18:46

    send malema there,he recons he can sort out everyones problems

  • beicime - 2011-08-27 19:04

    Long ago Russia, which opposed NATO intervention in Libya, stated that Gaddafi regime lost legitimacy and China and other South Arican friends. What is the African Union saying? The African Union can't solve any problem but wants to look more "sober" tha the rest of the world. The Africa Union don't sop killings in Africa but has irrelevant solutions for most conflicts. Who can take the African Union seriously?

      Dmitri - 2011-08-27 19:12

      Ok, here is a link that some of you might find interesting. Right now my main concern is for mates in New York that are in Irene's way, so I will not comment, but leave the link (which I find hard to believe btw).

      Dmitri - 2011-08-27 19:13

      Would help if I pasted the link...

      crackerr - 2011-08-27 20:15

      @ Dmitri The link confirms how easy it is to pull disparate strands together and create an outlandish theory out of it. According to the impression created by the link, the Americans have managed to saddle themselves with an Al Quada take-over of Libya after 30 years of masterful planning by the CIA. Impressive to say the least (sarcasm) but one should rather select a more mundane explanation, which is represented by the fact that the Gaddafi clan clamped down on the freedoms of ordinary Libyans, particularly the freedom to decide on their own leaders, for 42 years ongoing.

  • Rainbow Nation - 2011-08-27 20:50

    Um, so let me get this straight... The Arab League, the nations neighbouring Libya who are closest to the issues of refugees, cross-border trade and military pressure, whose citizens share common boundaries, and in many instances common religion, and language have accepted the NTC. But Zuma and the AU know better. NATO got involved because Gaddafi's slaughter of it's own people could not be ignored, and more importantly, the rebels begged them for help. The AU consistently tries to put in place stupid negotiated settlements like Kenya and Zimbabwe which keep dictators and undemocratically elected governments in power. Speaks volumes about their values, doesn't it?

  • Yankee - 2011-08-27 20:52

    To Marco and your follower Rabies, or is it Raubies. Your extract from reuters states that the americans returned to Libya in 2006. Wake up both of you, it is now 2011. In any case, the americans taught the world how to extract and refine this dirty thick black sludge. African countries would not have known what flowed beneath their feet. Viva America, Europe and the rest of the West who taught Africa almost everything they know today.

  • Vela Stardust - 2011-08-27 21:11

    Suddenly a pearl of wisdom! Who told Zuma to say that? Not something he could come up with on his own.

  • Vela Stardust - 2011-08-27 21:34

    MAILONLINE states Gaddafi has landed in Zimbabwe aboard Zim military jet !!! Wow! Birds of a feather!

  • Mariano Castrillon - 2011-08-27 21:38

    Zuma moves in the direction the wind blows, whether it is on international politics or, what is even worse, South African policies.

  • feppie - 2011-08-27 22:56

    My guess = These same "europeans" that "support" the gangs(Rebels) and WAR-MONGERING US/NATO are the same racists who can't even show one Arab/Muslim in their circle of friends :(

      crackerr - 2011-08-28 02:12

      How about this guess (made while slowly shaking head in disbelief): The bodies of the victims of Gaddafi-ism are almost all ARAB/MUSLIM. What a shame that once again the West and Nato have to carry the burden of assisting the ARABS/MUSLIMS against...... You twit!

      slg - 2011-08-28 05:34

      You guess wrong.

      aperiozar - 2011-08-28 11:46

      You are right. One will mainly find that it's white people supporting the American invasion of Libya. I am sometimes ashamed to be one of them. They will support whatever America and Britain do, because they hate Muslims, blacks, anything that's not white. And I know..I grew up among them. I know what they talk about when they gather on a Saturday night.

      Anton - 2011-08-28 14:48

      Aperiozar, Did you grow up in Orania ?? Shame !!

  • raubies - 2011-08-28 11:07

    I find all the pro-American, pro-NeoCon trash on here highly amusing. Sig, for one, is so uninformed that he probably landed here with a time machine his granddad developed in the 1800s. America is no longer the biggest economy in real GDP terms in the world son, and by FAR not nine times the size of China. In real GDP terms, China is, thank God, now the biggest economy in the world. Proof is here It's incredible how white racists justify everything other white racists do. Pathetics like Sig and Yankee, for example, will no doubt justify the American invasion of Iraq and their killing of nearly a million innocent people, as they will justify Afghanistan and every other country on the long list which have been invaded by the despicable American empire. They have so far invaded more than 70 countries since WW2. Libya is just the latest on the list. There is NO difference between what this scum did in Iraq and what they are now doing in Libya. I pray to God that I live to see the day that the American empire disappears into dust. It has already started, their credit rating downgraded, tens of thousands of them without a home. That comes from perpetual warmongering.

      aperiozar - 2011-08-28 11:26

      I fully agree with you Raubies. I think the majority of people commenting on here are a)white and b)racists. They will support America even if it decides to kill every single black man in Africa tomorrow. Of course Libya is about oil, greed and military bases for the American empire. US lapdogs like Yankee will never be able to see this - their brains are wired to support whatever the West does, whether it's evil or not.

      Anton - 2011-08-28 14:51

      raubies, How great for you, all this misery in Libya. For otherwise, you would have to find another issue to spew your racism and hatred !!!

      John Wilderness - 2011-08-29 05:03

      @aperiozar - I agree with you about the west and white people but on the other side of the coin you also have a very corrupt african leadership and probably most of these cronies are on the payroll of western multi-nationals. Globally we are basically screwed because the corrupt west sponsor and support their corrupt puppets who are leaders of third world countries.

      aperiozar - 2011-08-29 07:32

      I agree with what you say John. However, you have to see this in perspective. America has invaded more than 70 countries since WW2. It is responsible for the deaths of more than a million people in Iraq. The US hijacked the uprising in Libya for its own vile purposes. Mark my words: six months from now Libya will be brimming with American military bases. Every other dictator or corrupt nation on earth pales in comparison with American imperialism, greed and warmongering.

  • aperiozar - 2011-08-28 13:14

    What happens in Libya right now can not be seen in isolation. You have to look at the destructive role America has played in the world for decades. Read this and weep

  • FrankkF - 2011-08-28 14:13

    Hold on... So the AU cannot allow governments that came into power through unconstitutional means to take participate in the AU, as per their Constitutive Act? Then why was Gaddafi's government allowed to participate? He took power exactly the same way, through a revolt? I'm not saying that the rebels are right or wrong, who would I be to decide and what would I know, but the AU's decision to overlook their own constitution for Gaddafi and then use it to block the rebels is plain discrimination, there for everyone to see. Especially from a group claiming the West interfered purely for their own political purpose, isn't this exactly what the AU is doing with it's double standards? If not, then what other motive is there for their double standards?

  • Sharky_CTN - 2011-08-29 09:19

    That is rich coming from Zuma not to mention some of the other AU leadres!

  • The Oricle - 2011-08-29 10:15

    Hey Zuma, is your buddy Gaddafi hiding away at your house? Sorry his regime got toppled!

  • OnlyAsking - 2011-08-29 15:12

    "Article 30 of the Constitutive Act of the AU, which states that governments that come into power through unconstitutional means, would not be allowed to participate in the AU, Zuma said. We cannot act outside of that." And your best friend's coup d'etat is coming to power by constitutional means, right?

  • bmmpinga - 2011-09-01 13:15

    big up to JZ, democracy of a sovereign state is solely dependent on it's citizens, in this case ANTI-GADDAFFI and PRO-GADDAFFI should engage (negotiations) and LIBYA will be the VICTOR!!

  • Mboneli - 2011-09-13 17:52

    The president doing his best to overcome the obstacles that surround the lybians but there is no voice from the UN,now the AU must come up with machenism that can stop the civil war in that country. bye!

  • pages:
  • 1