Toronto for a Free Libya - www.libyatoronto.com

June 21: Letter to Globe & Mail regarding their editorial on Libya & Syria

Letter (an edited version was published) and link to the Globe editorial are posted here.

June 10: Letter to The Toronto Star re: Thomas Walkom column, "Do opposition MP's still laud Canada's ludicrous Libyan war?".

Toronto Star, National Affairs columnist Thomas Walkom -- a former classmate of mine I'll note -- wrote a column today regarding the upcoming Parliamentary vote on extending Canada's participation. There are far too many wrong-headed statements to counter here. I believe there are some plans to submit a longer piece presenting the Libyan viewpoint, but I couldn't let it go uncommented on, so I sent the following letter, which I understand was published;

There is so much wrong and misleading in Thomas Walkom's June 10 column, "Do opposition MPs still laud Canada’s ludicrous Libyan war?", it's difficult to know where to begin.

So, let's just focus on the end: the place we would expect a columnist to wrap up the argument presented. However, it's there that Mr Walkom bizarrely tries to compare our federal government's gazebo-spending spree with a serious commitment to saving many thousand of innocent lives, and for fulling a very real, and very serious principle that Canada and other countries have committed to: our responsibility to protect civilians from slaughter by their government.

The decision to act militarily in Libya can be debated, but the consequences of failing to do so -- or of ending the NATO mission -- cannot.

Libya's cemeteries and prisons would be even fuller; equally dead would be the principle of Responsibility to Protect, and any pretense we have to encouraging democratic movements against tyranny.

 Because, have no doubt, that is what is happening in Libya.

Mr Walkom says that "in this conflict, there are no good guys".

There are indeed "good guys": the millions of Libyan men, women and children who have suffered so much over forty two years, that they are now willing to risk everything to rid their country of the cause of their suffering, and to demand basic human rights.

Even in Tripoli, where Gaddafi's remaining security still holds sway, the nights are increasingly filled with the sound of citizens cheering and whistling their approval to NATO's bomb attacks. They know who the "bad guys are".

June 2: Letter urging Parliament to support continuation in NATO mission

Canda's Parliament to vote on continuination in the NATO mission. The Prime Minister hopes approval will be unanimous, but there have been concerns expressed by some about "mission creep", and that the goal is now regime change and not protection of civilians. eg, NDP defence critic Jack Harris in this story is one of many who have expressed concerns about "mission creep" and suggested the goal is becoming regime change and not protection of civilians.

The government seems to know those are not two different things. In the same story, the Parliamentary Secretary to Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird said,

"The end of the mission is to bring peace, stability out there, and peace and stability can only be in the region if Mr. Gadhafi's gone, due to his murderous actions. ... The resolution was to protect the civilians because of the murderous regime of Gadhafi. Therefore that is why we want Gadhafi out."

On June 2, I sent the following email to the Ministers of Foreign Affairs and Defence, plus the Liberal and NDP critics for those portfolios and Green Party leader Elizabeth May. I copied the PM, party leaders and my own MP.

If you want to write, you can CLICK HERE . It will create an email addressed to the same people (minus my MP). To find your MP, click here. Feel free to add names, cc's, or to change the subject line.

To: Ministers & Opposition critics for Foreign Affairs & Defence
Copy: Prime Minister; Opposition Party Leaders; Peggy Nash, (MP, Parkdale-High Park)

I am writing to urge all parties to publicly support the continued strong participation of Canada in the NATO mission in Libya. To weaken our participation would be deadly, not only for the people of Libya, but for the cause of democracy and human rights.

I fully understand and sympathize the reluctance many of you -- and I -- feel about endorsing a bombing campaign in a foreign country. The idea is repugnant, and must be considered and debated very thoroughly.  (But please have no doubt about how widely these attacks are supported by Libyans across that country. It's a fascinating experience to watch videos of nighttime NATO bombing attacks over Tripoli being cheered on by residents under cover of darkness. There are few places in the world where that could be imagined).

However, as a nation, we must support in actions -- or deny -- the principle of protection of civilians under threat of slaughter by their own "leaders" and we must be prepared to back up our words of support for the courageous efforts of peoples who stand up to tyranny to achieve basic human rights, dignity and democracy.

How far should we and NATO go to fulfill our mandate? There is understandable concern and skepticism that we are exceeding the mandate to protect civilians and enforce a no-fly zone. There are warnings of "mission creep", and fear over the spectre of illegally supporting "regime change".  I remind you that the UN Security Council Resolution 1973 authorized members to  "take all necessary measures... to protect civilians and civilian populated areas under threat of attack".

This does not mean that we shoot down (now non-existent) Libyan fighters or helicopters, or bomb ammunition dumps or tanks and then go home, The crucial fact here is that there is absolutely no way we can protect Libyan civilians while Muammar Gaddafi and his family/regime remain in power. That is beyond debate.

I hesitate to repeat information that you already know, but these facts must be remembered and their reality deeply understood if you are considering supporting any pull-back of Canada's or NATO's commitment and activities.

Gaddafi has employed all the violence and terror he can muster over the past three months, including:

•  
  • When peaceful demonstrations for basic human rights began, they were not just met with suppression, or "mere" killing. No, human bodies were torn apart by anti-aircraft weapons, mourners at demonstrators' funerals were gunned down from military barracks, and snipers killed civilians exiting mosques after prayer.
  • The Gaddafi's vowed (occasionally they do tell the truth) to hunt down the "rats" "street by street, house by house" and to fight "to the last man, the last woman, the last drop of blood".
  • After the UN Security Council Resolution 1973 was adopted, the regime immediately announced a "ceasefire" at the same time its tanks rolled through Eastern Libya heading toward Benghazi, hoping to kill (in every sense) the revolt before "we" arrived. Fortunately NATO arrived two days -- and many deaths -- after that historic vote.
  • Indiscriminate shelling, rocket and Grad missile attacks on civilian neighbourhoods; deploying land and sea mines to prevent desperately needed humanitarian aid from reaching its target; cutting off of water and electricity to cities and towns suffering from lack of water, food and medical aid -- these are just a few Gaddafi tactics employed against his own citizens
  • Of course, the International Criminal Court will likely be issuing arrest warrants for his crimes against humanity soon, and given the huge number of reports of mass rape being employed as a weapon of war by Gaddafi troops, those charges will likely get even more serious.

     

I also remind you, that these are not just the actions of someone who may have temporarily strayed off course or lost his senses, and who might be persuaded to change his ways. They are the final acts of a murderous madman who has been killing, torturing and imprisoning his own people for over 40 years. This is what he does. This is who he is. His only "redeeming" qualities are that a few years ago, he agreed to stop killing us; to give us intelligence on some terrorists (not the kind he always supported), and to give up some old WMD that probably didn't work anyway. For that, we (Canada and other western countries), agreed we'd now support him with money, arms, and other goodies. Today, we must belatedly recognize that as a result, we effectively let him go back to his specialty: killing, terrorizing and robbing Libyans. (Not to forget the Canadian company building his prisons!)

This is all to emphasize, in the most urgent way I can, that Libyan civilians CANNOT be protected while Gaddafi is in power. Much as it's almost always the preferred approach, ceasefire or negotiations are impossible -- or lies -- with Gaddafi anywhere near the reins of power.  Given the uprisings against him (What an inspiration to see those people finally throw off their fear, and to join in their celebration of that freedom!), if this uprising is settled in any way that accommodates Gaddafi, those people will have lost everything. More blood will flow in the streets of Libya.

But it will not be just the Libyan people who will be killed; it will also be the credibility of Canada and the west. We will no longer be able profess our willingness to protect innocent citizens from slaughter. We will no longer be able to credibly talk of support for those who are willing to risk their own lives and futures to claim some of the rights and freedoms we proudly support.

You can decide who will have lost more: Libyans or us. We'll have to live with our decisions; many Libyans won't.

I do leave the decision in your hands, and understand the principles that some will support in trying to limit Canada's and NATO's role. I just want to make sure you understand the cost of  our pulling back.

I sincerely thank your for your time and consideration

John Leeson

Responses to above letter:
To date (Jun 23), I received (form) responses from Jack Layton and Paul Dewar. Below is the email from Mr. Dewar, who remains the NDP Foreign Affairs critic:

Dear John, 

 Thank you for writing me about the ongoing situation in Libya. I appreciate having the benefits of your comments on this important matter.  

 My New Democrat colleagues and I supported the United Nations Resolution 1973 in March, authorizing member states to take “all necessary measures […] to protect civilians and civilian populated areas under threat of attack […] while excluding a foreign occupation force of any form on any part of Libyan territory.” Furthermore, the UN resolution mandates the establishment of a “no fly zone”, the immediate establishment of a cease-fire and a complete end to violence and the abuses of civilians.

 The United Nations was urged by the African Union and the Arab League to help stop Muammar Gaddafi’s savage treatment of civilian Libyans and rebel forces. That is why we supported Parliament’s motion to join other countries like the United Kingdom, France, Norway, Denmark, Spain, Belgium, Italy, Turkey, Qatar, UAE, Jordan and Morocco in this UN mission.

 While we support the UN efforts in protecting civilian lives and resolving this conflict, we continue to be concerned about the potential of the mission to creep beyond its mandate. We clearly said that Canada should take a strong role in ensuring that diplomacy and humanitarian assistance are Canada’s top priorities. I pushed these views as the New Democrat Foreign Affairs Critic by tabling a number of substantive amendments to the government’s July 14th motion to extend Canadian involvement for another 3 ½ months. To achieve transparency on Canada’s goals in Libya, we believe that it is crucial to:

 - Make clear that the goal of the UN-mandated mission is to protect civilians and not regime change, while wholly excluding the possibility of Canadian ground troops.

- Secure an increase to Canada’s support for humanitarian assistance.

- Strengthen our diplomatic role with the acknowledgment that only a Libyan-led political transition will end this conflict.

- Ensure improved oversight of Canada’s involvement, including parliamentary committee meetings and better information sharing.

 My New Democratic colleagues and I did not support this extension lightly nor will we support any further extensions of the current mission. I have attached a copy of the entire motion, with NDP amendments in bold, and a link to my speech found here.

As you mentioned, a ceasefire needs to be established. [NOTE: I never mentioned the word "ceasefire"]. The political crisis that preceded the humanitarian one cannot begin to be addressed until a ceasefire is achieved. We have been calling on the government to increase diplomatic efforts for finding a resolution to the conflict. But underlining this all is the need to intensify efforts to find a solution to the crisis which responds to the legitimate demands of the Libyan people and leads to the political reforms necessary to find a peaceful and sustainable solution.

 The Conservatives’ lopsided focus on combat has proven ineffective in Afghanistan, and New Democrats will continue to press for a smarter approach there and in Libya. Canada must be a constructive force for peace, human rights and social justice in the world. We will continue to work with other parties to ensure that Canada’s role in Libya is clear, responsible and accountable. 

 Again, thank you for writing and please don’t hesitate to contact me again over this or any other matter.

Sincerely,
Paul

Paul Dewar,
MP | Député Ottawa Centre
NDP Foreign Affairs Critic
Porte-parole du NPD pour les affaires étrangères
519 Confederation BuildingTel: 613.996.5322      
www.pauldewar.ca

Response from Foreign Minister Cannon: April 12

After 7 emails over the past 2 months about Libya, today I did receive a response from Foreign Minister Lawrence Cannon. I did mention Bahrain only in passing, but I assume the comments are canned, based on the keywords contained in the sender's email. 

Dear Mr. Leeson:

Thank you for your emails of February 18 and 23, and March 16, 2011, concerning the situation in Libya and in Bahrain.

The Government of Canada continues to call for an end to attacks against the civilian population in Libya by the Gaddafi regime. Canada also condemns the impact this violence has had on hundreds of thousands of people who have been trapped in Libya or forced to flee into neighbouring countries.

The Government of Canada was pleased that the international community acted quickly, robustly, and with one voice in its reaction to the events in Libya, including by adopting, on February 26 and March 17, 2011, the United Nations (UN) Security Council resolutions 1970 and
1973.

The Government of Canada strongly supports UN Security Council resolution 1970, which imposes sanctions against the current Libyan regime. In addition to these sanctions, on February 27, 2011, Canada imposed unilateral sanctions in the form of prohibiting dealings in the property of the Libyan government, its institutions and agencies.

Resolution 1973 authorizes UN member states to take all necessary measures to protect civilians, establishes a no-fly zone in Libyan airspace and imposes additional sanctions. On March 21, 2011, during a Take Note debate on Libya, the House of Commons unanimously adopted a motion consenting to the Government of Canada's promotion and support of all aspects of UN Security Council resolution 1973.

Canada's HMCS Charlottetown is currently patrolling the Central Mediterranean with NATO's Operation Unified Protector to enforce the arms embargo, as mandated under UN Security Council resolution 1973. Canadian air assets, including 6 CF-188 Hornet fighters and 2 CP-140 Aurora strategic maritime surveillance aircraft, are also contributing to the NATO mission.  The UN Security Council has also referred the situation in Libya to the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court to ensure that those who have committed serious crimes against the Libyan people are held accountable. Canada was among the first nations to call for such a referral.

In terms of humanitarian assistance to the Libyan people, as of March 29, 2011, the Canadian government has contributed $8.6 million to international humanitarian agencies.

Canada calls on the Libyan regime to respect the ceasefire and to adhere to UN Security Council resolution 1973 which demands a complete end to violence and all attacks against civilians. In light of the rapidly evolving situation, and to obtain more up-to-date information on Canada's position and actions, I invite you to browse the website of Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada at
http://www.international.gc.ca/international/libya-libye.aspx?lang=eng.

I understand and share your concerns about the Government of Bahrain's actions to address protests in the country. On February 18, 2011, I issued a statement expressing Canada's regret at the loss of life in Bahrain, and calling on all parties to refrain from violence. Canada also urged the Bahraini authorities to exercise restraint, and encouraged the Government of Bahrain to promptly investigate the deaths of protestors. On March 16, 2011, I reiterated the Government of Canada's concerns about the recent evolution of the situation. Canada called on Bahrain and the countries of the Gulf Cooperation Council to protect the safety of demonstrators and maintain an environment favourable to democratic reform. Furthermore, I issued a third declaration on March 21, 2011, in response to the lack of progress made by the Government of Bahrain to return to fully respecting its citizens' human rights and fulfill its obligations under humanitarian law.

Canada strongly encourages Bahraini authorities to resume their efforts toward building a sincere dialogue that addresses the concerns of the country's citizens. I believe an open national dialogue is the only valid option to resolve the current unrest. The Canadian government
calls on all parties involved to show openness in this process in order to peacefully address the Bahraini people's concerns.

Canada hopes for a prompt and lasting return to calm, democracy and respect of human rights in Bahrain.

Thank you for writing and sharing your concerns.

Sincerely,

The Honourable Lawrence Cannon, P.C., M.P.
Minister of Foreign Affairs 

Regarding the Libyan Embassy in Canada  (see March 28 post on main page)

Mar. 29, to the Libyan Ambassador

To Mr. Abdulrahman Abututa, Libyan Ambassador to Canada

Dear Mr Abututa

As a Canadian who cares greatly about Libya and the Libyan people, I was appalled to hear of your apparent continued support for the Gaddafi regime, and denunciation of the UN-sanctioned intervention as "barbaric". Surely, barbaric actions are what that intervention is trying to stop.

At a time when your colleagues in Libyan embassies and missions around the world have denounced Gaddafi's actions and murderous attacks on Libyan civilians,  I urge you to do the same, and to declare that you represent the people of Libya and not a government that is attacking them.

I also understand the difficulty of your position because of possible repercussions at home, but your colleagues elsewhere were able to take a firm stand on behalf of the people they represent, as have many Libyans living abroad.

This is a time to stand up with the same principle and courage that the people of Libya are showing. 

Thank you

John Leeson

Mar. 28 to the Prime Minister, Foreign Affairs Minister and the Leaders & Foreign Affairs Critics of the Liberal NDP & Bloc Quebecois parties

To: Prime Minister Harper and Foreign Affairs Minister Cannon

I am very concerned that Canada is still accommodating the Libyan Embassy in Ottawa. At a time when Canada has committed money, effort, and most importantly, has sent its armed forces personnel on a military mission to help stop the Gaddafi regime's killing rampage, and when Prime Minister Harper has joined other world leaders in stating that Colonel Gaddafi "must go", it is time that we must cut off any dealings with that government.

Other Libyan missions and diplomatic staff (including the Libyan mission to the UN) have declared that they will no longer support the brutal dictatorship of Muamar Gadafi. To this point, the Libyan Ambassador and staff have not done the same.  I urge you to call in the Libyan Ambassador, and if he will not declare his renunciation of the old regime, you should suspend relations with the Libyan Embassy immediately.

As you know, Libyan embassies often engage in political and intelligence activities, focused in particular on the lives and activities of Libyan exiles.

We are risking Canadian lives to prevent the Gaddafi regime from carrying out murderous offences on its own people; we cannot have "diplomatic" relations with it.

Thank you for your attention

John Leeson

2. Margaret Wente & Libya
It's as if the Globe & Mail columnist is trying to make up for her stubborn and wrong-headed support for the Bush invasion of Iraq.  She's now written two columns against the military intervention in Libya. The original column (March 22) and a follow-up on March 26.  The first piece prompted me to write a letter to the editor, and I followed a couple of days later with an email to her. Why I don't know. She's loves to be contrary, and always hopeless. I wouldn't have bothered if I'd first seen the second one. Damn humanitarians who seem only interested in people.

Mar. 23: to the editor, Globe & Mail

Margaret Wente's March 22 column decrying the current military intervention in Libya seems to be an attempt to compensate for her past support of the American invasion of Iraq. Her argument now however, is just as wrong as it was back then. 

The differences between the two situations are many (eg, which one was based on obvious lies?) , but I am particularly puzzled and troubled by some rather bizarre and unfounded comments in her column.

"It's a brutal, ugly, local rebellion". Brutal and ugly indeed, but those adjectives don't apply to the rebellion; they are strictly owned by the Gaddafi's response to first protests, and then the rebellion.

Libya is not a "tribal society". It's a country of people almost all of whom have suffered enough over the past four decades that they are ready to put their lives on the line for some basic rights that we espouse.

"Who says Libya's rebels are the good guys? What happens if (as seems likely) there are no good guys?". I wonder what that last accusation could possibly be based on?  In relative terms alone, it would be virtually impossible to picture any anti-Gadaffi movement as being composed of anything other than the "good guys".

However her insinuations are more troubling.  It's clear to those familiar with Libya and its people that there is overwhelming hatred of Gaddafi's regime. The rebels (those fighting or not) are in fact most of the country. "There are no good guys"? So what does that make the Libyan population?

One of the worst things Gaddafi has "accomplished" in his time has been to create in the outside world an image of Libyans as being dangerous terrorists.

There was a news clip a few weeks ago showing a Libyan man sacrificing his time and money to help feed some of the desperate and abandoned foreign refugees stuck in Benghazi. When a reporter asked why, he answered, showing his frustration at what Gaddafi has made of his country, "This is who Libyans are. We're not Gaddafi!"

Finally, what "national interest" does Canada have? None I suppose. Helping to prevent an otherwise inevitable slaughter of thousands of people? Supporting an inspiring movement across an area that desperately needs reform? Nope.

The "responsibility to protect" is something we've ignored before and can do so again.  Perhaps we should get an exemption from the UN for future purposes, but we just might have to be a little quieter when we preach support for democracy around the world.

Mar 25: email to Margaret Wente

Dear Ms Wente

I sent the email below to "letters to the editor", but thought I would also write you directly regarding your March 22 column on Libya. I disagree with your views on Canadian and other countries' intervention, and am concerned about some implications you seem to suggest about Libyans.

I understand there are serious complexities with the intervention, and uncertainties about the mission and what a future, post-Gaddafi Libya might be. And while I believe there is overwhelming justification and need for this military action, I think that any arguments against intervention must openly acknowledge the alternative: Many (more) thousands of Libyans dead, and other Libyans sentenced to continued terror, killing and imprisonment. By refusing to step in, we'd entrench a bloody tyrant, and give him assurances that he would forever be free of interference (as long as he confined his terror to his own people).

If you argue against military intervention, you must also acknowledge that a failure of the Libyan uprising as a result of Gaddafi firepower (and madness) would also create a serious blow to popular and democratic hopes elsewhere in the region, and confirm in the minds of those peoples (and around the world) that our brave words about democracy and human rights are indeed, just words.

I didn't see you discuss those implications of non--intervention. When the Gaddafi's vow to go "house to house" to wipe out enemies and fight to the "last drop of blood", at those moments they are speaking the truth. A man who can order the killing of 1300 prisoners in one day; who can bring down passenger jets, fund terrorist groups in one decade, and the dictatorships those groups were fighting the next, is capable of killing on auto-pilot. I hope you're following the news of the slaughter going on in places like Misrata (after the government has declared a cease-fire three times). No water, no electricity, no room in the hospitals to accommodate the victims of tanks and snipers. This is NOT a "brutal, ugly local rebellion".

In Thursday's New York Times, Nicholas Kristof wrote,

This is also one of the few times in history when outside forces have intervened militarily to save the lives of citizens from their government. More commonly, we wring our hands for years as victims are massacred, and then, when it is too late, earnestly declare: “Never again.” ...

If not for this intervention, Libyan civilians would be dying on a huge scale; Colonel Qaddafi’s family would be locked in place for years; and the message would have gone out to all dictators that ruthlessness works....

I’ve seen war up close, and I detest it. But there are things I’ve seen that are even worse — such as the systematic slaughter of civilians as the world turns a blind eye. Thank God that isn’t happening this time.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/24/opinion/24kristof.html

There are also solid arguments for why intervention was urgently needed in the current Economist: (http://www.economist.com/node/18441153?Story_ID=18441153&fsrc=nlw%257Chig%257C24-03-2011%257Ceditors_highlights),

You raise valid questions about the mission's goal, and Gaddafi's fate. I understand why most coalition members will say that regime change isn't part of the mission and that "Gaddafi must go". But how to accomplish both...?

There's surely nobody who could believe that the Libyan population would be safe if the coalition exits and Gaddafi remains. And also no-one who could imagine Gaddafi being convinced to retire gracefully to some foreign villa counting his billions.

Although unacknowledged, the Security Council resolution does contain the answer in its mandate that members "take all necessary measures... to protect civilians and civilian populated areas under threat of attack". There is only one way to protect Libyan civilians, and that is the removal of Colonel Gaddafi. Will he end up being the ultimate collateral damage on a bombing run? Will someone in his entourage be persuaded that the time has come? I have no idea how this will play out.

But behind all the arguments and facts being debated are the reality of what is behind them. When we talk of past or future deaths, of medical and food crises, people sometimes need to be reminded of the reality of the people's lives and futures at stake.

I admit to a strong personal and emotional bias on the issue. I am not Libyan, and am no expert on the country, but based on two visits there in the past several years, I became very close to a number of Libyans, and over the weeks my wife and I spent there, we were overwhelmed by the warmth, generosity and openness of Libyans everywhere. We also developed an abiding contempt for the Gaddafi's, and what they have done to Libyans.

It's easy to see the embedded fear in people's eyes as soon as we discussed anything to do with life in Libya; they wanted to talk, but watched constantly for eavesdroppers. Although in private conversations with friends, more could come out. The evidence is also everywhere of the Gaddafis' theft of Libyan riches. The country is oil-rich, and poor in all the basics of life that oil could pay for.

We were very fortunate to meet and become friends with a number of Libyans in Tripoli and Benghazi, and were able to spend quite a bit of time with them, their families and friends. We know what kind of life Libyans want: a life, in its basics, that all of us want.

However, I am not just motivated because of our friends there; when I think of Libyans, I also think of the many strangers I passed on the street who might at first look at us wondering what we were doing there, but when I would greet them with "Salam aleykum", would inevitably receive a huge warm smile, a question where we were from, and usually a hand over the heart, and a loud "Welcome to Libya!". Strangers offered hospitality and help everywhere.

We got the sense that Libyans, after four decades under Gaddafi, had to some extent given up and accepted their fate under that regime. So, while we were both shocked and inspired to see Libyans openly protest and then rebel, we also understood it came from the bottling up of 41 years of frustration and rage. Indeed, they had not given up.

Now when I see videos and photos of Libyans ecstatically ripping down billboards of Gaddafi, burning his Green Book, cheering the rebels, I know what led to it, and can feel the liberation in their actions. When I read of Libyans lining up to shake the hand of an American pilot whose plane crashed, my heart is there with them. When I read of anti-aircraft weapons strafing citizens, and tanks firing into houses, and see the bloody results of Gaddafi's rage, I feel fear for all those Libyans: our friends, the many people we met, and all the other Libyans whom I may never know. When I see ordinary citizens massing in the streets, taking up arms to face down the Gaddafi artillery, I'm moved to the core by their courage.

One of our closest friends in Benghazi is 14 years younger than Gaddafi's regime. He's someone who, until last month was fed up with Libya, and had previously told us he had to get out. The day after the revolt broke out, I spoke with him, and he was a changed person. He seemed proud of his country for the first time; he told me -- and I didn't believe him at the time -- that they would defeat Gaddafi, but he was ready to die there if he had to.

A week ago Wednesday when I came home, I found my wife, quite distressed while talking on the phone with him. At that time, it looked like the Gaddafi forces might make their way into Benghazi, and potentially end the revolution and all the Libyans' hopes for many years. He was making arrangements if needed, to get his money from the bank in US funds, get to Egypt, and asked us about procedures for refugees status.

The next night when I arrived home, the Security Council had just approved the NFZ, and we sat in front of the television, tuned to Al Jazeera, and watched the people of Benghazi explode in a middle-of-the-night frenzy of joy and celebration.

The next day however, brought Gaddafi's first "ceasefire" which meant increased massacres in places like Misrata, fighting in Benghazi, and soldiers and tanks advancing on Benghazi. Almost 100 were killed the night of that first ceasefire in Benghazi alone. There would have been many, many more the next day but for the attack on that convoy by foreign jets.

We have not been able to contact anyone in Libya since the night of that phone call. We can only sit at home, worry and do what little we can to help the Libyans finally achieve freedom from the bloody tyrant.

I understand your columns regularly take a "contrarian" position to commonly held beliefs (such as support for the Libyan intervention), but knowing what little I do of the country and the people, when I read your suggestions that belittle their fight (a "local rebellion") and suggest that there are "no good guys" in this situation, I see your arguments as demeaning and wrong.

I apologize for the length of this message, but will leave you with one more plea for foreign intervention.

Two days after the initial protests (and killings), Mohammed al Nabous was able to rig up an internet connection and webcam for an interview with a foreign journalist, in what was the first of a series of broadcasts from Benghazi. His plea for help ("intervention" if you will), still rings in many of our minds and hearts.

When asked what Libyans want from "us", he said simply,

"Ask him to stop killing us".

I don't understand how can you people watch us getting killed and not putting pressure on him?

We just want to live FREE!"

He also said, memorably, "I'm not afraid to die. I'm afraid to lose the battle".

On the day, exactly one month later, when that help finally arrived, Mohammed was killed by a sniper's bullet. 27 years old, leaving a wife pregnant with their first child.

 I'll leave you with his words. Thank you for your time

John Leeson

3. Mar. 22: to the Turkish ambassador to Canada
Turkey's role in the Libyan crisis, as one of the largest NATO members -- and the only Muslim member -- is critical. Its refusal (so far) to support military intervention is based on some puzzling assumptions that completely ignore the reality of the Libyan situation

Dear Ambassador Rafet Akgünay

I am very concerned about the position taken by your Prime Minister regarding Turkey's non-support for the UN Security Council resolution regarding Libya.

As a Canadian with ties to Libya, I strongly believe that the current military action as sanctioned by the Security Council is absolutely essential to save countless Libyan lives.  Your Prime Minister's statement that Turkey "will never point a gun at the Libyan people" is helping to accomplish the exact opposite. 

Surely the world clearly knows know that Coll. Gaddafi is the one pointing guns (and tanks, and airplanes and heavy artillery) at the Libyan people.  Their future is doomed if the rest of the world does not help. The current deployment is in fact exactly serving the "humanitarian purposes" of the UN that Prime Minister Erdogan has insisted on.

The Libyan situations is drastically different from that of Iraq. In this case, non-intervention will have as deadly a result on Libya's population as the Iraqi invasion had on that country.

The Libyan people are pleading for help from the outside world.  Yesterday, when a US fighter jet crashed, there was a queue of grateful Libyans come to shake the pilot's hand in appreciation.

The backing of Turkey is critical to the survival and freedom of the Libyan people.  I urge you to support the mission, and to support the people of Libya.

I thank you for your attention.

4. Letters re: need for Canadian government action 

Mar 16: My latest email to the Canadian government (Mar. 16)
This is now the 5th letter I have sent to Foreign Affairs Minister Cannon; several of them have been copied to the Prime Minister and the Liberal and NDP leaders & Foreign Affairs critics. Total number of responses: one, from Jack Layton's office, sending the NDP's position on the Middle East situation.

To Foreign Affairs Minister Cannon, Prime Minister Harper, and the Leaders & Foreign Affairs Critics of the Liberal and NDP:

I despair at the continued inaction by Canada over the desperate situation in Libya.  I have followed our government's announcements, press releases and motions; I have studied Hansard discussion on the issue, and read news articles about Canada's position and "brave words", but see little meaningful action, or even courageous words.

Every action or statement issued has been much too little, and much too late. Everything we have done or said has been either echoing what others have just done or said (if that much), or been virtually meaningless in the face of the insane brutality that Col Gaddafi is more than capable of, and willing to do.

Minister Cannon, while in Europe and Egypt, continues to pass responsibility to organizations like the Security Council. I understand why, but not why Canada isn't at least forcefully arguing for meaningful actions.

Reading that the G8 foreign ministers warned Gaddafi that he will face "dire consequences" if he doesn't honour the basic human rights of Libyans would be laughable if it wasn't so deadly tragic.  Gaddafi doesn't honour human rights:  never has, never will. The world now recognizes what the Libyan people know only too well, and it is the Libyans who will face the "dire consequences": death, destruction, imprisonment and torture if Gaddafi prevails.

And it's looking increasingly like he will prevail if the world doesn't live up to its principles. NOW.

All our talk of promoting democracy and freedom around the world will ring hollow if we abandon the Libyans to a murderous tyrant determined to massacre his citizens until he regains absolute power.

Today, O.A. Dabbahsi, Deputy Permanent Representative to the UN for Libya warned the world that Gaddafi is now sending 400 vehicles of mercenaries from other African wars to the city of Ajdabiya with orders to "destroy everything and kill everyone you see... don't spare any building". He told us that we will see "a real genocide there if the international community does not move quickly. Other villages in the west face ethnic cleansing. When someone as familiar as he is with Gaddafi says that "we think that Colonel Gaddafi has lost his mind", that must surely serve as a chilling warning.

I know I do not have to convince anyone addressed in this email about what Gaddafi is capable of. There is no reason left to appeal to him for "ceasefires" or respecting human rights. He is using the dithering and delays of the outside world to prepare for the final assaults on those citizens brave enough to stand up to tyranny. 

As US Senator Graham stated, "The noose is not tightening on Kadhafi, apparently, it's tightening on his own people, and we seem to not be able to make a decision,"

(Gaddafi is not only killing his own people, but we now see he doesn't much care about what happens with foreign journalists. Maybe that will stir up our governments).

I fear that by the time Canada and the world take some action, there will be no meaningful action left to take. Quiet diplomacy, waiting for the next guy to decide or to take action will sentence many Libyans to death and will sentence the country to many more years of suffering, and perhaps worse than in the past, as I assume that a renewed Gaddafi Libya will be even more of a "pariah state".

I think it would be good for our government to at least acknowledge that fact publicly. When next we make sympathetic comments, when next we "warn" Mr Gaddafi, when next we say, "but...", let's at least be upfront that any delay may sound the death knell for freedom in Libya (and death for many Libyans). That result will send a very loud message around the world.

I see Canada has today pledged $11M for promotion of democracy in Egypt. Too bad for democracy in Libya.

Tonight, while talking on the phone to a friend in Benghazi, with the sounds of aircraft overhead and bullets being fired, he told me of the foreign flags flying proudly in the square of that courageous city. The flag of free Libya flew beside those of the UK, France, Lebanon, Qatr... If Canada -- a bastion of freedom and democracy -- could have at least stood publicly and bravely for those principles, our flag would have been flying for freedom as well.

While the above is generally addressed to the government, I also wonder where the opposition parties have been. Why are they not arguing loudly on behalf of democracy and to save the Libyan people from slaughter? Each party put out statements several days after the freedom fight began in Libya, but I have seen little else of substance.

I except Mr Karygiannis who has tried on several occasions to initiate an emergency debate in the House, but has always been denied by the Speaker.

Gaddafi is moving in for the final kill as I write this. Immediate and meaningful action is needed immediately, and I implore all of you to truly act accordingly.

John Leeson

Mar 9: Again to our government
Below is the fourth email (plus one voice message) I have sent to Canada's Foreign Affairs Minister, Lawrence Cannon. ).

To: Hon. Lawrence Cannon, Minister of Foreign Affairs

Copy:
Rt. Hon. Stephen Harper, Prime Minister of Canada
Hon. Bob Rae, Foreign Affairs Critic, Liberal Party of Canada
Michael Ignatieff, Leader, Liberal Party of Canada
Paul Dewar, NDP Foreign Affairs Critic, New Democratic Party of Canada
Jack Layton, Leader , New Democratic Party of Canada
Gerard Kennedy, MP, Parkdale-High Park

Mr Cannon:

It is finally time for Canada to live up to the statements we have made about the Libyan crisis, and for the values and principles we are supposed to represent.

Since the uprising in Libya started, the Canadian government unfortunately has been mostly  late in speaking up and taking action. I believe it has consistently mis-read the situation and underestimated the brutality Gaddafi was ready to unleash on his own citizens. (An early statement called Gaddafi's actions "worrisome" !!). Too often we have spoken or taken action only after  other countries took the initiative. Canada should be in the front ranks of the world community in stopping the slaughter, and truly supporting people who are dying daily in a desperate struggle for basic human rights.

It's time we made up for the many years when we, with other countries, stood by and supported this butcher.

Recently, Foreign Affairs noted that the resolution referring the situation to the ICC sent a "clear message: the murder of its own citizens by the Libyan regime, and the gross violations of the population's human rights will not be tolerated by the international community, and will carry serious consequences."

So what will we do to stop these ongoing murders, and these massive violations?

I understand Canada is likely currently involved in discussions and deliberations about the Libyan situation in the background. This has to stop: our voice needs be heard loudly, publicly and around the world. I want to hear Canada speak up, and want to know Canada is prepared to back up its statements about "serious consequences".

At a minimum, we need to recognize the new Transition Council as the legitimate representative of the Libyan people. What is the alternative? I hope we make it clear that Gaddafi and his henchmen will never again be recognized or supported by our country.

We need to be actively working with other countries in finding ways to stop the slaughter, through consideration of a No Fly Zone and/or in supporting the citizens of Libya to defend themselves against the Gaddafi killing machine.

Here is a chance to put our principles on the line. Time is running out for the people of Libya whose all-or-nothing fight for freedom has been such an inspiration to people around the world.

Please help.

Thank you for your active consideration.

John Leeson