22-08-2011, 09:38 AM
by Thierry Meyssan
The United States tried to seize on Monday 1 500 000 000 dollars owned by the Libyan state, but at the last minute South Africa got in its way. The documents emanating from this episode, and unveiled by Voltaire Network, reveal that the members of the NTC and their staff are the direct employees of a US entity.
VOLTAIRE NETWORK | TRIPOLI (LIBYA) | 18 AUGUST 2011
FRANÇAIS DEUTSCH
Susan E. Rice, US Permanent Representative to the UN.
©UN Photo/Paulo Filgueiras
On Tuesday, 9 August 2011, Sana Khan, secretary of the Sanctions Committee established by resolution 1970 of the Security Council, transmitted to the Committee a notice from Ambassador Susan Rice, Permanent Representative of the United States before the United Nations.
In this letter, of which Voltaire Network has obtained a copy [downloadable document at the bottom of this page], Washington informed the Committee of its intention to unfreeze 1 500 000 000 billion dollars belonging to the Central Bank of Libya, the Libyan Investment Authority, the Libyan Foreign Bank, Libya Africa Investment Portfolio and the Libya National Oil Corporation.
Arguing that the unfreezing is legal when the funds are intended for humanitarian or civilian ends (Article 19 of Resolution 1970 [1]), Washington indicated that it will unilaterally allocate this amount as follows:
500 000 000 dollars to humanitarian organizations of its choice "to address ongoing humanitarian needs and those that can be anticipated, in line with the call of the United Nations and its foreseeable updates";
500 000 000 dollars to "companies supplying fuel and vital humanitarian goods";
500 000 000 dollars to the Temporary Financial Mechanism (TFM) for "salaries and operating expenses of Libyan civil servants, food subsidies, electricity and other humanitarian purchases." From this amount, 100 000 000 dollars will be provisioned to be subsequently allocated for the humanitarian needs of the Libyan people in areas not controlled by the National Transitional Council (NTC) once it will have established "a credible, transparent and effective" mechanism for handing over the funds.
In plain English, the United States informed the Sanctions Committee of its intention to help itself to $ 1.5 billion, of which one-third would be earmarked for their own humanitarian services (USAID ...), another third would go to their own multinationals (Exxon, Halliburton etc..), and the rest would be given to the TFM, a LIEM office, which happens to be an informal body created by Washington and endorsed by the Contact Group to administer Libya [2].
Washington said that it expected to have the tacit approval of the Sanctions Committee within five days after receipt of the letter.
Unfortunately, Libya could not object to this robbery because it was not represented at this Committee. Indeed, the former ambassador has defected, and - in violation of the Headquarters Agreement - the State Department has not issued a visa to the new ambassador of Libya.
Washington fully intended to take advantage of this forced absence to seize the booty. Moreover, France has already created a precedent by stealing $ 128 million in the similar conditions.
It was ultimately the Permanent Representative of South Africa, Ambassador Baso Sangqu, who hindered the operation.
In addition to exposing the rapacity of the United States, this incredible episode demonstrates that the self-proclaimed "Free Libya" of Misrata and Benghazi is not governed by the National Transitional Council (NTC), which is nothing but a facade, and a seriously cracked one at that. Eastern Libya is controlled by NATO and administered by the Libyan Information Exchange Mechanism (LIEM), an informal entity with no legal personality, which was established in Naples by the United States alone, although some of its employees are Italians.
![[Image: let-77d77.jpg]](http://www.voltairenet.org/local/cache-vignettes/L400xH130/let-77d77.jpg)
The funds allegedly allotted to the NTC are actually delivered to the LIEM to pay the wages of NTC members and their staff. The difference is considerable: the National Transition Council doesn't have a policy of its own; it is content to simply reflect that of the United States. This is normal when considering that the NTC was not formed during the events of Benghazi, but several years earlier in London as a provisional government in exile.
Consequently, the military action of the United States and its NATO allies or the Gulf Cooperation Council does not seek to protect civilians, pursuant to Resolution 1973, let alone "liberate the Libyan people," but indeed to colonize the country.
Thierry Meyssan
![[Image: 1-3093-42b79-1-00ae6.jpg]](http://www.voltairenet.org/local/cache-vignettes/L200xH268/1-3093-42b79-1-00ae6.jpg)
Attached documents
http://www.voltairenet.org/IMG/pdf/ONU_N...USA_-3.pdf
United Nations Ref.: Note 93 COMM 153 (USA)
(PDF - 4.5 Mb)
[1] "UN Resolution 1970 imposing sanctions on Libya",Voltaire Network, 26 February 2011
[2] "Libya: Washington prepares its revenge", by Thierry Meyssan, Voltaire Network, 22 July 2011.
The United States tried to seize on Monday 1 500 000 000 dollars owned by the Libyan state, but at the last minute South Africa got in its way. The documents emanating from this episode, and unveiled by Voltaire Network, reveal that the members of the NTC and their staff are the direct employees of a US entity.
VOLTAIRE NETWORK | TRIPOLI (LIBYA) | 18 AUGUST 2011
FRANÇAIS DEUTSCH
Susan E. Rice, US Permanent Representative to the UN.
©UN Photo/Paulo Filgueiras
On Tuesday, 9 August 2011, Sana Khan, secretary of the Sanctions Committee established by resolution 1970 of the Security Council, transmitted to the Committee a notice from Ambassador Susan Rice, Permanent Representative of the United States before the United Nations.
In this letter, of which Voltaire Network has obtained a copy [downloadable document at the bottom of this page], Washington informed the Committee of its intention to unfreeze 1 500 000 000 billion dollars belonging to the Central Bank of Libya, the Libyan Investment Authority, the Libyan Foreign Bank, Libya Africa Investment Portfolio and the Libya National Oil Corporation.
Arguing that the unfreezing is legal when the funds are intended for humanitarian or civilian ends (Article 19 of Resolution 1970 [1]), Washington indicated that it will unilaterally allocate this amount as follows:
500 000 000 dollars to humanitarian organizations of its choice "to address ongoing humanitarian needs and those that can be anticipated, in line with the call of the United Nations and its foreseeable updates";
500 000 000 dollars to "companies supplying fuel and vital humanitarian goods";
500 000 000 dollars to the Temporary Financial Mechanism (TFM) for "salaries and operating expenses of Libyan civil servants, food subsidies, electricity and other humanitarian purchases." From this amount, 100 000 000 dollars will be provisioned to be subsequently allocated for the humanitarian needs of the Libyan people in areas not controlled by the National Transitional Council (NTC) once it will have established "a credible, transparent and effective" mechanism for handing over the funds.
In plain English, the United States informed the Sanctions Committee of its intention to help itself to $ 1.5 billion, of which one-third would be earmarked for their own humanitarian services (USAID ...), another third would go to their own multinationals (Exxon, Halliburton etc..), and the rest would be given to the TFM, a LIEM office, which happens to be an informal body created by Washington and endorsed by the Contact Group to administer Libya [2].
Washington said that it expected to have the tacit approval of the Sanctions Committee within five days after receipt of the letter.
Unfortunately, Libya could not object to this robbery because it was not represented at this Committee. Indeed, the former ambassador has defected, and - in violation of the Headquarters Agreement - the State Department has not issued a visa to the new ambassador of Libya.
Washington fully intended to take advantage of this forced absence to seize the booty. Moreover, France has already created a precedent by stealing $ 128 million in the similar conditions.
It was ultimately the Permanent Representative of South Africa, Ambassador Baso Sangqu, who hindered the operation.
In addition to exposing the rapacity of the United States, this incredible episode demonstrates that the self-proclaimed "Free Libya" of Misrata and Benghazi is not governed by the National Transitional Council (NTC), which is nothing but a facade, and a seriously cracked one at that. Eastern Libya is controlled by NATO and administered by the Libyan Information Exchange Mechanism (LIEM), an informal entity with no legal personality, which was established in Naples by the United States alone, although some of its employees are Italians.
The funds allegedly allotted to the NTC are actually delivered to the LIEM to pay the wages of NTC members and their staff. The difference is considerable: the National Transition Council doesn't have a policy of its own; it is content to simply reflect that of the United States. This is normal when considering that the NTC was not formed during the events of Benghazi, but several years earlier in London as a provisional government in exile.
Consequently, the military action of the United States and its NATO allies or the Gulf Cooperation Council does not seek to protect civilians, pursuant to Resolution 1973, let alone "liberate the Libyan people," but indeed to colonize the country.
Thierry Meyssan
Attached documents
http://www.voltairenet.org/IMG/pdf/ONU_N...USA_-3.pdf
United Nations Ref.: Note 93 COMM 153 (USA)
(PDF - 4.5 Mb)
[1] "UN Resolution 1970 imposing sanctions on Libya",Voltaire Network, 26 February 2011
[2] "Libya: Washington prepares its revenge", by Thierry Meyssan, Voltaire Network, 22 July 2011.
"The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways. The point, however, is to change it." Karl Marx
"He would, wouldn't he?" Mandy Rice-Davies. When asked in court whether she knew that Lord Astor had denied having sex with her.
“I think it would be a good idea” Ghandi, when asked about Western Civilisation.
"He would, wouldn't he?" Mandy Rice-Davies. When asked in court whether she knew that Lord Astor had denied having sex with her.
“I think it would be a good idea” Ghandi, when asked about Western Civilisation.