[Peace-discuss] The UN Security Council Has Not Authorized Regime Change in Libya

[C. G. Estabrook]

I'm not so optimistic as Bob seems to be about the Obama administration's 
"commitment to international law."

The primary purpose of the USG in the context of the Arab revolts is to secure 
biddable governments in MENA (Mideast/North Africa).  These governments cannot 
be democratic because the general opinion in the region is that by far the 
greatest danger comes not from terrorism, jihadism, or Iran, but from the 
US/Israel.  (A majority in the Arab world approve of an Iranian nuclear weapons 
program because it's seen as a defense against US/Israeli nuclear hegemony.) 
Therefore democratic governments would necessarily oppose USG interests in the 
region.

The US thus prefers a strong-man who can keep democratic tendencies under 
control - or, failing that, a non-democratic regime under the color of 
democracy, so long as it falls in with US goals and interests.

Therefore the rest of this comment (excerpted below) is particularly important. 
"Any foreign military action outside the framework of the UN resolution ... will 
be prosecutable as a war crime."  And we know how anxious the USG are to avoid 
those.  --CGE


On 3/18/11 1:36 PM, Robert Naiman wrote:
>
> http://my.firedoglake.com/robertnaiman/2011/03/18/the-un-security-council-has-not-authorized-regime-change-in-libya/
>
>
>     The UN Security Council Has Not Authorized Regime Change in Libya
>     <http://my.firedoglake.com/robertnaiman/2011/03/18/the-un-security-council-has-not-authorized-regime-change-in-libya/>
>
> By: Robert Naiman <http://my.firedoglake.com/members/robertnaiman/> Friday 
> March 18, 2011 10:30 am 	
>
> TweetTweet 
> <http://my.firedoglake.com/robertnaiman/2011/03/18/the-un-security-council-has-not-authorized-regime-change-in-libya/#> 
>
> digg 
> <http://digg.com/submit?phase=2&url=http%3A%2F%2Fmy.firedoglake.com%2Frobertnaiman%2F2011%2F03%2F18%2Fthe-un-security-council-has-not-authorized-regime-change-in-libya%2F&title=The+UN+Security+Council+Has+Not+Authorized+Regime+Change+in+Libya> 
> stumbleupon 
> <http://www.stumbleupon.com/submit?url=http%3A%2F%2Fmy.firedoglake.com%2Frobertnaiman%2F2011%2F03%2F18%2Fthe-un-security-council-has-not-authorized-regime-change-in-libya%2F&title=The+UN+Security+Council+Has+Not+Authorized+Regime+Change+in+Libya>
>
> ...Some of the reporting on the Security Council resolution has been 
> misleading. The Security Council has not authorized military action for any 
> purpose. The Security Council has authorized /military action necessary to 
> protect civilians/. It has not authorized military action to overthrow the 
> Libyan government. Clearly, some people do want foreign military action to 
> assist in the overthrow of the Libyan government, but such action has not been 
> approved by the Security Council.
>
> The text of the UN Security Council resolution can be found here 
> <http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/mar/17/un-security-council-resolution>.
>
> Here is the first action item:
>
>     1. Demands the immediate establishment of a cease-fire and a complete end
>     to violence and all attacks against, and abuses of, civilians;
>
> The Libyan government has announced a cease-fire 
> <http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/19/world/africa/19libya.html>. It is certainly 
> true, as Western leaders have noted, that announcing a cease-fire is not at 
> all the same thing as implementing one. But before Western military forces 
> start bombing Libya, efforts to achieve a cease-fire must be exhausted. To do 
> otherwise would be to make a mockery of the Security Council.
>
> It is crucial that the goal of protecting civilians, which the Security 
> Council has endorsed, and the goal of overthrowing the Libyan government, 
> which it has most certainly not endorsed, be kept distinct. There is a clear 
> effort by some actors – especially the French government – to conflate these 
> goals <http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/19/world/africa/19libya.html>:
>
>     Earlier François Baroin, a French government spokesman, told RTL radio
>     that action would come “rapidly,” perhaps within hours, after the United
>     Nations resolution authorized “all necessary measures” to protect civilians.
>
>     But he insisted the military action was “not an occupation of Libyan
>     territory.” *Rather, he said, it was intended to protect the Libyan people
>     and “allow them to go all the way in their drive, which means bringing
>     down the Qaddafi regime.”* [my emphasis].
>
> There is no doubt that some actors want a foreign military intervention to 
> assist in the overthrow of the Libyan government. But there should also be no 
> doubt that this goal has never been endorsed by the United Nations Security 
> Council. Any foreign military action beyond what is necessary to protect 
> civilians would be a military action that was not approved by the Security 
> Council, and therefore, would be a military action that violates the United 
> Nations Charter. Any foreign military action outside the framework of the UN 
> resolution – in particular, any action that kills civilians – will be 
> prosecutable as a war crime.
>
> /###/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.chambana.net/pipermail/peace-discuss/attachments/20110318/5de49cab/attachment.html>