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

Fri Mar 18 22:40:59 CDT 2011

West overzealous on Libya
Al Jazeera's senior political analyst discusses the risks and opportunities 
inherent in UNSC Resolution 1973.
Marwan Bishara Last Modified: 18 Mar 2011 14:02

Now that the United Nations Security Council resolution for a no-fly zone has 
been passed, how will it be implemented?

The UNSC Resolution 1973 has made it legal for the international community to 
protect the Libyan people from Muammar Gaddafi's lethal and excessive force - 
by, among other things, imposing a no-fly zone and carrying out military strikes 
and other military action short of occupation.

However, the overzealousness of certain Western powers like Britain, France and, 
as of late, the US, to interpret the resolution as an open-ended use of force, 
is worrisome. With their long history of interference and hegemony in the 
region, their political and strategic motivation remains dubious at best. 
Likewise, their rush to use air force individually or collectively could prove 
morally reprehensible - even if legally justified - if they further complicate 
the situation on the ground.

This sounds like 'damned if they do, damned if they don't'?

Well, the onus is on these Western powers to prove that their next move and 
actions are based on a strictly humanitarian basis and are not meant as a down 
payment for longer-term interference in Libyan and regional affairs.

They need to demonstrate how their 'change of heart' from supporting the Gaddafi 
dictatorship over several years to condemning him as a war criminal and acting 
to topple him, is not motivated by more of the same narrow national and Western 
strategic interest.

Unfortunately, the Libyan dictator's statements and actions (and his recent 
cynical and contradictory threats and appeals) have played into Western hands, 
making it impossible for Libyans, like Tunisians and Egyptians before them, to 
take matters into their own hands.

Those who abstained at the UN Security Council, including Germany, India and 
Brazil, wanted to co-operate in charting a brighter future for Libya, but are 
also suspicious of the overzealous French and British eagerness to jump into a 
Libyan quagmire with firepower.

What then should Libyans, Arabs and other interested global powers do to help 
Libya avoid a terrible escalation to violence or a major humanitarian disaster?

Now that the international community has given the Libyan revolutionaries a 
protective umbrella that includes a full range of military and humanitarian 
actions, it is incumbent upon the Libyan opposition to mobilise for mass action 
in every city and town both in the east and west and challenge the regime's 
militias.

As the Libyan regime loses its civilian, tribal and international legitimacy, so 
will his security base be shaken over the next few days and weeks.

In fact, if the Libyan revolutionaries avoid complacency and exploit their newly 
gained legitimacy and protection in order to work more closely with their Arab 
neighbours and to demonstrate their political and popular weight in the country, 
the regime could very well implode from within.

The most effective and constructive way to use the newly mandated use of force 
by the UN Security Council is to use as little of it, as accurately, as 
selectively as possible, and ideally not use it at all. It is still possible for 
the threat of the use of international force, coupled with domestic popular 
pressure, to bring down the weakened regime.

An escalation to an all out war is in no one's interest, especially Libya's.

Source: Al Jazeera

On 3/18/11 7:18 PM, C. G. Estabrook wrote:
> Come on. The USG doesn't care if the effective government in Libya is Gadaffi 
> or some junta - just so long as it doesn't oppose US hegemony.  Giving much 
> play to the political aspirations of the Libyan population is the only thing 
> that would defeat the US goal - which is primarily control of (not access to) 
> energy resources.
>
> Remember that Gadaffi was responsible for substantial social reforms in Libya 
> in the first years of his rule.  Those who saw him as a leader of an 
> authoritarian modernization ("The Green Book") were not wrong.  But he was 
> seduced by the neoliberal counterattack of the current generation and became a 
> trophy on the wall of the neo-cons when he "gave up plans for a nuclear weapon."
>
> He's perfectly capable of turning again, and Washington is perfectly capable 
> of welcoming him back. Especially if he becomes once again a compliant barrier 
> to truly popular government. There's no honor among thieves.  It's 
> independence - and hence democracy - that Washington is afraid of.
>
>
> On 3/18/11 6:53 PM, Robert Naiman wrote:
>> No, actually, "irrational faith" is the opposite of an oxymoron.
>>
>> If you read the article, the US is clear that its goal is still to get
>> rid of Gaddafi. But they are drawing a line between the military
>> action authorized by the UNSC, whose goal is to stop the violence, and
>> other US policies intended to pressure Gaddafi into leaving.
>>
>> There are patterns in US policy. If you think that the US always
>> automatically does the most evil thing possible just out of spite,
>> regardless of cost or consequence, you just aren't paying attention.
>>
>> On Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 5:52 PM, Morton K. Brussel<brussel at illinois.edu>  wrote:
>>> You seem to have an irrational faith (oxymoron) is the policy statements of 
>>> the Obama administration.
>>> Perhaps, Obama and company think that Gadaffi could win his civil war, in 
>>> which case they wish to hedge their bets.
>>>
>>> I wonder what "some tendency" really means? Is it a 51% tendency? Or what?
>>> Where has humanitarianism truly entered into this administrations's 
>>> calculations?
>>> In Israel-Palestine, In Bahrain, Iraq, Afghanistan, Haiti, …too many to 
>>> list…?. It is clearly all geopolitical maneuvering.
>>> --mkb
>>>
>>> On Mar 18, 2011, at 4:30 PM, Robert Naiman wrote:
>>>
>>>> I have zero optimism about the Obama's administration's "commitment to
>>>> international law" *in general.*
>>>>
>>>> I have some optimism about the Obama's administration's "commitment to
>>>> international law" *in this instance.*
>>>>
>>>> That might, on the face of it, seem absurd. You might think: either
>>>> you believe in complying with international law or you don't.
>>>>
>>>> But actually, there is a pattern for the U.S. to behave differently
>>>> than this. The pattern is: in this particular case, we are going to
>>>> comply or not. Once the decision to comply has been made, however,
>>>> there is some tendency to stick with the decision to comply.
>>>>
>>>> This is particularly true when acting as part of an international
>>>> coalition under the authority of a UN Security Council resolution.
>>>>
>>>> There is some evidence already that the US may intend to behave this
>>>> way in this case:
>>>> [...]
>>>> The purpose of the no-fly zone, the administration official said, is
>>>> to prevent Gadhafi from attacking his own people.
>>>>
>>>> "It's not designed to have him go. That's not the purpose," the
>>>> official said. "The purpose of the military action is to prevent
>>>> massive humanitarian loss of life, to stop the violence. If the
>>>> violence stops, then you shouldn't leap to say then the military
>>>> action will continue until he leaves."
>>>> [...]
>>>> - No-fly zone could be canceled if Libya pulls back forces
>>>> http://edition.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/africa/03/18/us.libya.no.fly/
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 4:13 PM, C. G. Estabrook<galliher at illinois.edu>  
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> 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
>>>>>
>>>>> By: Robert Naiman Friday March 18, 2011 10:30 am
>>>>>
>>>>> Tweet
>>>>>
>>>>> ...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.
>>>>>
>>>>> 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. 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:
>>>>>
>>>>> 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.
>>>>>
>>>>> ###
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> Peace-discuss mailing list
>>>>> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
>>>>> http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -- 
>>>> Robert Naiman
>>>> Policy Director
>>>> Just Foreign Policy
>>>> www.justforeignpolicy.org
>>>> naiman at justforeignpolicy.org
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Peace-discuss mailing list
>>>> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
>>>> http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Peace-discuss mailing list
>>> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
>>> http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss
>>>
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Peace-discuss mailing list
> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
> http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss