Category Archives: Interventi umanitari

Gallery

“In Libia, un regime che non rappresenta le tribú di Jamahiriya” ~ Intervista di Roberta Barbi a Paolo Sensini

This gallery contains 1 photos.

Paolo Sensini – “In Libia, non c’è un governo che rappresenti la totalità delle tribù, dei gruppi, delle formazioni che sono lì: c’è il governo di unità nazionale a Tripoli, voluto dall’Onu – appoggiato sostanzialmente dalle forze di Misurata, che si sono avvicinate molto dappresso a Sirte – e ci sono le forze invece che fanno riferimento al generale Khalifa Haftar, a Tobruk, che è appoggiato da Egitto e Francia. Anch’egli sta spingendo e si è avvicinato a Sirte. Gli americani sono intervenuti ottemperando a un patto che era già implicito nell’investitura di al Sarray.” Continue reading

Gallery

Operazioni ‘Odyssey Dawn’ and ‘Unified Protector’

This gallery contains 1 photos.

Sin dal 20 marzo 2011, data d’inizio delle operazioni finalizzate al raggiungimento dei principali obiettivi fissati dal Consiglio di Sicurezza delle Nazioni Unite con le risoluzioni 1970 e 1973, ovvero stabilire una no fly zone sui cieli libici e proteggere … Continue reading

Gallery

Humanitarian War in Libya : There is no evidence ! (Video Investigation)

This gallery contains 1 photos.

This document makes it possible to understand how international law and justice works, but mostly how its basic principles can be bypassed. The resolutions passed against Lybia are based on various allegations : notably on the statement claiming that Gaddafi … Continue reading

Gallery

Libya witness: “rebels” killing civilians, food & water short

As the forces of Libya’s new rulers continue their siege of the two remaining Gaddafi strongholds, we spoke to an eye witness. A woman from Tripoli, who asked that we call her Selma, was in Beni Walid a day ago. … Continue reading

Gallery

LA GRANDE BUGIA: Usare le organizzazioni umanitarie per lanciare le guerre

This gallery contains 1 photos.

LA LIBIA E LA GRANDE BUGIA: Usare le organizzazioni umanitarie per lanciare le guerre Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya, Don Debar La guerra contro la Libia è costruita sulla frode. Il Consiglio di sicurezza dell’ONU ha approvato due risoluzioni contro la Libia, … Continue reading

Gallery

NATO-Mercenaries in panic & NATO-crimes

LA RESISTENZA DEI LEALISTI NAZIONALISTI LIBICI E DELLE TRIBÙ CONTINUA, RICONQUISTANDO CITTÀ E METTENDO IN FUGA NEL PANICO I MERCENARI AL-QAEDISTI, MENTRE LA NATO CONTINUA I BOMBARDAMENTI CHE SEMINANO MORTE E DISTRUZIONE A SIRTE. Many Mercenaries testified that they are … Continue reading

Gallery

Sirte: un massacro umanitario annunciato

This gallery contains 2 photos.

Sirte: un massacro umanitario annunciato Marinella Correggia, 3 settembre 2011, LibyanFreePress ASSEDIO A SIRTE A metà maggio Aisha Mohamed era in transito nella tunisina Djerba. Aveva finito un anno di specializzazione in Gran Bretagna e aveva scelto di andare a … Continue reading

Gallery

‘West too eager for Libyan oil’

Michel Chossudovsky: The Libyan Oil Company handed over to Total, which is the French Oil company While Libyan revolutionaries have not yet won the war in the oil-rich country, Western powers are already discussing the post-Gaddafi period on such issues … Continue reading

Gallery

LIBIA E SIRIA (1): Parvus bellum in principio fiet magnus in termino?

This gallery contains 7 photos.

LIBIA E SIRIA (1): Parvus bellum in principio fiet magnus in termino?  1°) LA LIBIA Prologo Il professor Agostino Sanfratello, che risiede in Libano e può seguire da vicino lo svolgersi delle rivoluzioni “primaverili” del medio oriente, ha scritto tre … Continue reading

Gallery

Ribelli-Mercenari-Nato massacrano la popolazione

TRIPOLI: MASSACRI DA PARTE DEI “RIBELLI-NATO”. MIGRANTI AFRICANI E SFOLLATI LIBICI DALL’EST, VITTIME COLLATERALI: CHE NE SARA’ DI LORO? di Marinella Correggia – 27 agosto 2011 – LibyanFreePress feriti assassinati in un ospedale da campo . Qualcuno lo dica a … Continue reading

Gli Squadroni della Morte di “Al Qaeda-Nato ” a Tripoli

MASSACRO NATO A TRIPOLI: L’OPERAZIONE ALBA DELLE SIRENE SEGNA L’ASSALTO DEI RIBELLI DELLE SQUADRE DELLA MORTE

Thierry Meyssan – Global ResearchTraduzione di FFP per LibyanFreePress

Tripoli, in Libia, 22 agosto 2011, 01:00


Sabato sera, alle 8, quando l’ora dell’Iftar segnava la fine del digiuno del Ramadan, il comando della NATO ha lanciato la sua “Operazione Sirena” contro la Libia.

Le Sirene sono stati gli altoparlanti delle moschee, che sono stati utilizzati per lanciare l’appello di Al Qaeda alla rivolta contro il governo di Gheddafi. Immediatamente le cellule dormienti dei ribelli di Bengasi sono entrati in azione. Questi sono piccoli gruppi con grande agilità di movimento, i quali hanno condotto attacchi multipli. I combattimenti, durante la notte, hanno provocato circa 350 morti e 3.000 feriti.

La situazione si è calmata un pò nel corso della domenica.

Poi una nave da guerra della NATO si è ancorata appena al largo della costa di Tripoli, fornendo armi pesanti e uomini delle forze jihadiste di Al Qaeda, le quali erano dirette da ufficiali della NATO.

I combattimenti sono ripresi durante la notte. Ci sono stati intensi scontri a fuoco. Droni della NATO e bombardamenti aerei sono continuati in tutte le direzioni. Elicotteri della NATO hanno mitragliato i civili per le strade, per aprire la via ai jihadisti.

In serata un corteo di auto che trasportavano ufficiali governativi è stata attaccata. Il convoglio ha trovato rifugio al Rixos Hotel, dove ha sede la stampa straniera. La NATO non osa bombardare l’hotel per evitare di uccidere i suoi giornalisti. Tuttavia l’hotel, che è quello che mi ospita al momento, è tutt’ora l’obiettivo di un intenso attacco.

Alle 11:30, il ministro della Salute ha dovuto annunciare che gli ospedali erano pieni fino a traboccare. Domenica sera ci sono stati circa 1.300 morti e 5.000 feriti.

La NATO era stata incaricato dal Consiglio di Sicurezza dell’ONU di proteggere i civili libici.  In realtà, Francia e Gran Bretagna hanno appena re-iniziato il loro massacro coloniale.

Alle 01:00, Khamis Gheddafi è venuto personalmente all ‘Hotel Rixos per consegnare armi utili alla difesa dell’ hotel. Poi se ne è andato. Vi sono al momento intensi combattimenti in tutto l’hotel.

Majer-Zlitan Massacre by NATO (Eng-Ita-Esp)

Press Conference by Moussa Ibrahim

on Majer-Zlitan Massacre by NATO (August 9, 2011)

Libia, Majer-Zlitan: la NATO massacra 85 civili, di cui 33 bambini, 32 donne, 20 uomini. “Per motivi umanitari” come ci spiegano i nostri “politici-burattini” nelle mani dell’usurocrazia finanziaria e bancaria mondiale.

Il popolo della Libia di Jamahiriya e di Tripoli sappia però che non tutti in Europa sono così stupidi da non aver capito il complotto/cospirazione contro la Libia ed i popoli/Nazioni del mondo, e faremo il possibile per diffondere la Verità sul crimine che si sta compiendo ai danni della Libia e di tutti noi.

Ognuno ha il suo ruolo, ognuno fa la sua parte: buona fortuna fratelli della Jamahiriya ancora libera (Nota di Redazione)

Libia acusa a la OTAN de asesinar a 85 civiles a Majer-Zlitan

Where Have Libya’s Children Gone?

Dispatch From Tripoli

Where Have Libya’s Children Gone?

By Franklin Lamb – August 8, 2011 – Counterpunch

Tripoli, Libya – The quality of life continues to degrade in certain areas of western Libya while public anxiety noticeably rises over missing Libyan children as the first week of an unusually stressful Ramadan passes.

The shortage of gasoline has become acute and despite government efforts to curtail price gouging, one taxi driver told this observer yesterday that while the usual price of ‘benzene’ was five liters (one gallon) for $.40 (forty US cents) he is now having to pay as much as ” 4 dinars for one liter of petrol!” That is roughly the equivalent of 13 US dollars for a gallon of gasoline, a huge price surge in a country long accustomed to cheap, heavily subsidized fuel. “Informal economy” (black market) fuel arrives in car trunks from the Tunisian border and its increasingly common to see fellows with a make shift funnel trying to get more benzene into their vehicle tanks than they splash and spill on neighborhood streets.

Walking around the “medina” off Omar Muktar Street near my hotel yesterday afternoon, the angst over deteriorating conditions is apparent. Shops, like homes, are now subject to rolling blackouts and quickly become hot and stuffy, discouraging would be customers from entering. Some food stores have to discard milk and other perishable items given the up to 11 hour power cuts that send temperatures above 100F. One gentleman on Rashid Street in downtown Tripoli said his family had not had power for five days and the pump that supplies water to his apartment building stopped working so they lack two essential utilities.

NATO’s arguable act of piracy earlier this week in commandeering the fuel tanker ship Cartagena off the coast of Malta that was bringing gasoline to Tripoli and sending it instead to rebel militia based close to Benghazi is yet again explained from NATO HQ as necessary for “protecting the civilian population of Libya.”

According to Libya’s Deputy Foreign Minister Khaled Kaim, “The age of piracy is coming back to the Mediterranean because of NATO.”

Some frustrated shop keepers just shutter their shops and seek relief at the beach or take a nap waiting for sundown and their Ramadan Iftar (feast) to begin. But lack of electricity even affects its preparation. ( note: 15 minutes ago NATO bombed the public beach near my hotel as three other bombs landed nearby—targets unknown)

Every time a bomb blast is heard, a chorus of passersby and kids invariably point toward the bomb site and watch the rising white or black smoke (the color depending on the type of bomb or missile) and some shout, “F— NATO! F—Obama!” Etc.

If a foreigner is confronted by angry citizens who may blame Americans for NATO’s bombing, a sure fire way to quickly reduce crowd tension is for the foreigner to make the peace sign and make a fist with his other hand and chant a few times: “Allah! Mohammad! Muammar! Libye! Abass!” (God!, Mohammad!, Qadaffi!, Libya!, that’s all we need!”) The locals appreciate the sentiment and pre-teens often join the popular chant and dance.

As of the morning of 8/7/11 NATO statistics show that since 3/31/11, NATO forces have launched 18,270 sorties, mainly against Western Libya, including 6,932 bomb/missile strike sorties. Last night (8/6/11) there were 115 sorties including 45 bombings of which 12 were in central Tripoli starting a 10 p.m.

To their great credit, some Congressional staffers on the US Senate Armed Services Committee who liaise with the Pentagon, have acted on constituent complaints and have criticized NATO’s incomplete description of its bombing of Libyan civilians.

For example earlier this week NATO reported its bombing of the village on Zlitan, about 160 miles east of Tripoli in the Western Mountains as follows: “In the vicinity of Zlitan:1 Ammunition Storage Facility, 1 Military Facility, 2 Multiple Rocket Launchers.”

However, still absent from this particular NATO report on its website is the fact that its bombing attack killed the wife and two children of Mustafa Naji, a local Zlitan physics teacher. Mustafa’s wife Ibtisam, and their two children, Mohammad 5 and Muttasim, were pulverized. Once again, NATO said it could not confirm the “accidental killings” but would investigate.

Where are the children?

Also of growing public and government concern in Western Libya is the whereabouts of 53 female and 52 male children aged one to 12 years and another group ranging from 12 to 18 years, both part of a government-run home for orphans and abused children that until February was operating in Misrata, now under rebel control. According to several reports over the past three months and testimony presented last Thursday evening to the international media gathered at the Tripoli Rexis Hotel, by the General Union for Civil Society Organizations:

The 105 children, part of more than 1000 missing, were “kidnapped” by rebel forces as they entered Misrata and went on a killing spree, some of which has been documented by Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International among other groups. There is no question that the children are no longer in their sheltered facility. But from there what became of them remains a mystery.

The Libyan government claims the youngsters were kidnapped by rebels who went on a rampage in late February. Several reports from eyewitnesses claim that the children were last seen being put onto either a Turkish, Italian, or French boat. More than one witness claimed to have witnessed some of the children being sold in Tunisia. On his tweeter page, the local Russian Telesur reporter said that “several sources have affirmed that the 105 children were taken out of the country in a ship that could be Turkish, French or Italian.”

Libyan Social Affairs Minister Ibrahim Sharif told reporters in Tripoli this week that, “We want the truth and we hold those countries responsible for the well-being of these children who are neither soldiers nor combatants.” Sharif added that a rebel doctor captured by government troops testified that some of the orphans had been taken to France and Italy.
Given Misrata’s history as a main North African slave trading port, a fact that today partially explains tensions among the one third of Libya’s population that is black and who are descendants of slaves and many of whom live in western Libya in villages now fighting the Misrata and Benghazi based rebels, concern is acute.

While Libya has had perhaps the most strictly enforced child protection laws in the Middle East and Africa, people here remember clearly that France was at the center of a scandal in 2007 when aid workers from the Zoe’s Ark charity attempted to fly 103 children out of Chad, to the south of Libya, who they said were orphans from neighboring Sudan. International aid staff later found that the children were in fact Chadian and had at least one living parent. People here fear a similar fate for the Libyan youngsters.

Also on people’s minds in Libya is what happened two years ago in Haiti when “orphans,” according to local authorities, were kidnapped. Given the epidemic of human trafficking in this region, especially of children, fears are well founded.

NATO has not replied to inquiries demanding information about the disappeared children nor has UNICEF, Save the Children or Secretary of State Clinton’s office. Ohio Congressman Dennis Kucinich has agreed to demand that the White House order an immediate investigation and of course any human rights advocate could raise this issue in the West and demand an urgent inquiry from her/his government.

The Libyan government as well as both the Roman Catholic Papal representative Bishop Giovanni Martinelli, and Father Daoud of the Anglican Church of Christ the King, in Tripoli have demanded that the UN investigate and find the children.

As for the National Transition Council, its spokesman denied charges that they have sold the children and claim that the Libyan government in Tripoli have all the children and that they are using them as human shields at the now five times bombed Bab al Azizya complex in central Tripoli. No known human rights organization or journalist who has investigated this claim has reported seeing any sign of the children at Bab al Azizya. The General Union, noted above, has photos and names and ages of all the missing children and have widely publicized them.

More than a dozen social welfare organizations, women’s groups and Libya’s Lawyer syndicates have launched an intensive media and public involvement campaign to find the children who have now been missing for nearly six months.

Franklin Lamb is in Libya and can be reached at fplamb@gmail.com

Font: http://www.counterpunch.org/lamb08082011.html

Kids forced to fight with the Libyan Rebels

NATO Airstrike Kills Mother and two Children in Zlitan

NATO Bombs Falling on Civilians Kills Family

UAE Supply Weapons to Libyan Terrorists NATO Rebels

UAE Supply Weapons to Libyan Terrorists NATO Rebels,

01 August 2011, War On Libya

REBELS ATROCITY

NATO & rebels atrocity claims break through barricades of civil war

(included an interview with Michel Collon)

Attacking Libya and International Law

Attacking Libya and international law

By the standard of international law, military action on Libya by the United States and allies is illegal, writes Curtis DoebblerAl-Ahram Weekly

On 19 March 2011, Western nations started the third international armed conflict against a Muslim country in the last decade. They went to great pains to claim that the use of force against Libya was legal, but an application of international law to the facts indicates that in fact the use of force is illegal.
This brief commentary evaluates the use of force against Libya, starting with UN Security Council Resolution 1973 that allegedly authorises it and the eventual attack on the people of Libya.


THE FACTS: Unlike the non-violent demonstrations in Egypt, Tunisia, Bahrain, Yemen, Saudi Arabia and elsewhere in the Arab world, the demonstrations that began in Libya on 17 February had deteriorated into a civil war within days. Both sides had tanks, fighter jets, anti- aircraft weapons, and heavy artillery. The government’s forces consisted of mainly trained military, while the armed opposition consisted of both defecting soldiers and numerous civilians who had taken up arms.


Indications of the level of force each side has at its disposal were shown by claims on Saturday, 19 March, that both a Libyan government fighter and a fighter jet flown by the opposition had been shot down near Benghazi. As the civil war increased in intensity, the international community contemplated action in support of the armed opposition. On 17 March, the UN Security Council adopted Resolution 1973. And within 42 hours an attack on the troops of the Libyan government, aimed, according to the British Defence Minster William Hague, at killing the Libyan leader, had begun.
At around 12:00 noon local time in Washington, DC, on Saturday, 19 March, French fighters launched attacks against targets described as tanks and air defence systems. A few hours later, US battleships began firing cruise missiles at Libyan targets.


Although Arab and Muslim countries had joined the coalition against their Arab and Muslim neighbour, none of them actually participated in the airstrikes by sending aircraft. Already just after airstrikes began, Russia, China and the secretary-general of the Arab League, Egyptian Amr Moussa, condemned the loss of civilians lives that were caused by the bombing sorties.
Despite denials of the intention to target the Libyan leader, sites such as the living quarters and compounds used by Colonel Muammar Gaddafi were attacked. After the first day of bombings, more than four-dozen civilians, including women and children, were reportedly killed.


The attacks came after the UN Security Council adopted Resolution 1973. In response to this resolution the Libyan government had officially called a ceasefire in the civil war that it was waging against armed rebels whose base is Benghazi. Libya also announced that its airspace was closed. Western leaders responded to these actions by the Libyan government by claiming that they could not be believed and arguing that the fighting was continuing. Indeed, Libyan sources confirmed that the civil war was ongoing and that both sides continued to attack each other.


UNSC RESOLUTION 1973: Resolution 1973 was adopted under Chapter VII of the UN Charter with 10 votes for, none against and five abstentions. Voting for it were the UN Security Council’s permanent members, United States, Britain, France, and non-permanent members Bosnia and Herzegovina, Colombia, Gabon, Lebanon, Nigeria, Portugal, and South Africa. Abstaining were permanent members Russia, China and non-permanent members Germany, Brazil, and India.


The resolution was adopted on Thursday, 17 March, just after 18:30 local time in New York. US Ambassador Susan Rice described it as strengthening the sanctions and travel bans imposed earlier in UNSC Resolution 1970. It was promoted by the French and United Kingdom governments, but with a strong presence of the United States in the background pulling the strings.
At the UNSC meeting was the new French Foreign Minister Alain Juppé.

Although as former Prime Minister he was not new to the UN, he arrived just weeks after his predecessor had been replaced for having accepted favours from a Libyan businessmen and just days after his government became the first Western government to recognise the forces fighting against the government in Libya’s raging civil war as the legitimate representatives of the Libyan people.
The Libyan government did not have a representative present at the meeting after its nominated ambassador, former President of the General Assembly Ali Abdel-Salam Treki was denied admission to the United States. Nevertheless, although officially relieved of his duties more than a week ago for defecting to the opposition, former deputy permanent representative Ibrahim Dabbashi was on hand at the Security Council media stakeout Wednesday to make a statement and take questions.


Resolution 1973 contains 29 operative paragraphs divided into eight sections. The first section calls for an “immediate cease-fire” in its first paragraph and for respect for international law including “the rapid and unimpeded passage of humanitarian assistance.”
A curious second operational paragraph “stresses the need to intensify efforts to find a solution to the crisis” and goes on to qualify this as responding “to the legitimate demands of the Libyan people” and leading to “the political reforms necessary to find a peaceful and sustainable solution.” Such vague language leaves open both the question of which Libyan legitimate demands must be met and what political reforms are necessary. Legally these requirements also appear to be a direct interference in Libya’s internal affairs in violation of Article 2(7) of the UN Charter, which all UN Security Council resolutions are bound to respect according to Article 25 of the Charter. This apparently irreconcilable discrepancy will fuel speculation that the resolution is another example of politics refusing to respect international law.


Paragraphs 4 and 5 concern the protection of civilians with the latter paragraph focusing on the regional responsibility of the Arab League.
The longest operative part of the resolution is then devoted to the creation of a no-fly zone in paragraphs 6 through 12. Article 6 creates the no-fly zone “on all flights in the airspace of the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya in order to help protect civilians.” Paragraph 7 then enumerates several humanitarian exceptions.
It is perhaps paragraph 8 that will focus the mind of most international lawyers where it is written that states may “take all necessary measures to enforce compliance with the ban on flights.” The use of the term “all necessary measures” opens the door to the use of force. At the same time, the use of force is limited to enforcing the no-fly zone and does not extend to attempts to kill the Libyan leader or to supporting one side in the armed conflict, although preventing the Libyan government from using its air force, of course, favours the armed opposition.


Paragraph 8 is unusual in that is appears to authorise the use of force under Chapter VII without applying any of the safeguards for the use force that are stated in Article 41. There is no determination made that measures not involving the use of force had failed. In fact, Resolution 1973 was adopted after the UN Security Council, the UN Human Rights Council and the African Union had decided to send missions to contribute to a peaceful solution, but before any of these missions could visit Libya. Moreover, Resolution 1973 was adopted after an offer by the Libyan leader to step down and leave the country with his family had been rejected by the armed opposition without room for negotiation.
Paragraphs 13 through 16 call for an arms embargo and ” [d]eplores the continuing flows of mercenaries” into the Libya. In doing so, paragraph 13 decides that paragraph 11 of UNSC Resolution 1970 (2011) shall be replaced with a new paragraph that “authorises Member States to use all measures commensurate to the specific circumstances to carry out such inspections.” Again this language indicates that force may be used against seafaring vessels suspected of carrying arms to Libya in violation of the embargo.


In paragraphs 17 and 18, states are required to deny take off, landing or overfly rights to “any aircraft registered in the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya or owned or operated by Libyan nationals or companies.” Although it is clearly stated that these provisions shall not affect humanitarian flights, it will undoubtedly complicate such flights.
Paragraphs 19 to 21 extend the asset freeze imposed by paragraphs 17, 19, 20 and 21 of UNSC Resolution 1970 (2011) to “all funds, other financial assets and economic resources” that are “owned or controlled, directly or indirectly, by the Libyan authorities… or by individuals or entities acting on their behalf or at their direction, or by entities owned or controlled by them.” The related paragraphs 22 and 23 extend the travel restrictions and the asset freeze in resolution 1970 (2011) to all the individuals in two annexes. In doing, these paragraphs essentially prevent members of the Muammar Gaddafi family from leaving Libya and effectively force them to fight the armed opposition.


Paragraph 24 creates a new body, a “panel of experts”, to assist the committee created in UNSC Resolution 1970, to ” [g]ather, examine and analyse information from States, relevant United Nations bodies, regional organisations and other interested parties regarding the implementation of the measures” in UNSC Resolution 1970, to “[m]ake recommendations … to improve implementation of the relevant measures,” and to ” [p]rovide to the Council an interim report on its work no later than 90 days after the Panel’s appointment, and a final report to the Council no later than 30 days prior to the termination of its mandate with its findings and recommendations.”


Paragraph 27 says all states “shall take the necessary measures to ensure that no claim shall lie… in connection with any contract or other transaction where its performance was affected by reason of the measures taken by the Security Council in Resolution 1970 (2011), this resolution and related resolutions.”
Finally, in penultimate paragraph 29, the Council “[d]ecides to remain actively seized of the matter.”


PUBLIC PERCEPTIONS: By the time the resolution was in the public domain, British tabloids and broadsheets were already rallying the world to war. The French were convening a meeting being described as the planning meeting to use force. And while the US president was remaining cautiously ambiguous, other US officials were openly calling for military intervention in what had by now become a civil war in Libya.


In the emotional fury, international law seems to have been forgotten. One BBC commentator went so far as to suggest that political support for a no-fly zone by the Arab League was a legal justification for the use of force. Similar uses of force in Afghanistan and Iraq, which are widely considered as violating international law, seem not to have had much of an impression on British journalists.


Journalists elsewhere have also seemed oblivious to international law in their consideration of Libya, often calling for the invasion of this sovereign country by force, despite the fact that not only Article 2(4) of the UN Charter prohibits such a use of force, but so too does the language of UNSC Resolution 1973 itself.
Even opponents of the use of force seem unaware of the applicable international law. British MP Jeremy Corbyn in the House of Commons, for example, asked if we use force against Libya to protect one side in a civil war, why don’t we use it in Bahrain were dozens of unarmed protesters have been killed by national and foreign forces, or in Yemen where about 50 peaceful protesters were slaughtered by army sharpshooters. This query at least appears to understand the fact that international law, to have real value in international relations, needs to be applied in similar situations in a similar manner. Failure to apply the law consistently seriously undermines the law and its restraints on international action.


INTERNATIONAL LAW: While decisions regarding the use of force against Libya seem to have been based more on emotions than on an understanding of the relevant law, this law is not irrelevant. International law will continue to reflect the general rules that states use in their relations with each other long after the end of the armed conflict in Libya. It is also, one might suggest, crucial to peace and security in a world made up of people of diverse values and interests.


Perhaps the most fundamental principle of international law is that no state shall use force against another state. This principle is expressly stated in Article 2, paragraph 4, of the UN Charter. No state can violate this principle of international law.


While the UN Security Council can order the use of force in exceptional circumstances, according to Article 24(2) of the UN Charter, the Council “shall act in accordance with the Principles and Purposes of the United Nations.” This means, at least, that when peaceful means of dispute resolution are still possible the options for authorising the use of force are extremely limited. In the present case, the Security Council appears to have rushed to use force.
Narrow exceptions to the prohibition of the use of force are found in Article 51 and Chapter VII of the UN Charter. The latter provisions, especially Article 42, allow the Security Council to take action that “may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security.” Both resolutions 1970 and 1973 state that they are being adopted under Chapter VII. Neither, however, meets the requirements of Article 42 that a determination has been made that “measures not involving the use of force” have failed.


In a civil war it is hard to see how such a determination can be made. It would appear that at the very least it would have to be based on on- the-ground fact-finding. Fact-finding missions by the UN Human Rights Council and the Security Council have not yet gone to Libya. While there is little doubt Western governments, such as the United States, have significant abilities to determine what is happening in Libya with distant surveillance methods, this does not provide sufficient evidence of whether the government of Libya is complying with the Security Council’s resolutions. Only on-the-ground observers can determine this, as we have seen from the misinformation spread about Iraq’s actions based on third party and distant surveillance sources.
Moreover, the evidence of Libya’s compliance is mixed. Libya almost immediately announced it would respect the terms of UNSC Resolution 1973 after it was adopted. Nevertheless, in an unprecedented show of diplomatic intolerance, and without confirmation of the facts on the ground, Western leaders called the Libyan leader a liar.


Libya has also offered to accept international monitors, even extending invitations to them to visit the country. And in an extraordinary concession, the Libyan leader sent a message to the armed opposition when they had the upper hand and were approaching Tripoli, offering to step down and leave the country. It was only after this offer was rejected and opposition leaders said it was non-negotiable that the Libyan leader be captured and killed that the government’s troops launched their offensive.


If international law allows states to use force in very limited circumstances, there are even fewer circumstances in which non-state actors are allowed to use force. One of those circumstances is when the right to self-determination is being exercised against a foreign and oppressive occupying power. This might entitle Iraqis or Afghanis to use force against occupying armies, but it would not entitle the Libyan people to use force against their own government.
Even the extrajudicial right of revolution, that many international lawyers admit exists when the limits of the law have been reached, has not been explicitly relied on by the Libyan rebels. While participation in the governance of Libya might have been a widespread problem, the country had the highest per capita income in Africa and among the best Millennium Development Goals indicators. Moreover, Libya has shown itself to respect international law in the past, implementing judgments of the International Court of Justice in the conflict with Chad and even turning over suspects for which there was questionable evidence for trial abroad in the Lockerbie affair.
Finally, the question of self-defence is relevant to the use of force against Libya. Rather than justifying the Western attack against Libya, however, it would appear to justify action taken by Libya against Western interests. In other words, as Libya has been the object of an armed attack that is likely illegal under international law, it has the right to defend itself. This right includes carrying out attacks against military facilities or personnel from any country involved in the attack. In other words, the attack against Libya by France and the United States makes the military facilities and personnel of these countries legitimate targets for attacks carried out by Libya in self-defence.


Regardless of the legality of the use of force by any party to the armed conflict international humanitarian law or the laws of war will continue to apply. According to this law, all states involved in an armed conflict must take care not to attack civilians. The Libyan authorities alleged they were respecting this restriction in the civil war, although the rebels refuted this claim. International humanitarian law requires that no military force may be directed against civilians or civilian facilities in Libya.


Similarly international human rights law continues to apply, making attacks on civilians subject to the restrictions on the use of force emanating from existing international human rights obligations. If the use of force against Libya is illegal as suggested above, then the standard for determining whether disproportionate force is being used is that applicable during peacetime. This is the case because no state involved in the use of force in Libya has announced its derogation from its international human rights obligations and because to allow states to derogate merely by starting an armed conflict in violation of international law would be contrary to the object and purpose of any of the existing human rights treaties.
The use of force in a manner that is contrary to existing international law is perhaps the greatest harm to humanity in the long-term. In the Pact of Paris in 1928 and again in the UN Charter in 1945, states agreed not to use force against each other to accomplish their foreign policy ends. The Western world has appeared to repeatedly challenge this agreement in the last 10 years, especially by its willingness to take military action against predominately Muslim states. In doing so they have sent an undeniable signal to the international community through their actions, and despite some of their words, that international law does not matter to them. If this message is not answered by the proponents of international law, then the advances we have made to ensure that the international community respects the rule of law may be undone for future generations.


* The writer is a prominent US international human rights lawyer.

http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2011/1040/re111.htm

Libyan majority in support of Gaddafi

The mass pro-Gaddafi street demonstration of one million Libyans held in the capital Tripoli has gone unreported by Western media as has news of civilians killed for the past three months.

Press TV talks with Lizzie Phelan, journalist and political activist in London who has been to Libya and says that Western media is complicit in war crimes in the North African country through omission of fact and that the vast majority of the population are in support of the Libyan government. Following is a transcript of the interview.

Press TV: NATO have issued an apology for a strike so about this publicized NATO strike that has killed civilians, they have blamed ‘technical error’. The conclusion we can draw from that is if that happens it may happen again, which relates to the risk of more civilian casualties. Concerning this air campaign – Do you think it has actually gone too far when it is not saving lives?

Phelan: Yet again we are seeing what the US and Europe shamefully call collateral damage in the form of human lives like we have seen previously in Iraq and Afghanistan and in many other parts of the world.

This apology by NATO is an absolute joke. It’s the first apology we’ve had from them in the three months despite the fact that civilians have been dying at the hands of NATO air strikes everyday in the past three months there have been thousands of strikes on the country so they made the apology yesterday on Sunday. But again at 2am in the morning there was another attack on the city of Sorman, 130km west of Tripoli where a further fifteen civilians were killed and a further three children were killed.

In previous weeks we have seen the bombing of al-Nasr university in Tripoli in the daytime where civilians were killed and so these are the military targets that we’re seeing them bomb – we’re seeing them bomb universities; we’re seeing them bomb Friday market street in Tripoli where there is no military site in the area. Friday market street – I’ve been there – it begins with a GPO post office and ends with a primary school and they bombed four buildings and killed nine civilians including a toddler of four months old.

So, we are seeing what ‘humanitarian intervention’ and the ‘protection of civilians’ al-a-NATO means – it means the killing of children as we are seeing.

The real crime here is the crime of the media. Where has the media been? The media has picked up on this now because NATO has made their apology, but we’ve been seeing civilians dying every day for the past three months; we have a swarm of western journalists based in Tripoli…

Press TV: The NATO apology concerns it’s responsibility for the deaths of 9 civilians and 18 injured in an early morning strike at an apartment building. In terms of what NATO is exercising it does put into question the goals of what NATO has on the ground… and this comes when there are CIA officers and covert operators as has been reported that are on the ground in touch with the revolutionaries.

Phelan: I wouldn’t call anybody who is inviting NATO or the CIA or intelligence services into their country revolutionaries, they are in fact counter-revolutionaries.

The purpose is clear and that is to curb the Arab spring, but it goes back further than that since the revolution (military coup) of 1969-70, when Gaddafi kicked out the British and the Americans and closed their military bases and nationalized the oil. The West has had an agenda since then to get back into Libya and take complete control of the oil resources. Yes they’ve had a period of reproachment with Libya whereby they have been able to make some good deals with Libya, but they haven’t had any where near the kind of control that they would like to have – like they have in Saudi Arabia or Qatar or the other Gulf states where these are effectively client regimes.

So the agenda is clear to completely violate international law and assassinate Gaddafi against the will of the Libyan people without actually every asking them what the Libyan people want.

Press TV: Since you have visited Libya, what is the support that Muammar Gaddafi has and what is going on in terms of the tribal allegiance that exists there? Because as we understand there has been a split along traditional tribal lines – animosity has existed; and also based on some research done this has indeed been funded by the West.

Phelan: Exactly. Just on Friday there was a complete blackout in the media except for one CNN report about a march of one million Libyans in a country of six million people in Tripoli towards Green Square in support of the government and also in support of the people of Benghazi and Misrata who are being harassed and persecuted by what I call counter-revolutionaries, which is what others call rebels – in particular black Libyans who because of the really shameful story that al-Jazeera has pumped out about Gaddafi hiring African mercenaries, black Libyans in places like Misrata and Benghazi – I’ve met refugees from these areas who are victims of these atrocities – black Libyans being lynched publicly and the most unspeakable atrocities are being committed against them by pro-NATO counter revolutionaries.

In terms of the tribes in Libya – from my sources I have information that 90% of the tribes in Libya are supportive of the government including the largest tribe in Libya.

Of course, before the uprising there were frustrations In Libya as there are within every singly country, but the Libyan people are an extremely non-confrontational people that will go to the ends of the earth to resolve in a non-confrontational way.

And that is also reflected in the government in the way in which the government has tried over the decades and bent backwards to accommodate opposition forces within the government, which in a sense has backfired as we saw from the people who defected from the government and who sold out because they were in the pockets of the CIA andMI6 and the other Western intelligence services.

So, from my experience in Libya the support for the government is absolutely widespread. There was a Guardian journalist in Libya who thankfully was deported from Libya for reporting that the reason why there is no opposition in Tripoli is because there are informers everywhere. A million people marched through the streets of Tripoli so the people have spoken for themselves.

Press TV: When will a political solution be discussed? Is NATO going to be ready to face the fact that there has to be a political solution in Libya? Many officials in the US have talked about having a political solution in Afghanistan and have conceded that for any war this is the best way forward…So why is this (military bombing) continuing in Libya?

Phelan: I have no faith in NATO to ever have the humility to suggest that what is needed and what was needed from the outset is a political solution.

It’s clear that NATO have no way at the moment to get out. They have gone into this war and they can’t lose face now.

I want to quickly mention something that has not been or rarely gets mentioned and that is the sanctions imposed on Libya have led now to a crisis in the country whereby people have to queue for six days for food and fuel and we’ve seen the impact from that in Iraq; sanctions are one of the greatest killers, sometimes more so than outright military war; it killed millions of people in Iraq.

…Coming back to your question, I would say that the UN has been acting as an extension of NATO and has done so in Libya.

Press TV: I have said that NATO is the armed wing of the UN in which the UN is used and then of course NATO comes in and of course we see how that gets exercised when it comes to various countries.

Phelan: I would say it the other way round that the UN is essentially a wing of NATO in the sense that it gives legitimacy to what NATO’s agenda is. And I have no faith in either of these institutions to deliver any kind of political solution in the country. The UN has proved itself a failure since the war on terror began and even before then…

SC/HRF

http://www.presstv.ir/detail/185602.html

http://www.mathaba.net/news/?x=627225

‘Technical Error’: NATO admits killing babies

‘Technical Error’: NATO admits killing babies

NATO has admitted that civilians were killed in an air strike on a Tripoli suburb on Sunday. Gaddafi officials say two babies were among the nine dead. It’s the first time the Alliance has conceded responsibility for civilian deaths, although Libya’s Health Ministry claims more than 800 people have died in three months of air attacks. Maria Finoshina reports now from the capital Tripoli. You may find some of the images disturbing.

RussiaToday

NO COMMENTS

———————————————————————————————–

Seven civilians killed by NATO airstrike on Tripoli

At least seven civilians in Libya have been killed by a NATO airstrike which hit a residential area overnight. Earlier, the Alliance confirmed it had mistakenly attacked rebel forces, but the number killed in that friendly-fire attack is not known.

­In the middle of the night, Tripoli’s Souk al-Juma district was woken up by a blast, when a bomb, or several bombs, landed in this residential area. Several three-story buildings have been destroyed as a result. According to initial reports, four families – 12 to 14 people – resided there, and at least seven inhabitants have been killed, while some are still missing.

The rescue operation began right away, in the middle of the night, but people on the ground fear there is little hope of anyone being alive under the rubble.

Buildings on the opposite side of the street have also been partially damaged, while nobody has been hurt there.

A spokesman for the Libyan government, Dr. Moussa Ibrahim, arrived at the scene shortly after the incident. He said the area was hit by a NATO strike.

“They were attacked by rockets from the sky. People were killed, children,” he told RT. “With my own hands, with my own eyes I saw and helped take out little girls who were killed and little boys, the father and the mother. Two whole families perished under this attack.”

“You cannot justify this attack with anything. This is not the protection of civilians,” Moussa Ibrahim added.

The latest incident comes amid intense bombardment of Libya by the NATO forces. As RT’s team reports from Tripoli, bombs are being dropped day and night and heavy explosions can be heard all the time.

Russia, which has always been against the military means of settling the conflict, has sent a peace mediator Mikhail Margelov to Libya, in order to try to persuade the warring sides to start talking.

After having spoken to representatives from both sides, Margelov said that everyone is ready for negotiations, but NATO should first stop the airstrikes. Tunisia has come up with a proposal to hold the talks on its soil.

http://rt.com/news/seven-civilians-killed-nato/

Conferenza “Bombardamenti umanitari?”

3 mesi di “bombardamenti umanitari” in Libia

Sabato 25 giugno alle ore 15.30 si terrà a Milano, presso il Centro Culturale San Fedele di Piazza San Fedele 4,  la conferenza “Bombardamenti umanitari? Gli obiettivi geostrategici dietro la guerra in Libia”.

http://byebyeunclesam.wordpress.com/2011/06/20/3-mesi-di-bombardamenti-umanitari-in-libia/

“Humanitarian Intervention”

More NATO “Humanitarian Intervention:”The Bombing of Al Fateh University, Campus B

Wed, 15 June 2011 – 00:33 — Cynthia McKinney

The former Georgia congresswoman and Green Party presidential candidate led a delegation to Libya, where she witnessed some of the worst bombing of the besieged capital, Tripoli. “I’m still waiting to find evidence somewhere in the world that bombing poor civilian populations of the Third World from the air is good for their voting rights, democracy, medical care, education, welfare, national debt, and enhancing personal income and wealth distribution.”

More NATO “Humanitarian Intervention:”The Bombing of Al Fateh University, Campus B  –  by Cynthia McKinney

“One student spoke up and said that President Obama should ‘Free Palestine and leave Libya alone.’”

Since coming to Tripoli to see first hand the consequences of the NATO military operations, it has become clear to me that despite the ongoing silence of the international press on the ground here in Libya, there is clear evidence that civilian targets have been hit and Libyan civilians injured and killed.

This Tuesday morning I was taken from my hotel across the city through its bustling traffic to the Al Fateh University.

On 9 June, Dean Ali Mansur was outside in the parking lot. The sky was blue like Carolina blue. The clouds were white–no chemtrails in sight. Puffy and white. Dean Mansur was visibly upset. It seems that some of the young men at Al Fateh University, Campus B were fighting over girls. He explained to me that Libyans are hot blooded. With a gleam in his eye, he whispered to me that girls are important to young men.

Yes, that was clearly evident today as I approached the campus of Al Fateh University, Campus B, formerly known as Nasser University. Under the trees, throughout the lawn as we approached the campus gates, I could see young men and women talking to each other, talking on cell phones, walking to and fro, assembled, probably talking about the latest campus news–whatever that might be. Today, on the Al Fateh campus, life was teeming. Student life seemed vibrant. This feel and ambiance of this university was not unlike the hundreds of other universities that I have visited in the US and around the world.

Libyan boys and girls are like ours. My son would easily fit into the life of this university.

The campus seemed vibrant, too. Cranes everywhere indicated a healthy building program, adding new buildings to enhance the student learning environment. Despite the students’ fracas, Dean Mansur had everything to be happy about as he saw his university becoming bigger, better, and stronger. Her told me that they had even signed an agreement with a British university to begin programs in the English language. Not English studies, Dean Mansur emphasized, but an entire curriculum of study taught in the English language! Of course, he intoned, that’s all disappointingly ended now.

“Some of the young men at Al Fateh University, Campus B were fighting over girls.“

Al Fateh University, Campus B consists of about 10,000 undergraduates, 800 masters degree candidates, and 18 Ph.D. students; 220 staff, 150 ad hoc professors, 120 employees. It has eight auditoriums, 19 classrooms, 4 extra large classrooms. It also has a rural campus at Al Azizia where 700 students are taught and are a part of the university system. Dean Mansur compares himself to a mayor because he has so many responsibilities presiding over a large community of students engaging in a rich and vibrant academic life.

Dean Mansur told me that life at the university and, for him personally, changed forever on the afternoon of Thursday 9 June, 2011.

He recalled that the university opened as usual around 8:00 am and was to close later that evening at about 8:00 pm.

Thursday, 9 June, he thought, was going to be just like any other day, except for the fracas over the girls that had cleared the campus of many of the students who didn’t want to have any part in the fighting. So, outside in the campus parking lot, Dr. Mansur told me he was preoccupied, thinking how he would deal with the disciplinary issue before him.

Then, out of nowhere and all of a sudden, he heard something loud up in the sky.

“Life at the university changed forever on the afternoon of Thursday 9 June, 2011.”

He said it began out of nowhere, a loud roar. Then a frightful high pitched the hissing sound.  He said he looked up into the sky and could hardly believe his eyes: Something shiny up in the sky appeared dancing in front of him. He said it moved about like an Atari game or something. It danced and zig-zagged all over the sky. He said he was transfixed on the object for what seemed like minutes but in truth must have only been seconds.

Up and down and sideways it raced in the sky and then, without warning, it just came crashing down into the ground nearby. It was a NATO missile.

Tragically it had found its target: Al Fateh University, Campus B.

Dean Mansur said he saw one missile, lots of fire, lots of different colors all around it, and then a huge plume of smoke. He saw one missile, but heard what seemed like many explosions. He said he now can’t honestly say how many.

Dr. Mansur said the force and shock of the blast held him frozen in place. He said his heart stopped for a moment. He wasn’t afraid, just frozen.  He didn’t run away; he didn’t cower; he said he just stood stupefied.

The force of the blast cracked thickened concrete wells, shattered hundreds of windows and brought numerous ceilings down in lecture halls.

Whether it was a wayward Tomahawk Cruise Missile or a misdirected laser guided bomb, no one knows.

His immediate thoughts were for the thousands of his students in the university and for his own three children who study there.

After about 30 minutes, the Libyan press came to see what had happened. The University president and other officials of the school all came. But to Dr. Mansur’s surprise not the international press.

And what did they see?

The media saw the widespread structural damage to many of the buildings, all of the windows blown out in every one of the eight auditoriums. Doors blown off their hinges. Library in a shambles. Books and debris everywhere. The campus mosque was damaged. Glass heaped up in piles. Some efforts at cleaning up had begun.

Dr Mansur says that they have kept the university, wherever practicable, in much the same condition as it was on the day of the attack. Except that the main classroom area that students work in has been cleaned and will be renamed the Seif Al-Arab auditorium complex in memory of Muammar Qaddafi’s son murdered on April 30, 2011 in his home by NATO bombs.

“The force of the blast cracked thickened concrete wells, shattered hundreds of windows and brought numerous ceilings down in lecture halls.”

On Thursday, NATO missiles. Friday and Saturday are considered the weekend here. Sunday, Monday, and Tuesday, the students are back to school undaunted by the bombing. In many of the classrooms I saw today, students were taking final exams amid the debris. As I walked around the campus, one male voice shouted out and spoke to me in Arabic: “Where’s Obama?”

Good question I thought.

I’ve always wondered if the politicians who regularly send our young men and women away to war and who regularly bomb the poor peoples of the world have ever, themselves, been on the receiving end of a Cruise Missile attack or placed themselves and their family at the mercy of a laser guided depleted uranium bomb. Maybe, just maybe, I thought that if they had experienced first hand the horror of a NATO attack on a civilian target they might just stop and question for a minute the need to dispatch our armed forces to attack the people of Libya.

I didn’t want to disturb the students taking exams so I found some students standing outside not taking exams to talk to. I asked them if they had anything to say to President Obama. One professor, a woman, spoke up readily and said, “We are working under fire: physical and psychological.” One student spoke up and said that President Obama should “Free Palestine and leave Libya alone.” He continued, “We are one family.”

More on that later, but briefly, every Libyan is a member of a tribe and every tribe governs itself and selects its leaders; those leaders from all of the tribes then select their leaders, and so on until there is only one leader of all of the tribes of Libya. I met that one tribal leader yesterday in another part of Tripoli and I am told he is the real leader of this country. He presides over the Tribal Council which constitutes Libya’s real policymakers. So when the young man said “We are one family,” that is actually the truth.

Dr. Mansur, trained in the United States, spoke fondly of his time in the US and the many friends he made there. He is proud of his students and the richness of his university’s community life. He was just like any University Dean in the United States.

“In my view God intervened on Thursday 9 June, 2011.”

On the day that the missile struck, not one student was killed. It could so easily have been different. It could have been a catastrophe taking the lives of hundreds of teenagers.

I am told that in the surrounding area immediately outside the university others were not so fortunate.

Reports are that there were deaths in the nearby houses.

It’s a funny thing about war. Those who cause war become oblivious and removed from its consequences; they seem happy to inflict harm on others and become numb to its ill effects while war’s victims find a way to normalize the abnormal and live with the constant threat of death and destruction.

After visiting Tripoli, I remain as opposed to war as ever before.

The students at Al Fateh University continue their studies despite the siege that their country is under.

And oh, that second group of students that I randomly spoke to? I asked them how much they pay for tuition. They looked at me with puzzled faces even after the translation. I asked them how much they pay for their books. Again, the same puzzled face. Tuition at Al Fateh University is 16 dinars per year–about $9. And due to the NATO embargo on gasoline imports, the school now has started 10 free bus lines to its surrounding areas in order to make sure that the students can get to school, free of charge.

I told them that I was about to enter a Ph.D. program in the US myself and that I needed tuition and book money costing tens of thousands of dollars. I continued that my cousin is in debt $100,000 because she went to the schools of her choice and received a Master’s degree.

They said to me, “We thank Muammar Qaddafi. Because of Muammar Qaddafi we have free education. Allah, Muammar, Libya obeys!”

Well as for NATO, they still cling to the chimera that their strikes are against military targets only and that theirs is a “humanitarian intervention.”

I’m still waiting to find evidence somewhere in the world that bombing poor civilian populations of the Third World from the air is good for their voting rights, democracy, medical care, education, welfare, national debt, and enhancing personal income and wealth distribution. It seems clear to me that complex life issues require more complex intervention than a Cruise Missile could ever deliver.

Here is video of Michel Collon about western wars and the media lies that accompany them (thanks to Rosemary Tylka for sending this to me for forwarding)

Cynthia McKinney is a former Georgia congresswoman and Green Party presidential candidate.

http://www.blackagendareport.com/content/more-nato-humanitarian-interventionthe-bombing-al-fateh-university-campus-b