The regular visits of the South African President, Jacob Zuma to Tripoli, since the Battle for Libya began early this year singles him out as a courageous African leader, who has looked at the evidence on the ground, leading him “to lash out at NATO for attempting a regime change and the planned assassination of the Libyan leader, Muarmar Kaddafi.”
Although NATO has denied that they are bent on killing Kaddafi and effecting a regime change, all indications point to a planned assassination of the Libyan leader by NATO.
Research Findings:
Researchers at BOSAS INTERNATIONAL LAW BUREAU, New Covenant House, Fugar, Edo State, Nigeria, have called for a strategic review and an impact assessment of a Libya that would face enormous developmental problems, if and when the crisis ends, one way or the other. They recall that the old Yugoslavia is still in tartars ten years after hostilities ceased in Serbia and Bosnia-Herzegovina.
They point out that to destroy is easy but to re-build is always problematic. In the face of dwindling financial and material resources, NATO should re-think how peace can be restored in Libya.
In the Declaration of Principles of International Law Concerning Friendly Relations and Cooperation Among States in Accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, it was stated that “the maintenance of international peace and security and co-operation between nations are among the fundamental purposes of the United Nations”.
The Charter of the United Nations is of “paramount importance in promoting the rule of law among nations,” and so its jus cogens depositions, should never be violated by states.
The UN Charter admonishes states to scrupulously adhere to the principles of international law as enshrined both in the Charter and other treaties and Conventions, which have been universally recognized by member-states of the United Nations especially the issue of respect for the territorial integrity and political independence of member-states. There is a standing obligation that states should not intervene in the affairs of other states. However, where the Security Council so decides that an intervention is necessary, the directives should not be derogated from.
Effective implementation of the directives of, and the UN Resolutions are very important as this recognizes the supremacy of international law. States are to “refrain from military, political, economic or any other forms of coercion aimed against the political independence and territorial integrity of states.”The threat or use of force against the territorial integrity and political independence of a state is prohibited, since an unforeseen escalation can lead to unforeseen consequences.
Matters concerning self-determination of states and civil wars are volatile political and diplomatic issues, which should be subjected to thorough and objective analysis and satisfactory resolution. Where there is absence of a dispassionate deliberation, crisis could be generated.
The hurriedly convened Paris and London Conferences on Libya, early this year, did not seem to have deliberated exhaustively on some of the cogent, international legal issues issues that needed thoughtful deliberation.
Pundits have asked why Nigeria is indifferent to the plight of Libya, which had offered jobs and residence to many Nigerians. The answer, my friend is floating in the wind. Africa’s independence is yet to free itself from the overarching partnerships. We shall overcome someday!
Mission Impossible?
The apparent impossibility of the Libyan mission, a vast nation, with a complicated political history has led to discussions on Libya, from a more balanced, rather than hate-orchestrated, partisan positions. The follow-my -leader-attitude of Ivan Watson and Nick Robertson of the CNN, seem to be giving way to less dogmatism on the Libyan leaders need to exit.
The unclearness of NATO’s criterion for change in Libya, and the decreed UN Resolution 1973, has been in clear contradiction.
NATO’s conclusions conformed to no rules at all but have depended on quite subjective habits of judgment by NATO commanders and their ad hoc nature , has introduced a departure from the intention and spirit of UN Resolution 1973.
The deficiencies in logical clarity, seems to have compounded the issues leading to protests by Russia, China, Brazil and South Africa.
I will illustrate the Libya campaign with a story my grandmother once told me. She told me that a man’s goat had eaten his yam. So, he tied the goat to a tree outside his house and started to flog the errant goat. Villagers, who passed by on their way to the market, blamed the goat for eating the owner’s yam.
When the villagers were returning from the market, they met the man still beating the goat, they then lashed at the man, asking him whether he wanted to kill the goat just for eating a piece of yam.
Although there was condemnation of Colonel Kaddafi for responding harshly against the people of Benghazi, who have legitimate reasons to demonstrate for lack of democratic rights, the later reactions against the Kaddafi regime, leading to efforts to assassinate him and the wanton destruction of the Libyan capital, Tripoli, has raised questions about the love for Libyans in Benghazi and hatred for Libyans in Tripoli.
This is probably why recent discordant views are being expressed by top British advisers, who caution about the inability of NATO to sustain the Libyan campaign beyond six months, as a result of financial constraints.
The consequences of the problems of the British economy have been addressed by Professor Geoffrey Wood and Stuart Fraser, the Chairman of the City of London. They commented learnedly on the British Chancellor’s proposal “to separate the investment and retail arms” of British business. All appears not be well with the British economy.
Misgivings:
There was also a lively debate of the Libyan war by Admiral Stanhope and Air Vice Marshall Tony Mason. The two top former British military intelligence officers have reviewed the critical elements in the Battle for Libya.
The crux of their arguments, boil down to a scathing observation that the “allies have not performed.” That the fundamental principle on which the adventure was based was on “ad hoc planning” reminiscent of the hurried eagerness to invade Iraq, by Tony Blair and George Bush.
A Government looking for money does not possess an illusion of strength in prosecuting a war in North Africa, while its National Health Programme is arching inexorably.
Finding ways out of the British societal melt-down is of greater importance to the British people than fighting a desert war that has gulped colossal sums of British tax-payers’ money.
British press commentators are worried that the general and inescapable conditions of an unbudgeted -for- war, could affect British social and economic institutions despite the rationale for the desert war or the lack of it.
Right now, there is a threat by the University and Colleges Union, to call out its members on a strike over jobs and pay cuts on 30th June, 2011. In a passionate interview, the General Secretary of the Union, Mark Serwotka, outlined their plan for action.
It would appear that Britain has learnt nothing and forgotten nothing from the Iraqi experience. The British Prime Minister’s Cromwellian on Libya, has a limited political range.
A just and at the same time a sympathetic estimate of NATO’s liberalism is very difficult. Their logical does not seem be anchored on acceptable syllogism.
NATO’s preferred initiative was ethical and not economic. That is where the major flaw lies. NATO’s manifest generosity and concern for Benghazi Libyans has stumbled against the romantic enterprise of being seen as a meddlesome interloper in Arab and Libyan civil wars.
NATO’ belligerent altruism has a time limit, beyond which the old Vietnam peace song will ring out, “All we are saying is give pea
ce a chance.” I am sure that the graffiti are already in production.
The Kikla incident, in which it was reported that NATO planes killed twelve Libyans in a bus, if true, shows how NATO is protecting the Libyan population.
Let the peace of the Lord, which passeth all understanding reign in our hearts.
The United States, bugged down by wars in various parts of the globe, has not shown the enthusiasm, evinced by NATO partners in the Battle for Libya. In adopting the Pontius Pilate option, US allies have expressed surprise that the US is taking a back seat in the imbroglio.
Has the US not done enough for the Free World? Must American youths continue to be sacrificed in theatres of war around the globe? There is a limit to chivalry and power politics.
It is very curious that those states America is assisting often connive to plot America’s discomfort and demonstrate hostility towards the US at any given opportunity. So, what is the joy about?
At last there is fatigue about America’s global responsibility. In his valedictory speech, the US Secretary of Defence, in a hard-hitting, frank diplomatic speech, blamed NATO, for the way they have conducted the Libyan campaign, so far. His grouse was aimed at the incessant criticism by some NATO members about America’ limited participation in the Libyan war, which was orchestrated by Britain and France, early this year, under the unfounded speculation that America is a great nation, which must prove this by fighting wars.
Has America not done enough for the free world? The US fought against Hitler and saved Europe. America assisted in re-building Europe, after the massive destruction by Germany.
A study of modern European history is full of real stories of American heroism as a leader of the Free World. At great national risk, America has supported European nations and has continued to do so. Obviously, there is a limit to generosity, at the expense of the American people’s welfare.
There is unemployment and a health crisis in America. The Republican game plan could deepen the crisis.
Like Donald Trump discovered to his chagrin, the United States political and diplomatic concerns cannot be addressed by hated-filled, Tea Party rhetoric that only resonate among right wing extremists, muckrakers, misty-eyed political mal-contents, with an overflow of racist diatribe, mustard-gas antics, which munch on munificent, racist innuendoes.
No matter how much pomp and pageantry, the Republicans display, their millionaire prospective candidates and their anti-Obama campaign will certainly end in the wilderness.
The American people will not easily forget under whose watch the US economy hit rock-bottom and who has tried to salvage what was a Republican mess. Every heir presumptive in the Republican presidency bid, will soon discover that “things are easier said than done.”
President Sarkozy of France may discover that the French voters may not be enamoured for too long by “Affaires Strauss-Khan “or the Libyan war. The social content of his policies and their implementation will decide whether he returns to the Ely see Palace in due cause.
It is very disturbing that European nations do not seem to understand the American predicament. The world is changing very quickly and those, who still refuse a paradigm shift, will be caught, in a web of circumstance.
Nature reacts:
Nature is being unkind and one may ask whether nature’s response is a sign of karmic designs, which must come to fruition, before the Second Coming of Our Lord and Saviour, Jesus, the Christ.
Modern slavery, war-mongering, wars, debauchery, love of scandals, hegemonic arrogance, disrespect for human dignity, interference, using war as instrument of national policy, incessant trouble-shooting and the denigration of other leaders, all these provoke passions that lead to international disunity and conflicts.
Let us try peaceful co-existence, respect for the sovereignty, territorial integrity and the political independence of all states. By the way, who benefits from hard talk and conflicts- the devil, the accuser of the brethren?
It was only slowly and under the stress of circumstances that states abandoned the rule of international law and succumbed to the reign of power politics, hegemonic imposition of views under the auspices of the “international community,” an amorphous nomenclature with ambiguous application.
UNO and International Law:
Bereft of its international legal teeth, the affairs of the United Nations have been subjected to enthusiastic idealism and open recognition of rebellion. Totally deprived of the virtues of morality and universalism, the United Nations reels under the dictates of power politics.
It is a very dangerous phenomenon for states to back opposition groups, which want to overthrow their governments. The whole world is in motion and no-one knows where political opposition will erupt next.
Once precedents are set, it will be difficult to explain why rebels can be backed in one instance and be denied support in a similar case since “things that are equal to the same thing are equal to one another.” Euclid.
President Zuma and some world leaders are, perhaps, wondering why so much havoc is being wrecked on Libya, which seems disproportionate with the directives of the United Nations.
After all, both the Benghazi Libyans and the Tripoli Libyans are all Libyans, who must one day, find accommodation among themselves.
Finally, when the United Nations Organization meets in September 2011, in New York, the Organization must critically review the role of international law in modern international society and the application of international rules according to the Charter of the United Nations.
I shall be attending that session, with bells on.
