The Amateur

Computerist

Winter 2012 Libya, The UN, and Netizen Journalism Volume 21 No. 1

Table of Contents

Introduction.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Page 1

Int’l Media: 16

Member of the Security Council. Page 2

Security Council Libya Mtg: Smoke and Mirrors. Page 5

UN SC on Libya: Killing the International Law. Page 11

Abuse of UN Processes by Security Council. . . Page 12

U.S. Uses UN to Bypass Congress to Go to War.Page 21

Journalism as a Weapon of War in Libya . . . . . Page 22

Open Letter From Concerned Africans on Libya.Page 23

What Does Gaddafi’s Fall Mean For Africa?. . . Page 26

ALBA Declaration on Libya and Syria. . . . . . . Page 27

UNGA Debates NATO Attack on Libya. . . . . . Page 29

Lies of the Mainstream Media: TeleSUR. . . . . . Page 30

Munich to Tripoli: Aiding Aggression.. . . . . . . Page 32

Statement by Concerned Africans . . . . . . . . . . Page 34

Appendix

What Libya Achieved 1969-2011. . . . . . . . .

Page 35

Libya and the Big Lie. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 37

What NATO Did to Libya 2011.. . . . . . . . . Page 42

What Will Happen in Libya Now?. . . . . . . . Page 44

Introduction:

Netizen Journalism and the

Story of the Resistance to

the NATO Aggression

Against Libya

This issue of the Amateur Computerist is a

collection of articles documenting what happened in

Libya in 2011. It presents a critique of the inaccurate

reports that were used to justify the NATO war

against Libya.

The focus in this collection is on the role played

by the UN in making possible the aggression against

Libya. The actions taken by the Security Council and

other United Nations bodies like the Human Rights

Council were contrary to the obligations of the UN

charter and other principles of international law. The

articles in this issue document the process by which

the UN became an accomplice in a NATO war against

a sovereign nation that is a member of the United

Nations.

These articles serve to argue that starting in

February 2011 there was a media blitz supporting the

NATO actions, largely based on unverifiable claims

by the opposition against the government of Libya.

The story that emerged is based on broadly circulated

falsifications of what was happening on the ground.

The media blitz was accompanied by a rush at the UN

Security Council to authorize force against the Libyan

government, military, infrastructure and civilians

under Article 7 of the UN Charter. The resulting

Security Council resolution gave NATO and special

forces the pretext to support an armed insurrection

inside Libya. This armed insurrection was supported

by a military campaign of bombing and other aggres-

sive acts on the part of the U.S., France, the U.K. and

several other NATO nations. The harm to civilians

and civilian infrastructure was ignored by those

supporting the NATO aggression.

There were however a number of journalists,

websites and independent news sources which pro-

vided an alternative account and critiqued the false

narrative being presented to justify the NATO war.

Such a form of journalism, contributed to online by

many netizens, has been described as “netizen journal-

ism.”

Netizen journalism takes as its mission to

independently investigate situations, seek out the

accurate story, and challenge the fact that much of the

mainstream western media is but a media presenting

the dominant viewpoint of those in power. Whereas

the western mainstream media most often acts to

Webpage: http://www.ais.org/~jrh/acn/

Page 1

reinforce this power, netizen journalism takes as its

mission to challenge the abuse of power.

A number of independent journalists and journal-

ists working for alternative media like TeleSUR

covered the struggle in Libya against the NATO

aggression and the damage inflicted on the civilian

infrastructure and the civilian population.

This issue includes not only articles documenting

what happened in Libya but also contains references

to some of the many independent news reports and

analyses that explore the long term goal of the NATO

war and the injustice done by that mainstream media

which used unverified reports by opposition sources

to spread a phony rationale for the invasion of a

sovereign nation.

A list of journalists who provided this alternative

coverage would include, among others, Mahdi Darius

Nazemroaya, Thierry Meyssan, Lizzy Phalen, and

Franklin Lamb.

Some of the websites that have been part of this

broader collaborative effort to understand what

happened in Libya and to present it to the world

include:

Center for Research on Globalization

http://www.globalresearch.ca/

Voltaire Network http://www.voltairenet.org/en

Global Civilians for Peace in Libya

http://globalciviliansforpeace.com/

Libya 360 http://libya360.wordpress.com/

Strategic Culture Foundation

http://www.strategic-culture.org/

Mathaba - Independent News Agency

http://mathaba.net

Investig’Action http://www.michelcollon.info

TeleSUR http://www.telesurtv.net

Concerned Africans

http://www.concernedafricans.co.za/

April Media http://en.m4.cn

American Everyman

http://willyloman.wordpress.com/

In his article in this issue, “From Munich to

Tripoli,” Yoichi Shimatsu refers to the resistance

offered by the fighters of the Spanish Civil War and

the work to spread the story of their resistance by the

writers and commentators who conveyed this story to

the world. In this issue of the Amateur Computerist

we want to pay tribute to both the resistance offered

by those in Libya who fought against the foreign

intervention and to the journalists, websites, and other

forms of netizen journalism around the world that

have helped to spread the story of the resistance to the

NATO war against Libya and to the destruction of

Libya that it wrought.

Note

1. See for example, Ronda Hauben, “The Need for Netizen

Journalism and the Ever Evolving Netizen – News – Net –

Symbiosis”

http://blogs.taz.de/netizenblog/2011/05/01/need_for_netizen_j

ournalism/

[Editor’s Note: This article first appeared on March

11, 2011.]

International Media

“The 16

Member of the

Security Council”

by Ronda Hauben

[email protected]

“You are the sixteenth member of the Secu-

rity Council.”

Li Baodong, China’s UN Ambassador,

speaking to the international media

In March, China took over the rotating presi-

dency of the Security Council for the month. As is the

practice at the United Nations Headquarters in New

York, on March 2, the second day of his presidency,

Li Baodong, China’s Ambassador to the UN, held a

press conference for journalists at the UN.

At the

beginning of the press conference, he welcomed the

media, saying that the media is the “sixteenth member

of the Security Council.” (There are 15 member

nations on the UN Security Council.)

Thinking of the international media in such a way

recognizes its influence on the actions of the UN

Security Council. This presents an interesting phe-

nomenon which it is important to understand. The

international media does indeed play a role in how the

Security Council deals with issues. What is the nature

of this role?

At times, the role is a negative role, supporting

big power dominance of Security Council affairs.

Occasionally, the media helps to prevent the worst

possible actions the Security Council might otherwise

Page 2

take. Looking at some examples can be helpful.

Recently, for example, reporters for news media

like Aljazeera and BBC were quick to broadcast

condemnations of the Libyan government for attack-

ing protesters. But if one listened carefully to broad-

casts about Libya by these news organizations, one

would notice that there was little verifiable evidence

to back up the claims by the news organizations.

Some of the problem was the sources used by the

media. For example, at the UN, the Deputy Ambassa-

dor for Libya told the media that what was happening

in Libya was “genocide”. A few words later, he said

“I hope the information I get is not accurate.”

Another example is a statement by the UN Under

Secretary General for Humanitarian Affairs and

International Relief Coordinator, Valerie Amos to

journalists on Monday, February 28, that there were

1000 – 2000 dead in Tripoli.

A few words later she

admitted that this was not based on any actual reports,

but an estimate.

Instead of the media questioning these numbers

and encouraging an impartial investigation of what is

happening in Libya, many reporters fixed on whether

Security Council member nations would support

setting up a No Fly Zone in Libya.

The obligation under the UN charter is to pro-

mote the peaceful resolution of conflict situations that

threaten international peace and security. Setting up

a no-fly zone, however, is essentially a declaration of

war. The UN charter upholds the sovereignty of

nations to settle affairs that “are within the domestic

jurisdiction.” Much of the media, however, was

urging Security Council members to intervene in

Libya without determining whether the conflict in

Libya was an internal matter or one justifying interna-

tional intervention.

But what happens when the media spreads

misconceptions and a false framing of a conflict

situation? Consider the period leading up to the

invasion of Iraq.

In that situation, a high level government official

of one of the nations that is a permanent member of

the Security Council, made allegations that Iraq

possessed Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD).

Those allegations were proven to be false, but not

until the damage intended by those instigating this

misrepresentation had been achieved. The false

framing of the Iraq story by much of the English

language mainstream media was used to provide the

pretext for the U.S., Great Britain and others to invade

the country in a campaign of “shock and awe.”

It is worth noting, however, that the Security

Council did not authorize the invasion of Iraq. One

Ambassador explained that Security Council mem-

bers were able to resist the pressure from the U.S. and

the U.K. for a resolution authorizing the invasion,

because some of the international media provided

needed coverage of those on the Security Council

challenging such a resolution, and of the protesters in

European countries opposed to such Security Council

action.

In the situation which led to the 2003 invasion of

Iraq, much of the English language press had played

a role that was a harmful role, a role that failed to

expose the rush to military action based on a false

narrative about Iraq. Some international media, how-

ever, by covering opposition by some Security Coun-

cil members and of protesters opposed to such an

invasion, helped to prevent the Security Council from

adding to the harm.

U.S. political theorist Joseph S. Nye, Jr. in an

article in the November/December 2010 issue of

Foreign Affairs, defines power as the ability to attain

what one wants. He argues that “conventional wisdom

holds that the state with the largest army prevails, but

in the information age, the state (or non-state actor)

with the best story may sometimes win.”

If one

accepts Nye’s argument of the importance of the

media, how the conflict is framed in the media can be

as important or even more important for military

strategy than a military campaign.

In a statement to the UN General Assembly on

Tuesday, March 1, the Venezuelan Ambassador to the

UN, Jorge Valero, stressed the need for an objective

and credible investigation in Libya to confirm the

veracity of the facts that media like Aljazeera and

BBC had been broadcasting around the world. “No

country can be condemned a priori,” said Ambassador

Valero. He was stating his nation’s reservations

regarding the decision of the UN General Assembly

to suspend Libya from the right of membership in the

Human Rights Council before the conclusions of such

an investigation.

Sometimes the Security Council acts in a way

that promotes the peaceful settlement of disputes.

Often such action, however, receives little or no

public attention. For example, in June 2010, the

Security Council took up the dispute over the sinking

of the South Korean ship, the Cheonan. North Korea

and South Korea were given a chance to present their

Page 3

views concerning the sinking of the ship.

The UN Security Council scheduled a procedure

to hear from both of the parties to the dispute. In this

situation there had been a vigorous debate in the

online media and many netizens expressed their

criticism of the South Korean government investiga-

tion.

Scientists, activists in non-governmental organi-

zations and others wrote letters to the Security Coun-

cil expressing their questions and criticisms of South

Korea’s inquiry into the sinking of the Cheonan.

Also the Russian Federation sent a team to South

Korea to examine the evidence used in the South

Korean government investigation. The Russian team

disagreed with the conclusions of the South Korean

government investigation.

Subsequently the Security Council issued a

Presidential Statement which recognized there were

different views on the issue and encouraged a process

for peacefully settling the dispute.

There was little

recognition in much of the media, however, of this

effort to defuse the conflict. A notable exception were

articles from the Mexican press service Notimex.

Still in the U.S. media, however, and even in the

testimony of government officials to the U.S. Con-

gress, there are descriptions of the Security Council’s

statement on the Cheonan which inaccurately claim

that the statement condemned North Korea. This is a

false representation of the Security Council action.

Had the media covered the balanced approach better,

there would be less chance of such inaccurate charac-

terizations of the Security Council’s Presidential

Statement about the Cheonan.

Since the media can indeed play a role in the

affairs of the UN Security Council, it is all the more

essential that Ambassadors of UN member nations,

journalists covering the UN, and netizens discussing

UN related issues online, recognize the purpose of the

United Nations is to foster friendly relations among

nations. The obligation of all related to the UN is to

seek the peaceful settlement of disputes and to act as

a watchdog encouraging Security Council actions

which fulfill its charter obligations.

Notes

1. Press Conference: Li Baodong (China) President of the

Security Council for the month of March, 2 March 2011.

Ambassador Li Baodong, Permanent Representative of China

and President of the Security Council for the month of March,

will brief on the Security Council’s Programme of Work for the

month of March 2011.

http://www.unmultimedia.org/tv/webcast/2011/03/press-confer

ence-li-baodong-china-president-of-the-security-council-for-th

e-month-of-march.html

2. Security Council Media Stakeout, 22 February 2011, Ibrahim

O.A. Dabbashi (Libya) on the situation in Libya.

Informal comments to the Media by H.E. Mr. Ibrahim O.A.

Dabbashi, Ambassador, Deputy Permanent Representative of

Libya to the United Nations,

http://www.unmultimedia.org/tv/webcast/2011/02/abdurrahma

n-mohamed-shalgham-libya-on-the-situation-in-libya.html

“Now they are attacking the people in all of western Libya. I

think the people have no arms. I think the genocide started now.

I think the Ghadaffi statement was only a code to start the

genocide against the Libyan people. I hope the information I get

is not accurate. But if it is right, it will be real genocide.”

3. 28 February 2011. Daily Press Briefing by the Office of the

Spokesperson for the Secretary-General with guest Valerie

Amos, the Under-Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs

and Emergency Relief Coordinator.

http://www.unmultimedia.org/tv/webcast/2011/02/daily-press-

briefing-with-guest-3.html

4. Joseph S. Nye, Jr. “The Future of American Power”, Foreign

Affairs, November/December 2010, vol 89, p. 2-12.

5. “Venezuela slams U.S. at suspension of Libya from Human

Rights Council”, Xinhua, updated,

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/xinhua/2011-03-02/content_19

03661.html

“A decision like this could only take place after an objective and

credible investigation that confirms the veracity of the facts, ” he

said. “No country can be condemned a priori. We consider this

decision precipitated, without first awaiting the results of the

Independent International Inquiry Commission designated by the

Human Rights Council.”

6. Ronda Hauben, “Netizens Question Cause of Cheonan

Tragedy”, OhmyNews International, June 8, 2010.

http://english.ohmynews.com/articleview/article_view.asp?no

=386108&rel_no=1

7. Ronda Hauben, “S. Korean Gov’t Urged to End Criminal

Investigation of NGO for Questions on Cheonan Sent to UN”,

June 26, 2010, taz.de,

http://blogs.taz.de/netizenblog/2010/06/26/s_korean_govt_urg

ed_to_end_criminal_investigation_of_ngo/ See also Hankyoreh

video, “Beneath the Surface: the investigation into the sinking of

the Cheonan”,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SDITkTEDVNA

8. “Russia’s Cheonan investigation suspects that the sinking

Cheonan ship was caused by a mine in water”,

http://www.hani.co.kr/arti/english_edition/e_northkorea/43223

2.html

9. Ronda Hauben, “In Cheonan Dispute UN Security Council

Acts in Accord with UN Charter”, Sept. 5, 2010, taz.de.

http://blogs.taz.de/netizenblog/2010/09/05/in_cheonan_dispute

_un_security_council_discovers_un_charter/

10. See for example, Maurizio Guerrero,”Heller mediacion de

Mexico en conflicto de Peninsula de Corea”, Notimex, July 5,

2010 (published in en la Economia).

http://enlaeconomia.com/news/2010/07/05/69561

11. Such a misrepresentation appeared in the testimony of

Stephen Bosworth, the U.S. government envoy for North Korea,

to the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee which he

Page 4

presented on March 1, 2011. See for example, “North Korea’s

provocative actions have continued this past year, with its

sinking of the Republic of Korea’s (ROK) corvette Cheonan in

March, and its artillery attack of South Korean Yeonpyong

Island in November. The United Nations Security Council issued

a strong statement condemning (sic) the attack which lead to the

sinking of the Cheonan.”

http://foreign.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Bosworth_Testimony.

pdf

A version of this article can also be accessed at:

http://blogs.taz.de/netizenblog/2011/03/15/media_and_security

_council/

[Editor’s Note: This article first appeared on March

30, 2011.]

UN Security Council

March 17 Meeting to

Authorize Bombing of Libya

All Smoke and Mirrors

by Ronda Hauben

[email protected]

Part I

Watching the meeting of the Security Council on

the evening of March 17, one could only wonder in

disbelief.

Here the 15 member states of the Security

Council, by a vote of 10 in favor and none opposed,

with five abstentions, passed Security Council Reso-

lution 1973.

This resolution authorized a foreign

military assault on a sovereign nation. The Security

Council gave the OK to Western former colonial

powers and the U.S. to carry out a military campaign

including bombing and missile strikes against another

UN member nation. How did the members of the

Council justify this authorization of an attack on

Libya? The “pretext”, the term used by the Prime

Minister of the Russian Federation, Vladimir Putin,

four days later, was that the aggression was for “the

protection of the civilians.”

The source of the disbelief I felt sitting and

watching Thursday’s meeting was that not only did

Security Council members vote for, or support by

their abstentions, the bombing of a UN member

nation, but also that those members who spoke, 14 of

them, presented a false portrayal of what was happen-

ing in Libya as the basis for their support for the

resolution.

The false narrative they conjured up was that

their military action was for the protection of un-

armed civilians who were peacefully protesting for

their rights. What is happening in Libya, however, is

an armed insurrection against the government. The

insurrection is being led by former Libyan govern-

ment officials who defected and joined with other

opposition forces. The Security Council resolution

was crafted to provide foreign military intervention to

aid this armed insurrection by attacking the military

forces of the Libyan government along with other

sites and installations.

Why had the Security Council so falsified the

ongoing military assault against Libya?

The statement by the Deputy Ambassador to the

UN for India, Manjeev Singh Puri, offered a clue to

help unravel this puzzle.

Welcoming the appointment by the UN Secretary

General of an envoy to Libya, Deputy Ambassador

Puri said, “However, we have not had the benefit of

his report or even a report from the Secretariat or his

assessment as yet. That would have given us an

objective analysis of the situation on the ground….

The Council has today adopted a resolution that

authorizes far-reaching measures under Chapter VII

of the United Nations Charter, with relatively little

credible information on the situation on the ground in

Libya….”

A similar criticism of the lack of credible evi-

dence had been raised when the UN General Assem-

bly voted to remove Libya from its seat on the Human

Rights Council.

There was no impartial report

verifying the claims made against the Libyan govern-

ment by the defectors and the armed opposition

sources and biased news media. Instead these same

claims were given prominence in Security Council

decisions and in the continued reports of much of the

English language media like the BBC, English lan-

guage Aljazeera and other mainstream media news

programs.

The voices of netizens discussing the Libyan

conflict, however, have demonstrated that it is not

difficult to have a more accurate grasp of what is

happening in Libya.

Some examples of comments in online discus-

sions give a sample of some sentiments of netizens

Page 5

“Armed civilians or ununiformed fighters have

no place being supported or protected by our air

power. They carry a gun and get targeted that is

their look out, not our job to hit the other side.”

James St George, 22 March 2011

“The thing is the rebels are ‘civilians’ when ever

it suits us.” llundiel, 23 March 2011

“Of course once you start bombing, there will

clearly be plenty of collateral damage. This then

makes a complete mockery of the stated purpose

of the intervention, to save innocent civilians.”

contractor000, 23 March 2011

“Yes tanks are not planes! Or in the air flying.

The civilian protection has no place extending to

armed rebels, they are not civilians.”

CockfingersMcGee, 23 March 2011

“So we are supposed to accept this scenario that

the Military aggression against Libya is to do

with protecting the protesters, the revolution,

innocent civilians, the rebels etc. This sounds

very reminiscent of attacking Iraq because of

WMD.” communismlives, 22 March 2011

There are earlier online discussions and articles

challenging the false portrayal of the conflict in Libya

as unarmed civilians protesting for their rights.

One of the narratives considered by many

netizens is that there has been an insurrectionary

movement against the Libyan government. It is this

military insurrection that the UN Security Council is

supporting using the false pretext that foreign military

intervention into Libya is to provide protection for

unarmed peaceful civilian protest. Actually, instead

the reality is that the Security Council has chosen to

join the military attack on the Libyan government,

thereby jeopardizing the lives of unarmed civilians in

Libya.

Several online sites feature articles or the reprint

of articles documenting how Libyan government

officials defected and conspired with other opposition

forces and foreign intelligence officials to carry out

an insurrection against the Libyan government.

While some netizens support the armed insurrec-

tion, others oppose foreign intervention in the internal

affairs of Libya. The pretense that the conflict in

Libya is about the Libyan government’s mistreatment

of peaceful civilian protest has been shattered on the

Internet and in the battlefields of Libya. But at the UN

Security Council the false narrative is alive and well

and being used to bring untold foreign military might

to intervene in the internal affairs of Libya.

Reviewing the events of the Security Council

meeting at 6 p.m. on March 17 can be instructive.

Leading off the statements at the meeting was

French Foreign Minister Alain Juppe who spoke

before the vote. He described the situation in Libya,

explaining, “Throughout the country, violence against

the civilian population has only increased…. We must

not give free rein to warmongers; we must not aban-

don civilian populations, the victims of brutal repres-

sion, to their fate….”

In Juppe’s statement, there is no mention of an

armed insurrection seeking to overthrow the Libyan

government or that Security Council Resolution 1973

had been crafted to bring the military might of the

Western powers into open support for the armed

insurrection. Instead the picture Juppe portrays is one

of helpless civilians who are under threat of massacre

by a barbaric government.

Juppe made the only statement before the vote.

After the vote, 13 nations offered statements of

explanation of their active (by voting for) or passive

(by abstaining) support for the resolution.

In the first statement after the vote, the Lebanese

Ambassador, Nawaf Salam, denounced what he

called, “the violent acts and atrocious crimes being

carried out by Libyan authorities against their peo-

ple.” “The resolution”, he said, “is aimed at protecting

Libyan civilians.” He offered no proof to support such

accusations.

The British Ambassador, Sir Mark Lyall Grant,

accused the Libyan regime of preparing a violent

assault on a city of one million people. Again no

proof was offered to support his accusation. Instead

merely the claim the resolution is “to protect civilian

and civilian populated areas under threat of attack.”

There was no mention in his statement of the armed

insurrectionary forces in areas of Libya waging a

battle against the Libyan government or that there

could be civilians in Libya who do not support the

insurrection and who do not want to see foreign

forces determine the fate of their government or what

government they will have.

Only when Germany spoke to explain why it

abstained, did one hear that there is an “Interim

Transitional National Council” that Germany regards

Page 6

as an important interlocutor.

The German Ambassador, Peter Wittig, said that

Germany had “decided not to support a military

option.” But Germany did not vote against the resolu-

tion nor mention that the underlying issue is the

Security Council taking the side of an armed insurrec-

tion against the government of Libya, and that the

claim of support for civilians was but, as Putin saw it,

almost a week later, “a pretext.”

The U.S. Ambassador, Susan Rice, in her turn

repeated that the resolution’s purpose is “to protect

innocent civilians.”

Only when the Council heard from India’s

Deputy Ambassador, was there the acknowledgment

of the lack of credible information to provide an

objective assessment as the basis for the Council’s

vote. Also India’s Deputy Ambassador referred to a

plan by the African Union to send “a high-level panel

to Libya to make serious efforts for a peaceful end to

the crisis there.” It was, however, impossible for the

African Union high level panel to go as planned

because of the foreign bombing and military assault

that the Resolution had thrust on Libya.

Though stressing the need for “political efforts…

to address the situation,” India abstained rather than

voting against the resolution.

Another abstention was cast by Ambassador

Maria Luiza Riberio Viotti of Brazil. She explained

that the government of Brazil had publicly con-

demned the use of violence against “unarmed demon-

strators….” What that had to do with the armed

insurrection against the Libyan government she failed

to explain. Instead the image her statement portrayed

could have been that of the nonviolent struggle in

Egypt of unarmed civilians demonstrating for politi-

cal rights. Her statement was not a statement that

matched the reality in Libya.

She did question paragraph 4 of the resolution as

to whether it “will lead to the realization of our

common objective – the immediate end to violence

and the protection of civilians.” But if the resolution

had been crafted to protect an armed rebellion against

the Libyan government then her statement only

contributed to the smoke and mirrors being spread

around the Security Council chambers. The provi-

sions of the UN charter require an effort to use

peaceful means to settle conflicts that endanger

international peace and security. Also the charter

supports the obligation to respect the sovereignty of

member states. No Security Council member ex-

plained how the military actions they were authoriz-

ing did not violate any of the obligations of the

Charter.

The meeting continued with others speaking.

When Ambassador Vitaly Churkin of the Russian

Federation, made his statement, he complained about

departures from Security Council practices by those

drafting the resolution, and their failure to answer

questions posed by other members of the Council.

“Furthermore,” said Churkin, “the draft was morphing

before our very eyes…. Provisions were introduced

into the text that could potentially open the door to

large-scale military intervention.”

Ambassador Churkin said he unsuccessfully tried

to submit an alternative draft resolution on March 16

calling for a cease-fire and backing the efforts of the

Special Envoy for the Secretary General to Libya, the

investigation of what is happening in Libya by the

Human Rights Council, and the African Union

endeavors to achieve a peaceful settlement of the

conflict in Libya.

But nowhere did he condemn that the resolution

was to support armed fighters against the Libyan

government, using as a pretext the claim that it was

created to defend nonviolent protesting civilians. Nor

did he explain why his government was supporting

the resolution despite the problems he had pointed

out, by not voting against it and thus failing to use its

veto.

Of the three African members of the Security

Council, one did not explain its vote in favor of the

resolution (Gabon), one spoke of “the need to protect

civilians under attack” (Nigeria) and the other African

member referred to “concern with the deteriorating

political and humanitarian situation in Libya which is

fast becoming a full-blown civil war.” (South Africa).

Baso Sangqu, the South African Ambassador to

the UN, said that South Africa commended, “the

decision of the African Union Peace and Security

Council to dispatch an ad hoc high-level committee to

Libya” to work toward a political solution to the

conflict. His statement also portrayed the false image

that the Security Council had passed the resolution to

protect “the lives of defenseless civilians….” South

Africa, too, helped to hide that the essence of SC

resolution 1973 was to give foreign military support

to the armed rebellion against Libya.

South Africa was one of the five nations who had

agreed to send a high level delegation on behalf of the

African Union to Libya to negotiate a political solu-

Page 7

tion. South Africa voted in favor of SC Resolution

1973, acting in sharp contrast to the decision of the

African Union to reject any foreign military action

and to support a political resolution to the crisis. A

Security Council resolution requires nine votes in

favor to pass. Because five other Security Council

members had abstained, there were only 10 members

who could vote in favor of the resolution. If only 2 of

the African nations had abstained, the resolution

would have gotten only 8 votes, one short of the 9

votes needed to be approved. So the votes of the

African Union members on the Security Council were

decisive in passing a resolution that was in sharp

contradiction with the decision of the African Union

on the course of action it should take about the

situation in Libya.

Finally at the end of the meeting, the Chinese

Ambassador to the UN, Li Baodong explained

China’s vote. China abstained, he said, because it

“attaches great importance to the position by the

22-member Arab League on the establishment of a

no-fly zone over Libya.” He also said that China

attached, “great importance to the position of African

countries and the African Union. These two organiza-

tion had disagreed in their approach to the conflict in

Libya. Instead of China taking the responsibility to

determine whether there was a good reason to veto

the resolution given two such conflicting decisions

from the relevant regional organizations, China

supported the resolution by abstaining.

The resolution China supported with its absten-

tion had “sidelined” the African Union’s effort to

work for a political solution, according to Jean Ping

the Secretary General of the African Union.

This

process was to start on March 21 with a delegation to

Libya.

The question I was left with after the Security

Council meeting on March 17 which passed Resolu-

tion 1973, was: How could 15 Ambassadors from

diverse nations all portray the reality in Libya by this

same false narrative?

During the Bush and Blair campaign against Iraq

in 2003, the UN Security Council did not vote to

authorize the U.S. and British invasion. At the time,

sufficient Security Council members opposed this

action by the Security Council to prevent such a vote

from taking place.

On March 17, however, all 15 members voted

for, or at least supported by an abstention, an unde-

fined and unfettered military action by undefined

forces, including a bombing campaign against Libya.

Along with supporting the resolution by a vote for or

abstaining, these 15 member nations acted to misrep-

resent the act of aggression they were authorizing.

Searching for an understanding of what was

happening in Libya, I came upon the discrepancy

between the action taken by the UN Security Council

and the descriptions of what was happening in Libya

that were being discussed by netizens. There were

many debates online. Many netizens were concerned

with the actions of the armed insurrection against the

Libya government. In their discussions, and in many

posts, netizens plainly stated whether they agreed or

disagreed with those who were part of the armed

insurrection against the Libyan government. Most

netizens, however, did not create a false narrative

misrepresenting armed fighters as unarmed civilians

Their discussions online differed substantially

from the false narrative being spread by Security

Council members and by news media like BBC

(U.K.), Aljazeera (Qatar) and much of the mainstream

U.S. media.

The online discussion, reports and analyses

demonstrated that the mainstream news media and the

Security Council no longer had the ability to monopo-

lize how the narrative would be framed which de-

scribed the crisis in Libya.

Part II

One of the many ways that the foreign interven-

tion into the internal struggle in Libya is being justi-

fied is to call it an example of the need for putting

into practice the “Responsibility to Protect” (R2P)

doctrine.

This doctrine, supposedly applies to situations

where violence is being directed against unarmed

civilians and the government fails to protect those

civilians. In Libya, there is an armed insurrection

against a sovereign government and there are civilians

who do not support that insurrection. It could be

argued that the Libyan government is fulfilling its

obligation to protect its sovereignty by fighting

against the armed insurrection. Carrying out an armed

insurrection against a government is not the same as

nonviolent civilians peacefully protesting for their

rights.

By breaching the sovereignty of Libya and the

Libyan people with Resolution 1973, the UN Security

Council has taken away the right of the Libyan people

to determine their own government. The Security

Page 8

Council has chosen the side of the insurrection against

the Libyan government, and by so doing it has vio-

lated Article 2(1) of the UN Charter that, “The Orga-

nization is based on the principle of the sovereign

equality of all its Members.”

In a talk presented at the United Nations in 2009,

Jean Bricmont, a university professor in Belgium,

who has written on these issues, explained how the

R2P doctrine is but a new version of the discredited

doctrine of humanitarian intervention. “The very

starting point of the United Nations,” Bricmont

explained in his talk, “was to save humankind from

‘the scourge of war,’ with reference to the two World

Wars. This was to be done precisely by strict respect

for national sovereignty, in order to prevent Great

Powers from intervening militarily against weaker

ones, regardless of the pretext.”

Bricmont explains that it is only the respect for

sovereignty that protects the people of the small

nations from the self serving interests of the great

powers. “The necessary respect for national sover-

eignty means that the ultimate sovereign of each

nation state is the people of that state whose right to

replace unjust governments cannot be taken over by

supposedly benevolent outsiders.”

Why did no member of the Security Council

speak up about the fact that Resolution 1973 by its

attack on sovereignty is a violation of the UN Char-

ter? The UN charter in Article 2(1)and Article 2(7)

upholds the sovereign equality of all member states

and the principle that the charter cannot be used to

authorize intervention into the internal affairs of

member states. Only in cases where international

peace and security is in jeopardy can the Security

Council make a case for the use of Chapter 7 of the

charter. Chapter 7 refers to situations involving

aggression against other states or other acts which are

threats to peaceful relations among nations. The

Security Council made no case that any of the condi-

tions for the use of Chapter 7 apply in the Libyan

situation.

This is but one of the questions that is unan-

swered even weeks after Resolution 1973 was passed.

Other questions raised by the March 17 Security

Council meeting include: Why did veto holding

members like Russia and China go along with the

resolution by abstaining? Why did no member vote

against the resolution or speak up during the meeting

to challenge the inconsistency between the alleged

purpose to “protect unarmed civilians” and the actual

purpose of the resolution, i.e. to protect the armed

insurrection against the Libyan state and provide

support for the insurrection by foreign military

intervention. To have admitted this discrepancy,

however, would have exposed that the resolution is

contrary to the obligations under the UN Charter.

Whether they intended it or not, all members of the

Security Council who spoke at the meeting on March

17 or who voted or abstained from the vote in support

of the resolution, took part in concealing the violation

of the charter represented by Resolution 1973.

The UN is now faced with the challenge of how

to respond to the action of the Security Council

members in passing Resolution 1973. The deceitful

nature of the resolution has been uncovered in articles

and discussions by netizens, but also occasionally in

some few articles in the mainstream media. Also

some members of the African Union have begun to

speak up about the failure represented by the three

African members of the Security Council voting in

favor of the resolution, making it possible for the

resolution to pass. An increasing number of nations

are beginning to recognize they, too, can be subjected

to similar acts of aggression as that imposed by the

UN Security Council on Libya. This is, as one Afri-

can president said, an impetus for nations to increase

their purchase of military weapons.

Nations, including Indonesia, Venezuela, Bolivia,

Cuba, Uruguay, Paraguay, Argentina, Ecuador, and

Nicaragua are publicly condemning the Resolution

and offering to help settle the conflict in Libya by

supporting dialogue between the government and

those involved in the insurrection.

In a letter to the Security Council dated March

19, Libya requested that the Security Council hold an

emergency meeting on the subject of the aggression

unleashed on Libya’s territory and people with the

Security Council action on Resolution 1973.

In the

request, Libya stated that the resolution was not “to

protect civilians as is purported but rather to strike

civilian sites, economic facilities and sites belonging

to the armed peoples’ on Duty.” The Security Council

refused Libya’s request for such a meeting. No

member of the Security Council acted to support the

request so as to make it mandatory under the provi-

sional rules of procedure of the Security Council.

In another letter to the Security Council dated

March 24, Libya stated that it had accepted the cease-

fire required by Resolution 1973, but that only set it

up as the target for “military aggression led by the

Page 9

United States of America, France, and Britain that has

resulted in casualties among defenseless civilians.

This is contrary to the letter and substance of the

provisions of resolution 1973 (2011) concerning the

protection of civilians and the cease-fire.”

Netizens observing the role played by the UN in

authorizing the use of force against Libya have

spoken out in condemnation that the UN is a party to

such action.

“The military intervention on the part of the

rebels violated the prohibition against the use of force

of the UN charter and is therefore always within the

reach of international law,” wrote one netizen in a

discussion in the German online magazine

Telepolis.

Another wrote, “The UN is no longer what it

once was. Today it is an instrument for wars of

aggression. This is especially true for the Security

Council which has become an instrument of Insecu-

rity.”

The action of the UN Security Council to autho-

rize foreign intervention in support of an armed

insurrection against the government of a sovereign

member state of the UN under the specious claim of

“protection” of “unarmed civilians” makes suspect all

other actions of the UN Security Council. The process

by which the UN deals with this violation of its

charter and of the sovereignty and territorial integrity

of Libya will have a long term effect on the respect

for the UN by people around the world and on the

future of the UN itself.

In a late breaking development as this article is

being completed, Reuters reports that in response to

the refusal of the U.S. government to grant a visa to

Ali Abdussalam Treki, the Libyan designated repre-

sentative to the UN after its former representatives

defected, Father D’Escoto Brockmann, of Nicaragua,

and former President of the General Assembly, is

coming to NY. “The Nicaraguan government said in

a statement that (Father D’Escoto Brockmann) has

flown to the U.N. headquarters in New York to

“support our Libyan brothers in their diplomatic battle

to enforce respect for its sovereignty.”

In a more recent development, as of April 1,

Father Miguel D’Escoto Brockmann has been ap-

pointed as the alternative Nicaraguan representative

to the United Nations by the Nicaraguan govern-

ment.

Notes

1. Transcript of Security Council meeting on March 17, 2011,

S/PV.6498,

http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/PRO/N11/267/18/P

DF/N1126718.pdf?OpenElement

2. UN Security Council Resolution 1973 S/2011/1973,

http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N11/268/39/P

DF/N1126839.pdf?OpenElement

3. “Venezuela slams U.S. at suspension of Libya from Human

Rights Council”, Xinhua, updated,

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/xinhua/2011-03-02/content_19

03661.html

“A decision like this could only take place after an objective and

credible investigation that confirms the veracity of the facts, ” he

said. “No country can be condemned a priori. We consider this

decision precipitated, without first awaiting the results of the

Independent International Inquiry Commission designated by the

Human Rights Council.”

4. Comments from discussion of article on Comment Is Free at

the Guardian,

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/mar/23/libya-

ceasefire-consensus-russia-china-india

5. See for example the website http://www.globalresearch.ca

6. See for example: Franco Bechi, “French Plans to Topple

Gaddafi on Track Since Last November”, Libero, March 23,

2011,

http://www.voltairenet.org/article169069.html

7. See para 4 of Security Council Resolution 1973: “The

resolution authorizes member states… to take all necessary

measures” without defining what these are or what the require-

ments or limits of these are.

8. Jean Ping in an interview with a journalist. See:

http://divineinterventionws.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=ne

ws&action=print&thread=4939.

9. Jean Bricmont, “A More Just World and the Responsibility to

Protect (R2P): How are the weak ever to be protected from the

strong?” (Presentation to the Untied Nations General Assembly

on July 23, 2009. Available online in the Amateur Computerist

Vol 19 No 1, page 24.)

http://www.ais.org/~jrh/acn/ACn19-1.pdf page 24.

10. Henry Masaka, “Museveni blasts West over Libya attack”,

“New Vision”, March 21, 2011.

http://www.newvision.co.ug/D/8/12/749765

11. See for example, on Indonesia’s action: “Indonesia urges

ceasefire in Libya”, The Jakarta Post, March 28, 2011.

http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2011/03/28/ri-urges-ceas

efire-libya.html

12. See Letter from Libya to the Security Council S/2011/161.

13. See Letter from Libya to the Security Council S/2011/178.

14. Telepolis. These comments are from the discussion of the

article “Re: Bombardieren für den Frieden Re: Bombing for

Peace,” March 18, 2011,

http://www.heise.de/tp

“Die militärische Intervention zugunsten der Aufständischen

verletzt das Gewaltverbot der UN-Charta und ist deshalb immer

völkerrechtswidrig.” “Leider ist die UN nicht mehr, was sie mal

war. Heute dient sie als Rechtfertigungsinstrument für

Angriffskriege. Das gilt vor allem für den UN-’Sicherheitsrat’,

der zum Unsicherheitsrat geworden ist.”

15. “Nicaragua says to help Libya after a visa ban”, Reuters,

March 30, 2011. (See for subsequent developments, “Abuse of

UN Processes” in this issue.)

Page 10

http://af.reuters.com/article/libyaNews/idAFN299541220110330

16. But the U.S. would not give Fr. Brockmann a visa so no one

was able to represent Libya at UN until the government was

overthrown by NATO’s actions. See the subsequent develop-

ments documented in this issue on page 16.

A version of this article can also be accessed at:

http://blogs.taz.de/netizenblog/2011/03/30/un_march_17_meet

ing_res1973/

[Editor’s Note: This article appeared on the Strategic

Culture Foundation online journal website:

www.strategic-culture.org on March 19, 2011.]

UN Security Council on Libya

Killing the International Law

by Alexander Mezyaev

The UN Security Council passed Resolution 1973

on Libya slapping new sanctions on the country and

reinforcing the ones it endures due to Resolution 1970

dated February 26. The truth is that the new Resolu-

tion erodes the international law to the point of

virtually killing it. First, it demands a cease-fire and

an end to all violence without specifying which forces

are supposed to stop fighting. Normally such demands

are addressed to all parties involved in a conflict, but

Resolution 1973 carries no statement to the effect,

meaning that Libya’s administration is the only side

confronted with the demand. What sense does it make

to urge a government facing a mutiny to stop fighting

and does the UN have the right to de facto side with

the rebels trying to overthrow the administration in a

UN member country?

The Resolution’s part authorizing measures

needed to protect the civilian population sounds

strange. It is unclear who is authorized to do so. One

could expect the UN peacekeepers or the UN High

Commission for Refugee Affairs to be charged with

the mission but this is not the case. Instead, all UN

member countries willing to partake in the initiative

are offered to do the job. The Resolution does ban the

military occupation of Libya but does not rule out the

use of military force such as air strikes. In other

words, UN Security Council Resolution 1973 for-

mally enables any UN member country deeming it

necessary to resort to such measures.

Article 6 of Resolution 1973 establishes a no fly

zone over Libya and Article 8 allows all countries to

take steps to enforce the regime. The UN Security

Council Resolution thus allows whatever countries to

attack Libyan aircrafts in the country’s own airspace.

Also quite oddly, Article 17 instructs UN member

countries not to allow Libyan planes to land on their

territories, even though the demand disagrees with a

series of international treaties. At the moment coun-

tries are supposed to deny landing permissions to

Libyan planes regardless of whether they have

enough fuel to return home, which is the same as

dooming the planes to catastrophes.

Both UN Security Council Resolutions openly

ignore the rights of the part of the Libyan population

which is loyal to the country’s government. The very

wording of the document seems to indicate that the

UN Security Council automatically excludes

Gaddafi’s supporters from the numbers of the people

of Libya. For example, Article 2 of Resolution 1973

says the government must accommodate the people’s

legitimate demands but it somehow evades the UN

Security Council that the population is entitled to the

rights to security and protection against mutiny. Thus,

the main UN body responsible for maintaining peace

and security across the world counts no members

ready to uphold the rights of a large if not the largest

part of Libya’s population.

It should be taken into account that Resolution

1973 invokes the escalation of violence, torture, and

summary executions but fails to cite any serious

evidence. In the meantime the credibility of the media

coverage of the developments in Libya is getting

increasingly dubious.

The passing of the second Resolution on Libya

was not as effortless as that of the first one. Five

countries – Brazil, China, Germany, India, and Russia

– abstained during the vote, Germany in fact being

more honest than the permanent UN Security Council

members who could simply block the outrageous

Resolution. Russia’s envoy V. Churkin did say the

Resolution was prepared in breach of the established

practice but did not elaborate on the subject.

Strictly speaking, Resolution 1970 also consti-

tuted a violation of a whole array of international

laws. A widespread misconception is that compliance

with UN Security Council Resolutions is a must, but

actually this is true only of the Resolutions it passes

in accord with the powers handed to it by the UN

Charter. For example, the UN Charter does not enable

the UN Security Council to submit cases to the

Page 11

International Criminal Court as it did handling

Libya’s problem. A potential objection is that the

right is granted by the Court’s statute, but the argu-

ment is irrelevant from the standpoint of the countries

which are not signatories of the corresponding treaty.

We are witnessing a totally absurd situation: the

countries such as the U.S., Russia, and China which

are not signatories to the treaty concerning the statute

of the International Criminal Court passed the case of

Libya, another country which never signed the treaty,

to this very court. The discrepancy provokes down-

right contempt for the international law.

It also erodes the international law that the

Resolutions on Libya demand that the country abide

by the international humanitarian law. The statement

shows that – without explaining the motivation

behind the approach – the UN Security Council a

priori sees the situation in Libya as an armed conflict.

Rather, an unbiased analysis leads to the conclusion

that the events in Libya constitute a mutiny which is

a criminal offense the country’s administration must

suppress. The UN Security Council needed to portray

the developments as an armed conflict to legitimize

the international intervention. It was unwise of Russia

to vote for Resolution 1970 as the move invites a

similar treatment of the country’s own problems in

North Caucasus. Backing the UN Security Council

Resolution, Russia’s envoys practically subscribed to

the view that a sovereign country has no right to

launch an anti-terrorist campaign based on its national

legislation but instead has to comply with the humani-

tarian laws applicable to armed conflicts. Moscow

thus made a serious mistake, and quite possibly

abstaining when Resolution 1973 was in question was

a fairly unconvincing attempt to reverse the wrong

move.

No doubt, the UN Security Council Resolutions

1970 and 1973 are in breach of the international law,

and all countries honestly seeking to protect Libya’s

civilian population have legal grounds to ignore them.

A version of this article can also be accessed at:

http://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2011/03/19/un-security-

council-on-libya-killing-the-international-law.html

[Editor’s Note: This article first appeared on July 19,

2011.]

Abuse of UN Processes

in Security Council Actions

Against Libya

by Ronda Hauben

[email protected]

Part I – Journalists Question Security

Council Support for Rebel Group

At the April 4 press conference marking the

beginning of the Colombian Presidency of the Secu-

rity Council for April, Nestor Osorio, the Colombian

Ambassador to the United Nations was asked what on

the surface would seem an unusual question by one of

the journalists. The journalist said:

“In the wake of

Security Council Resolution 1973 [authorizing

military action against Libya–ed] are we to expect a

more aggressive and proactive posture on the part of

the Security Council in supporting rebel groups?”

The journalist gave several examples of such

rebel groups as the IRA in the U.K., ETA in Spain

and perhaps the Corsican rebels in France. Another

journalist added the example of the FARC in Colom-

bia.

The question referred to the fact that with SC

Resolution 1973, the UN Security Council had taken

on to support an armed insurgency fighting against

the government of a member nation of the UN.

The Colombian Ambassador responded that SC

Resolution 1973 had not been adopted to support the

rebels in Libya, but a rebel group which started out as

civilians who had now become the core of the armed

rebellion. The reason the Security Council had taken

up the issue of Libya, he said, was because a member

of the Security Council, Lebanon, had brought the

issue to the Security Council. Ambassador Osorio

added that the Arab League had asked for concrete

action from the Security Council on Libya.

Is it, as Ambassador Osorio proposed, that the

issue of Libya was taken up by the Security Council

because Lebanon, a member of the Security Council,

brought the issue to the attention of the other mem-

bers? Is it that the Security Council was just deferring

to the expertise of the Arab League, which the Co-

lombian Ambassador presented as the relevant re-

gional organization with respect to Libya?

Page 12

The Colombian Ambassador’s remarks raise the

question of how the Security Council made the

decision to approve SC Resolution 1970 against

Libya, the first of two resolutions on the issue. Was it

as the Colombian Ambassador claimed because of a

recommendation from the appropriate regional group,

or was there a more complex process at work? Also,

significantly in this situation, there were actually two

conflicting recommendations to the Security Council

from two groups, one from the Arab League, which is

not a geographical regional group but is organized on

some other basis, and the other from the geographic

regional group that Libya is part of, from the African

Union.

What were the factors that influenced the Secu-

rity Council decisions first, to pass Security Council

Resolution 1970 authorizing stringent sanctions,

including a referral of Libyan officials to the Interna-

tional Criminal Court (ICC) and then, subsequently,

to pass SC Resolution 1973, which authorized a no-

fly zone and other military action? Ultimately these

decisions set the basis for the NATO military alliance

to join with the armed insurgency fighting against the

government of Libya.

While it is difficult to determine the specific

underlying reasons for Security Council action, this

article will demonstrate that the explanation provided

to journalists at the Colombian press conference

differs significantly from the actual sequence of

events that occurred at the Security Council with

respect to Libya. By failing to account for the actual

sequence of events that occurred, the Colombian

Ambassador’s response left unanswered the critical

question. How had the Security Council come to

authorize military action against a member nation of

the United Nations, in support of an armed insurgency

against the government of that nation? Such a course

of action is clearly contrary to the UN Charter provi-

sion not to intervene in the internal affairs of a mem-

ber nation of the UN (Article 2 Section 7).

Part II – How the Issue of Libya was

Brought to the Security Council

Looking back at the sequence of events by which

the issue of Libya was brought to the Security Coun-

cil, leads to an important observation. It was not a

Security Council member nation which started this

process. Nor was it the Arab League. Rather it was a

party that one could argue had no legitimate basis to

speak at the United Nations, especially not to the

Security Council.

This party, was, by that time, the former Chargé

d’Affaires to the United Nations for the Libyan Arab

Jamahiriya, Ibrahim Dabbashi. Dabbashi had taken

the unusual actions of first announcing to the press

that he had defected from representing the govern-

ment of Libya at the UN, and then requesting an

emergency meeting of the Security Council about the

situation in Libya. His request to the Security Council

began a process which, in less than a week, resulted

in passing the stringent sanctions against Libya and

the referral of its officials to the ICC that are included

in SC Resolution 1970. SC Resolution 1970 then set

the stage for SC Resolution 1973 passed three weeks

later which authorized military action against Libya.

February 21 is an important date in this set of

events. It is on February 21 that Dabbashi announced

his defection from the service of the government of

Libya at the United Nations. While an appropriate

course for a defecting government official from a

country would be to resign his official position as a

Deputy Ambassador for Libya at the United Nations,

this is not what happened.

It is also on February 21 that another important

event occurred, though not at the UN. Another Libyan

official, Nouri al Mesmari, officially announced his

defection from his Libyan government position.

Living in France under the protection of the French

government, he gave an interview to the French

newspaper Liberation about his defection.

What is significant about Mesmari’s action is that

his defection puts Dabbashi’s defection in a broader

context. A widely circulated article in the Italian

newspaper Libero, an article which has not been

refuted or denied, provides this context.

Mesmari left

Libya in October 2010 for Paris, four months before

the alleged suppression of demonstrations cited as one

of the pretexts for the NATO aggression against

Libya. Mesmari had been an important Libyan official

with vast knowledge of and contact with the foreign

service officials of Libya and vast knowledge of

Libya’s contacts with government officials in other

countries.

Libero reported that after Mesmari went to Paris

in October 2010, he was in contact not only with

French foreign intelligence officials, but also with

elements of the Libyan opposition. His actions help to

shed light on the events in Libya in February 2011.

Learning about some of the activities Mesmari was

Page 13

part of between October 2010, and February 2011,

several commentators propose that Mesmari, along

with other opposition activists, and officials in the

French intelligence, helped to foment the uprising in

Benghazi that took place in February 2011.

Unlike the Egyptian non violent protests, the

uprising in Benghazi very quickly became an armed

uprising against the government of Libya. Western

media accounts of this rebellion, and Arab news

media like Aljazeera, reported a series of unverified

allegations by those involved in the rebellion itself,

with little or no evidence presented to verify the

accuracy of the reports. To this date, there is no

evidence for the widely reported “use of mercenaries”

or “bombing his own people.”

Mesmari was granted protection by the French

government. In his February 21 interview with the

French publication Liberation about his defection, he

accused the Libyan government of genocide. He gave

no evidence to support his claim.

Similarly, when Dabbashi held a press confer-

ence at the Libyan Mission to the UN on February 21,

he claimed that the Libyan government was guilty of

genocide. He, too, offered no evidence for his allega-

tions. He called for the overthrow of the Libyan state

headed by Muammar Gaddafi. Similarly, the lawyer

for the Libyan mission spoke to journalists at the

February 21 press conference. He indicated to jour-

nalists that he was from Benghazi. He, too, called for

the overthrow of Gaddafi, the long time head of the

Libyan state (a position called ‘Guide’).

Following is the content of the letter that

Dabbashi, as a defector from the official government

of Libya, sent to the Security Council. The letter is

dated February 21, 2011:

“In accordance with Rule

3 of the provisional rules of procedure of the Security

Council, I have the honour to request an urgent

meeting of the Council, to discuss the grave situation

in Libya and to take the appropriate actions.”

The letter is listed as an official document of the

Security Council, and given the document identifica-

tion symbol S/2011/102, dated February 22, 2011.

It is worth noting that Rule 3 of the Security

Council’s Provisional Rules of Procedure provides for

a member nation of the United Nations to request a

meeting.

Under Rule 3, Dabbashi, as a defecting

Deputy Ambassador of Libya, was not entitled to take

part in any Security Council procedures, especially

not to request a meeting of the Security Council to

take punitive action against the government he has

defected from and is seeking to overthrow.

Monday, February 21 was an official UN holiday

(Presidents’ Day in the U.S.) and the United Nations

was not open. On the next working day at the UN, on

Tuesday, February 22, the Security Council held a

closed meeting on the situation in Libya, under the

title “Peace and Security in Africa – Libya”.

At the

meeting the Security Council heard a report on

developments in Libya from Lynn Pascoe, the Under

Secretary General for Political Affairs at the UN. In

addition to the 15 members of the Security Council,

74 other nations of the UN were present at the closed

meeting without any right to vote. So was Dabbashi.

The Libyan Ambassador to the UN, Abdel

Rahman Shalgham also attended the February 22

Security Council meeting, along with Dabbashi. In

informal comments after the meeting, Shalgham

indicated that he had been in contact with a relative in

Tripoli and was told that the alleged atrocities that the

media was claiming had happened in Tripoli were not

true. Similarly, speaking to the press, he indicated that

he had been in contact with government officials in

Tripoli who said that they, too, disputed the claims of

atrocities taking place in Tripoli and planned to invite

journalists from Al Arabiya and CNN to see for

themselves that the allegations were inaccurate.

After he made his presentation to the Security

Council, Under Secretary General for Political Af-

fairs, Lynn Pascoe spoke to the press at a stakeout. He

was asked if he had any evidence of atrocities in

Tripoli. He responded that the UN people on the

ground there had no such direct evidence.

Describing the February 22 closed meeting of the

Security Council, the Reuters News Agency said that

most of the Libyan delegation had defected. Reuters

reported that the Security Council met at the request

of Dabbashi, who “was no longer working for the

Libyan government”. It would appear to be a serious

breach of UN protocol for a defecting official who

had formerly been the representative of a nation that

is a member of the UN, to be able to request a Secu-

rity Council meeting and to have the Security Council

grant the meeting and allow the defecting official to

participate in the meeting. Similarly, to allow the

defecting diplomat to make unverified allegations at

the meeting against the government of a UN member

nation would only compound the serious violation of

the UN Charter represented by this abuse of UN

processes.

Here is the Reuters report:

Page 14

“UNITED NATIONS | Tue Feb 22, 2011 4:42pm

GMT (Reuters) – The U.N. Security Council held

closed-door discussions on Tuesday on the crisis in

Libya, with Western envoys and Libya’s own break-

away delegation calling for action by the 15-nation

body…. The council met at the request of Libyan

Deputy Ambassador Ibrahim Dabbashi, who along

with most other staff at Libya’s UN mission an-

nounced on Monday they were no longer working for

leader Muammar Gaddafi and represented the coun-

try’s people. They called for Gaddafi’s overthrow.”

Taking into account Mesmari’s activities with

French intelligence officials and Libyan opposition

figures, there is the basis to assume that there were

powerful forces acting behind the scenes at the UN

supporting Dabbashi’s activities and encouraging the

Security Council to allow this abuse of its processes.

Part III – False Media Reports about

Libya

Among the media reports at the time were unver-

ified allegations that Libyan government planes were

shooting at civilians in Tripoli and that there were

many dead in various parts of Libya. Also there were

reports that Gaddafi had fled to Venezuela. Gaddafi

and the Libyan government disputed these reports,

with a video demonstrating Gaddafi was in Libya.

This video was shown around the world demonstrat-

ing the inaccuracy of the false allegations being made

about Libya. Also, the Libyan media disputed that

there had been any such shooting of civilians from

planes in Tripoli. Later Russian media provided

reports of Russia’s surveillance of aircraft activity of

Libya during this period. That surveillance did not

show any firing from aircraft.

Despite having defected, Dabbashi continued to

have access not only to the Security Council pro-

cesses, but also to official UN press stakeouts to

speak to reporters as if officially the representative of

a member nation of the UN. At these press stakeouts

Dabbashi attacked the Libyan government, accusing

it of genocide, without offering any proof for his

claims. He also continued to call for the overthrow of

the government of Libya.

Then on Friday, February 25, the Libyan Ambas-

sador to the UN, Abdel Rahman Shalgham announced

his defection and denounced the Libyan government

during a Security Council meeting.

The President of the Security Council invited the

defecting Ambassador to take part in the meeting

under Rule 37 of the Security Council’s Provisional

Rules of Procedure. Rule 37 specifies that it is a

member nation that can be invited to participate. A

defecting Ambassador or diplomat has no basis to

take part in a UN Security Council meeting. The Rule

reads:

“Rule 37 Any Member of the United Nations

which is not a member of the Security Council may

be invited, as the result of a decision of the Security

Council, to participate, without vote, in the discussion

of any question brought before the Security Council

when the Security Council considers that the interests

of that Member are specially affected, or when a

Member brings a matter to the attention of the Secu-

rity Council in accordance with Article 35 (1) of the

Charter.”

An Ambassador who defects, by that act, is

ceasing to represent the UN member nation. Accord-

ing to the rules of protocol (2005) online at the UN

website, once an Ambassador ceases to represent his

member nation, one would expect him to submit his

resignation to the Secretary General. Thus it is not

appropriate for him to be invited to take part in a

Security Council meeting under Rule 37 of the

Provisional Rules of Procedure of the Security Coun-

cil. This Rule applies to an official representative of

a member nation of the UN, not to someone who

claims that he no longer represents that nation.

Following is the relevant section of the rules of

protocol.

“Section X Termination of Service at Perma-

nent/Observer Missions: Permanent Representative

Before relinquishing his/her post, a Permanent Repre-

sentative/Observer should inform the Secretary-

General in writing and, at the same time, communi-

cate the name of the member of the mission who will

act as Chargé d’Affaires a.i. pending the arrival of the

new Permanent Representative/Observer. It is of

special importance to note that a Chargé d’Affaires

a.i. cannot appoint himself and can hold this function

only after being appointed by the Permanent Repre-

sentative/Observer or by the Ministry of Foreign

Affairs of the State concerned.”

It would appear to be outside the procedure

provided for by Security Council rules for a defecting

Ambassador to be part of a Security Council meeting

as the representative of the government he claims he

no longer represents, and denouncing the member

nation he has defected from.

At the Security Council meeting on February 25,

Page 15

UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon spoke to the

Security Council about the situation in Cote D’ivoire

and Libya. In his remarks on Libya, the Secretary

General claimed he was basing his reports on ac-

counts from “the press, human rights groups and

civilians on the ground.” He acknowledged that there

was no conclusive proof for his allegations, but

dismissed this lack of verifiable information by

saying that action should be taken along with efforts

to get more reliable information. This action is

contrary to other situations where the Secretary

General recognized the need for an impartial fact

finding group and appointed such a group to obtain

the needed information to determine what course of

action to take to promote a peaceful settlement of the

situation.

After the Secretary General presented his unveri-

fied allegations, the defecting Libyan Ambassador

was called on to speak. By February 25, Shalgham,

too, had defected. (One could imagine that pressure

for his defection may well have been a fear of the

referrals to the ICC of Libyan officials being planned

by some Security Council members.)

Contrary to an earlier promise to journalists that

if he no longer supported the Libyan government, he

would resign, Shalgham did not formally resign.

Instead, he continued to use Security Council pro-

cesses to encourage the Security Council to impose

sanctions and ICC referrals on the government of

Libya.

In his presentation to the Security Council

meeting on Friday, February 25, Shalgham made a

virulent denunciation of the Libyan government,

complete with analogies to Hitler. Shalgham ignored

the conflicting accounts of what was happening in

Benghazi and instead painted a picture of peacefully

demonstrating civilians unjustly subjected to a massa-

cre.

Shalgham presented no proof for his allegations

nor was he asked to present any. Instead, he was

consoled by the Secretary General and members of

the Security Council, with several Security Council

members, embracing and comforting him.

The following day, Saturday, February 26, a day

long emergency meeting was held at the Security

Council. While the Security Council was discussing

a resolution about Libya, Shalgham is reported to

have sent a letter to the Security Council to influence

the votes of its members.

One journalist offered the following as the

content of the letter Shalgham sent to the Security

Council:

“With reference to the Draft Resolution on

Libya before the Security Council, I have the honour

to confirm that the Libyan Delegation to the United

Nations supports the measures proposed in the draft

resolution to hold to account those responsible for the

armed attacks against the Libyan Civilians, including

trough [sic] the International Criminal Court.”

According to journalists waiting outside the

Security Council meeting on Saturday February 26,

some Security Council members indicated that their

aim was to induce more defections of Libyan officials

by including referrals to the International Criminal

Court (ICC) in the Security Council resolution they

were proposing. This is using the ICC as a political

tool rather than as a means of punishing actual crimes.

Libya is not a member of the treaty creating the

ICC. Though the UN Charter provides for the Secu-

rity Council to create tribunals it has no provision to

force a nation not a member of a treaty organization

creating a tribunal to be subject to its jurisdiction.

When Security Council members are asked under

what authority they refer a national of a state not a

member of the ICC to its jurisdiction, they cite a

provision in the ICC treaty. But a provision of the

ICC treaty cannot be substituted for some provision of

the UN Charter. No provision of the UN Charter has

been cited as providing the authority for the Security

Council referrals of non treaty members to the juris-

diction of the ICC.

Late in the day, on Saturday February 26, the

Security Council passed Resolution 1970, imposing

strong sanctions against Libya and referring Gaddafi

and several others to the ICC. No proof of any wrong-

doing was presented and no reference was made to

any investigation into the allegations.

When the French Ambassador Gérard Araud

explained why he voted in favor of SC Resolution

1970, he referred back to Shalgham’s “moving state-

ment” at the meeting on Friday Araud said:

“Yes-

terday, the Permanent Representative of Libya (sic)

made to this Council a moving appeal for assistance.

France welcomes the fact that the Council has today

unanimously and forcefully responded to that appeal.”

In explaining his vote in favor of Security Coun-

cil Resolution 1970, the Indian Ambassador explained

that he was not inclined to support the referral to the

ICC, but he was responding to the letter sent to the

Security Council by Shalgham urging the Council to

do so. The Indian Ambassador said: “(W)e would

have preferred a calibrated and gradual approach.

Page 16

However, we note that several members of the Coun-

cil, including our colleagues from Africa and the

Middle East, believe that referral to the Court would

have the effect of an immediate cessation of violence

and the restoration of calm and stability. The letter

from the Permanent Representative of Libya (sic) of

26 February addressed to you, Madame President, has

called for such a referral and strengthened this view.

We have therefore gone along with the consensus in

the Council.”

Similarly the Nigerian Ambassador explains:

“We have taken into consideration the letter dated

today from the Permanent Representative of Libya

(sic) supporting the measures as we have proposed.”

The Brazilian Ambassador also refers to the

appeal by the defecting Ambassador in explaining her

vote for Sec. Council Resolution 1970: “In our

deliberations today, Brazil paid due regard to the

views expressed by the League of Arab States and the

African Union, as well as to the requests made by the

Permanent Mission of Libya to the United Nations.”

At the meeting, Dabbashi was given the floor to

speak on behalf of Libya. Dabbashi denounced

Gaddafi and thanked the Security Council members

for granting his request for harsh measures against

Libya and members of its government.

The Secretary-General as the last speaker on the

Security Council agenda, spoke about how he wel-

comed the sanctions and saw them as a means for a

new governance regime in Libya. He said: “The

sanctions that the Council has imposed are a neces-

sary step to speed the transition to a new system of

governance that will have the consent and participa-

tion of the people.”

This sequence of events can only be seen as a

violation of the Security Council’s obligations under

the UN charter. The provision of the Security Council

rules used to invite the defecting former Libyan

government officials into Security Council meetings

were provisions providing for officials representing

the government of Libya to speak. The defecting

officials were now former government officials and as

such had no authority to speak for the official govern-

ment of Libya, and no authority to appear at Security

Council meetings as officials of Libya.

The actions of such officials were not the actions

of a member government. Unspoken was the process

of how they had defected and through what arrange-

ments with U.S. and other western government

agencies they had gained the ability to remain in the

U.S. and to participate in Security Council proce-

dures. The Security Council was providing support

and aid to members of a group attempting to carry out

a coup against the government of Libya. Such an

action is contrary to the obligations of the UN Charter

requiring the non-intervention in the affairs of mem-

ber nations.

The Security Council supported these defectors

acting to overthrow the government of Libya. Also it

failed to make any effort to initiate an independent

investigation of what was happening in Libya. Apart

from the biased western or Qatar supported media

reports (reports from Aljazeera only represented the

Libyan opposition viewpoint when it reported on the

Libyan conflict), the Security Council did not seek

out any other source of information. UN personnel in

Libya were not requested to investigate the allega-

tions.

No legitimate Libyan government official was

invited to take part in Security Council proceedings.

When the Libyan government tried to appoint legiti-

mate government officials to replace the defector

delegation, the U.S. government would not approve

the visa requests for the replacement delegates, in

violation of the Host Country obligations of the U.S.

In this way, the U.S. prevented the Libyan govern-

ment from being able to present its case before the

Security Council.

By March 3, 2011, the Spokesman for the Secre-

tary General acknowledged that the Secretary General

had received notice from the Libyan government

withdrawing the credentials of Dabbashi and

Shalgham.

Yet for a period of time, they had contin-

ued to speak to reporters at the official Security

Council stakeout and their statements to the press

were covered by the UN media services and were

treated as official Libyan government statements

available at the UN Security Council website.

Eventually the access of the two diplomats was

converted from diplomatic passes into courtesy passes

granted at the discretion of the Secretariat so they

could continue to have access to the UN, but on a

more restricted basis than the official diplomatic

access.

When some journalists questioned the grounds on

which these defector diplomats continued to have

access to official UN and Security Council procedures

such as requesting a meeting of the Security Council,

the spokesman for the Secretary General said that

someone who has presented credentials to the Secre-

Page 17

tary General is the representative of a nation:

Dis-

agreeing with the Spokesman’s response, one journal-

ist pointed out that the “Request for a meeting of the

Security Council normally is by request from Member

States, not from Ambassadors sitting in missions.

Ambassadors ask for a meeting of the Council on the

basis of a letter from the Foreign Ministry and, in this

case, presumably there is no such letter emanating

from the Foreign Ministry of Libya. So, on what

basis, legal basis, is the Security Council meeting?”

asked the journalist.

Instead of acknowledging the accuracy of the

explanation that it is member nations that are repre-

sented at the Security Council, not an Ambassador,

particularly not an Ambassador who has defected, the

Spokesperson for the Secretary General answered: “I

think you know what I am going to say…ask the

Security Council. Next question.”

Part IV – Libya Prevented from Present-

ing its Case at the UN

While the defecting Libyan diplomats have been

supported and protected to have continual access to

United Nations facilities, the opposite has been the

case for the Libyan government.

One good example of this departure from proto-

col obligations is demonstrated by two documents.

The first is Security Council Resolution 1970

(S/RES/1970(2011).

The document states in its opening statement:

“Taking note of the letter to the President of the

Security Council from the Permanent Representative

of the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya dated 26 February

2011.” (S/Res/1970 (2011), p.1)

The problem of acknowledging this letter this

way in the body of Resolution 1970 is that on Febru-

ary 25, the former Libyan Ambassador to the UN,

Abdel Rahman Shalgham had informed the Security

Council that he had defected.

By February 26 he no longer represented the

Libyan government. Consequently there was no basis

for the Security Council to refer to a letter from him,

as a letter from the Permanent Representative of the

Libyan Arab Jamahiriya

The Security Council had an obligation to find a

way to hear from a member of the government of

Libya, rather than substituting a defector Ambassador

and his delegation for the official delegation of Libya.

Despite several efforts of the government of

Libya to appoint a new Ambassador to replace the

defector Ambassador and his staff members who had

defected, neither the UN nor the U.S., the host coun-

try of the UN, acted in accord with their obligations

to make this possible.

A letter from the Libyan government dated

March 17 was sent to the Security Council President.

It appears that this letter was not made an official

document of the Security Council. Yet this letter

provided the Libyan government explanation of what

was happening. According to Article 32 of the UN

Charter, the Security Council has an obligation to

hear from member nations. The relevant portion of

Article 32 states: “Any member of the United Nations

which is not a member of the Security Council…if it

is a party to a dispute under consideration by the

Security Council, shall be invited to participate,

without vote, in the discussion relating to that dis-

pute.”

This would be true as well, for a state which is

not a Member of the United Nations.

The picture the Libyan government presents in

the communication to the Security Council is one

where there is an armed confrontation between armed

insurgents and the State Authorities.

This is a different description of the situation

than any of the members of the Security Council

publicly considered on February 26 when the Security

Council passed Resolution 1970 or on March 17 when

it passed Resolution 1973.

In the letter of March 17, Libya explains that

what is happening is a confrontation between terrorist

groups and the State Authorities. It cites Libyan Law

No. 38 of 1974, article 1, as the basis for the armed

forces of Libya to “maintain security, if the general

safety of the ‘Republic’ or any part of it so requires.”

The letter explains that “Libyan army camps that have

been attacked have taken no violent action against the

armed attackers until the latter have brandished their

weapons.” This is in conformity with Libyan law, the

letter notes.

The letter explains that “Article 2 of the same law

provides that orders to fire may be given in the

following circumstances: “(a) If any member of

forces is attacked. (b) If rebels refuse to restore order,

after having been warned and given the opportunity to

do so. (c) If rebels carry out an armed attack against

persons or property.”

The letter from the Libyan government describes

how the government is fulfilling its responsibility to

Page 18

protect Libyan residents and citizens by confronting

the armed insurgents.

The letter also says that Resolution 1970 and the

draft of Resolution 1973, the resolution being consid-

ered for adoption on March 17, and subsequently

adopted, “exceed the mandate” of the Security Coun-

cil.

The letter says that “what is at issue is not a

conflict between two States, as provided for in article

24 of the Charter of the United Nations.” The Council

therefore has no authority to adopt resolutions in such

cases. The Charter, the letter explained, “provides that

States shall refrain from the threat or use of force

against the territorial integrity of any State.”

Also in the letter, Libya referred to the mission to

Libya by the African Union that was planned for

March 20 to negotiate a political solution. The letter

called the adoption of resolutions under Chapter VII

premature, until an evaluation of the situation had

been made by the African Union.

The Security Council made no mention of the

letter or the points it raised when it went ahead and

passed Resolution 1973 on the evening of March 17.

Only an AP article mentioned that there was such

a letter and referred to some of its contents, including

the challenge Libya presented to the section of Reso-

lution 1970 referring Gaddafi and his family members

to the International Criminal Court (ICC).

After the March 17 Security Council meeting, the

U.S. and then NATO began bombing Libya.

A letter dated March 19 from the government of

Libya has been made one of the documents of the

Security Council. In the letter the Foreign Minister

refers to previous letters that he sent to the Security

Council which are not found in Security Council

records. In the March 19 letter, he writes:

“In my

previous letters to you, I emphasized that an external

conspiracy was targeting Jamahiriya and its unity and

territorial integrity. I pointed out that the Security

Council had been drawn into implementing this

conspiracy by its adoption of Resolution 1970 (2011)

and 1973 (2011) under which a ban was imposed on

all aviation in the airspace of the Libyan Arab

Jamahiriya. By taking this decision,” the March 19

letter explained, “the Security Council has paved the

way for military aggression against Libyan territory.

France and the United States have bombarded several

civilian sites, thereby violating all international norms

and instruments, most notably the Charter of the

United Nations, which provides for non-intervention

in the affairs of member states.”

Libya asked the Security Council to hold an

emergency meeting “in order to halt this aggression,

the purpose of which is not to protect civilians, as is

purported, but rather to strike civilian sites, economic

facilities, and sites belonging to the Armed Peoples

on Duty.” The UN Security Council discussed this

request at a meeting on Monday, March 21 and

decided not to grant the Libyan government’s request.

As of February 21, the Libyan government has

been deprived of the ability to have a representative

to the UN. In March, when the Libyan government

tried to appoint another Ambassador, the U.S. govern-

ment did not grant a visa.

Instead the defecting diplomats continue to have

access to the UN and to use their presence at the UN

to attack the legitimate government of Libya.

An article published by Al Ahram, is unusual in

that it presents an account of some of the abuse of

Security Council procedures that occurred in passing

Resolutions 1970 and 1973 against Libya. The article

was written by Curtis Doebbler, an American Human

Rights lawyer. Doebbler writes:

“The West focused

its propaganda machinery on the UN with a ven-

geance. And it was no mere ordinary propaganda

campaign but a full-blown orchestration of history for

the books. First, Libyan diplomats were induced and

threatened to step down from their positions and

promised that if they supported the opposition they

would be ‘taken care of.’ This resulted in the Libyan

diplomats at the UN not only resigning, but doing so

and still maintaining a type of diplomatic status that

allowed them to advocate on behalf of the armed

rebels who were challenging the government of Libya

for control of their country.”

Doebbler continues: “This was accomplished by

the spurious actions of UN Secretary General Ban Ki-

moon, who issued special passes to the former Libyan

diplomats after their government had withdrawn their

credentials. Bypassing the UN General Assembly’s

Credentials Committee and well-established protocol,

the UN secretary-general for the first time in the

world body’s history personally favoured one side in

what was by now a civil war.”

Among Security Council members there have

been a number of complaints that the resolution they

allowed to pass (1973) did not authorize the kind of

NATO bombing of Libya in support of the rebels that

has been carried out. Because of the veto power of the

U.S., France and the U.K., the Security Council

Page 19

appears to have no means of oversight over NATO to

stop what they believe to be an abuse of Security

Council processes.

In the context of the sequence of events that took

place at the Security Council in February and March,

the question asked at the press conference in April,

“…are we to expect a more aggressive and proactive

posture on the part of the Security Council in support-

ing rebel groups?” is about a serious change. The

precedent set by the Security Council’s supporting an

armed insurgency against the government of a UN

member nation is a significant and dangerous prece-

dent. It is an important issue to be seriously exam-

ined.

Notes

1. I. K. Cush of Global Breaking News, Press Conference for the

Colombian Presidency, April 4, 2011,

http://www.unmultimedia.org/tv/webcast/2011/04/press-

conference-nestor-osorio-colombia-president-of-the-security-

council.html

2. “French plans to topple Gaddafi on track since last November”

by Franco Bechis,

http://www.voltairenet.org/article169069.html

3. See the account in Libero of Nouri al Mesmari’s defection and

connections with foreign intelligence forces.

http://iamaghanaian.com/index.php?do=/news/reports-suggest-

french-intelligence-encouraged-anti-gaddafi-protests/ and

http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=204415.0;wap2

4. “‘Airstrikes in Libya did not take place’ – Russian military,”

News, Russia Today (RT) Moscow, March 1, 2011. RT report

was made by journalist Irina Galushko.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iytgO0tscSI

Radio Netherlands, “HRW: No Mercenaries in eastern Libya”,

March 2, 2011,

h t t p : / / m a r g o t b w o r l d n e w s . c o m / W o r d P r e s s / w p -

content/Mar/Mar5/NoMercenariesnE.Libya.html

5) Ibrahim Dabbashi, Letter to Security Council dated February

21, 2011, S/2011/102, February 22, 2011,

http://daccess-ods.un.org/access.nsf/Get?Open&DS=JOUR-

NAL%20NO.2011/42&Lang=E

6. Provisional Rules of Procedure of the Security Council refers

to Article 35 of the Charter referring to ‘nations that are Mem-

bers of the UN’ or ‘nations that are not Members of the UN’.

Nowhere does it provide for defecting officials to request a

meeting of the Security Council.

7. Closed meeting Security Council, no notes but the occurrence

of the meeting is noted as 6486th meeting (closed) Peace and

security in Africa Feb. 22, 2011,

http://www.un.org/Docs/journal/En/20110223e.pdf

8. Video by Nizar Abboud of UN Ambassador of Libya,

Shalgam, Feb. 22, 2011,

http://www.youtube.com/user/NizarAbboud#p/search/0/fKhM

USHwtrA

English responses begin at approx. 1:53.

9. B. Lynn Pascoe, “Informal comments to the media by B. Lynn

Pascoe, Under-Secretary-General for Political Affairs, on the

situation in Libya,” Feb. 22, 2011,

http://www.unmultimedia.org/tv/webcast/2011/02/b-lynn-

pascoe-on-the-situation-in-libya.htm

10. “UN Security Council Discusses Libya Crisis”. Reuters, Feb.

22, 2011.

http://uk.reuters.com/article/2011/02/22/us-libya-un-council-

idUKTRE71L4T920110222

11. See note 4 above.

12. Provisional Rules of Procedure Security Council Rule 37,

http://www.un.org/Docs/sc/scrules.htm

13. Manual of Protocol, United Nations Protocol and Liaison

Service,

http://www.un.int/protocol/10_12.html

14. Abdel Rahman Shalgham at the Security Council 6490

meeting, Feb 25, 2011, United Nations S/PV.6490,

h t t p : / / d a c c e s s - o d s . u n . o r g / a c c e s s . n s f / G e t ? O p e n

&DS=S/PV.6490&Lang=E

15. Letter Shalgham sent to Security Council as quoted on Inner

City Press blog,

http://www.innercitypress.com/banros1libya022611.html

16. Gérard Araud at the Security Council, 6490

meeting, Feb

26, 2011, United Nations S/PV.6491

h t t p : / / d a c c e s s - o d s . u n . o r g / a c c e s s . n s f / G e t ? O p e n

&DS=S/PV.6491&Lang=E.

See this transcript for other statements at that meeting quoted in

the text.

17. The reference to the African Union was mistaken. The

African Union called for dialogue and was opposed to the

sanctions and referral to the ICC before the Security Council

took its votes on Resolutions 1970 and 1973. See for example,

Ruhakana Rugunda, “African Union Statement on the NATO

Invasion of Libya: It’s Time to End the Bombing and Find a

Political Solution in Libya,”

http://www.counterpunch.org/rugunda06222011.html

18. See for example International Labour Conference, 5C,

Provisional Record, 100th Session, Geneva, June 2011, Reports

on credentials, Second report of the Credentials Committee,

Representation of Libyan Arab Jamahiriya,

http://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/@ed_norm/@relcon

f/documents/meetingdocument/wcms_156839.pdf

19. March 3, 2011, Daily Press Briefing by the Office of the

Spokesperson for the Secretary-General,

http://www.un.org/News/briefings/docs/2011/db110303.doc.htm

20. Daily Press Briefing by the Office of the Spokesperson for

the Secretary-General, February 22, 2011,

http://www.un.org/News/briefings/docs/2011/db110222.doc.htm

21. Security Council Resolution 1970,

h t t p : / / d a c c e s s - o d s . u n . o r g / a c c e s s . n s f / G e t ? O p e n

&DS=S/RES/1970%20(2011)&Lang=E

22. United Nations Charter Article 32 can be found in Chapter 5

at:

http://www.un.org/en/documents/charter/chapter5.shtml

23. Letter sent to Security Council dated 17 March 2011 from

Secretary of the General People’s Committee of Foreign Liaison

and International Cooperation of the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya to

President of the Security Council. (English translation of

document previously circulated in Arabic).

24. Ronda Hauben, “UN Security Council March 17 Meeting to

Page 20

Authorize Bombing of Libya all Smoke and Mirrors”, March 30,

2011,

http://blogs.taz.de/netizenblog/2011/03/

25. Edith Lederer, “UN Rejects Emergency Meeting Sought by

Libya,” AP, March 22, 2011,

http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/1264/un-rejects-emergency-meeting-

sought-by-libya

26. Letter dated 19 March 2011 from the Secretary of the

General People’s Committee for Foreign Liaison and Interna-

tional Cooperation of the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya addressed to

the President of the Security Council, S/2011/161,

h t t p : / / d o c u m e n t s - d d s - n y . u n . o r g / d o c / U N D O C /

GEN/N11/270/02/pdf/N1127002.pdf

27. Turtle Bay blog “TurtleLeaks: No visa, no entry! How the

U.S. bars diplos from the U.N.”

http://turtlebay.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2011/05/04/turtleleaks

_no_visa_no_entry_how_the_us_bars_diplos_from_the_un

28. Curtis Doebbler, “Libya: Who wins?”, Al Ahram, 7 – 13

April 2011, Issue No. 1042,

http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2011/1042/op7.htm

29. According to General Assembly Resolution 396(V), Decem-

ber 1950, Recognition by the United Nations of the Representa-

tive of a Member State, when a controversy arises with more

than one authority claiming to be the government of a Member

State, it becomes a question for the General Assembly to

consider in light of the purposes and principles of the Charter of

the UN and the circumstances of each specific case. See:

h t t p : / / d a c c e s s - d d s - n y. u n . o r g/ d o c / R E S O L U T I O N

/GEN/NR0/059/94/IMG/NR005994.pdf

http://www.un.org/documents/ga/res/5/ares5.htm

A version of this article can also be accessed at:

http://blogs.taz.de/netizenblog/2011/07/19/security_council_libya/

[Editor’s Note: This article first appeared in Global

Times English on May 9, 2011]

U.S. Uses UN to Bypass

Congress to Go to War

by Ronda Hauben

[email protected]

The Korean War ended in 1953, but its legacy

still lingers in American war-making policy today.

At a recent conference on “The Unending Korean

War” at New York University, the keynote speaker,

Bruce Cumings, a history professor at the University

of Chicago, explained that the UN provided the

means for the then U.S. President Harry S. Truman to

bypass the U.S. Congress in intervening in the Korean

War.

Under Article 1 Section 8 of the U.S. Constitu-

tion, the power to declare war is vested in the Con-

gress. But in June 1950, Truman did not go to Con-

gress for a declaration of war.

Instead, Cumings explained, “The UN was the

legislature that the U.S. knew they would get a

majority vote in.” At the time, the Soviet Union was

refusing to participate in the UN Security Council,

and the Chinese seat was held by representatives from

Taiwan.

There would likely have been a challenge to a

declaration of war in the U.S. Congress. Hence it was

the UN that provided the appearance of legitimacy for

the U.S. role in the Korean War, explained Cumings.

The Korean War, according to Cumings, was the

first time the U.S. went to war without a congressio-

nal declaration. “The U.S. executive branch hasn’t

gotten one (a congressional declaration of war)

since,” Cumings noted.

The current case of Libya is the most recent

instance of a president going to war without the

needed constitutional authorization.

Instead of U.S. President Barack Obama going to

the U.S. Congress to ask for a declaration of war

against Libya, he went to the Arab League and the

UN Security Council, explains Dennis Kucinich, a

Democratic congressman from Ohio.

Kucinich is one of several U.S. congressmen

objecting to Obama’s bypassing Congress with the

military campaign against Libya.

Kucinich pointed out that a no-fly zone begins

with an attack on the air defenses of Libya which is

an “act of war.”

“War from the air is still war,” he argued in a

press statement on March 18, one day after the UN

Security Council passed Resolution 1973, the resolu-

tion authorizing a no-fly zone in Libya.

Other congressmen from both parties have

protested Obama’s bypassing his constitutional

obligation to go to Congress for a declaration of war,

before taking military action against another country,

especially when that other country has not attacked

the U.S.

In December 2007, before he became president,

Obama acknowledged that going to war without a

congressional authorization was a violation of the

U.S. Constitution.

Obama is quoted as saying, “The president does

not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally

Page 21

authorize a military attack in a situation that does not

involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the

nation.”

Kucinich illustrates how Obama’s failure to defer

to congressional authority to declare war represents a

serious failure of U.S. democracy.

For Congress to determine whether or not to

issue a declaration of war against Libya would require

not only debate and discussion, but also a process of

raising needed questions about the nature and merits

of military intervention.

Questions like “what is behind the plan for

intervening in the Libyan crisis?” and “what is the

goal of the intervention?” are but a few of the ques-

tions that Kucinich says need to be considered before

such an intervention is authorized by the Congress.

In a speech he made to Congress on March 31,

Kucinich recalled the experiences of the Gulf of

Tonkin in Vietnam, where a supposed attack on U.S.

ships was used as an excuse for war, as well as the

alleged “weapons of mass destruction” in Iraq.

These examples demonstrate the need for Con-

gress to examine the facts being presented whenever

a U.S. president makes the claim that war is neces-

sary.

“We have learned from bitter experience,”

Kucinich warned, “that the determination to go to war

must be based on verifiable facts carefully consid-

ered.”

A version of this article can also be accessed at:

http://opinion.globaltimes.cn/foreign-view/2011-05/653147.html

[Editor’s note: The following article is taken from the

Center for Research on Globalization website where

it appeared on June 29, 2011. It can be accessed at:

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va

&aid=25441]

Journalism as a Weapon

of War in Libya

by Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya

The truth has been turned on its head in Libya.

NATO and the Libyan government are saying contra-

dictory things. NATO says that the Libyan regime

will fall in a matter of days, while the Libyan govern-

ment says that the fighting in Misrata will end in

about two weeks.

During the night the sound of NATO jets flying

over Tripoli can be heard in the Mediterranean coastal

city. Tripoli has not been bombed for a few days, but

the sound of the flyovers have been numerous. The

Atlantic Alliance deliberately picks the night as a

means to disturb the sleep of residence in an attempt

to spread fear. Small children in Libya have lost a lot

of sleep during this war. This is part of the psycholog-

ical war being waged. It is meant to break the spirit of

Libya. This is all additional to the severing wound

imposed on Libya through trickery and sedition.

In the same context, the media war against Libya

has continued too. The Rixos Hotel in the Libyan

capital of Tripoli, where the majority of the interna-

tional press is located, is a nest of lies and warped

narratives where foreign reporters are twisting reali-

ties, spinning events, and misreporting to justify the

NATO war against Libya. Every report and news wire

being sent out of Libya by international reporters has

to carefully be cross-checked and analyzed. Foreign

journalists have put words in the mouth of Libyans

and are willfully blind. They have ignored the civilian

deaths in Libya, the clear war crimes being perpe-

trated against the Libyan people, and the damage to

civilian infrastructure, from hotels to docks and

hospitals.

One group of Libyan youth explained in a private

conversation that when speaking to reporters they

would be interviewed by them in twos. One reporter

would ask a question followed immediately by

another one from the other journalist. In the process

the answer to the first question would be used as the

answer for the second question. In the Libyan hospi-

tals the foreign reporters try not to take pictures of the

wounded and dying. They just go into the hospitals to

paint the image of impartiality, but virtually report

about nothing and ignore almost everything newswor-

thy. They refuse to tell the other side of the story.

Shamelessly in front of seriously injured civilians, the

type of questions many foreign reporters ask doctors,

nurses, and hospital staff is if they have been treating

military and security personnel in the hospitals.

CNN has even released a report from Misrata by

Sara Sidner showing the sodomization of a woman

with a broomstick which it claims was conducted by

Libyan soldiers. It refers to Libyan soldiers as

Gaddafi troops, which is really a means of

Page 22

demonization. In reality the video was a domestic

affair and created prior to the conflict in Libya. It

originally took place in Tripoli and the man even has

an accent from Tripoli. This is the type of fabrications

that the mainstream media is pushing forward to push

for war and military intervention.

There are now investigations underway to show

that depleted uranium has been used against Libyans.

The use of depleted uranium is an absolute war crime.

It is not only an attack on the present, but it also

leaves a radioactive trace that attacks the unborn

children of tomorrow. Future generations will be hurt

by these weapons too. These generations of the future

are innocent. The use of depleted uranium is the

equivalent of the U.S. planting nuclear weapons in

Germany or Japan during the Second World War and

leaving timers for them to detonate in 2011. This is an

important and newsworthy issue in Libya and all the

foreign journalists have heard about it, but how many

have actually covered it?

Nothing is being said about the refugees coming

to Tripoli from Benghazi either. The Ionis, a ship

from Benghazi that docked in Tripoli on June 26,

2011, was carrying over 100 people who wanted to

leave Benghazi to be unified with their families in

Tripoli. Foreign reporters were there en masse from

all over the world. CNN, RT, and Reuters were

amongst them. Amongst the foreign reporters there

were many who had no clue about the situation in

Libya and were working on the basis of misinforma-

tion carried forward from their respective stations and

countries. In informal discussion when these reporters

were challenged about the basis of their assessments

they failed to answer and sounded ridiculous. One

reporter from Western Europe said that the defections

at the governmental level in Tripoli were snowballing,

but when challenged by a colleague she could only

cite the so-called defection of a Libyan athlete.

The arrival of the passenger ship was significant,

because it is a symptom that the political partition of

Libya is underway. When families and individuals are

being shuttled to different sides of Libya, it is an

indicator that some sort of dividing line will be drawn

either temporarily or permanently.

The Roman Catholic Church in Libya has also

been disrupted and hurt. The position of Father

Giovanni Martinelli, the Bishop of Tripoli, is in

contradiction to that of the U.S. and NATO. Contact

has been lost with the Roman Catholic churches and

communities in Benghazi and its environs. Bishop

Martinelli has also lost dear friends in the war who

have nothing to do whatsoever with any combat or

hostility. What have foreign journalists and news

agencies said about this?

Journalists have a responsibility to tell the truth

and report all newsworthy issues. Some do, but their

stories either get edited or never get published or

aired. Others say nothing and instead concoct stories.

It is now the responsibility of the public to look at the

reports coming out of Libya from all sides with a

grain of salt. Diversity of news is just one starter.

[Editor’s Note: The following open letter is dated July

2011. It concerns the UN Security Council’s Resolu-

tion 1973 precipitating a war against Libya. The

statement calls for the UN to return to the principles

provided by the Charter and for NATO to stop its

campaign against Libya. It can be seen at the website:

http://www.concernedafricans.co.za/. Among those

signing the letter were former president of South

Africa, Thabo Mbeki, former cabinet ministers Essop

Pahad, Ronnie Kasrils, former Anglican Archbishop

of Cape Town Njongonkulu Ndungane, author and

poet Wally Serote, foreign policy analysts Chris

Landsberg, Siphamandla Zondi, and Mahmood

Mamdani, of Makerere University in Uganda and

Columbia University, New York. In addition there are

5 organizational listings. For updates on the names of

those in support of the letter, see:

http://www.concernedafricans.co.za/index.php/support]

An Open Letter to The

Peoples of Africa and

The World From Concerned

Africans.

Libya, Africa and

The New World Order*

We, the undersigned, are ordinary citizens of

Africa who are immensely pained and angered that

fellow Africans are and have been subjected to the

fury of war by foreign powers which have clearly

repudiated the noble and very relevant vision en-

shrined in the Charter of the United Nations.

Our action to issue this letter is inspired by our

Page 23

desire, not to take sides, but to protect the sovereignty

of Libya and the right of the Libyan people to choose

their leaders and determine their own destiny.

Libya is an African country.

On March 10, the African Union Peace and

Security Council adopted an important Resolution

which spelt out the roadmap to address the Libyan

conflict, consistent with the obligations of the AU

under Chapter VIII of the UN Charter.

When the UN Security Council adopted its

Resolution 1973, it was aware of the AU decision

which had been announced seven days earlier.

By deciding to ignore this fact, the Security

Council further and consciously contributed to the

subversion of international law as well as undermin-

ing the legitimacy of the UN in the eyes of the Afri-

can people.

In other ways since then, it has helped to promote

and entrench the immensely pernicious process of the

international marginalization of Africa even with

regard to the resolution of the problems of the Conti-

nent.

Contrary to the provisions of the UN Charter, the

UN Security Council declared its own war on Libya

on March 17, 2011.

The Security Council allowed itself to be in-

formed by what the International Crisis Group (ICG)

in its June 6, 2011 Report on Libya characterizes as

the “more sensational reports that the regime was

using its air force to slaughter demonstrators”.

On this basis it adopted Resolution 1973 which

mandated the imposition of a “no-fly zone” over

Libya, and resolved “to take all necessary mea-

sures…to protect civilians and civilian populated

areas under threat of attack in the Libyan Arab

Jamahiriya….”

Thus, first of all, the Security Council used the

still unresolved issue in international law of “the right

to protect”, the so-called R2P, to justify the Chapter

VII military intervention in Libya.

In this context the UN Security Council has

committed a litany of offences which have under-

lined, the further transformation of the Council into a

willing instrument of the most powerful among its

Member States.

Thus the Security Council produced no evidence

to prove that its authorization of the use of force

under Chapter VII of the UN Charter was a propor-

tionate and appropriate response to what had, in

reality, in Libya, developed into a civil war.

It then proceeded to ‘outsource’ or ‘sub-contract’

the implementation of its resolutions to NATO,

mandating this military alliance to act as a ‘coalition

of the willing’.

It did not put in place any mechanism and pro-

cess to supervise the ‘sub-contractor’, to ensure that

it faithfully honors the provisions of its Resolutions.

It has made no effort otherwise to monitor and

analyse the actions of NATO in this regard.

It has allowed the establishment of a legally

unauthorized ‘Contact Group’, yet another ‘coalition

of the willing’, which has displaced it as the authority

which has the effective responsibility to help deter-

mine the future of Libya.

To confirm this unacceptable reality, the July 15,

2011 meeting of the ‘Contact Group’ in Istanbul

“reaffirmed that the Contact Group remains the

appropriate platform for the international community

to be a focal point of contact with the Libyan people,

to coordinate international policy and to be a forum

for discussion of humanitarian and post-conflict

support.”

Duly permitted by the Security Council, the two

‘coalitions of the willing’, NATO and the ‘Contact

Group’, have effectively and practically rewritten

Resolution 1973.

Thus they have empowered themselves openly to

pursue the objective of ‘regime change’ and therefore

the use of force and all other means to overthrow the

government of Libya, which objectives are com-

pletely at variance with the decisions of the UN

Security Council.

Because of this, with no regard to UNSC Resolu-

tions 1970 and 1973, they have made bold to declare

the government of Libya illegitimate and to proclaim

the Benghazi-based ‘Transitional National Council’

as “the legitimate governing authority in Libya.”

The Security Council has failed to answer the

question how the decisions taken by NATO and the

‘Contact Group’ address the vital issue of “facilitating

dialogue to lead to the political reforms necessary to

find a peaceful and sustainable solution….”

The actions of its ‘sub-contractors’, NATO and

the ‘Contact Group’, have positioned the UN as a

partisan belligerent in the Libyan conflict, rather than

a committed but neutral peacemaker standing equidis-

tant from the Libyan armed factions.

The Security Council has further wilfully decided

to repudiate the rule of international law by con-

sciously ignoring the provisions of Chapter VIII of

Page 24

the UN Charter relating to the role of legitimate

regional institutions.

The George W. Bush war against Iraq began on

March 20, 2003.

The following day, March 21, the U.K. newspa-

per, The Guardian, published an abbreviated article

by the prominent U.S. neo-conservative, Richard

Perle, entitled “Thank God for the death of the UN”.

But the post-Second World War global architec-

ture for the maintenance of international peace and

security centered on respect for the UN Charter.

The UN Security Council must therefore know

that at least with regard to Libya, it has acted in a

manner which will result in and has led to the loss of

its moral authority effectively to preside over the

critical processes of achieving global peace and the

realization of the objective of peaceful coexistence

among the diverse peoples of the world.

Contrary to the provisions of the UN Charter, the

UN Security Council authorised and has permitted the

destruction and anarchy which has descended on the

Libyan people.

At the end of it all:

– many Libyans will have died and have been

maimed;

– much infrastructure will have been destroyed,

further impoverishing the Libyan people;

– the bitterness and mutual animosity among the

Libyan people will have been further entrenched;

– the possibility to arrive at a negotiated, inclusive

and stable settlement will have become that much

more difficult;

– instability will have been reinforced among the

countries neighboring Libya, especially the countries

of the African Sahel, such as Sudan, Chad, Niger,

Mali and Mauretania;

– Africa will inherit a much more difficult challenge

successfully to address issue of peace and stability,

and therefore the task of sustained development; and,

– those who have intervened to perpetuate violence

and war in Libya will have the possibility to set the

parameters within which the Libyans will have the

possibility to determine their destiny, and thus further

constrain the space for the Africans to exercise their

right to self-determination.

As Africans we have predicated our future as

relevant players in an equitable system of interna-

tional relations on the expectation that the United

Nations would indeed serve “as the foundation of a

new world order.”

The ICG Report to which we have referred says:

“The prospect for Libya, but also North Africa as

a whole, is increasingly ominous, unless some

way can be found to induce the two sides in the

armed conflict to negotiate a compromise allow-

ing for an orderly transition to a post-Gaddafi,

post-Jamahiriya state that has legitimacy in the

eyes of the Libyan people. A political break-

through is by far the best way out of the costly

situation created by the military impasse….”

When Richard Perle wrote in 2003 about the

“abject failure of the United Nations”, he was be-

moaning the refusal of the UN to submit to dictation

by the world’s sole superpower, the U.S.

The UN took this position because it was con-

scious of, and was inspired by its obligation to act as

a true representative of all peoples of the world,

consistent with the opening words of the UN Charter

— “We the peoples of the United Nations….”

However, and tragically, eight years later, in

2011, the UN Security Council abandoned its com-

mitment to this perspective.

Chastened by the humiliating experience of 2003,

when the U.S. demonstrated that might is right, it

decided that it was more expedient to submit to the

demands of the powerful rather than honor its obliga-

tion to respect the imperative to uphold the will of the

peoples, including the African nations.

Thus it has communicated the message that it has

become no more than an instrument in the hands and

service of the most powerful within the system of

international relations and therefore the vital process

of the peaceful ordering of human affairs.

As Africans we have no choice but to stand up

and reassert our right and duty to determine our

destiny in Libya and everywhere else on our Conti-

nent.

We demand that all governments, everywhere in

the world, including Africa, which expect genuine

respect by the governed, such as us, should act imme-

diately to assert “that law by which all nations may

live in dignity.”

We demand that:

– the NATO war of aggression in Libya should end

immediately;

– the AU should be supported to implement its Plan

to help the Libyan people to achieve peace, democ-

racy, shared prosperity and national reconciliation in

a united Libya; and,

– the UN Security Council must act immediately to

Page 25

discharge its responsibilities as defined in the UN

Charter.

Those who have brought a deadly rain of bombs

to Libya today should not delude themselves to

believe that the apparent silence of the millions of

Africans means that Africa approves of the campaign

of death, destruction and domination which that rain

represents.

We are confident that tomorrow we will emerge

victorious, regardless of the death-seeking power of

the most powerful armies in the world.

The answer we must provide practically, and as

Africans, is – when, and in what ways, will we act

resolutely and meaningfully to defend the right of the

Africans of Libya to decide their future, and therefore

the right and duty of all Africans to determine their

destiny!

The AU Road Map remains the only way to

peace for the people of Libya.

* When the 66

Session of the United Nations Gen-

eral Assembly (UNGA) opened on September 13, the

above Open Letter on Libya with over 300 signatures

was delivered to the President of the UN General

Assembly, to the President of the Security Council,

and to Secretary General Ban Ki-moon. See, e.g.,

“Letter on Libya Sent to UN on Opening of General

Assembly” at:

http://blogs.taz.de/netizenblog/2011/09/14/letter_on

_libya_sent_to_un/

[Editor’s Note: This article was published online in

Aug, 2011.]

What Does Gaddafi’s Fall

Mean For Africa?

As global powers become more inter-

ested in Africa, interventions in the con-

tinent will likely become more common.

by Mahmood Mamdani

“Kampala ‘mute’ as Gaddafi falls,” is how the

opposition paper summed up the mood of this capital

the morning after. Whether they mourn or celebrate,

an unmistakable sense of trauma marks the African

response to the fall of Gaddafi.

Both in the longevity of his rule and in his style

of governance, Gaddafi may have been extreme. But

he was not exceptional. The longer they stay in

power, the more African presidents seek to personal-

ize power. Their success erodes the institutional basis

of the state. The Carribean thinker C L R James once

remarked on the contrast between Nyerere and

Nkrumah, analyzing why the former survived until he

resigned but the latter did not: “Dr. Julius Nyerere in

theory and practice laid the basis of an African state,

which Nkrumah failed to do.”

The African strongmen are going the way of

Nkrumah, and in extreme cases Gaddafi, not Nyerere.

The societies they lead are marked by growing

internal divisions. In this, too, they are reminiscent of

Libya under Gaddafi more than Egypt under Mubarak

or Tunisia under Ben Ali.

Whereas the fall of Mubarak and Ben Ali di-

rected our attention to internal social forces, the fall

of Gaddafi has brought a new equation to the fore-

front: the connection between internal opposition and

external governments. Even if those who cheer focus

on the former and those who mourn are preoccupied

with the latter, none can deny that the change in

Tripoli would have been unlikely without a conflu-

ence of external intervention and internal revolt.

More interventions to come

The conditions making for external intervention

in Africa are growing, not diminishing. The continent

is today the site of a growing contention between

dominant global powers and new challengers. The

Chinese role on the continent has grown dramatically.

Whether in Sudan and Zimbawe, or in Ethiopia,

Kenya and Nigeria, that role is primarily economic,

focused on two main activities: building infrastructure

and extracting raw materials. For its part, the Indian

state is content to support Indian mega-corporations;

it has yet to develop a coherent state strategy. But the

Indian focus too is mainly economic.

The contrast with Western powers, particularly

the U.S. and France, could not be sharper. The cutting

edge of Western intervention is military. France’s

search for opportunities for military intervention, at

first in Tunisia, then Cote d’Ivoire, and then Libya,

has been above board and the subject of much discus-

sion. Of greater significance is the growth of Africom,

the institutional arm of U.S. military intervention on

the African continent.

Page 26

This is the backdrop against which African

strongmen and their respective oppositions today

make their choices. Unlike in the Cold War, Africa’s

strongmen are weary of choosing sides in the new

contention for Africa. Exemplified by President

Museveni of Uganda, they seek to gain from multiple

partnerships, welcoming the Chinese and the Indians

on the economic plane, while at the same time seek-

ing a strategic military presence with the U.S. as it

wages its War on Terror on the African continent.

In contrast, African oppositions tend to look

mainly to the West for support, both financial and

military. It is no secret that in just about every African

country, the opposition is drooling at the prospect of

Western intervention in the aftermath of the fall of

Gaddafi.

Those with a historical bent may want to think of

a time over a century ago, in the decade that followed

the Berlin conference [Nov. 1884 - Jan. 1885], when

outside powers sliced up the continent. Our predica-

ment today may give us a more realistic appreciation

of the real choices faced and made by the generations

that went before us. Could it have been that those who

then welcomed external intervention did so because

they saw it as the only way of getting rid of domestic

oppression?

In the past decade, Western powers have created

a political and legal infrastructure for intervention in

otherwise independent countries. Key to that infra-

structure are two institutions, the United Nations

Security Council and the International Criminal

Court. Both work politically, that is, selectively. To

that extent, neither works in the interest of creating a

rule of law.

The Security Council identifies states guilty of

committing “crimes against humanity” and sanctions

intervention as part of a “responsibility to protect”

civilians. Third parties, other states armed to the teeth,

are then free to carry out the intervention without

accountability to anyone, including the Security

Council. The ICC, in toe with the Security Council,

targets the leaders of the state in question for criminal

investigation and prosecution.

Africans have been complicit in this, even if

unintentionally. Sometimes, it is as if we have been a

few steps behind in a game of chess. An African

Secretary General tabled the proposal that has come

to be called R2P, Responsibility to Protect. Without

the vote of Nigeria and South Africa, the resolution

authorizing intervention in Libya would not have

passed in the Security Council.

Dark days are ahead. More and more African

societies are deeply divided internally. Africans need

to reflect on the fall of Gaddafi and, before him, that

of Gbagbo in Cote d’Ivoire. Will these events usher in

an era of external interventions, each welcomed

internally as a mechanism to ensure a change of

political leadership in one country after another?

One thing should be clear: those interested in

keeping external intervention at bay need to concen-

trate their attention and energies on internal reform.

A version of this article can also be accessed at:

http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/opinion/2011/08/20118281

2377546414.html

[Editor’s Note: The Foreign Ministers of ALBA* met

on September 9, 2011 and agreed on the following

declaration.]

Special Declaration by

ALBA-TCP Countries on

Libya and Syria

Caracas, Venezuela

12 September 2011

The Foreign Affairs Ministers of the member

states of ALBA (the Bolivarian Alliance for the

Peoples of our America) gathered in Caracas on

September 9 and condemned the NATO intervention

in Libya and the illegal military aggression carried

out under a UN Security Council resolution, saying

that it opportunistically takes advantage of the inter-

nal political conflict in that country. This follows two

prior ALBA statements on the issue this year: the

Special Declaration of the Political Council of March

4, and the Special Declaration of the Social Ministe-

rial Council of March 19.

They claim NATO has conducted a military

operation of regime change in Libya under the doc-

trine of preventive war, manipulating the UN accord-

ing to its own geopolitical and economic interests and

thus violating Security Council resolution 1973.

They demand the immediate and unconditional

cessation of bombing and military intervention by

Page 27

NATO in Libyan territory.

They deplore the fact that NATO has ignored

consistent efforts by the African Union to seek a

solution for dialogue and peace to the internal conflict

in Libya.

They also deplore the role of several major

international media outlets, which have acted as

accomplices by aligning themselves with those that

support aggression and distorting information about

what is happening in Libya.

They express urgent alarm over the danger that

similar actions could be taken against Syria, taking

advantage of political difficulties in that Arab nation.

They reiterate their firm commitment to the right

of the peoples of Libya and Syria to self-determina-

tion.

They strongly reject any attempt to turn Libya

into a protectorate of the NATO or the UN Security

Council.

In order to contribute to backing the peace efforts

demanded by most of the world’s peoples, the Minis-

ters agreed to take the following actions:

• Promote discussion at the UN General Assembly on

the dangerous precedent created regarding Libya and

on the protection of the sovereign rights of the Arab

nation in Africa and Libya, with a view toward

ensuring that Libya does not become a protectorate of

NATO and the UN Security Council.

• Promote the establishment of a General Assembly

Working Group to investigate and monitor the use of

the frozen funds of Libya’s financial reserves and

report on its findings and conclusions to the General

Assembly.

• Call on the international community to promote an

investigation of crimes perpetrated by NATO in

Libya to the detriment of the Libyan people, including

loss of life and the destruction of infrastructure.

• Chronicle media manipulation and lies promoted by

the empire to justify aggression against the Libyan

people.

• Request that the UN Secretary General maintain full

transparency and strict accountability to member

states with regard to actions on the issue of Libya and

Syria, and reaffirm that their role should respond to

mandates agreed by the General Assembly, before

taking further action to intervene in Libya. Likewise,

request a meeting with the Secretary General to

discuss the situation in Libya.

• Support a central role for the African Union in peace

efforts in Libya.

• Express their objection to the seat corresponding to

Libya in the UN being occupied by one faction or

transitional authority illegitimately imposed by

foreign intervention, and thus promote a substantive

discussion in the General Assembly’s Credentials

Committee to ensure that the seat remain unoccupied

until a government that is a free and sovereign expres-

sion of the will of the Libyan people is constituted

legitimately and without foreign intervention.

• Propose to the Syrian government in Damascus to

send a mission of top representatives or foreign

ministers of the ALBA-TCP and, if accepted, report

on this situation to the Latin American and Caribbean

countries through UNASUR, CARICOM, SICA and

the Rio Group-CALC Unified Forum and invite those

who wish to join this initiative.

• Promote a debate on the Non-Aligned Movement

Coordinating Bureau on the dangers looming over

Syria.

• Support, together with the Non-Aligned members of

the Security Council, the draft resolution sponsored

by Russia and China with regard to Syria.

• Send the UN Secretary General this declaration and

request that it be distributed among member states as

an official document of the General Assembly.

* The Bolivarian Alliance for the Peoples of Our

America (ALBA) is a regional organization, founded

in 2004, that aims for social, political, and economic

integration in Latin America and the Caribbean.

Currently the member nations are Antigua and

Barbuda, Bolivia, Cuba, Dominica, Ecuador, Nicara-

gua, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, and Vene-

zuela.

This English translation of the Declaration can be accessed at:

http://www.voltairenet.org/Special-Declaration-by-ALBA-TCP

The original is in Spanish and can be accessed at:

http://minci.gob.ve/noticias_-_prensa/28/207783/alba_emite_d

eclaracion.html

Page 28

[Editor’s Note: This article appeared on Sept. 18,

2011.]

UN Debates

NATO Attack on Libya

at Opening of 66

Session

of the General Assembly

by Ronda Hauben

[email protected]

The United Nations came back alive on Friday,

September 16 with denunciations of the bombing and

regime change agenda being carried out against Libya

by NATO.

The occasion was the report of the credentials

committee recommending that the seat held by the

Libyan Arab Jamahiriya be taken by the National

Transitional Council (NTC). The Credentials Com-

mittee is a committee appointed by the President of

the General Assembly. The Credentials Committee

for the 66

Session of the UN General Assembly

which began on September 13, 2011 and will last

until September 12, 2012 consists of nine member

states. They are China, Costa Rica, Egypt, Italy,

Maldives, Panama, Russian Federation, Senegal and

the United States. The representative from Panama

presented the results of the report of the Credentials

Committee to the General Assembly as a consensus

report.

Ambassador Jorge Valero of Venezuela was the

first speaker to offer a response to the Credential

Committee’s report.

He spoke on behalf of ALBA

(the Bolivian Alliance for the People’s of Our Amer-

ica which is made up of Antigua and Barbuda,

Bolivia, Cuba, Dominica, Ecuador, Nicaragua, Saint

Vincent and the Grenadines and Venezuela.)

Ambassador Valero objected to the General

Assembly seating the NTC, which he explained was

“a group under the guidance of the Government of the

United States and NATO, which have no legal or

moral authority for deciding who should govern a

country.” Noting the ongoing continuing NATO

bombing of Libya, Ambassador Valero reminded

members of the General Assembly, “While we

discuss in this forum, the possible recognition of the

self named National Transitional Council (NTC),

NATO’s bombings continue on Libya. More than

20,000 criminal air raids have been carried out in

order to impose a puppet government in that sister

nation of northern Africa.” Ambassador Valero

condemned the NATO bombings, explaining that “on

behalf of the alleged defense of civilians, thousands

of civilians and innocent people have been killed and

the infrastructure of a country has been destroyed.”

“We support the good officers of the African

Union in their pursuit of peace,” he said. This is in

line with the role for a regional body provided for in

Article VIII of the UN Charter. He explained, how-

ever, that the “well-known powers that make up the

Security Council sabotaged these calls for peace…

blatantly violating the (Security Council) resolution

that they had previously promoted.”

Several other members of ALBA spoke, includ-

ing Cuba, Bolivia, Nicaragua and Saint Vincent and

the Grenadines.

In her remarks to the General Assembly, Ambas-

sador Maria Rubiales de Chamorro of Nicaragua

demanded an immediate and unconditional end to

NATO’s bombing of Libya. She said, “We denounce

and condemn the manipulations and distortions of

those states that are openly and blatantly violating the

UN Charter and Resolution 1973 of the Security

Council [with the] intent to impose a regime change

in a sovereign state, using the blatant and deceptive

guise of protecting civilians and once again attacking

the sovereign equality of states.”

The Cuban Ambassador explained that the

foreign intervention and military aggression by

NATO had only worsened the conflict using the

“clumsy pretext of protection of civilians.”

Speaking on behalf of SADC (the Southern

African Development Community), the Permanent

Representative of Angola, Ambassador Ismael Gaspar

Martins said that the African Union had planned a

meeting at the UN on Monday, September 19, to try

to determine answers to some questions important for

determining whether or not to give the Libyan seat to

the NTC. He explained that the NTC intended to form

a government, but that had not yet occurred.

Under Rule 27 of General Assembly, the request

for credentials must be issued by heads of State or

government or the minister of foreign affairs of a

state. There was a need to determine who had signed

the NTC credentials that were accepted by the Cre-

dentials Committee and whether such a person consti-

tuted a head of state or government or a minister of

foreign affairs of that government. In order to pre-

serve the integrity of the General Assembly, Ambas-

sador Martins asked that the matter be deferred to be

Page 29

able to answer this question.

Another speaker pointed out that it was wrong for

the General Assembly to decide to accept the creden-

tials of the NTC before the African Union had had a

chance to consider the issue and to make its recom-

mendation.

The representatives of Zambia, Saint Vincent and

the Grenadines, Kenya, and Equatorial Guinea raised

related issues recommending that it was not yet

appropriate to issue credentials to the NTC.

Among the nations speaking in defense of the

NTC being granted the credentials were Egypt,

Gabon, Senegal, Iran and Chad. The vote in favor of

granting the credentials passed with 114 voting in

favor, 17 against, 15 abstentions, and 47 absent for a

total of 193 members.

Though those with objections to the NTC being

issued the credentials for Libya without further

consideration of the issues involved, did not prevail in

the vote, this was first time at an official session of a

UN body that there was substantial public condemna-

tion of NATO’s bombing of Libya as contrary to its

claims of protecting civilians. Several nations spoke

up, breaking the silence that had hitherto protected the

aggression against Libya as being carried out in the

name of the UN.

The Summary of the General Assembly Meeting

prepared at the UN Secretariat noted that the decision

on credentials for the NTC only occurred “after much

wrangling.” Also, in several of the mainstream media

news reports there were indications there had been

opposition to seating the NTC as the unelected, and

self appointed, NATO installed representative of

Libya.

The actions of those nations who raised their

opposition and concern about the recommendation of

the Credentials Committee began a process of public

debate over the UN actions against Libya basically

absent from the UN for the past 6 months. This in

itself represented a victory for those who publicly

raised their objections and who urged the importance

of respecting the rules of procedure of the General

Assembly and the principles of the UN charter. The

layers of diplomacy no longer served to silence the

debate over what is happening at the UN. The repre-

sentatives of several nations spoke up in defense of

the principles of sovereignty and non-intervention

into the internal affairs of member nations that are

enshrined in the UN charter.

Notes

1. A video of the session of the General Assembly can be seen at:

http://www.unmultimedia.org/tv/webcast/2011/09/general-

assembly-2nd-plenary-meeting-english.html

The statement by Venezuela starts at 00:48:40.

http://www.unmultimedia.org/tv/webcast/2011/09/general-ass

embly-2nd-plenary-meeting-english.html

The statement by Angola starts at 01:12:08.

A version of this article can also be accessed at:

http://blogs.taz.de/netizenblog/2011/09/18/un_debates_nato_at

tack_on_libya_at_opening_of_66th_session_of_the_general_a

ssembly/

[Editor’s Note: TeleSUR, The New Television Station

of the South, is a pan-Latin American terrestrial and

satellite television network headquartered in Caracas,

Venezuela. It sent a reporter and cameraman to Libya

in May 2011 to report on the war. The following is a

report about what that team saw and reported during

its 4 months in Libya.]

The Lies of the

Mainstream Media.

According to TeleSUR,

50,000 Killed in NATO

War on Libya

TeleSUR Journalists Speak Truth

on Libya

Global Research

September 17, 2011

This week TeleSUR welcomed home a news

team just back from covering NATO’s war on Libya

from that nation’s capital, Tripoli. On arrival at

Venezuela’s Maiquetia International Airport, the

journalists denounced the ongoing ‘fabrication of lies’

by mainstream media outlets and accused the interna-

tional press of “producing the arguments needed for

a continuation of the war”. The Libyan people “have

been invaded by destruction, war, suffering and death,

when the solution to the conflict could have been

secured by peaceful means”, affirmed TeleSUR

journalist Rolando Segura, who spent the last four

Page 30

months in Libya alongside cameraman Henry Pillajo.

Segura and Pillajo are among the handful of

independent journalists who covered largely under

reported stories that include: NATO’s bombing of

civilian targets; the indiscriminate killing of black

migrant workers by rebel forces; the million strong

‘Green March’ held across Libya demanding reconcil-

iation between the government and opposition forces;

the rebel takeover and silencing of Libya’s public

broadcasting channels; and the fabricated takeover of

Tripoli’s Green Plaza late last month – filmed in

Qatar and disseminated by international mainstream

media outlets, the video successfully secured recogni-

tion of the NATO-backed National Transition Council

(CNT) as the ‘new government in Libya’ and con-

vinced many Libyan embassy staff abroad to defect.

After an August 8-9 NATO missile strike killed

85 civilians, 33 of which were children, TeleSUR’s

Segura interviewed Abu Mimiar, brother of one of

those killed. Mimiar asked the TeleSUR reporter if

the killing of his brother, a rural farmer, “is the

protection of civilians they (NATO) talk about? Or is

it that those of us who care for and support Gaddafi

don’t deserve protection?”

50,000 Killed in Libyan War

According to Segura, who spoke Tuesday at a

forum in Caracas organized by Correo del Orinoco,

“there is talk of an estimated 1,800 killed by NATO

bombs and, as a result of the entire conflict, some-

thing like 50,000 dead in total – persons who were

massacred as a result of this invasion, this aggression,

against Libya.”

The bombings, as well as advances made by

NATO-backed rebel forces, “were made possible by

the lies of the mass media that reproduced an editorial

line without any questioning at all,” affirmed Segura.

Segura’s blog [

http://rolandotelesur.blogspot.com/],

in Spanish, has been one of the only independent

sources of news, analysis, and images in the aftermath

of NATO bombings across Libya.

The TeleSUR crew left Libya late last week,

traveling 36 hours by boat from the Libyan coast to

Malta, an island just south of Sicily, Italy. The two

crowded in a boat fit for 12 alongside 50 other pas-

sengers, all of whom sought refuge from war-torn

Tripoli.

Since 19 March this year, the United States and

its NATO allies have launched over 20,000 sorties

over Libya, carrying out an estimated 9,000 air

strikes. This past Sunday alone, NATO carried out 52

aerial attacks. Damage to the country’s highly devel-

oped infrastructure – including its oil industry, water

supply networks, food storage facilities, communica-

tions installations, and public health system – has

resulted in growing shortages of food, water, and

medicine.

TeleSUR vs. New Format for War

Speaking to a crowd gathered on Monday,

Venezuelan Minister of Communication and Informa-

tion Andres Izarra praised TeleSUR’s role in Libya

and said “U.S. imperialism had sown together a new

format for imperial aggression” by using “the hege-

monic international media” to demonize governments

opposed to U.S. foreign policy. This new ‘format,’ he

said, involves ‘instigating revolutions of color,

revolutions of spring’ in countries in which imperial-

ism claims “civil liberties are restricted.”

Demonization is followed by international media

campaigns to topple anti-U.S. governments and, if

necessary, direct military intervention follows.

According to Izarra, this new method for attack-

ing sovereign nations has “already had a partial

victory in Libya” and “at this moment is a serious

threat to Syria.” Izarra praised TeleSUR reporters in

Tripoli, who showed “a city that was going about

living its normal, daily life” as international press

attempted to portray “a dictator, Gaddafi, massacring

his own people” in order to justify NATO’s war.

Jordan Rodriguez, TeleSUR’s reporter in Tripoli

at the start of NATO bombings, told the press that

NATO is currently the only force responsible for

“bombings that are taking place in Libya” and blamed

the international force for “killing innocent civilians,

women and children.” Rodriguez pointed out that

while NATO bombs continue to hit populated urban

centers, “we watch as the large networks like CNN

and the BBC report on the precision of NATO

bombs” instead of the impact these bombs have on

the Libyan people’s daily life.

According to Rodriguez, TeleSUR has “shown

another other side of the conflict.” “When we

(TeleSUR) spoke to Libyans from rural and other

areas, many showed a great deal of appreciation for

Muammar Gaddafi. We are talking about the poorest

country in all of the Maghreb, before the arrival of the

Revolution. The proof is in the statistics, in the

hospitals that look like high tech clinics, eight-lane

highways, the highest quality education,” he said.

Page 31

Rodriguez accused the U.S. and NATO allies of

instigating, arming and training the rebel forces. He

said that when speaking to anti-Gaddafi rebels on the

ground, “all they said is that they wanted ‘Gaddafi to

go,’ giving no argumentation.”

Gaddafi was forced into hiding after NATO-

backed opposition forces seized on weeks of air

strikes in Tripoli, capturing government offices and

the presidential palace. Footage of the so-called ‘Fall

of Tripoli’ was widely disseminated by the main-

stream media and opposition forces received almost

immediate recognition as the ‘new government’ in

Libya.

Voice Of Truth

According to TeleSUR President Patricia

Villegas the Caracas-based Latin American news

outlet plans to keep staff in Libya indefinitely as

NATO steps up efforts to destroy support for Gaddafi

and maintain the pro-Western ‘transitional govern-

ment’.

According to Villegas, the station’s overall

objective “has always been” to provide a “voice to the

victims of conflict,” as was the case during the 2009

military coup in Honduras, the attempted ouster of

Ecuadorian President Rafael Correa in 2010, the

popular uprising against former Egyptian President

Hosni Mubarak, and most recently, the NATO bomb-

ing of Libya.

“We didn’t arrive (in Libya) alongside the

invaders,” affirmed Villegas. “We didn’t arrive with

the bullets…. Other media outlets did. Other media

outlets are riding in the rebels’ cars; others are pro-

tected by private security companies. This is not the

journalistic practice of TeleSUR. We have told this

story since it first began,” she said.

“Regardless of whether or not the leader

(Gaddafi) is ‘correct,’ we have been witness to

exceptional acts of aggression by NATO; of NATO

bombs not only attacking military but also civilian

targets,” she affirmed.

Chavez Praises TeleSUR

Over the weekend Venezuelan President Hugo

Chavez praised TeleSUR’s coverage of the war on

Libya, stressing the importance of breaking apart the

media blockade imposed by ‘U.S. Empire’ and its

allies in international and local media networks. “I

want us to award the TeleSUR correspondents with an

honor, the highest honor given by the Republic. Those

people are the ones telling the truth.” said Chavez.

“Our recognition and admiration goes out to TeleSUR

and its correspondents in Libya…. What courage!” he

said.

A version of this article can also be accessed at:

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=266

[Editor’s Note: The group ‘Friends of Libya’ was

setup on Sept 1, 2011 when the former group of

countries and organizations known as the Libya

Contact Group dissolved. Bloomberg News character-

ized the Friends of Libya as “leaders of the interna-

tional coalition that helped topple Muammar

Gaddafi”. The following commentary looks back in

history to see if the Libyan people will be helped by

such friends.]

From Munich to Tripoli:

Appeasement Aids

Aggression

by Yoichi Shimatsu

September 20, 2011

Coco Chanel famously said: “My friends, there

are no friends.” The French fashion designer, a Nazi

collaborator during the wartime occupation, would

have found a comfortable fit in with the “Friends of

Libya” in New York. The meeting, a sequel to an

earlier summit in Sarkozy’s Paris, is aimed at expand-

ing international support for the NATO-installed

National Transitional authority in Tripoli. The well-

attired diplomats and cologne-drenched corporate

executives at the New York conference, now as in

Coco Chanel’s lifetime, are doing what they do best:

appeasement of aggression.

The present generation of appeasers is following

the textbook of surrender written by Neville Cham-

berlain and Edouard Daladier, the “statesmen” who

sanctioned Adolf Hitler’s takeover of Czechoslovakia

in late September 1938. The prime ministers of

Britain and France were latecomers in recognizing the

Nazi re-division of the world and therefore had no

claim to the war booty. Instead of sharing the fascist

Page 32

loot, they had to satisfy their constituents with scraps

from the Fuhrer’s table – mainly face-saving photo

opportunities to show that their diplomatic mission

was a “success.” History surely repeats itself with the

Libyan debacle.

Peace on the Cheap

“Peace in our time” was, of course, a fraud,

which certainly did not fool Hitler, who came away

from Munich convinced that the Western democracies

were ready to yield all of the capitals of Eastern

Europe along with Vienna and Prague. The appease-

ment epidemic soon infected Stalin’s Moscow with

the signing of the Ribbentrop-Molotov agreement in

1939, a compromise that lulled the Soviet Union into

a surprise attack.

Since the Munich dictate, the roles have changed.

Today, it is Russia and China going hat in hand to the

British-French-American victory celebration. Con-

temporary appeasement arises from the same source

as the sell-out at Munich: amorality, the failure to

adhere to higher principles. Individuals or countries

lacking a coherent social ethos and personal code of

conduct, tempered in real-world struggle, easily fall

prey to the notion that “might makes right.” Instead of

standing up to threats, they kneel to the powerful as if

before a demigod.

World Body in Shame

Governments are prone to appeasement because

their diplomats and bureaucrats are amoral, being

mere functionaries who operate under rules and not

principles. The United Nations, as a hierarchy of

governments and a diplomat’s club, has a longer

record of betraying the principle of self-determination

than even its discredited predecessor, the League of

Nations. Instead of defending sovereignty, the UN

more often than not has been a violator, as it was in

the Korean conflict, Vietnam War, partition of Yugo-

slavia and the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq.

The two Security Council resolutions to “protect

civilians” in Libya provided pseudo-legitimate cover

for a foreign invasion by the special forces units from

the French, British, Qatari and Jordanian armies

bolstered by jihadist recruits from across the Middle

East, Turkey and Afghanistan. The logic behind

“protection of civilians” is similar to Hitler’s pretext

for seizing Czechoslovakia, which was to “save” its

German-speaking minority. The one big difference

between then and now is that Chamberlain and

Daladier did not have the power of veto.

The Libyan rebels, it should be recalled, rejected

the UN offer to send a peacekeeping mission to

Benghazi. Their objective from the start was to

establish an Islamist Emirate in the Magreb under

sharia law, arguably more repressive than Taliban

rule. The jihadists have already slaughtered many

more civilians, especially blacks, than the UN could

have ever rescued.

The current suggestion to impose a U.N. opera-

tion inside Libya is, on a practical level, nonsense.

The Libyan state holds more than $160 billion in

foreign assets has no foreign debt and can raise

adequate funds for reconstruction from forward

contracts on oil delivery. In contrast, the UN is a

pauper agency with a $5 billion annual budget and a

chronic debt. It is Libya that can afford to finance the

United Nations, not vice versa. In addition, the risk

potential for a UN presence in Tripoli is massive,

considering the ominous parallels with its mission in

Iraq and, more recently, Nigeria, where its personnel

were mass-murdered by truck bombs. How many

more human lives do the appeasers intend to throw

away?

Guernica, Again

It is no wonder, then, that the ruling council treats

reluctant recognition from Moscow and Beijing with

unconcealed contempt. Pretoria and Caracas, in

contrast, are shown the uneasy degree of respect

accorded to adamant enemies. Global power relations

are based on fear not friendship. Coco Chanel and

Machiavelli were right about that.

Real men and women fight not for compromises

but for their political beliefs and personal convictions.

The spineless diplomacy demonstrated at Munich,

and more recently in Paris and New York, achieves

nothing. The only realistic choice is to fight aggres-

sion, even if it means certain defeat. The shining

example for moral courage handed down to us from

the 1930s came with the Spanish Civil War, when a

brave population without the support of a prostrate

League of Nations stood up to the combined military

might of Nazi Germany, fascist Italy, Franco’s

legions and his Moroccan auxiliaries. The fascist

horde invaded Spain in defiance of a League arms

embargo, which was enforced only against the repub-

lican side, as was the case in the one-sided U.N.

sanctions against Libya.

Page 33

Today, the NATO jets that pound Sirte are the

equivalent of the Hilter’s Condor bombers, which

leveled the beleaguered Spanish Basque town of

Guernica. Then the League failed to challenge the

fascist assault on Spain, while now the UN takes a

step further into the moral quagmire by backing the

NATO proxy regime. The fall of Madrid to the

fascists had horrifying consequences for the republi-

cans and the International Brigades. Yet the blood of

innocents and fighters spilled on Spanish soil pro-

vided the moral rationale and inspiration for the

crucial victories at Stalingrad and Midway.

Struggle On

The moral grounds for resisting the fascist

offensive were not given by the Comintern commis-

sars or church prelates; leadership of the spirit came

from the writers and commentators who conveyed the

words of the Spanish people to the world. Millions

were moved to action by the slogan “They shall not

pass”, voiced over the radio by the female communist

leader Dolores Ibarruri, better known as La

Pasionaria. Her comrade-in-arms Louis Aragon, a

French poet and intellectual, emerged from Surreal-

ism, a cultural movement that advocated total resis-

tance to bourgeois hypocrisy. Ernest Hemingway, the

journalist and novelist whose democratic instincts

were based on the ideals tested by America’s own

Civil War, helped to raise the Lincoln Brigade of

valiant American volunteers.

Whenever the amoral embrace the immoral, it is

then up to the intellectuals and artists to summon

ordinary people to find in themselves the courage to

fight on. What the diplomats and corporate chieftains

in their bestial stupor can never understand is this

paradox of history: With triumph, the aggressors seal

their defeat; but for the people, from the ashes of

defeat arises victory. The battle of Libya, by no

means over yet, is just the beginning of the third

world war. As far as morality goes, it is the acid test

for each of us.

A version of this article can also be accessed at:

http://en.m4.cn/2011/09/20/from-munich-to-tripoli-appeaseme

nt-aids-aggression/

[Editor’s Note: The following statement is taken from

the website of Concerned Africans:

http://www.concernedafricans.co.za/ ]

Statement by Concerned

Africans on the Libyan Crisis

and Execution of

Colonel Muammar Gaddafi

24 October 2011

On Thursday 20 October 2011, Libya’s former

leader, Colonel Muammar Gaddafi, was publicly

executed in an act of vigilante violence. A day before

his capture and execution, U.S. Secretary of State,

Hillary Clinton, called for Col. Gaddafi to be captured

or killed while on a visit to Libya.

These two acts have provoked feelings of revul-

sion from millions across the globe. The extra judicial

execution of Gaddafi is not only morally repugnant

but a violation of international law. He was a prisoner

of war and should have been handled in accordance

with the Geneva Convention.

Article 13 of the Geneva Convention to which

NATO member states are signatories states that:

“Prisoners of war must at all times be protected,

particularly against acts of violence or intimidation

and against insults and public curiosity.”

NATO member-states, without whose help the

so-called Libyan rebels would not have been able to

effect regime change in Libya, have blood on their

hands. It has now been confirmed that Col. Gaddafi’s

convoy was bombed by a NATO drone and that Col.

Gaddafi was captured injured and alive by NATO

special forces who in turn handed him over to the

rebels.

None of these actions including the relentless

NATO bombing of infrastructure and loss of civilian

life over last eight months are in accordance with

United Nations Security Council (UNSC) Resolution

1973 which authorised a no fly zone over Libya.

Similarly, none of these acts were carried out to

protect civilians.

The governments of the United States, Britain

and France had no interest in a peaceful and inclusive

resolution of the Libyan conflict. Rather, their objec-

tive was to replace Col. Gaddafi’s regime with a

Western client state, regardless of the cost and conse-

quences for the people of Libya.

Page 34

Tragically, Libya risks a long period of conflict

and instability of Somalian proportions. The military

intervention has ensured a long period of political

instability not only for Libya but the Sahel region as

a whole.

On 25 May 2011, the Forum for Former Africa

Heads of State and Governments issued a statement

alluding to the same issue. It said: “It is very obvious

that the perpetuation of the current violent conflict,

with no end in sight, including the further exacerba-

tion of the animosities among the Libyans and the

destruction of infrastructure, will make it ever more

difficult to reconstruct Libya as a united, democratic

and peaceful country”.

In our Open Letter [see, this issue page 22], we

raised concerns about the UN’s lack of independence

and the complete marginalisation of the African

Union (AU).

We are extremely perturbed that the UN allowed

NATO to effect regime change in Libya with impu-

nity. We are shocked that Secretary of State Clinton,

has the audacity to stand up and call for the murder of

a Head of State and then celebrate the death with glee.

This illustrates moral bankruptcy of the worst kind

from those who pretend civilization.

It is clear that the U.S. and its European allies are

reverting to crude military means to re-colonize

Africa. The independence that Africans fought so

hard for must be defended. We cannot allow the

second scramble for Africa to occur on our watch.

We condemn the U.S., U.K. and France for the

flagrant abuse of the UN Security Council and de-

mand that the International Criminal Court investigate

NATO to establish if war crimes were committed in

Libya.

We condemn the extra judicial killing of Col.

Gaddafi and call for an independent transparent

international enquiry to establish the true facts sur-

rounding it.

Most importantly, we call on the AU to launch its

own investigation into the murder of Colonel Gaddafi.

Contacts:

Chris Landsberg – 082 791 7907

Vusi Gumede – 082 336 7462

Wally Serote – 082 568 3501

David Maimela – 083 420 0133

Christine Qunta – 082 658 7747

Issued by Concerned Africans:

concernedafricans.g[email protected]

This statement can be accessed at:

http://www.concernedafricans.co.za/index.php/new

s/9-news/11-statement-by-concerned-africans-on-th

e-libyan-crisis-and-execution-of-colonel-muammar-

gaddafi-24-october-2011

Appendix

What Libya Achieved 1969-2011

The Big Lie About Libya

What NATO Did to Libya 2011

What Will Happen in Libya Now?

What Libya Achieved 1969-2011

[Editor’s Note: The statistics in the following article

are from United Nations sources. They were compiled

in “Destroying a Country’s Standard of Living: What

Libya Had Achieved, What has been Destroyed” by

Prof. Michel Chossudovsky which appeared at the

Centre for Research on Globalization website on

September 20, 2011. The original article can be seen

at:

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context

=va&aid=26686. Prof. Chossudovsky’s article has

been reorganized and shortened for this version of the

article.]

What Libya Had Achieved

1969-2011

Introduction

Whatever one’s views regarding Muammar

Gaddafi, the post-colonial Libyan government played

a key role in eliminating poverty and developing the

country’s health and educational infrastructure.

According to Italian Journalist Yvonne de Vito,

“Differently from other countries that went through a

revolution – Libya is considered to be the Switzerland

Page 35

of the African continent and is very rich and schools

are free for the people. Hospitals are free for the

people. And the conditions for women are much

better than in other Arab countries.”

The Libyan Arab Jamahiriya provided to its

citizens what is denied to many Americans: Free

public health care, free education, food security and

a growing economy as confirmed by WHO and

UNESCO and World Bank data.

Public Health Care

According to the World Health Organization,

public health care in Libya prior to NATO’s ‘Humani-

tarian Intervention’ was the best in Africa. “The

Government provides free health care to all citizens.

The country has achieved high coverage in most basic

health areas…. Health care is [was] available to all

citizens free of charge by the public sector. The

country boasts the highest literacy and educational

enrollment rates in North Africa. The Government is

[was] substantially increasing the development budget

for health services. Clear-cut and comprehensive

strategies have [had] been prepared for HIV/AID and

TB.”

The Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO)

reported (2011) for the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya “in

general the country has had a high standard of living

and a robust per capita daily caloric intake of 3,144.

Seventy-eight percent of the country’s 6.5 million

population live in coastal cities. The country has

made strides in public health and, since 1980, child

mortality rates have dropped from 70 per thousand

live births to 19 in 2009. Life expectancy has risen

from 61 to 74 years of age during the same span of

years [and is among the highest in the developing

world]…. Proportion of undernourished in total

population: < 5%.”

Public Education

The literacy and educational enrollment rates in

the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya are the highest in North

Africa. The adult literacy rate was of the order of

89%, (2009), (94% for males and 83% for females).

99.9% of youth are literate Gross primary school

enrollment ratio was 97% for boys and 97% for girls

(2009). The pupil teacher ratio in Libya’s primary

schools was of the order of 17 (1983 UNESCO data)

and 74% of school children graduating from primary

school were enrolled in secondary school (1983

UNESCO data).

Based on more recent date, which confirms a

marked increase in school enrollment, the Gross

Enrollment Ratio (GER) in secondary schools was of

the order of 108% in 2002. The GER is the number of

pupils enrolled in a given level of education regard-

less of age expressed as a percentage of the popula-

tion in the theoretical age group for that level of

education.

For tertiary enrollment (post-secondary, college

and university), the Gross Enrollment Ratio (GER)

was of the order of 54% in 2002 (52 for males, 57 for

females).

Women’s Rights

With regard to Women’s Rights, World Bank

data point to significant achievements. “In a relative

short period of time, Libya achieved universal access

for primary education, with 98% gross enrollment for

secondary, and 46% for tertiary education. In the past

decade, girls’ enrollment increased by 12% in all

levels of education. In secondary and tertiary educa-

tion, girls outnumbered boys by 10%.”

Price Controls over Essential Food Sta-

ples

In most developing countries, essential food

prices have skyrocketed, as a result of market deregu-

lation, the lifting of price controls and the elimination

of subsidies, under “free market” advice from the

World Bank and the IMF. In recent years, essential

food and fuel prices have spiraled as a result of

speculative trade on the major commodity exchanges.

The Libyan Arab Jamahiriya was one of the few

countries in the developing World which maintained

a system of price controls over essential food staples.

World Bank President Robert Zoellick acknowledged

in an April 2011 statement that the average world

price of essential food staples had increased by 36

percent in the course of the last year. While rising

food prices in neighboring Tunisia and Egypt spear-

headed social unrest and political dissent, the system

of food subsidies in Libya was maintained. The price

controls were maintained until the onset of the NATO

led war.

Economy

According to the World Bank, The Libyan Arab

Jamahiriya in recent years “… maintained a high level

Page 36

of economic growth. In 2010, the International

Monetary Fund Article IV consultations acknowl-

edged that a large public investment program contin-

ued to sustain Libya’s non-oil growth at around 7%;

the country’s overall growth was at 10%. Oil repre-

sented 98% of Libya’s GDP, while construction –

financed by a $225 billion Public Investment Program

– and services dominated the non-oil economy. As a

member of OPEC, Libya was ranked as the fourth

largest oil producer in Africa. The country exported

1.8 million barrels of oil per day for an estimated

value of 43 trillion dollars. Central Bank of Libya and

the Libyan Investment Authority managed an esti-

mated $150 billion (equal to 160% of GDP) of oil

reserves.”

These are the facts confirmed by several UN and

other specialized agencies.

[There are other sources which give a similar

picture of the relatively high standard of living and

participation in the economy of the Libyan Arab

Jamahiriya. See for example: A Times of India blog:

http://blogs.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Outraged/e

ntry/libya-a-revolution-for-democracy-or-an-oil-war

A video “What You Don’t Know About Gaddafi”

posted on June 19, 2001:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lXLQAUUpJwU]

Notes:

http://libya360.wordpress.com/2011/08/25/yvonne-de-vito-li

bya-was-africas-switzerland/

2.http://www.who.int/countryfocus/cooperation_strategy/ccsbr

ief_lby_en.pdf

3. http://www.fao.org/countries/55528/en/lby/

4.http://stats.uis.unesco.org/unesco/TableViewer/document.as

px?ReportId=121&IF_Language=eng&BR_Country=4340&B

R_Region=40525

5.http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/COUNTRI

ES/MENAEXT/LIBYAEXTN/0,,contentMDK:22015609~me

nuPK:410791~pagePK:1497618~piPK:217854~theSitePK:410

780,00.html

6. Ibid. note 5.

7. Other Statistics

Total population 6,420,000

Annual population growth rate 2.0%

Population 0-14 years 28%

Rural population 22%

Total fertility rate 2.6 births per woman

Life expectancy at birth 75 years

GDP per capita (PPP) US$ 16,502

GDP growth rate 2.1%

Total debt service as a % of GNI 0%

Children of primary school-age who are out of school 2%

Newborns with low birth weight 4.0%

Children underweight 4.8%

Perinatal mortality rate per 1000 total births 19

Neonatal mortality rate 11.0

Infant mortality rate (per 1000 live births) 14.0

Under five mortality rate (per 1000 live births) 20.1

Maternal mortality ratio (per 10000 live births) 23

Source:

http://www.emro.who.int/emrinfo/index.aspx?Ctry=liy

The Big Lie About Libya

[Editor’s Note: The following article appeared on the

Centre for Research on Globalization website,

http://www.globalresearch.ca, on September 29,

2011.]

Libya and the Big Lie:

Using Human Rights Organi-

zations to Launch Wars

by Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya

The war against Libya is built on fraud. The

United Nations Security Council passed two resolu-

tions against Libya on the basis of unproven claims,

specifically that Colonel Muammar Gaddafi was

killing his own people in Benghazi and Libya. The

claim in its exact form was that Gaddafi had ordered

Libyan forces to kill 6,000 people in Benghazi as well

as in other parts of the country. These claims were

widely disseminated, but always vaguely explained.

It was on the basis of this claim that Libya was

referred to the U.N. Security Council at U.N. Head-

quarters in New York City and kicked out of the U.N.

Human Rights Council in Geneva.

False claims about African mercenary armies in

Libya and about jet attacks on civilians were also

used in a broad media campaign against Libya. These

two claims have been sidelined and have become

more and more murky. The massacre claims, how-

ever, were used in a legal, diplomatic, and military

framework to justify NATO’s war on Libya.

Using Human Rights as a Pretext for War:

The LLHR and its Unproven Claims

One of the main sources for the claim that

Gaddafi was killing his own people is the Libyan

Page 37

League for Human Rights (LLHR). The LLHR was

actually pivotal to getting the U.N. involved through

its specific claims in Geneva. On February 21, 2011

the LLHR got the 70 other non-governmental organi-

zations (NGOs) to send letters to the President

Obama, E.U. High Representative Catherine Ashton.,

and the U.N. Secretary-General Ban-ki Moon de-

manding international action against Libya invoking

the “Responsibility to Protect” doctrine. Only 25

members of this coalition actually assert that they are

human rights groups.

The letter is as follows:

We, the undersigned non-governmental,

human rights, and humanitarian organiza-

tions, urge you to mobilize the United Na-

tions and the international community and

take immediate action to halt the mass

atrocities now being perpetrated by the

Libyan government against its own people.

The inexcusable silence cannot continue.

As you know, in the past several days,

Colonel Muammar Gaddafi’s forces are

estimated to have deliberately killed hun-

dreds of peaceful protesters and innocent

bystanders across the country. In the city of

Benghazi alone, one doctor reported seeing

at least 200 dead bodies. Witnesses report

that a mixture of special commandos, for-

eign mercenaries and regime loyalists have

attacked demonstrators with knives, assault

rifles and heavy-caliber weapons.

Snipers are shooting peaceful protest-

ers. Artillery and helicopter gunships have

been used against crowds of demonstrators.

Thugs armed with hammers and swords

attacked families in their homes. Hospital

officials report numerous victims shot in the

head and chest, and one struck on the head

by an anti-aircraft missile. Tanks are re-

ported to be on the streets and crushing

innocent bystanders. Witnesses report that

mercenaries are shooting indiscriminately

from helicopters and from the top of roofs.

Women and children were seen jumping off

Giuliana Bridge in Benghazi to escape.

Many of them were killed by the impact of

hitting the water, while others were

drowned. The Libyan regime is seeking to

hide all of these crimes by shutting off con-

tact with the outside world. Foreign journal-

ists have been refused entry. Internet and

phone lines have been cut or disrupted.

There is no question here about intent.

The government media has published open

threats, promising that demonstrators would

meet a “violent and thunderous response.”

Accordingly, the government of Libya is

committing gross and systematic violations

of the right to life as guaranteed by the

Universal Declaration of Human Rights and

the International Covenant on Civil and

Political Rights. Citizens seeking to exercise

their rights to freedom of expression and

freedom of assembly are being massacred by

the government.

Moreover, the government of Libya is

committing crimes against humanity, as

defined by the Explanatory Memorandum to

the Rome Statute of the International Crimi-

nal Court. The Libyan government’s mass

killing of innocent civilians amount to par-

ticularly odious offences which constitute a

serious attack on human dignity. As con-

firmed by numerous oral and video testimo-

nies gathered by human rights organizations

and news agencies, the Libyan government’s

assault on its civilian population are not

isolated or sporadic events. Rather, these

actions constitute a widespread and system-

atic policy and practice of atrocities, inten-

tionally committed, including murder, politi-

cal persecution and other inhumane acts

which reach the threshold of crimes against

humanity.

Responsibility to Protect

Under the 2005 World Summit Outcome

Document, you have a clear and unambigu-

ous responsibility to protect the people of

Libya. The international community, through

the United Nations, has the responsibility to

use appropriate diplomatic, humanitarian

and other peaceful means, in accordance

with Chapters VI and VIII of the Charter, to

help to protect the Libyan population. Be-

cause the Libyan national authorities are

manifestly failing to protect their population

from crimes against humanity, should peace-

ful means be inadequate, member states are

obliged to take collective action, in a timely

Page 38

and decisive manner, through the Security

Council, in accordance with the UN Char-

ter, including Chapter VII.

In addition, we urge you to convene an

emergency Special Session of the UN Hu-

man Rights Council, whose members have a

duty, under UNGA Resolution 60/251, to

address situations of gross and systematic

violations of violations of human rights. The

session should:

-Call for the General Assembly to sus-

pend Libya’s Council membership, pursuant

to Article 8 of Resolution 60/251, which

applies to member states that commit gross

and systematic violations of human rights.

-Strongly condemn, and demand an

immediate end to, Libya’s massacre of its

own citizens.

-Dispatch immediately an international

mission of independent experts to collect

relevant facts and document violations of

international human rights law and crimes

against humanity, in order to end the impu-

nity of the Libyan government. The mission

should include an independent medical

investigation into the deaths, and an investi-

gation of the unlawful interference by the

Libyan government with the access to and

treatment of wounded.

-Call on the UN High Commissioner of

Human Rights and the Council’s relevant

Special Procedures to closely monitor the

situation and take action as needed.

-Call on the Council to remain seized of

the matter and address the Libyan situation

at its upcoming 16

regular session in

March.

Member states and high officials of the

United Nations have a responsibility to

protect the people of Libya from what are

preventable crimes. We urge you to use all

available measures and levers to end atroci-

ties throughout the country.

We urge you to send a clear message

that, collectively, the international commu-

nity, the Security Council and the Human

Rights Council will not be bystanders to

these mass atrocities. The credibility of the

United Nations — and many innocent lives

— are at stake.

According to Physicians for Human Rights:

“[This letter] prepared under the guidance of

Mohamed Eljahmi, the noted Libyan human rights

defender and brother of dissident Fathi Eljahmi,

asserts that the widespread atrocities committed by

Libya against its own people amount to war crimes,

requiring member states to take action through the

Security Council under the responsibility to protect

doctrine.”

The letter’s signatories included Francis

Fukuyama, United Nations Watch* (which looks out

for Israel’s interests and according to Israeli sources

organized the entire session against the Libyan Arab

Jamahiriya), B’nai B’rith Human Rights Commission,

the Cuban Democratic Directorate, and a set of

organizations at odds with the governments of Nicara-

gua, Cuba, Sudan, Russia, Venezuela, and Libya.

Some of these organizations are viewed with hostility

as organizations created to wage demonization

campaigns against countries at odds with the U.S.,

Israel, and the European Union. Refer to the annex for

the full list of signatories for consultation.**

LLHR is tied to the International Federation for

Human Rights (FIDH), which is based in France and

has ties to the National Endowment for Democracy

(NED). FIDH is active in many places in Africa and

in activities involving the National Endowment for

Democracy in the African continent. Both the FIDH

and LLHR also released a joint communiqué on

February 21, 2011. In the communiqué both organiza-

tions asked for the international community to “mobi-

lize” and mention the International Criminal Court

while also making a contradictory claiming that over

400 to 600 people had died since February 15, 2011.

This of course was about 5,500 short of the claim that

6,000 people were massacred in Benghazi. The joint

letter also promoted the false view that 80% of

Gaddafi’s support came from foreign mercenaries,

which is something that over half a year of fighting

proves as untrue.

According to the General-Secretary of the LLHR,

Dr. Sliman Bouchuiguir, the claims about the massa-

cres in Benghazi could not be validated by the LLHR

when he was challenged for proof. When asked how

a group of 70 non-governmental organizations in

Geneva could support the LLHR’s claims on Geneva,

Dr. Bouchuiguir has answered that a network of close

relationships was the basis. This is a mockery.

Speculation is neither evidence nor grounds for

Page 39

starting a war with a bombing campaign that has

lasted about half a year and taken many innocent

civilian lives, including children and the elderly.

What is important to note here is that the U.N. Secu-

rity Council decided to sanction the Libyan Arab

Jamahiriya on the basis of this letter and the claims of

the LLHR. Not once did the U.N. Security Council

and the member states pushing for war bother to even

investigate the allegations. In one session in New

York City, the Indian Ambassador to the U.N. actu-

ally pointed this out when his country abstained from

voting. Thus, a so-called “humanitarian war” was

launched without any evidence.

The Secret Relationship between the

LLHR and the Transitional Council

The claims of the Libyan League for Human

Rights (LLHR) were coordinated with the formation

of the Transitional Council. This becomes clear when

the close and cagey relationship of the LLHR and the

Transitional Council becomes apparent. Logically, the

Obama Administration and NATO had to also be a

part of this.

Whatever the Transitional Council is and what-

ever the intent of some of its supporters, it is clear

that it is being used as a tool by the U.S. and others.

Moreover, five members of the LLHR were or would

become members of the Transitional Council almost

immediately after the claims against the Libyan Arab

Jamahiriya were disseminated. According to

Bouchuguir individuals with ties to the LLHR or who

hold membership include Mahmoud Jibril and Ali

Tarhouni.

Dr. Mahmoud Jibril is a Libyan regime figure

brought into Libyan government circles by Saif

Al-Islam Gaddafi. He would undemocratically be

given the position of Transitional Council prime

minister. His involvement with the LLHR raises some

real questions about the organization.

The economist Ali Tarhouni on the other hand

would become the minister for oil and finance for the

Transitional Council. Tarhouni is Washington’s man

in Libya. He was groomed in the United States and

was present at all the major meetings about plans for

regime change in Libya. As Minister of Oil and

Finance the first acts he did were privatize and

virtually handover Libya’s energy resources and

economy to the foreign corporations and governments

of the NATO-led coalition against Libya.

The General-Secretary of the LLHR, Sliman

Bouchuiguir, has even privately admitted that many

influential members of the Transitional Council are

his friends. A real question of interests arises. Yet, the

secret relationship between the LLHR and the Transi-

tional Council is far more than a question of conflict

of interest. It is a question of justice and manipula-

tion.

Who is Sliman Bouchuiguir?

Sliman Bouchuiguir is an unheard of figure for

most, but he has authored a doctoral thesis that has

been widely quoted and used in strategic circles in the

United States. This thesis was published in 1979 as a

book, The Use of Oil as a Political Weapon: A Case

Study of the 1973 Arab Oil Embargo. The thesis is

about the use of oil as an economic weapon by Arabs,

but can easily be applied to the Russians, the Iranians,

the Venezuelans, and others. It examines economic

development and economic warfare and can also be

applied to vast regions, including all of Africa.

Bouchuiguir’s analytical thesis reflects an impor-

tant line of thinking in Washington, as well as London

and Tel Aviv. It is both the embodiment of a pre-

existing mentality, which includes U.S. National

Security Advisor George F. Kennan’s arguments for

maintaining a position of disparity through a constant

multi-faced war between the U.S. and its allies on one

hand and the rest of the world on the other hand. The

thesis can be drawn on for preventing the Arabs, or

others, from becoming economic powers or threats. In

strategic terms, rival economies are pinned as threats

and as “weapons.” This has serious connotations.

Moreover, Bouchuiguir did his thesis at George

Washington University under Bernard Reich. Reich is

a political scientist and professor of international

relations. He has worked and held positions at places

like the U.S. Defense Intelligence College, the United

States Air Force Special Operations School, the

Marine Corps War College, and the Shiloah Center at

Tel Aviv University. He has consulted on the Middle

East for the Foreign Service Institute of the U.S. State

Department and received grants such as the Defense

Academic Research Support Program Research Grant

and the German Marshal Fund Grant. Reich also was

or is presently on the editorial boards of journals such

as Israel Affairs (1994-present), Terrorism: An

International Journal (1987-1994), and The New

Middle East (1971-1973).

It is also clear that Reich is tied to Israeli inter-

Page 40

ests. He has even written a book about the special

relationship between the U.S. and Israel. He has also

been an advocate for a “New Middle East” which

would be favorable to Israel. This includes careful

consideration over North Africa. His work has also

focused on the important strategic interface between

the Soviet Union and the Middle East and also on

Israeli policy in the continent of Africa.

It is clear why Bouchuiguir had his thesis super-

vised under Reich. On October 23, 1973, Reich gave

a testimony at the U.S. Congress. The testimony has

been named “The Impact of the October Middle East

War” and is clearly tied to the 1973 oil embargo and

Washington’s aim of preempting or managing any

similar events in the future. It has to be asked, how

much did Reich influence Bouchuiguir and if

Bouchuiguir espouses the same strategic views as

Reich?

The “New North Africa” and a “New Af-

rica” – More than just a “New Middle East”

A “New Africa” is in the works, which will have

its borders further drawn out in blood like in the past.

The Obama Administration and its allies have opened

the gateway for a new invasion of Africa. United

States Africa Command (AFRICOM) opened the

salvos of the war through Operation Odyssey Damn,

before the war on Libya was transferred to NATO’s

Operation Unified Protector.

The U.S. has used NATO to continue the occupa-

tion of post-Second World War Europe. It will now

use AFRICOM to occupy Africa and create an Afri-

can NATO. It is clear the U.S. wants an expanded

military presence in Libya and Africa under the

disguise of humanitarian aid missions and fighting

terrorism – the same terrorism that it is fanning in

Libya and Africa.

The way is being paved for intervention in Africa

under the guise of fighting terrorism. General Carter

Ham has stated: “If we were to launch a humanitarian

operation, how do we do so effectively with air traffic

control, airfield management, [and] those kind of

activities?”

General Ham’s question is actually a

sales pitch for fashioning African military partner-

ships and integration, as well as new bases that could

include the use of more military drones against Libya

and other African countries. The Washington Post and

The Wall Street Journal (WSJ) have both made it

clear that the Pentagon is actively trying to establish

more drone bases in Africa and the Arabian Peninsula

to expand its wars.

In this context, the AFRICOM

Commander says that there are ties between the

Al-Shabaab in Somalia, Al-Qaeda in the Islamic

Maghreb in North Africa, and the Boko Harem in

Nigeria.

The War in Libya is a Fraud

General Ham has said: “I remain confident that

had the U.N. not made the decision, had the U.S. not

taken the lead with great support, I’m absolutely

convinced there are many, many people in Benghazi

alive today who would not be [alive].”

This is not

true and a far stretch from reality. The war has cost

more lives than it could have ever saved. It has ruined

a country and opened the door into Africa for a

neo-colonial project.

The claims of the Libyan League for Human

Rights (LLHR) were never supported or verified. The

credibility of the United Nations must be questioned

as well as the credibility of many humanitarian and

human rights organizations that have virtually pushed

for a war. At best the U.N. Security Council is an

irresponsible body, but it has clearly acted outside of

due legal process. This pattern now appears to be

repeating itself against the Syrian Arab Republic as

unverified claims are being made by individuals and

organizations supported by foreign powers that care

nothing for authentic democratic reforms or liberty.

Notes

1. United Nations Watch et al., “Urgent Appeal to Stop Atroci-

ties in Libya: Sent by 70 NGOs to the U.S., EU, and UN,”

February 21, 2011:

http://www.unwatch.org/site/apps/nlnet/content2.aspx?c=bdK

KISNqEmG&b=1330815&ct=9135143

2. Physicians for Human Rights, “PHR and Human Rights

Groups Call for Immediate Action in Libya,” February 22, 2011:

http://physiciansforhumanrights.org/press/press-releases/news-

2011-02-22-libya.html

3. The International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH) and

the Libyan League for Human Rights (LLHR), “Massacres in

Libya: The international community must urgently respond,”

February 21, 2011:

http://www.fidh.org/IMG/article_PDF/article_a9183.pdf

4. Jim Garamone, “Africa Command Learns from Libya Opera-

tions,” American Forces Press Service, September 15, 2011:

http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=65344&rea

son=1

5. Gregory Miller and Craig Whitlock, “U.S. assembling secret

drone bases in Africa, Arabian Peninsula, officials say,” The

Washington Post, September 20, 2011; Julian E. Barnes, “U.S.

Expands Drone Flights to Take Aim at East Africa,” The Wall

Page 41

Street Journal (WSJ), September 21, 2011.

6. Garamone, “Africa Command Learns,” Op. cit.

7. Ibid.

*Global Research Editor’s Note: U.N. Watch which actively

promoted the LLHR statement has informal ties to the U.S. State

Department. It was established during the Clinton Administration

in 1993 under the Chairmanship of Morris B. Abram, a former

U.S. Permanent Representative to the United Nations in Geneva.

U.N. Watch is formally affiliated with the American Jewish

Committee (AJC), a powerful pro-Israeli political lobby organi-

zation based in New York City.

** The signatories can be seen at:

http://www.globalresearch.ca/PrintArticle.php?articleId=26848

The url address of this article is:

http://www.globalresearch.ca/PrintArticle.php?articleId=26848

What NATO Did to Libya 2011

[Editor’s note: The following article is taken from the

Voltaire Network website where it appeared on

October 21, 2011. It can be accessed at:

http://www.voltairenet.org/The-lynching-of-Muam

mar-Gaddafi]

The Lynching of Muammar

Gaddafi

by Thierry Meyssan

The death of Muammar al-Gaddafi was hailed

with an explosion of joy in all the government palaces

of Western countries, but not by the Libyan people.

For Thierry Meyssan, this militarily useless murder

was perpetrated by the Empire not only as an exam-

ple, but also to deconstruct Libya’s tribal society.

For 42 years, Muammar al-Gaddafi protected his

people against Western colonialism. At present, he

has joined Omar al-Mukhtar in the pantheon of

Libya’s great national heroes.

On Thursday, 20 October 2011, at 13h30 GMT,

the Libyan National Transitional Council announced

the death of Muammar al-Gaddafi. Though confused,

initial reports appeared to indicate that a convoy of

cars seeking to leave besieged Sirte was blocked and

partly destroyed by NATO fire. Survivors took shelter

in drainage pipes. Wounded, Gaddafi was reportedly

captured by the Tiger brigade of Misrata tribe and

lynched.

The body of the “Guide” of the Great Socialist

People’s Libyan Arab Jamahiriya was not preserved

in his hometown of Sirte, or taken to Tripoli, but

transported by the Misrata as a trophy to their name-

sake city.

The Misrata Tribe, which had long been reluctant

to choose sides and is virtually absent from the CNT,

ultimately penetrated Tripoli after its destruction by

NATO, and lynched Muammar al-Gaddafi after the

bombing of his convoy by NATO. It even moved his

body to its town to celebrate its triumph. In July, the

“Guide” had cursed the Misrata, urging them to leave

for Istanbul and Tel Aviv, alluding to the Turkish

Jewish origins of the tribe which later converted to

Islam.

A barrage of pre-scripted comments was instantly

unleashed by the Atlanticist media to demonize

Muammar el-Gaddafi, thereby obscuring the barbaric

circumstances of his death.

The main Coalition leaders welcomed the death

of their enemy as marking the end of “Operation

Unified Protector.” In doing so, they have implicitly

admitted that its objective was not to implement

Security Council Resolution 1973, but to overthrow

a political system and to kill the leader, even if the

assassination of a serving head of State is strictly

prohibited by U.S. law and universally condemned.

In addition, the lynching of Muammar al-Gaddafi

shows NATO’s reluctance to turn him over to the ICC

which would not have been in a better position to

sentence him for crimes against humanity than the

Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia which

could not prove Slobodan Milosevic guilty, despite

two years of prosecution.

In the deluge of mud spilled by the Western

media to tarnish his memory, the same false accusa-

tions are repeated over and over, showing in fact that

the media hold very little incriminating evidence that

could have been used against him.

A case in point is the La Belle discotheque

bombing in Berlin (5 April 1986, three killed), which

was used as a pretext by the Reagan administration to

bomb Gaddafi’s palace and kill his daughter (April

14, 1986, at least 50 dead). At the time, German

prosecutor Detlev Mehlis (the same one who two

decades later would rig the investigation into the

Page 42

assassination of Rafik al-Hariri) relied on the testi-

mony of Eter Mushad to indict a Libyan diplomat and

his accomplice Mohammed Amair. However, German

television channel ZDF subsequently discovered that

Mushad Eter was not only a false witness but also a

real CIA agent, while bomb planter Mahammed

Aamir was a Mossad agent.

Another example is the Lockerbie bombing (21

December 1988, 270 killed): the investigators identi-

fied the owner of the suitcase containing the bomb

and the timer thanks to the testimony of a Maltese

shopkeeper who had sold the pair of trousers also

located in the booby-trapped suitcase. At that point,

the Scottish justice system brought charges against

two Libyan agents, Abdel Basset Ali Mohmed Al

Megrahi and Al Amin Khalifa Fhimah, while the

Security Council took sanctions against Libya. In the

end, to get the sanctions lifted, Gaddafi agreed to

extradite the two agents (the first was sentenced to

life imprisonment and the second was acquitted) and

pay $2.7 billion in compensation, while continuing to

proclaim his complete innocence. Subsequently, in

August 2005, the chief Scottish investigator declared

that the main piece of evidence, the bomb timer, had

been planted at the crime scene by a CIA agent. Then,

the expert who had analyzed the timer for the court

admitted he had manufactured it himself before the

CIA “dropped it off.” Finally, the Maltese shopkeeper

admitted having received $2 million for bearing false

witness. The Scottish authorities decided to review

the case, but the health of Abdel Basset Ali Mohmed

Al Megrahi did not allow it.

The current disinformation campaign also in-

cludes an installment on the lifestyle of the deceased,

classified as sumptuous, and the amount of his

stashed-away Pharaonic fortune. But all those who

approached Muammar al-Gaddafi, or who simply

visited his family home and residence after they were

bombarded can attest that he lived in an environment

equal to that of the middle class in his country, far

from the flashy style of Planning Minister Mahmoud

Jibril. Similarly, none of the states that for months

have been tracking Gaddafi’s hidden fortune has been

able to find it. Any money that was seized belonged

to the Libyan government and not to the “Guide”.

On the other hand, the media have failed to

mention the only international arrest warrant against

Muammar al-Gaddafi, issued by Interpol before the

NATO offensive. He was accused by the Lebanese

justice of having disposed of Imam Moussa Sadr and

his companions (1978). This media oversight can be

explained by the fact that the kidnaping was spon-

sored by the United States who wanted to get rid of

the Shi’a clergyman before allowing Ayatollah

Ruhollah Khomeini, also a Shi’a Muslim, to return to

Iran, to prevent Sadr from spreading the Ayatollah’s

revolutionary influence to Lebanon.

The Atlanticist media have also overlooked the

criticism that anti-imperialist Resistance organiza-

tions, and indeed ourselves, addressed at Muammar

al-Gaddafi concerning his frequent compromises with

Israel.

For my part, I can attest that, until the Battle of

Tripoli, the “Guide” had continued to negotiate with

Israeli envoys in the hope of buying Tel Aviv’s

protection. But I must also attest that, despite my

strong reservations about his international policy, and

the complete file about me in this regard that was

given to him in July by the French DCRI in an at-

tempt to have me arrested, Muammar al-Gaddafi gave

me his trust and asked me to help his country assert

its rights at the United Nations

– a behavior which

one would hardly expect from a tyrant.

Nor have the Atlanticist media ever mentioned

my condemnation of Libya’s interference in French

political life, including the illegal financing of the

presidential election campaigns of Nicolas Sarkozy

and Ségolène Royal. The “Guide” had in fact autho-

rized his brother-in-law Abdallah Senoussi to corrupt

the two leading candidates in exchange for an am-

nesty pledge or for putting pressure on the French

justice system to close his criminal record.

But above all, the Atlanticist media have failed to

mention the major achievements of the “Guide”: the

overthrow of the puppet monarchy imposed by the

Anglo-Saxons, the removal of foreign troops, the

nationalization of hydrocarbons, the construction of

the Man Made River (the largest irrigation project in

the world), the redistribution of oil revenues (he

turned one of the poorest in the world into the richest

in Africa), generous asylum to Palestinian refugees

and development aid on an unprecedented scale to the

Third World (Libya’s development aid was more

important than all the G20 states put together).

The death of Muammar al-Gaddafi will change

nothing at the international level. The important event

was the fall of Tripoli, bombarded and captured by

NATO – undoubtedly the worst war crime of this

century – followed by the penetration of the Misrata

tribe to control the capital. In the weeks that preceded

Page 43

the Battle of Tripoli, the overwhelming majority of

Libyans took part, Friday after Friday, in anti-NATO,

anti-CNT and pro-Gaddafi rallies. Now, their country

has been destroyed and they are governed by NATO

and its CNT puppets.

However, the death of the “Guide” will have an

enduring traumatic effect on Libya’s tribal society. By

killing the leader, NATO destroyed the incarnation of

the principle of authority. It will take years and much

more violence before a new leader will be recognized

by all the tribes or the tribal system is replaced by

another form of social organization. In this sense, the

death of Muammar al-Gaddafi opened a period of

Iraqization or Somaliazation in Libya.

Notes

1. Investigation conducted by Frontal magazine, broadcast by

ZDF on 28 August 1998.

2. I accepted the mission as an activist, without any remuneration

whatsoever.

3. Abdallah Senoussi had been sentenced in France in absentia

for the explosion aboard flight UTA Flight 772 which occurred

on 19 September 1989 in the midst of the Chadian war, killing

171 people.

This article appeared at:

http://www.voltairenet.org/The-lynching-of-Muam

mar-Gaddafi

What Will Happen in Libya Now?

[Editor’s note: The following article is taken from the

countercurrents.org website where it appeared on

October 27, 2011. It can be accessed at:

http://www.countercurrents.org/lamb271011.htm]

Revulsion, Resistance And

Angry Words From Tripoli

University

by Franklin Lamb

Tripoli University: The people I had hoped most

to be able to find upon returning to Libya were eight

students from Fatah University (now renamed Tripoli

University) who became my friends during three

months in Libya this summer. They had all been

strongly opposed to what NATO was doing to their

country (NATO bombs destroyed some classrooms at

the University during final exams in late May) and I

was very keen to sit with them again if possible since

the August 23

fall of Tripoli when most of them

scattered given the uncertainties of what would

happen and we lost contact.

Thanks to Ahmad who was waiting for me, we

re-united quickly.

Some excerpts and impressions from yesterday’s

all night gathering with Ahmad, Amal, Hind, Suha,

Mohammad and Rana: “I know Sanad al-Ureibi”,

Ahmad said disgustedly about the 22 year old who is

claiming he fired two bullets at close range into

Muammar Gaddafi on October 22nd.

Amal, Ahmad’s fiancée interrupted him: “We are

very angry but not really surprised by what Sanad did.

He’s a stupid guy and I am sure someone whispered

in his ear that he would become famous and rich if he

did NATO’s dirty job by killing Colonel Gaddafi.

NATO did more than 1000 bombing attacks “to

protect Libyan civilians” but killed thousands of us

instead. For sure NATO and their puppets want as

many of our leader’s dead as possible in order to

avoid years of a court trial that would expose

NATO’s many crimes and those of certain western

leaders.”

Ahmad: “Sanad told my cousin the day after he

assassinated Colonel Gaddafi that he is promised

protection and that the TNC will not arrest him

despite their, for western ears only, announcement of

a planned “investigation” of how Muammar and

Mutassim died. Everyone in Libya knows that the

investigation of the assassination of the rebel military

commander Abdel Fattah Younes last July has gone

nowhere because the Islamist faction who committed

the Younes murder is close to Jalil.”

Ahmad continued, “Like some of his friends,

Sanad did fight for a while with the rebels and he

sometimes changed units because it was fun and now

he plans to form a gang to protect rich Libyans and

foreigners as they continue to arrive here to help, as

they claim, to rebuild our destroyed country and make

democracy. Now we are all so exhausted from all the

needless killing I am not sure what kind of democracy

we will have or even want. American democracy? It’s

very great? Sometimes it seems you have more

problems than we do. At least we have free education,

free medical care, and homes and are not living on the

Page 44

streets without jobs.

Mohammad joined in: “One Israeli-American

Company has offered Sanad and other young men

who refuse to give up their guns a job recruiting

former fighters for proper training as Libyan police.

There are some Blackwater (XE) people here who are

also trying to do business with NATO agents for

private police forces around Libya. Anyone who

thinks NATO is going to leave us in peace is mis-

taken. More of them arrive every day.”

Hind, who has not wavered since last summer in

her opposition to what she calls “NATO’s team” also

voiced strong offense and condemnation of certain

pro-rebel Sheiks who have declared that Gaddafi was

not a Muslim. “Everyone knows he was a devout

Muslim. His last Will stated, “I do swear that there is

no other God but Allah and that Mohammad is God’s

Prophet, peace be upon him. I pledge that I will die as

Muslim.”

Hind added, “Please tell me who are these TNC

Sheiks to say who is and who is not a Muslim. In

Islam it’s between each of us and Allah and nobody

else’s business. If these Sheiks were better Muslims

they would have opposed what has been done to his

body and that of his son and friend in Sirte and

Misrata. It is haraam. I am very angry and disgusted.”

Suha complained about “the views of NTC leader

Mustafa Abdul-Jalil toward women and that with the

already announced repeal of the marriage law, Libyan

women have lost the right to keep the family home if

they divorce. It is a disaster for Libyan women. Under

the Gaddafi leadership women in Libya had more

rights than in any other country in the Middle East.”

Ahmad explained: “ I am ashamed of what some

Muslims are doing. Our religion does not allow for

this mutilation and the freak show the TNC put on in

that refrigerator. I was in Misrata with friends to pay

our respects and was surprised how many others were

doing the same as our group and for the same reasons.

When the bodies were first exhibited curious people

came and some said bad insults. But by the next day

the atmosphere has completely changed. People came

to honor Colonel Gaddafi for his courage in dying for

what he believed was best for Libya and that was to

keep Libya free from colonialism. I don’t believe the

media is accurately reporting this. Our leader died a

hero like Omar Muktar in my opinion and history will

prove this someday.”

Again, his fiancée Amal interrupted Ahmad, “As

Colonel Gaddafi revealed in his Will, NATO made

him several offers if he would abandon his country to

them. Foolish and criminal NATO established our

leader forever as a great resister to colonialism and a

patriot for Libya, for all of Africa and for the Middle

East. I believe that Colonel Gaddafi died a far more

honorable death than the leaders of NATO will. He

has more dignity in death than Hilary Clinton and her

absence of dignity shown by her stupid comments

about his death.”

Amal then said, “I became ill when I left him.

His skin was almost black and his body was rotting

quickly with fluids leaking on the floor. They must

give him immediately to his family and ask Allah to

forgive themselves for their haraam. One of the

guards told me Colonel Gaddafi was sodomized with

a rifle by NTC fighters. He showed the video on his

mobile but I would not look.”

Suha spoke: “We also visited the Mahari Hotel in

Sirte where we saw more than 50 bodies of Gaddafi

supporters. Some had their hands behind them bound

by plastic handcuffs and were executed at close range.

Others had been taken from hospital beds and mur-

dered. This crime is just one more example of the lies

of the NTC and NATO. NATO forces commanded

and controlled their rebels and knew what they have

been doing. NATO is responsible for destroying much

of our country and for what will surely happen in the

coming days.”

I first met Ahmad what now seems like a couple

of years ago, but in actuality it was only last June. We

sat at an outdoor cafe on Green Square (now renamed

Martyrs’ Square) and talked about NATO’s obvious

plans for Libya. Since August 23

and the precipitous

collapse of the loyalist resistance in Tripoli, which

Ahmad had been organizing some of the neighbor-

hoods to participate in, he has been on the lam as

friends got word to him that NTC death squads were

on his trail even staking out the Radisson Hotel lobby

where he used to meet with journalists and western

friends. Ahmad blames the lack of a real defense of

Tripoli, that took us all by surprise, as “our incompe-

tence and some high ranking traitors” for the

non-implementation of plans to defend Tripoli from

NATO’s rebels.

His first words after we hugged were: “Now the

real resistance will begin! The Libyan people are now

even surer than they were during this summer that the

NTC sold our country to the NATO colonial coun-

tries. As NATO continues to hunt down Saif al Islam,

many around our country are making Saif the new

Page 45

leader of the resistance to colonialism in Libya and in

Africa. I personally pledge my support for him and

pray that Allah will protect him. Watch what the

Gaddafi tribe and my Warfala tribe do together in the

coming weeks – but also starting today. Maybe

NATO can be said in some ways to have won round

one. But let’s see what happens in the many rounds to

come.”

EDITORIAL STAFF

Ronda Hauben

William Rohler

Norman O. Thompson

Michael Hauben (1973-2001)

Jay Hauben

The Amateur Computerist invites submissions.

Articles can be submitted via e-mail:

[email protected]

Permission is given to reprint articles from this issue

in a non profit publication provided credit is given, with

name of author and source of article cited.

The opinions expressed in articles are those of their

authors and not necessarily the opinions of the Amateur

Computerist newsletter. We welcome submissions from

a spectrum of viewpoints.

ELECTRONIC EDITION

ACN Webpage:

http://www.ais.org/~jrh/acn/

All issues of the Amateur Computerist are on-line.

Back issues of the Amateur Computerist are available at:

http://www.ais.org/~jrh/acn/Back_Issues/

Page 46