Thanks for your reply. By now youre aware that NATO/insurgents are reported to have assassinated the leader of Libya: Muammar Gadaffi. This is a A grade war crime. As even the illegal and illegitimate UNSC Res1973 does not allow this. The perpetrator is clearly NATO. However....
Please allow me to address some issues your letter raises, as i have information that is very different to what you have sourced. I too have been monitoring events in Libya since February, as part of a coalition of concerned citizens, bloggers and journalists. My conclusion is that Human Rights are being abused to crack open stubborn states.
1. Your statement that: 'We believe that the expressed intent expressed by Gaddafi to massacre his people warranted international action to prevent crimes against humanity.' is problematic, as Gadafi never said any such thing:about massacring his people. Nor did he order any such massacre(which is what statement suggests he was going to do), inspite of the massacres that did take place in Benghazi: of police military and citizens, esp black libyans and black africans. Res 1973 refers at the beginning of its preamble to 'heavy civilian casualties'
as justification for its resolution.But these never took place till NATO arrived....
The first and as far as im aware the only person to analyse the data provided by HRW of casualties, here in Misrata, is Alan Kuperman, back in April, a month after the UN resolution:
'Human Rights Watch has released data on Misurata, the next-biggest city in Libya and scene of protracted fighting, revealing that Moammar Khadafy is not deliberately massacring civilians but rather narrowly targeting the armed rebels who fight against his government.
Misurata’s population is roughly 400,000. In nearly two months of war, only 257 people — including combatants — have died there. Of the 949 wounded, only 22 — less than 3 percent — are women. If Khadafy were indiscriminately targeting civilians, women would comprise about half the casualties.'
'Nor did Khadafy ever threaten civilian massacre in Benghazi, as Obama alleged. The “no mercy’’ warning, of March 17, targeted rebels only, as reported by The New York Times, which noted that Libya’s leader promised amnesty for those “who throw their weapons away.’’ Khadafy even offered the rebels an escape route and open border to Egypt, to avoid a fight “to the bitter end.’’'
So just where did the writers of UNSC 1973 get their 'heavy civilian casualties' claim?
What Kupermans analysis does is remove one of the supports for UNSC RES1973, as well as deny that Gadaffi planned to massacre Libyan citizens.
However, massacres of citizens did take place: in Benghazi (black libyans, Tawergha, a black libyan town, has had its black libyan population genocided:
Massacres also took place in another country where real peaceful protests took place: Bahrain.These were carried out by Saudi troops , after the saudis made a pact with the US: we will give you your libya nofly zone, if you let us take care of the situation in Bahrain. This has been investigted by Pepe Escobar of Asiatimes:
According to Escobar: The Arab League never took action: the GCC led by The saudis did:
'only nine out of 22 members of the Arab League voted for the no-fly zone. The vote was essentially a House of Saud-led operation, with Arab League secretary general Amr Moussa keen to polish his CV with Washington with an eye to become the next Egyptian President.'
2. You mention: 'but acknowledges the failure to implement this commitment amid reports of widespread abuse, arbitrary arrests, torture, and killings of black Libyans suspected of carrying out mercenary work for the Gaddafi government.'
This furfy has been repeated so often its easy to believe its true: that black libyans were carrying out mercenary activities for the Libyan (not Gadafi) government. the source of this? is the insurents themselves..THis has been analysed by canadian anthropologist Maximilian Forte:
using social media esp twitter, stories of massacres by black african mercenaries were fed into the western news cycle::
'One of the most fertile sites for the international production of myths of savage African mercenaries has been Twitter, among other social network sites'
Twitter is useful, however, not as a source of incontestable information about Gaddafi's atrocities, but as a guide to how the opposition prepared the narrative cover for attacking Sub-Saharan Africans. The mass of passive repeaters (retweeters), comprising diverse individuals and some journalists, helped from early on to inseminate the fear of African terror: "Afro-mercs" landing at the nearest airport and fanning out to murder Libyans'
an eg of such a tweet:
'ShababLibya Confirmed, Mercenaries killing protesters across Libya DO NOT speak Libyan, and are from subsaharan Africa speaking french #Libya #Feb17 Thu Feb 17 2011 18:03:32 (Eastern Standard Time) via web Retweeted by you and 84 others'
AlmanaraMedia URGENT: Gaddafi uses African mercenaries to kill the demonstrators from the sons of the Libyan people Thu Feb 17 2011 13:46:11 (Eastern Standard Time) via web Retweeted by you and 10 others
This never happened,.That second one shows us two things: one they talk of 'african mercenaries', implying that Libya is not part of africa, in line with the endemic racism in east Libya. And 'sons of libya' brings in the emotive us vs them needed to spark of genocide.Many of these now dead 'african mercenaries were black libyans.
3. The war on Libya did not just happen over night: its been planned for several years:
Using Human Rights as a means to either open up an economy or bring down a government. And this is my next issue:
Investigative work has recently been done on the background of the war on Libya, to which i wish to draw your attention, by canadian Mahdi Nazemroya and Julien Teil:
Together, these show the Human Rights system being abused to foment regime change. Especially, FIDH, who must be praising a different NTC to the one ive investigated.
So your comment:
'The successes and setbacks of a military operation aside, it is important to bear in mind the necessity of action by the international community when states fail to protect their own citizens from the four mass atrocity crimes: genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing, and crimes against humanity. The responsibility to take action to halt atrocity crimes in Libya based on RtoP principles should not be diminished by concerns surrounding the tactics undertaken by the NATO mission. The implementation of RtoP and the need for a multilateral response will continue long after NATO forces withdrawal from Libya as efforts to prevent impunity, promote accountability and reconciliation and rebuild post-conflict come to the forefront. '
shows root of the problem...A government that has the support of the mass of the people, as demonstrated in massive rallies such as this:
can only be removed by colour revolution principles: which involve intense and persistant demonisation of the leader and or government, support for or agitation of local dissidents, to get them to commit violence, resulting in suppression, leading to claims by other countries regimes that the target govt has lost legitimacy. What government would let armed insurrection to procede unchallenged? I know of none.
As we know and i can demonstrate, this initially failed, and it was necessery to craft Res 1973 based on fraudulent events: events that never happened: no heavy civilian casualties, no airstrikes on civilians. Res violates the UN Charter on national sovereignty, hence its illegal, it mandates NATO (not UN peacekeepers) entering into sovereign airspace to perform what looks like humanitarian aid, and which is also illegal. NATO has no history of humanitarianism. Since the events listed in Res1973, that i mentioned, never happened, the Resolution has lost its legitmacy.Since Banki Moon violated UN protocols
we are left with a UN system that us now under threat. The UN was founded after WW2 to bring peace and stability..not to foment war or regime change
The 'international community' should refer to you and me. Instead it refers to party politicians who did not consult with their electorates as to the right and justice of invading another and sovereign UN member state.
I live in Australia and studied at the ANU; but this comment by an ANU academic is naieve at best:
'"R2P attempts to strike a balance between unilateral interference and institutionalised indifference. It was designed to help the world to be better prepared - normatively, organisationally and operationally - to meet the recurrent challenge of military intervention when atrocities are committed and something can be done by outsiders to save strangers at acceptable costs and risks: institutionalised non-indifference, if you will."
R2P is designed to crack open stubbornly independent states. R2P has ignored several real atrocities such as the invasion of Lebanon 2006 and the invasion of Gaza 2008....let alone Afghanistan, which is under US /NATO military occupation and Pakistan.
The war on Libya by NATO authorised by the UN and using foreign especially and ironically african mercenaries, has shown R2P is especially prone to error and abuse by those who wield it. Its ignored Bahrain(real repression of real peaceful protestors by the Gulf states) and attacks a country whos government didnt attack peaceful protestors and that has the support of the majority of its population. Most of the 'rebels' we hear about are not libyan but foreign mercenaries, especially from Qatar(home of Aljazeera), UAE and Egypt. This means that arabs (and jihadis (LIFG)back from fighting americans/NATO afghanistan in no less) are being used by europeans/americans to destroy the defensive capability of the target state.
I usually know which side to support: the one that tells the truth..For nine months, the insurgent/'NATO/UN side has not been telling the truth. Ive shown some of the evidence ive gathered to support this...theres much more.
regards and thanks for reading this
The genocide of Tawerghaa town of black libyans wiped off the map:
and this has been reported by RT journalist Maria Finoshina and independent british journalist Lizzie Phelan, who was in Tripoli during the sack of the city by NATO, Qatari mercenaries brought in by NATO and the local libyan insurgents
Maria Finoshina from RussiaToday tweeted:
MFinoshina_RT Maria Finoshina
I got a phone call from Libya telling me people I've interviewed are no longer alive...
21 Oct Favorite Undo Retweet Reply
MFinoshina_RT Maria Finoshina
I'm impressed with Serbs same way I was impressed with Libyans: respectful, honest & peaceful people. Very friendly. #Kosovo
9 hours ago
Russia Today's reporter Maria Finoshina courageously produced THE ONLY reports in the aftermath of the rebel takeover of Tripoli showing how it was *IMPOSSIBLE* for people to express their support for Brother Muammar Gaddafi. I was very surprised at the time she managed to get those reports out. And today she has revealed that those people she interviewed with their faces covered, have been killed. There are identification boards in Libya of anyone who has appeared in the media who are not sympathetic to the rebels, so that they can be captured, tortured and/or killed. Do you honestly believe many of those people in the streets depicted supporting the rebels have a choice?
This is what R2P has wrought.
From: Rachel Shapiro
Cc: Sapna Chhatpar
; Marion Arnaud ; R2P - Elizabeth Dovell
Sent: Friday, 21 October 2011 8:49 AM
Subject: RE: Responsibility to Protect - Engaging Civil Society: why is R2P associating with NATO in its war on Libya?
Thank you for your inquiry. We understand your concerns regarding Libya, as military operations are never easy to predict or control. We would like to take this opportunity to respond to your concerns regarding NTC mistreatment of civilians (particularly in targeting Libyans of Sub-Saharan origin), whether civil society has failed to hold the new Libyan authority accountable, if United Nations Security Council Resolution 1973 and the subsequent NATO mission were misguided, and if the NATO operation is operating with impunity and failing to report civilian casualties.
At the ICRtoP, we work to build normative consensus on and implement the Responsibility to Protect (RtoP or R2P), an emerging international norm which sets forth that states have the primary responsibility to protect their populations from genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity and ethnic cleansing. If the state fails to uphold its commitment to civilian protection, the responsibility falls to the international community to respond in timely and decisive manner to the threat of mass atrocities.
ICRtoP has monitored the events in Libya since mid-February when the situation quickly spiraled out of control, and the Arab League and the Organization of the Islamic Community called on the Security Council to take action. We believe that the expressed intent expressed by Gaddafi to massacre his people warranted international action to prevent crimes against humanity. ICRtoP welcomed Security Council Resolutions 1970 and 1973 as part of a timely and decisive response.
We do however acknowledge many of the concerns you raised in your message and have appropriately reflected the debate in our listservs over the past 8 months. We do want to note a few additional thoughts on the situation in Libya, the NATO mission, and how both the crisis and the international response are understood in the RtoP framework.
1. Reports conclude that in spite of NTC official promises to secure the detention system, NTC forces have, in some cases, subjected civilians to discrimination, arbitrary arrest and torture. However, given your concern that civil society has failed to hold the NTC accountable for such actions (particularly FIDH), we'd like to point you towards research and advocacy efforts by international human rights organizations to address civilian protection by the NTC. Both FIDH and Amnesty International have released reports detailing atrocities committed by pro- and anti- Gaddafi forces.
In a 16 September open letter (http://www.fidh.org/Open-Letter-to-Mr-Mahmoud-Jibril) on the targeting of Libyans of Sub-Saharan origin, FIDH praises the NTC's commitment to human rights in its draft constitution, but acknowledges the failure to implement this commitment amid reports of widespread abuse, arbitrary arrests, torture, and killings of black Libyans suspected of carrying out mercenary work for the Gaddafi government. FIDH provided further information on abuses of Sub-Saharan Africans in Libya by anti-Gaddafi forces and the hardships they face upon fleeing Libya in search of safety abroad in the 29 June report, Double Tragedy for Sub-Saharan Africans (http://www.fidh.org/Double-tragedy-for-Sub-Saharan-Africans).
Please also see Amnesty International's 13 October report Detention Abuses Staining New Libya, which discusses the maltreatment of Gaddafi forces and those suspected of loyalty to the old regime in grave detail. You can read Amnesty's full report at http://www.amnesty.org/en/news-and-updates/report/new-libya-%E2%80%99stained%E2%80%99-detainee-abuse-2011-10-13.
2. In response to your concern that the NATO mission was unjustified or based on misconceptions, we'd like to draw your attention to the alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity committed by the Libyan government in response to widespread, peaceful protests. General Moammar Gaddafi announced on state television his violent intentions for Libyan civilians taking part in government protests, vowing to destroy protestors, whom he likened to cockroaches, "house by house". These crimes, which fall under the RtoP framework, merited an urgent response from the international community under the RtoP framework.
Though concerns around whether the NATO mission went beyond the mandate granted by Security Council Resolution 1973 are legitimate, they do not diminish the responsibility the international community had to act to protect Libyan threatened with violence by Colonel Muammar Gaddafi. AI demonstrated the basis for urgent collective response in the report The Battle for Libya: Killings, Disappearances and Torture, in which AI outlines the abhorrent human rights abuses committed by Gaddafi forces, including war crimes, gross human rights violations, killing and injuring unarmed protesters, enforced disappearances and torture and other ill-treatment and arbitrarily detaining civilians. You can read Amnesty's full report at (http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/info/MDE19/025/2011/en).
3. Regarding your concern over the legitimacy and transparency of the NATO operation, military operations are costly and difficult to control, and NATO operations in Libya have been no exception. Nonetheless, under the RtoP framework, no military mission should operate with impunity. NATO Watch, a think-tank that monitors NATO activities, analyzed the controversy around NATO operations in Libya and acknowledged that though NATO and the other countries in the Coalition (Jordan, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates and Sweden) cautiously attempted to fire only on military targets, NATO's credibility would have benefited from closer monitoring and investigation of civilian casualties. Read his full analysis here: http://www.natowatch.org/node/536.
NATO Watch supports the inclusion of genocide and mass atrocity prevention in NATO mandates, and asserts "It is a moral and strategic imperative for the Alliance to implement the UN Responsibility to Protect (R2P) agenda and resources should be directed towards the development of a comprehensive approach to genocide prevention." You can read more information here: http://www.natowatch.org/rtp.
The successes and setbacks of a military operation aside, it is important to bear in mind the necessity of action by the international community when states fail to protect their own citizens from the four mass atrocity crimes: genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing, and crimes against humanity. The responsibility to take action to halt atrocity crimes in Libya based on RtoP principles should not be diminished by concerns surrounding the tactics undertaken by the NATO mission. The implementation of RtoP and the need for a multilateral response will continue long after NATO forces withdrawal from Libya as efforts to prevent impunity, promote accountability and reconciliation and rebuild post-conflict come to the forefront. Following the NATO mission to aid the rebels in Libya, amid controversy among Member States, regional authorities and civil society alike over the tactics employed in Libya in recent months, and with the National Transitional Council universally recognized as the governing body of Libya, work to uphold the Responsibility to Protect in Libya must continue.
RtoP expert Dr. Ramesh Thakur of Australian National University explains:
"R2P attempts to strike a balance between unilateral interference and institutionalised indifference. It was designed to help the world to be better prepared - normatively, organisationally and operationally - to meet the recurrent challenge of military intervention when atrocities are committed and something can be done by outsiders to save strangers at acceptable costs and risks: institutionalised non-indifference, if you will."
Please see his full opinion: http://www.canberratimes.com.au/news/opinion/editorial/general/has-r2p-worked-in-libya/2296301.aspx?storypage=0.
I hope you have found this information useful.
All the best,
The ICRtoP Team
Rachel Austin Shapiro
International Coalition for the Responsibility to Protect
708 Third Avenue, 24th Floor
New York, NY 10017