Monday, March 21, 2011

Libya Turmoil 21


Our reader Ego Igwe presented this article which I am delighted to publish.
Any lawyer' readers out there with their own comments?



Let me start by making clear that there is nothing in the UN charter
which empowers it to pass resolutions that effectively amount to a
declaration of war on another member-state, more so, where it pursues
sanctions in respect of matters which are purely that member-state’s
internal affairs. To be sure, this discourse will not concern itself
with the Qaddafi question but only as it relates to the much larger
agenda.

I call Resolution 1973 a prescient legal pretext for several reasons.
The first one, which should be obvious, is that it pretends to powers
which are not gifted to it. This is to say, that the UN lacks the
legal framework for enabling that resolution in the first place. By
virtue of its imposition of a no-fly zone, read in conjunction with
its “all means necessary” clause, it is incontestable that the UN has
sought and indeed intended, to leave an independent member-state open
to multinational attacks that breach not only the sovereignty of that
member-state but its territorial integrity as well. The very
definition of an uprising comes from within and it cannot be defined
from outside of any nation’s internal affairs. It is as pure as any
internal matter can be and without controversy in that regard. Its
resolution must therefore rest within that member-state and not the
UN.

Secondly, I make the argument that what is sauce for the gander ought
to be sauce for the geese. Even where it is found that there is cause
for the UN to act, by its selective resolutions which target nations
and their leaders instead of crimes themselves, it can be said that
the UN clearly embarks on the dissipation of designer laws writ
resolutions, which one may assume, erroneously or not, are
tailor-fitted to the dictates of its sponsors. Considering also, that
more often than not, the drive for these resolutions is usually
promoted or vetoed by those member-states with ‘interests’ in the
matter, who sit in charity over the UN. The star atop this Christmas
tree for UN ‘charity’ is America and it goes without saying that one
who pays the piper calls the tune. Clearly, such a system of
sponsorship and patronage must be prone to serial abuse. A clear
example is Israel, a nation which must hold the record for resolutions
passed against it and yet, for which no record-breaking sanctions have
been sought.

The point I make is it is wrong to say for instance, “If Qaddafi
targets the Libyan people there will be consequences and a price to
pay.” The right phrasing should be “If any nation targets its citizens
there will consequences and a price to pay.” My point here is that the
so-called consequences of Qaddafi’s actions and the price to pay must
be universally applicable upon proof of such conduct being found
within any nation-state. Resolution 1973 pretends to a resolution that
addresses a unique criminal instance whilst there is a flourishing of
instances that ought to be incorporated, was that resolution legit to
start with.

Let us briefly set these technicalities aside and examine the real
import of Resolution 1973. My primary concern is that it ushers and
imposes a most dangerous precedent on the global community, which
allows for interference in the internal affairs of nation-states. I
see some poetic justice blossoming with the Arab League signing on to
it. Before I dwell on this, it is important to fully understand what
the UN has done with the passing of this resolution. In simple terms,
it has usurped sovereignty and imposed on the global community a
tyranny headed by the US and their allies. The issue, with all sense
of responsibility, cannot be what Qaddafi is doing to his people, it
is easily resolved as we are even witnessing now, but this ridiculous
legal pretext that masquerades in ‘humanitarian’ robes. What the UN
has done is to pass a ‘resolution’ authorizing a war campaign against
an independent member state, for matters and issues arising within.
Qaddafi was not the target; he was the excuse for establishing that
draconian ‘resolution’ and precedent. Now, it can happen to any
nation-state or member-nation. That is the lesson to be learned by
Resolution 1973; universal political handcuffs that hang selectively,
behind every Head of state, elected or not, that finds an uprising on
his/her hands. Be it rent-a-crowd, popular or sponsored. All that is
ever required now, is the purchase of some resolution for whatever
reasons and any targeted leadership will be toast.

I can think of no better qualified recipient, best suited for a trail
run in the continuity of this resolution, than the Arab League and
from this reasoning stems my sense of poetic justice. It would be
laughable had it not been so tragic, that the Arab League now claims
to have been misled. That it wants to know why Libya is being bombed
is at best hilarious. It was the Arab League that led the charge
against another member-state in stack denial of its avowal and by this
resolution that comes with its consent, and being a round-table of
tyrants and vipers, has now set a knife upon their own collective
throats. The selective overthrow of most them can only be a heartbeat
away… and that is about all the good news there is.

Egoigwe,
an aeronautic Engineer in the service of humanity.
3/20/2011.

9 comments:

  1. @ego igwe
    I think the last bit is missing of your text.
    I am not a lawyer but I have read the resolution on innercitypress com. I agree about the internal affairs being outside the remit of the UN ( the Libyan gov said this in a statement too) and the UN lacking the framework to make such a resolution, etc. One item on innercitypress asks the UN office on Saturday if the UN secretary was notified and by whom before action as required by the terms, (the French planes bombed ground troops even before the end of a meeting in Paris). There is silence on the issue. Today the Russians are already saying on RT com the action taken goes beyond the remit of the resolution, that it does not allow for ground troops to be attacked nor some other items. CAM
    PS The Russians have just offered to mediate in Libya.

    ReplyDelete
  2. All of this is true, but misses an even more critical point:

    None of the sponsoring countries (US, UK, France, et al) are permitted to go to war without first obtaining the consent of their peoples, as expressed by Congress, Parliament & the Assemblee Nationale. That they are bound by treaty to obey UN resolutions does not justify de facto UN declarations of war. The Security Council represents a back-door method for governments to declare war without the necessity of obtaining the consent of the governed to do so.

    The process reminds me of the monarchs of old, colluding among themselves, dividing the world for their own private gain, but with an amusing twist: They can subsequently claim "the UN made me do it", thus absolving themselves. Did "democracy" or republican government put an end to this, or not?

    The UN seems powerless to resist this exploitation. If this is true, then it is time the UN joined the League of Nations in the dustbin of history.

    ReplyDelete
  3. @ Dave from Maryland

    Don't forget that De Gaulle called the UN "le machin de New York", freely translated "that thing from New York"

    ReplyDelete
  4. @Dave
    Good point. The UK PM has been in parliament today justifying himself (after the action started) but there is some strong dissent from a number of Members of Parliament.
    I agree democratic proceedures are being disregarded and the UN is a disgrace.
    CAM

    ReplyDelete
  5. Thank you David, for your very enhancing addendum. I found the role played by the UN to be most encompassing (as it affects us all to varying degrees) and was actually focusing on the exposure of its damaging role by way of my write-up.

    I find your observation that "The Security Council represents a back-door method for governments to declare war without the necessity of obtaining the consent of the governed to do so." most instructive; a crooked tool for conniving idiots. It just may be that this too, is the exact reason why the "UN (hasn't) joined the League of Nations in the dustbin of history."

    But even so, I find the UN to be a somewhat useful safeguard against territorial encroachment on the weak and its sovereignty; if only it'd work according to its true charter and spirit without interference. To make this work, the first thing that ought to go out the window is the right to veto by a few select Santa Claus nations.

    ReplyDelete
  6. @Anon. CAM

    I am sorry but I really don't get what you said was missing from my text and do pardon me, for asking that you help shed a little more light on it.

    Thank you for pointing me to innercitypress.com, I found the assemblage of information there most enriching and wished I had found it before submitting my write-up to Hermes.

    ReplyDelete
  7. @Egoigwe
    I just saw your post as I had gone onto the later ones. the last line of your text read,'in simple terms,' then it ended. I see now it could have been the ending but I had thought the comma meant it might go further. Yes, I found innercitypress recently and it is great reporting. CAM

    ReplyDelete
  8. Yes, it continues to end with my name and date. I can read the complete text on my system and there doesn't seem to be any omissions. Perhaps, MT is best suited to address this.

    ReplyDelete
  9. @ Egoigwe and CAM

    I have given everything I received, I don't find anything missing.

    ReplyDelete