A new war has been declared in the Middle East. With the bloody and failing occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan still in place, the USA, Britain and France are now committed to an escalating armed intervention in Libya.
The imposition of a “no-fly zone”, air attacks on Libyan defences and Gaddaffi’s troops, and naval bombardments will not bring peace to Libya nor a resolution to the conflict there.
They will, however, cost more civilian lives and they will set Britain and the world on an escalator of military intervention which risks ending up with an occupation of at least part of Libya. .....
While few people are admirers of the Gaadaffi regime, the experience of Iraq underlines the dangerous futility of trying to impose “regime change” from without......
Attacking Libya and sponsoring the Gulf oligarchies’ invasion of Bahrain to prop up the threatened monarchy there – under the noses of the US fifth fleet - are of a piece. They represent a concerted effort by the western powers to first control and then bring to a halt the Arab revolutions, leaving the essentials of imperial power in the Middle East in place.
You can read the whole of the Stop the War statement here.
UPDATE: Stop the War have called an Emergency 'Hands Off Libya' protest for this afternoon (Sunday) from 3-4pm outside Downing Street. If you live in London and are free this afternoon, do try and get along to lend your support. More details here.
5 comments:
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Support-for-Muammar-al-Gaddafi-from-the-people-of-Serbia/143360419060495
12 000 members, 2000 in last 3 hours. Join us.
We Brits are the most warlike people ever. We either want to control everything via overt means like Afghanistan, Iraq, Serbia and now Libya or covert means like sending our goons like George Soros using his financial economic policy and NGO’s to undermine and destroy nations.
Unlike with Bosnia they are not even pretending or making the pretext of showing evidence through false flag terrorist attacks of Gadaffi bombing rebels/civilian targets in Libya before we drop bombs on Libya.
Seeing how US drones regularly bomb civilian targets in Pakistan and Afghanistan and our vassal state in Bahrain is shooting unarmed protestors I am sure we will eventually institute a no fly zone there and military intervention.
Why do conservative opponents of such wars - of whom there are many - never stage these protests? The Stop the War coalition seems to be completely dominated by the left.
Americans on the right side of the aisle are scornfully mocking the people who believed Barack Obama was the anti-George W. Bush.
He's not only become Bush with a different label on the bottle. He's even outBushed Bush by going to war against Libya without even Congressional debate, much less Congressional approval.
Is he deciding to become Bush because he's had some kind of revelation that neoconservatism is the path of truth and virtue? Absolutely not! It's strictly business, the business of getting re-elected in 2012. Don't take my word for it, read what my fellow American Don Surber says about it:
Obama wants a second term.
We will not re-elect a pussyfooter.
So we have the president joining the allies in Libyan adventure. He did not find the time to break from his Spring Break in Rio to come home and explain to the American people why he is putting our soldiers in harm’s way.
Intervention in domestic matters is not allowed unless they threaten international peace and security. United Nations Declaration on the Inadmissibility of Intervention and Interference in the Internal Affairs of States 1981:
“1. No State or group of States has the right to intervene or interfere in any form or for any reason whatsoever in the internal and external affairs of other States.
2. The principle of non-intervention and non-interference in the internal and external affairs of States comprehends the following rights and duties …….. “
The Declaration then lists 3 rights, 15 duties, and 5 combined rights/duties, all condemning interference in domestic matters by outsiders. One of the duties is: “The duty of a State to refrain from the promotion, encouragement or support, direct or indirect, of rebellious or secessionist activities within other States, under any pretext whatsoever, or any action which seeks to disrupt the unity or to undermine or subvert the political order of other States."
At the end the Declaration says: “Nothing in this Declaration shall prejudice action taken by the United Nations under Chapters VI and VII of the Charter of the United Nations.”
Chapter VI concerns the Pacific Settlement of Disputes which endanger international peace and security. Even if international peace is endangered, the first steps by the Security Council must be non-martial, or "Pacific".
Chapter VII is called “Action with respect to Threats to the Peace, Breaches of the Peace, and Acts of Aggression.” Article 39 confirms that it is international Peace: “The Security Council shall determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression and shall make recommendations, or decide what measures shall be taken in accordance with Articles 41 and 42, to maintain or restore international peace and security.”
IF international peace and security are threatened, then the following can happen:
“Article 41: The Security Council may decide what measures not involving the use of armed force are to be employed to give effect to its decisions, and it may call upon the Members of the United Nations to apply such measures. These may include complete or partial interruption of economic relations and of rail, sea, air, postal, telegraphic, radio, and other means of communication, and the severance of diplomatic relations.”
“Article 42: Should the Security Council consider that measures provided for in Article 41 would be inadequate or have proved to be inadequate, it may take such action by air, sea, or land forces as may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security. Such action may include demonstrations, blockade, and other operations by air, sea, or land forces of Members of the United Nations.”
Clearly the UN Security Council has gone straight to Article 42 – but the UN is not even entitled to go to Article 41, let alone Article 42, if there is no international danger. Is there some other law we don't know about? Or is the law irrelevant to our revered Leaders in the USA, the EU and the Arab League?
Post a Comment