On
Libya,
As Ban Won't Comment on Civilian Death, Poison Pill
PRST Amendments
By
Matthew
Russell Lee
UNITED
NATIONS,
June 20 -- As NATO admits misfiring in Tripoli, in a
military campaign supposedly coordinated by UN Secretary General Ban
Ki-moon, Ban's spokesman on Monday declined to comment directly on
the civilian deaths -- “that is really a matter for NATO to comment
on” -- while refusing to provide any details about what he'd
called
“negotiation[s] under the auspices” of part-time UN envoy Al
Khatib.
On
the eve of a
vote to get a second five year term as Secretary General, Ban appears
to want to have it both ways on the conflict in Libya. While
Resolution 1973 said that he was to receive notifications and
coordinate much of the military action, he has not, and won't even
issue a direct comment on admitted killings of civilians by NATO.
The
draft Presidential Statement on Libya proposed last week by the
Security Council's African members and exclusively
reported and published by Inner City Press gave rise to an experts
level
meeting on June 17. The US has put forward many amendments.
Inner
City Press is told these include a call to recognize the Transitional
National Council in Benghazi, and other steps which the sponsors say
go because Resolution 1973. These are called “poison pill”
amendments, but the drafters are trying to incorporate those that
they can.
Ban & Gaddafi, previously, NATO, 2d term & PRST not shown
Meanwhile,
over
the weekend Ban's spokesman Martin Nesirky said that the
“Secretary-General said the beginnings of a negotiation process are
now underway under the auspices of his Special Envoy to Libya, Mr.
Abdul-Elah Al-Khatib.” But on Monday when asked about this
negotiation process and the UN role, Nesirky said
“I
don’t really have anything further to add to the wording that is
there in the readout at this point, namely that the Secretary-General
has said that the beginnings of a negotiation process are under way
under the auspices of Special Envoy al-Khatib. I think necessarily,
and by definition because this is an extremely delicate process, the
details at this point may not be available.”
If
the process --
if there is one -- is so “delicate,” why did Ban make the claim
about the existence of talks? Only to assert the centrality of his
part time (and conflicted) envoy Khatib, and thus of himself?
And
if he and the
UN are central to what's happening in Libya, how when asked for
comment on the killing of civilians can his spokesman say “that is
really a matter for NATO to comment on”? Watch this site.
* * *
At
UN
on Libya, African Council Members Want Statement on Compliance With
Resolution 1973,
US Said to Oppose
By
Matthew
Russell
Lee, Exclusive
UNITED
NATIONS,
June
14 -- When African Union ministers wanted to come
engage with the UN Security Council about NATO's bombing of Libya,
the United
States
wanted to keep the meeting behind closed doors, the
UK even suggesting it merely be a lunch, sources told Inner City
Press.
Now
in advance of
the June 15 meeting, which will be a briefing and “interactive
dialogue,” sources tell Inner City Press that the US is opposing an
African proposed Presidential Statement, which would reiterate the
importance of compliance with Council Resolution 1973.
Below is a
copy of the draft, obtained by Inner City Press, which among other
things “reaffirms that
resolution 1973 (2011) explicitly excludes a foreign occupation force
of any form on any part of Libyan territory.”
The
three African
members of the Security Council -- South Africa, Nigeria and Gabon --
are proposing the Statement. The US is apparently saying they cannot
decide on the draft in 24 hours. (Others note that recently on Sudan,
US Ambassador Susan Rice put forward a draft Presidential Statement
at 2 pm and asked for it to be adopted that day.)
The
timing excuse,
some feel, is a ruse: the US is hoping that Gaddafi can be killed and
taken from power before the Security Council issues any further
statement on Libya.
Before
publication
of
this story, Inner City Press asked US Mission to the UN in writing
to answer three questions, including this one. While the Mission's
spokesman provide an interim answer to one of the three questions,
there was not answer to the request for denial or confirmation and
comment on the US "opposing on Libya a proposed statement reiterating
compliance with Resolution 1973, and why."
Inner
City
Press
spoke to an anti-Gaddafi member of Libya's Mission to the UN, who
confirmed the African proposed statement and that the US will not
accept it. He said, “the freedom fighters are now within 40
kilometers of Tripoli.”
Neither
Libyan
side,
he predicted, will speak in the interactive segment of the June
15 meeting. “We don't have credentials,” he said. Previously, the
UN let Ambassadors Shalgam and Dabbashi speak, but no more. Nor does
Gaddafi have a representative at the UN, after Nicaraguan former
president of the General Assembly Miguel d'Escoto Brockmann was
blocked, with Susan Rice saying his tourist visa would be revoked if
he tried to speak for Gaddafi.
Footnote:
No
other
than Louis Farrakhan of the Nation of Islam has moved to
hold a press conference at the UN. As it happens, it will not be
inside the UN but rather across the street. Watch this site.
Here
is
the
African-proposed Draft Presidential Statement on Libya
At
the
_____th
meeting of the Security Council, held on 15 June 2011, in
connection with the Council’s consideration of the item entitled
“the situation in Libya”, and having received a briefing from a
ministerial delegation of the African Union High-Level Ad-hoc
Committee on Libya, the President of the Security Council made the
following statement on behalf of the Council:
The
Security
Council
expresses its deep concern over the continuation of
violence in Libya, and reaffirms its commitment to the full
implementation of United Nations Security Council resolutions 1970
(2011) and 1973 (2011) in letter and spirit to ensure protection of
civilians in Libya. The Security Council reaffirms that resolution
1973 (2011) explicitly excludes a foreign occupation force of any
form on any part of Libyan territory.
The
Security
Council
demands a complete end to violence and all attacks
against and abuses of civilians, perpetrated by all parties and the
establishment of an immediate and comprehensive ceasefire. They
stressed the need for such a ceasefire to be credible and verifiable,
and encouraged the African Union and the United Nations, as well as
other stakeholders, to spare no efforts in achieving this objective.
The Security Council further demands a speedy solution to the crisis
which responds to the legitimate aspirations of the Libyan people and
tackles the underlying causes of the current crisis.
The
Security
Council
stresses the need for a political solution to the
conflict in Libya. In this respect, and recalling the provisions of
paragraph 2 of UN Security Council resolution 1973(2011), they
welcome the efforts of the Special Envoy of the Secretary-General for
Libya, Mr. Abdel-Elah Mohamed Al-Khatib, and those of the AU
High-Level ad hoc Committee on Libya in the context of the AU
Roadmap. The Security Council agreed on the need for close
coordination of all efforts in support of the UN and in accordance
with paragraph 2 of Security Council resolution 1973(2011) to find a
solution to the crisis. The Security Council welcomes the joint
effort being undertaken by the UN, AU, LAS, OIC and EU and looks
forward to the outcome of their next meeting to be held in Cairo,
Egypt on 18 June 2011.
The
Security
Council
expresses its serious concern over the deteriorating
humanitarian situation in the country, and calls for full compliance
with human rights and International Humanitarian Law and the creation
of the required conditions for the delivery of assistance to all
needy populations across Libya, including by guaranteeing appropriate
access to humanitarian organisations. The Security Council stresses
the need to provide necessary support to the African migrant workers
living in Libya, including those seeking to leave the country.
The
Security
Council
reaffirms its strong commitment to the sovereignty,
independence, territorial integrity and national unity of the Libyan
Arab Jamahiriya.
The
Security
Council
will remain seized of this matter and will continue
to meet to review the implementation of its resolutions on the
situation in Libya.
, 
