On
Mali, France's
Bombing
Bypassed Dec.
20 Resolution,
Ban Scammed?
By
Matthew
Russell Lee
UNITED
NATIONS,
January 12 --
France claims
that its
intervention
and aerial
bombardment in
Mali, begun
Friday,
"resides in
the framework
of
international
legality." But
the Security
Council
outcome
France
proposed and
procured on
January 10 was
a mere press
statement,
non-binding.
(Some have mis-reported
a Jan. 10
"resolution,"
click here.)
And
so the
framework that
Francois
Hollande and
Laurent Fabius
are
referring to
must be the
Security
Council
resolution
they procured
on
December 20.
But there is a
problem.
As
Inner City
Press reported
in December,
Resolution
2085 contains
in
Operative
Paragraph 11
a number of
steps that are
required
before
military
action begins:
"11.
Emphasizes
that the
military
planning will
need to be
further
refined
before the
commencement
of the
offensive
operation and
requests that
the
Secretary-General,
in close
coordination
with Mali,
ECOWAS, the
African Union,
the
neighbouring
countries of
Mali, other
countries in
the region and
all other
interested
bilateral
partners and
international
organizations,
continue to
support the
planning and
the
preparations
for the
deployment of
AFISMA,
regularly
inform the
Council of the
progress of
the process,
and requests
that the
Secretary-General
also confirm
in advance the
Council's
satisfaction
with the
planned
military
offensive
operation."
Well
placed African
diplomats
highlighted
this to Inner
City Press as
the
so-called
"Algerian
element."
And now France
has acted
without any of
the steps and
safeguards in
the resolution
it drafted
and championed
and agreed to.
Inner
City Press
asks: did
France get
Secretary
General Ban
Ki-moon to
"confirm in
advance
the Council's
satisfaction
with the
planned
military
offensive
operation" --
the details of
which it seems
Ban wasn't
informed
of?
Was this the
meaning of
Ban's
statement
after he got
letters from
France and
Mali's
post-coup
government?
Were
French-drafted
UNSC
Resolution
2085's steps
and safeguards
only
applicable to
AFRICAN
intervenors?
Or is France's
claim that its
intervention,
in which
already at
least
100 people
have been
killed,
resides in the
framework of
international
legality based
only on a
resolution
they haven't
complied with
and a press
statement that
is not
binding? Watch
this
site.
Footnote:
Some
surmise that
France's
timing --
beginning
bombing on
Friday,
without coming
back to the
Security
Council as at
least one
Permanent
Five member's
Permanent
Representative
said would
probably
happen --
is based on
getting as
much done "sur
le terrain" as
possible
before having
to brief
parliamentarians
on Monday. Ah,
legality...
, 
