On
Libya,
UN Resolution Left Arming & Funding Rebels Unresolved, But
Intervention Permitted
By
Matthew
Russell Lee, Analysis
UNITED
NATIONS,
March 23 -- Can countries legally provide weapons to the
Libyan rebels in Benghazi and elsewhere?
The question has been
asked, so far without clear answer, of UN diplomats since the passage
of Security Council Resolution 1973 on March 17.
One major proponent
of the resolution claims to be checking with its top lawyer, despite
its role in drafting the resolution.
The
Security
Council's first Libya resolution,
1970, imposed an arms embargo in
its 9th paragraph. But resolution
1973 permits member states to “take
all necessary measures, notwithstanding paragraph 9 of resolution
1970 (2011), to protect civilians” in Libya.
What
does this
“notwithstanding” mean? Is the arms embargo entirely trumped? At
least one major nation, with a long common law legal history, is not
sure.
What
about others? It is reported that Egypt began allowing
arms transfers to the rebels hours after resolution 1973 was adopted.
Is Egypt in violation of resolution 1970? If so, who would say and do
anything about it?
Why
would major
countries leave such an obvious unclarity in their work product?
Cynics or realists say that it is intentional, to allow the powerful
to do whatever they want.
Photo composite Telegraphs identity of vituperator?
These
same
proponents of Resolution 1973 are now complaining that the press is
misreporting what the resolution prohibits. Only “foreign
occupation” is precluded, they point out, not “intervention.”
Still they claim they do not intend to intervene.
Resolution
1973
left for another day the logistics of transferring Gaddafi's frozen
funds to the rebels or people of Libya. In the Iraq Oil for Food
program, BNP Paribas' actions led, even years later, to France
abstaining from Iraq resolutions in the Security Council. So will
escrow accounts be set up in the case of Libya, “notwithstanding”
the Oil for Food scandal? Watch this site.
* * *
Due
to US Libya ICC Loophole, Qatar, Ukraine & UAE Could Also Be Immune
By
Matthew
Russell Lee
UNITED
NATIONS,
March 23 -- When the UN Security Council referred the case
of Libya to the International Criminal Court in its Resolution 1973,
the United
States demanded and got an exemption for citizens of
countries which are not members of the ICC's Assembly of State
Parties to the Rome Statute.
Inner
City Press
first reported on this loophole, then asked US
Ambassador to the UN Susan
Rice if it might allow certain possible war crimes to be exempt from
the ICC referral. Rice responded that she doubted the ICC would go
after “small” mercenaries.
But
now, even of
the
first twelve countries which have provided notice to the UN under
Security Council Resolution 1973, several beyond the United States
are not ICC members. That
is, if they dropped bombs on civilians -- even intentionally -- they
would be exempt from any referral to or prosecution by the ICC,
thanks to the loophole the US demanded for itself.
Both
Arab
countries which have provided notice, Qatar and the United Arab
Emirates, are not members of the ICC, and therefore exempt from
referral to the ICC. So too with Ukraine, which has provided notice
(but see
this other story).
Susan Rice, Obama and Clinton, ICC and Qatar, UAE,
Kuwait & Ukraine not shown
The
UK has claimed
that Kuwait will soon be joining -- but it has not joined the ICC.
And
while Turkey
has said it will offer humanitarian help without providing UN notice,
it is not a member of the ICC either.
What
hath the US
wrought? Watch this site.
* * *
With
UN on Libya, 12 Notifiers May Mean Less Than That: Ukraine &
UAE Cases
By
Matthew
Russell Lee
UNITED
NATIONS,
March 23 -- Still only 12
countries are listed as having
provided notice to the UN under Security Council Resolution 1973, the
same number as on the morning of March 22.
The number of actual
“partners” may even be lower. Beyond backtracking by the United
Arab Emirates, based on “the West's position on Bahrain,” a well
placed Council diplomat on Wednesday morning told Inner City Press
that Ukraine, despite being announced by the UN as a notifier, is
primarily concerned with its own citizens.
On
Tuesday, after
first
reporting Ukraine on the Security Council's list, Inner City
Press questioned
how a country which took more than a month to come
through with attack helicopters for the UN Mission in Cote d'Ivoire
would be able to meaningfully participate in what the US is calling
Operation Odyssey Dawn.
While
the UN's
list of twelve is sometimes presented as a list of supporters of the
no fly zone and even bombing, when Pressed at Wednesday's noon
briefing, Secretary General Ban Ki-moon's spokesman Martin Nesirky
insisted he had made it clear on Tuesday that these are only letter
writers.
Here
is what
Nesirky said on March 22, about the UAE not yet Ukraine:
Spokesperson
Nesirky:
They notified the Secretariat under the terms of the
resolution. I did not say that they will be taking part in enforcing
a no-fly zone; I didn’t say that... I haven’t seen their
notification, the specific letter, I haven’t seen that letter. We
need to be clear that each of the countries, when notifying the
Secretariat and when we transmit that notification to the Security
Council, that notification can take different forms. The content is
not the same for each one. Each country is saying something
different about what measures it is taking or simply how it is
supporting the resolution. But the details of each of those would
need to come from the Member States concerned...If a Member State
requests that a document should be circulated, in other words, made
an official document that is circulated and available, then that will
be done. But I don’t know any specific case what has happened.
The
UN's daily
Journal does on a delay include the letters, at least Ukraine's
initial letter - click here.
But Council sources say that Ukraine's
position is not as described.
Inner
City Press
asked Nesirky if, even belatedly, the Secretary General and his
Spokesperson's Office can provide public disclosure of these letters
more frequently than the day's noon briefing. When we get then, we'll
tell you, Nesirky said. We'll see.
Footnotes:
Inner
City Press asked Nesirky if Ban Ki-moon would like his
briefing(s) on March 24 to teh Security Council to be public -- the
one about his trip is thought to be closed door, but why shouldn't
his briefing about Resolution 1973 be public? Punting, Nesirky said
that is entirely up to the Council. So much for leadership on
transparency.
Nesirky
also refused again to state whether Ban's envoy to Libya al-Khatib is a
UN staff member, an Under Secretary General, or to confirm that he is
still paid -- in seeming violation of the UN Charter -- by the
government of Jordan, a country which has not yet notified under
Resolution 1973 despite UK claims.
* * *
UN
Envoy
Al
Khatib
Is
On
Board of Jordan Ahli Bank, Links With Libya
Central Bank
By
Matthew
Russell
Lee,
Exclusive
UNITED
NATIONS,
March
8
--
In
selecting Abdul
Ilah
al Khatib as the UN's
envoy on Libya, Secretary General Ban Ki-moon moved quickly --
maybe
too quickly.
Since
serving
as
the
foreign
minister of Jordan,
describe even some close to Ban as an autocracy, al
Khatib
has
served
on
the
boards of director not only of Lafarge Jordan Cement Company
but also of Jordan Ahli Bank.
Jordan
Ahli
Bank
is
active
beyond
that country's borders. A sample connection: along
with Libyan
Foreign Bank, a fully owned subsidiary of the Central
Bank of Libya, Jordan Ahli Bank
is a top 20 shareholder of Union de
Banques Arabes et Francaises.
Could
there
be
conflicts
of
interest?
Did the UN's Ban administration even consider
these?
Ban
previously claimed that 99% of his officials have made
public financial disclosure. But when Inner City Press showed this is
not true -- even Ban's close ally Choi Young-jin, his envoy in Cote
d'Ivoire, declined to make public financial disclosure -- Ban's
spokesman Martin Nesirky said Ban's statement had been
“metaphorical.”
Now
Ban names and
injects al Khatib into a struggle about democracy and free press,
when as Inner City Press noted
yesterday
"Foreign
Minister
Abd
al-Ilah
al-Khatib
in
January initiated a criminal
defamation suit against weekly newspaper al-Hilal's editor-in-chief
Nasir Qamash and journalist Ahmad Salama. He [al-Khatib] objected to
the content of a January article, and said his tribe had threatened
to beat up Salama if he failed to take action. The case remains in
the courts at this writing."
By
what process was
al-Khatib vetted and selected? Watch this site.
Click for Mar 1, '11
BloggingHeads.tv re Libya, Sri Lanka, UN Corruption
Click
here
for an Inner City Press YouTube channel video, mostly UN Headquarters
footage, about civilian
deaths
in Sri Lanka.
Click here for Inner City
Press' March 27 UN debate
Click here for Inner City
Press March 12 UN (and AIG
bailout) debate
Click here for Inner City
Press' Feb 26 UN debate
Click
here
for Feb.
12
debate
on
Sri
Lanka http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/17772?in=11:33&out=32:56
Click here for Inner City Press' Jan.
16, 2009 debate about Gaza
Click here for Inner City Press'
review-of-2008 UN Top Ten debate
Click here for Inner
City Press' December 24 debate on UN budget, Niger
Click here from Inner City Press'
December 12 debate on UN double standards
Click here for Inner
City Press' November 25 debate on Somalia, politics
and this October 17 debate, on
Security Council and Obama and the UN.
* * *
These
reports are
usually also available through Google
News and on Lexis-Nexis.
Click here
for a Reuters
AlertNet piece by this correspondent
about Uganda's Lord's Resistance Army. Click
here
for an earlier Reuters AlertNet piece about the Somali
National
Reconciliation Congress, and the UN's $200,000 contribution from an
undefined trust fund. Video
Analysis
here
Feedback: Editorial
[at] innercitypress.com
UN
Office:
S-453A,
UN,
NY
10017
USA
Tel:
212-963-1439
Reporter's
mobile
(and
weekends):
718-716-3540
Other,
earlier
Inner
City
Press
are
listed
here,
and
some are available
in the ProQuest service, and now on Lexis-Nexis.
Copyright
2006-08
Inner
City
Press,
Inc.
To
request
reprint
or
other
permission,
e-contact
Editorial
[at]
innercitypress.com
-
|