NATO knew of and supported the actions of its alliance partners, the Qataris. The UN knew or should have known that NATO was supporting actions that violated the arms embargo and that provided ground troops and coordination between air and ground military efforts.
The acts of the UN and NATO show that the UN Security Council resolution and NATO claims of honoring that resolution were fraudulent.
U.S. Ambassador to Libya Cretz provides the proof of NATO knowledge of the major violations of the UN resolution. From the article:
Qatar has
played 'a very influential role in helping this [Libyan] rebellion
succeed,' U.S Ambassador to Libya Gene A. Cretz said in an interview. Wall Street Journal, October 17
The NATO alliance was obliged to keep foreign weapons, troops, and assistance out of Libya as required by the UN resolution. The ambassador makes it clear that the actions of the Qataris were helpful and clearly implied that regime change was the goal, not the protection of civilians.
The UN knew or should have known that its resolution
was being violated. Section 24 of Security Council resolution 1973 calls
for the creation of a "panel of experts" to monitor the Libyan
conflict, assure compliance with the UN mandate, and "Make
recommendations on actions the Council, or the Committee or State, may
consider to improve implementation of the relevant measures." UN, February 26, 2011
If the panel of experts spoke to Ambassador Cretz or one of his peers, for example, they would have known that the actions in the name of the UN were diametrically opposed to the stated goals of the UN. If the "panel of experts" didn't know that the mission was a fraud on the UN and the people of the world, they should have. In either case, the UN is responsible for the acts of NATO done in the name of the UN.
The NATO mission was an attack on the Libyan government at that time without an imminent threat to any of the nations involved. It was a violation of international law.
International law places very strict limits on preemptive wars. This is the general outline for "anticipatory self-defense."
"The right of anticipatory self-defense assumes that an aggressor is poised to strike, and that one acts defensively in anticipation of the attack rather than waiting for the attack to occur. Traditionally, it was deemed theoretically possible that even a first-strike could be deemed defensive in nature, and lawful, if it was to forestall an attack that was imminent." Center for Defense Information, 2003
The UN has some provisions in its charter for anticipatory self-defense arising out of Security Council actions. However, there was no self-defense asserted, no imminent danger, no war outlined. The mission was mandated solely to protect Libyan civilians through the no-fly zone, arms embargo, asset freeze, etc.
NATO misrepresented its role as "nothing more, nothing less" than those actions mandated by the Security Council resolution, 1973. By allowing in ground troops as well as thousands of tons of weapons, and coordinating air strikes for the benefit of opponents of the Libyan government, NATO engaged in war that meets even the narrowest definitions of preemptive war. That is a violation of international law.
Justice Will Not Be Forthcoming
NATO went well beyond the bounds of the UN mandate. It allowed the mission's one nation that was not a part of NATO, Qatar, to violate the arms embargo, to provide troops, and to use those troops to coordinate NATO air strikes with NTC rebels on the ground. As a result, NATO and the NTC rebels were acting as one, fighting an aggressive war against the Libyan government. It was a series of lies that provided the foundation for the Libyan effort, lies that repeated principals that those directly involved were never expected to follow.
By waging war instead of protecting civilians, all parties to the effort engaged in an elaborate ongoing war crime against the very civilians that they were supposed to protect.
END
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
3
3
2
