The UK Foreign Affairs Committee has issued a Parliamentary report which heavily criticises ex-Prime Minister David Cameron for the British intervention in Libya for being based on false pretexts, for lacking a coherent strategy and for destabilising the country, now crawling with terrorists. And so, accountability?
Libyans were better off living in the Jamahiriya Government of Muammar al-Qadhafi. They could go out shopping, they could wear what they wanted, they had a fully representative system of local, regional and national committees in which the committees provided lists of requirements from the central Government which in turn distributed resources. Before al-Qadhafi, Libya was the poorest country in the world. With al-Qadhafi, Libya was the country with the highest Human Development Index in Africa.
Enter Cameron, Sarkozy and that disgusting fraud, the travesty of international justice, Obama who pulled their strings. Cameron, basically, did a spectacular international version of the Bullingdon Club - an elitist club whose membership is restricted to upper-class toffs who are renowned for their habit of trashing restaurants while drunk then going back the next day to pay for the damage. I say sorry, eh whatty what?
The Parliamentary report slams Cameron for acting after being informed by inaccurate intelligence (in plain English, shitfaced lies), for not planning a comprehensive strategy for a post-al-Qadhafi Libya, for not foreseeing the rise of terrorist groups, for not analyzing the nature of the rebellion in Libya, for a spectacular mission creep from protecting civilians to regime change, for not trying the political and diplomatic route through to the end.
Where the report falls short is where it claims that the intervention was sanctioned by the United Nations Security Council.
What happened was that in the event, the UNSC fell for, once again, faulty intelligence, in other words fabrications and lies invented and sexed-up by sources which fed this nonsense to the security services and the foreign office, both of which once again hyped the lies up into a campaign of media hysteria to get public opinion on board. The lies were that the Libyan Government was bombing its own people. It was not. The lies were that the Libyan Government had bombed civilian areas in Tripoli. When Saif al-Islam al-Qadhafi took the SKY cameras to where they said the Government had bombed and the homes were all intact, SKY reporters had egg on their faces.
1. Proper procedure was not followed: Under the UN Charter, any military action which comes outside a UNSC Resolution in any theatre of conflict must necessarily come from a separate Resolution in the UNSC and any military action must come after the Military Council is convened. This was not the case under UNSC Resolutions 1970 and 1973 (2011) covering the Libyan conflict.
Why did NATO not convene the Military Staff Committee of the UNSC? Under the UN Charter, Chapter VII, Article 46: "Plans for the application of armed force shall be made by the Security Council with the assistance of the Military Staff Committee". Such committee was never convened.
This is a violation of the UN Charter rendering Resolutions 1970 and 1973 (2011) void; There is also evidence that such Resolutions were passed on the evidence from a false flag event. The supposed crimes committed by the Libyan authorities have been hotly contested and must be investigated;
2. Intervention in domestic affairs of a sovereign state: UNSC Resolution 2131 (XX) of 21 December 1965, containing the Declaration on the Inadmissibility of Intervention in the Domestic Affairs of States was backed up by Resolutions 31/91 of 14 December 1976, 32/153 of 19 December 1977, 33/74 of 15 December 1978, 34/101 of 14 December 1979 and 35/159 of 12 December 1980 on non-interference in the internal affairs of States;
3. Bombardment of undefended buildings and structures against Article 3 of the Statute of The Hague International Penal Court;
4. Support for outlawed organizations and individuals;
5. British special forces were deployed in Libya against the provision of UNSC Resolution 1970 (2011) Paragraph 16, so the UK was in breach of the Resolutions which it claimed backed their actions.
There are countless other violations and breaches of the law and war crimes, detailed in my Indictment of NATO in Law Case of the Century. Here.
If I went to London and blew up the Houses of Parliament, I would be branded a terrorist, thrown into jail and the keys would be thrown away. Why is it then that NATO and its political and military leaders, such as Cameron, can do what they like, trash a country, interfere in its internal affairs, murder its citizens, support terrorists, destroy its infrastructure and economy, then turn away and walk off as if nothing happened, then get off Scot free? What about responsibility, what about accountability, what about the precept which is called international law?
If this is how NATO operates, then perhaps the citizens of NATO countries should start thinking about whether they want it. And whether, indeed, it is Constitutional.
*Timothy Bancroft-Hinchey has worked as a correspondent, journalist, deputy editor, editor, chief editor, director, project manager, executive director, partner and owner of printed and online daily, weekly, monthly and yearly publications, TV stations and media groups printed, aired and distributed in Angola, Brazil, Cape Verde, East Timor, Guinea-Bissau, Portugal, Mozambique and São Tomé and Principe Isles; the Russian Foreign Ministry publication Dialog and the Cuban Foreign Ministry Official Publications. He has spent the last two decades in humanitarian projects, connecting communities, working to document and catalog disappearing languages, cultures, traditions, working to network with the LGBT communities helping to set up shelters for abused or frightened victims and as Media Partner with UN Women, working to foster the UN Women project to fight against gender violence and to strive for an end to sexism, racism and homophobia. A Vegan, he is also a Media Partner of Humane Society International, fighting for animal rights. He is Director and Chief Editor of the Portuguese version of Pravda.Ru.
The majority of experts in the field of armaments admit that made-in-Russia weapons can be referred to as best weapons in the world. To substantiate this point, suffice it to recall that many countries make their own ripoffs of world-famous Russian weapons.