It has been brought to my attention that certain EU countries are desperate because they have backed the wrong side in the Libyan conflict, because they instigated a revolt in a country to topple a government to steal its resources and it has backfired...and no, you will NOT ship weapons to Libya, nor will you put boots on the ground.
In June, the French government admitted that it had shipped "light" weaponry to the Libyan terrorists fighting the Libyan Armed Forces (LAF) loyal to the Jamahiriya Government of Muammar al-Qathafi. Now there is talk by military analysts of more "light" weaponry being shipped to the few remaining terrorist-held areas, quoted by The Gulf Today, as including French Milan anti-tank missiles, Swedish Carl Gustav 84mm rifles (produced in Britain?), 68mm rockets and mortars and Maadi assault rifles from Egypt; this, in addition to the British, French and Italian military advisors helping the terrorists.
One presumes the "talk" of sending in heavy and more sophisticated weaponry now that the LAF are advancing on all fronts and the "talk" about a September invasion by NATO forces is only that, since there is no hard evidence either way. But knowing NATO and with NATO's recent history...
However, 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.
Let us examine international law governing this issue and let it be clear that any attempt to arm the terrorists in Libya against the Government and any attempt to place boots on the ground is illegal.
UNSC Resolution 1973 (2011), in its Chapter on Protection of Civilians, in paragraph 4. states:
"4. Authorizes Member States that have notified the Secretary-General, acting nationally or through regional organizations or arrangements, and acting in cooperation with the Secretary-General, to take all necessary measures, notwithstanding paragraph 9 of resolution 1970 (2011), to protect civilians and civilian populated areas under threat of attack in the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, including Benghazi, while excluding a foreign occupation force of any form on any part of Libyan territory, and requests the Member States concerned to inform the Secretary-General immediately of the measures they take pursuant to the authorization conferred by this paragraph which shall be immediately reported to the Security Council;
In the Chapter on Enforcement of the arms embargo, Paragraph 13 of the same states:
"13. Decides that paragraph 11 of resolution 1970 (2011) shall be replaced by the following paragraph : "Calls upon all Member States, in particular States of the region, acting nationally or through regional organisations or arrangements, in order to ensure strict implementation of the arms embargo established by paragraphs 9 and 10 of resolution 1970 (2011), to inspect in their territory, including seaports and airports, and on the high seas, vessels and aircraft bound to or from the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, if the State concerned has information that provides reasonable grounds to believe that the cargo contains items the supply, sale, transfer or export of which is prohibited by paragraphs 9 or 10 of resolution 1970 (2011) as modified by this resolution, including the provision of armed mercenary personnel, calls upon all flag States of such vessels and aircraft to cooperate with such inspections and authorises Member States to use all measures commensurate to the specific circumstances to carry out such inspections";
"16. Deplores the continuing flows of mercenaries into the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya and calls upon all Member States to comply strictly with their obligations under paragraph 9 of resolution 1970 (2011) to prevent the provision of armed mercenary personnel to the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya;".
The law could not be any clearer. It is illegal to place any form of foreign military force on the ground (which has already been breached), it is illegal to ship weapons to Libya (which has already been breached). It is illegal to take sides in an internal conflict (the more so, one started from outside).
Rather than allow any country or group of countries to forge ahead and effect a massive breach of these terms, the UNSC should analyse what measures are to be taken to punish those who have broken international law.
Certainly any such action, in sending weapons to the terrorists and/or placing military personnel on the ground, cannot be allowed by the international community without a separate Resolution which passes through the UNSC and in any case this Resolution has to be justifiable.
As it stands today no expert in international law would state that there is any justification for this, and therefore, with the original conditions of UNSC 1970 and 1973 (2011) void due to being based on false flag events, due to NATO's breach of law and commitment of war crimes in Libya, it is time for an exit strategy to what can only be classified as a monumental and catastrophic foreign policy disaster by the NATO members involved.
Declare the no-fly zone was successfully implemented, recognise that the LAF are not attacking civilians, they are defending civilians from armed terrorists and allow the Libyans to solve this problem for themselves, with international organisms if the Libyans themselves see fit.
"Russia is lucky to have a president like him. If the country had someone weak as its leader, no one knows how everything would turn out for the countryбЭ the actor said
As the US threatens to decimate North Korea again - if not the entire planet, given Donald Trump's chillingly casual approach to the use of nuclear weapons - an article (1) has revealed the criminal legacy remaining from America's last attack, ending sixty four years ago, on a country smaller than Mississippi.