The International Criminal Court has formally agreed that warrants should be issued for the arrest of Col. Muammar Qaddafi, as well as his son, Seif al-Islam, who has been acting as Prime Minister along with Libya’s intelligence chief, Abdullah Senussi. These three Libyan leaders are charged with crimes against humanity involving the murder, injuring, and imprisoning of Libyan civilians between February 10-18, 2011, the first days of the uprising, and prior to NATO’s military involvement.
The ICC judge, speaking on behalf of a three-judge panel, authorized the issuance of the arrest warrants on the basis that the evidence presented by the prosecutor constituted ‘reasonable grounds’ to support the charges contained in the outstanding indictments against these three individuals. Judge Sanji Monogeng of Botswana clarified the ruling by explaining that issuing an arrest warrant was meant to convey the conclusion that sufficient evidence of criminality existed to proceed with the prosecution, but it is not intended to imply guilt, which must be determined by the outcome of a trial.
The ICC assessment is likely to withstand scrutiny so far as the substance of the accusations directed at the Qaddafi leadership are concerned. Qaddafi clearly responded to the popular challenges directed by the Libyan against his regime with extreme violence against civilians, reinforced by genocidal rhetoric, which certainly seems to involve crimes against humanity. But I am led to question why such an effort to arrest and indict was pushed so hard at this time. The timing of the indictment, and now the arrest warrants, arouses strong suspicions, and not just of bad judgment! It is relevant to recall that in the course of NATO’s Kosovo War in 1999 against Serbia, the Serbian president, Slobodan Milosevic, was indicted by another European-based international tribunal—the special ad hoc International Criminal Tribunal for Former Yugoslavia. Are we now to expect that whenever NATO has recourse to war, the political leader heading its opposition will be charged with international crimes while the fighting ensues? How convenient! Lawfare in the service of warfare!
Rather than a matter of convenience, the motivation seems more sinister. Criticism is deflected from NATO’s own lawlessness. In both of these instances, NATO itself has resorted to war unlawfully, engaging in what was designated at Nuremberg as a ‘crime against peace,’ and held by that tribunal to be the greatest of war crimes embracing within itself both crimes against humanity and gross violations of the laws of war (war crimes). In the Kosovo War, NATO acted without a mandate from the UN, thereby violating the UN Charter’s core principle prohibiting non-defensive uses of force unless authorized by the Security Council. In Libya there was such an initial authorization to protect civilians by establishing a no-fly zone (Security Council Resolution 1973, 17 May 2011), but the NATO mission as executed almost immediately grossly exceeded the original mandate, and did little to hide its un-mandated goal of regime change in Tripoli by way of ending Qaddafi’s role as ruler and thereby achieving victory for opposition forces in a civil war.
It is certainly worthy of comment that in both of these wars initiated by NATO, the leader of a country attacked was targeted for criminal prosecution before hostilities has ended. Even the Allies in World War II waited until after the end of combat before trying to impose their version of ‘victors’ justice’ on surviving defeated German and Japanese leaders.
A closely related pattern projection of criminal accountability occurred in Iraq. The American led aggressive war waged against Iraq in 2003 was quickly followed by a carefully planned and orchestrated criminal prosecution, stage-managed behind the scenes by the US occupation commanders, followed by the execution of Saddam Hussein (and his close associates). The Iraqi trial was politically circumscribed so as to exclude any evidence bearing on the close and discrediting strategic relationship maintained between the United States and Iraq during the period of Saddam Hussein’s most serious instances of criminality (genocidal operations against Kurdish villages), as well as by disallowing any inquiry into American criminality associated with the attack on Iraq and subsequent allegations of criminal wrongdoing in response to Iraqi resistance to military occupation. This American potential criminality was never discussed, much less investigated in a responsible manner.
What converts these separate instances into a pattern is the Eurocentric (or West-centric) selectivity evident in most recent efforts to enforce international criminal law. It should be noted that this selectivity is made more objectionable by the impunity accorded to European, American, and Israeli leaders. Double standards so pervasively evident in this behavior undermine the authority of law, especially in relation to a subject-matter as vital as war and peace. Unless equals are treated equally most of the time, what is called ‘law’ is more accurately treated as ‘geopolitics.’
The geopolitical nature of this approval of arrest warrants just issued by the ICC is unintentionally confirmed when it is acknowledged by NATO officials that it will not be possible to arrest Qaddafi unless in the unlikely event that he is captured by the Rebels. Governmental representatives in Washington admitting this have declared that the warrants will nevertheless be useful in forthcoming UN debates about Libyan policy, presumably to push aside any objections based on the failure by NATO to limit military operations to the no-fly zone initially authorized by the Security Council. It should be remembered that the initial authorization in SC Resolution 1973 was itself weakened by five abstentions, including China and Russia, and, further, by South Africa, which voted with the majority while expressing strong objections to the subsequent undertaking. One wonders whether China and Russia would not have used their veto had they anticipated how far beyond what was insisted on limited humanitarian purposes by the proponents of the use of force the actual operation would become. In effect, to overcome any impression of unlawfulness on NATO’s part, it is useful to demonize the adversary, and an opportune way to reach this goal is to put forward premature accusations of severe criminality.
Of course, as has been pointed out more than once, there was an embedded hypocrisy in the central argument put forward by the states seeking a UN green light to intervene in Libya, which was based on the ‘responsibility to protect’ norm that supposedly confers a duty on the international community to protect civilian populations that are being subjected to severely abusive behavior. Two obvious contradictions were present. Why not Syria in the current regional setting? And even more starkly, why not Gaza back in 2008-09 when it was being mercilessly attacked by Israel? The answers to such questions are ‘blowin’ in the wind.’
There are further more technical reasons in the present setting to challenge the timing of the arrest warrants. They seem legally and politically dubious. Legally dubious because the most serious criminality associated with the behavior of the Qaddafi regime during the conflict occurred after the ICC cutoff date of 18 February (e.g. the siege of Misrata). Why other than ulterior motivations was there this rush to prosecute? Politically dubious because there is now a new obstacle to diplomacy in a situation where the alternative seems likely to be a prolonged civil war. Negotiating space for an accommodation is definitely reduced by this implication of Qaddafi’s criminality that creates incentives for the Tripoli leadership to fight on as long as possible.
Perhaps, cynics would argue that law always reflects power, and of course they are correct to a certain extent. Progress in human affairs arises from a struggle against such pretensions. And the locus and nature of power is changing in the world: the West is losing its capacity to shape history and high technology warfare, upon which the West depends to enforce its will on the non-West, is losing its capacity to produce political victories (e.g. anti-colonial wars, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan). This politicized use of the ICC in the course of the Libyan War offers an opportunity for those dedicated to global justice, especially in the Arab world, to insist that international law should no longer serve as a plaything for those who intervene with hard power in their region from the comfort zone of NATO headquarters.
“The ICC assessment is likely to withstand scrutiny so far as the substance of the accusations directed at the Qaddafi leadership are concerned.” We can expect ditto for the leaders of Syria, Iran, and probably all the way to Russia but not for the leaders of “the free world”, “the international community” etc.
It seems therefore that if credibility is the trading currency of the ICC then in ignoring NATO’s psychopathic agression on the innocent people of Libya, including Qaddafi himself and the murders of his children and grandchilren, it has declared itself bankrupt.
May I add:
“Perhaps, cynics would argue that law always reflects power, and of course they are correct to a certain extent.” If this is true now it was also true 2000 years ago when Pilate said to Jesus “You will not speak to me? Do you not know that I have power to release you, and power to crucify you?” Jesus answered him, “You would have no power over me unless it had been given you from above; therefore he who delivered me to you has the greater sin.”(John Ch 19)
So those who exercise power are entitled to do so and those who aid and and abet can be more guilty. Proof that we are all responsible for our own actions.
The Overwhelming Majority of People in the Western Euro-American Countries have only seen one side of the recent Libya Conflict. I think that the World needs to see, hear, and read the other side of the Libya Conflict. However, I am undecided as to whether it would it would be advisable to show any of this in Libya because it may delay a Negotiated Solution. I do not know the answer to that, and I leave that decision to others, because if it promotes a Peaceful Resolution, then I would not want to stand in the way of that. At the same time, if it is unadvisable to make a Documentary that can be downloaded where the DVDs can be placed in Euro-Atlantic Letterboxes free of charge, then that is something for others to decide. We know that a 60 minute Documentary can be copied on a blank DVD for 10 cents a Copy, and Volunteers can distribute them to the People of Scotland, France, and Canada. We know that there could be those who would do this during the next Elections in Scotland, France, and Canada. However, that might not be the Proper Attitude to have given all of the other Considerations. We know that there are Many People who think that America will soon become a Military Dictatorship. If the current American President along with Republicans and Democrats think that they will not be Re-elected, then they may try to establish a Military Dictatorship in America to keep their Power. We have seen the American King, Barack Obama, trample on the American Constitution, because King Obama and others want to be rid of the Democratic Restraints that it puts on their Lust for Dictatorial Power. We have heard King Obama ask the American People why all the Fuss over that fact that he has Appointed himself King, and as King his understanding of what is Legal or Illegal is Correct, because he is America’s King. Everyone knows that Kings always interpret the Law Correctly, because the King’s Decree is the Law. King Obama thinks that the American People are blessed with his Kingship, because another King would have been angry with such uneducated and ungrateful peasants who make a Fuss, when they have nothing to make a Fuss over. These are things that Documentary Makers should keep in mind, and Consider Carefully before telling the World that, because there are two sides to this Story.
I think that the News Article mentioned in this paragraph should be sent to as many People as possible, because they may want to know both sides of the recent conflict in Libya. I found the following News Item on the Internet, and it is Titled: Op-Ed: Mission in Libya becomes Obama’s albatross. That News Article should be able to be found at http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/308610#ixzz1QqqHeEYz, unless the America changes the internet address or contents of the News Article, in an attempt to cover up the Facts.
If one thinks about what is going on, it is clear that the UN is flexing its authority beyond its bounds. Qaddafi is the latest “bad guy” the US/England/UN has drummed up as an excuse to oust a leader who has told the US/England/UN where to shove it…leaders who do not kiss America’s ass on principle.
It is my guess this number will increase in the near future..
Some nations are tiring of US/UN/English bullying and double standards, and invasions into their countries. The same would not be condoned were it to happen in America or England.
The pattern has been the same in numerous South American countries, Yugoslavia, Iraq, Afghanistan, now Libya, and soon Syria and, god help us, Pakistan, for examples. In each case sovereign nations have been invaded for one reason or another but usually conforming to a set scheme or plan of attack.
In the first instance, good will for these nations toward America sees them allowing Americans and British, including CIA agents and Big Business men, into the country. These folks bring with them not only their usual business apparatuses, but also ideologies and organizational protocols which are meant to stir up fringe groups within those “silently invaded” countries. In short, I invite you into my home, and once in, you start playing my family one against another in effort to destroy its unity. SO while me and my gay brother fight all the time, but remain brothers, you come in and stir up my gay brother, telling him “how bad he has it” and “how suppressed he is” and so on.
Now part of the blame for this does fall on the stupidity of my brother. first, for putting the family second – as for whatever else that goes on, we are still brothers and should stand together despite our differences, differences we managed to deal with, somehow, for centuries without outside help – and second, for falling for what he thinks is greener grass on the other side.
Another part of the blame falls on the head of the family – the governing body of the household – for allowing in these divisive and manipulative sorts in the first place, for not doing their homework on the what these “diplomats” and “business dealers” really have up their sleeves.
More often than not, the familial head was coerced into letting them in, by monetary gifts, or pressure from without to “be one of us”. Usually, as in Qaddafi’s case, lesser member of his “family” were paid or otherwise blackmailed into betraying him. So, they will tell you, the USA is “legally” in all the many countries which has American military presence. In actuality, most of the countries are against such “passive occupation,” but the decision-makers – the elders – rarely consult and never need the opinion of the family members.
Qaddafi might not be a Saint, but he is no monster, despite what the “international” (read: ZIONIST) press wants you to believe. He is loved by far more of his citizens than he is hated, not unlike Barrack Obama, or perhaps Tony Blair. He is branded as a “bad man” because he will not play ball with America and England, in short, he doesn’t want to to be bullied and stands his ground, as does Ahmadinejad better than anyone today.
The question is one of sovereignty. If I ruled a nation, and I was told by another nation I MUST do this or that, I have to tell you, I would go the way of Qaddafi and Ahmadinejad. Whatever problems we have as a family, we are FAMILY and we must take care of them on our own, to hell with what comes of it in the end, it is OUR problem. To go outside is to betray the family.
Similarly, if I – neither a Muslim or a radical or any member of any box you decide to place me in – come to the decision that developing nuclear technology for energy and food production, and yes weapons to keep you bullying dogs away from my people, my family…it is none of your business nor within the scope of you jurisdiction to try to prevent me from doing otherwise. In short, go F__ YOURSELF. That so many do succumb to the bullying is not a mystery: too many leaders, too many heads of families, are too weak or short-sighted, incompetent bootlicks who care only for their immediate luxuries and a chance for power.
The African Union has stated that Libya’s Government and the rebels in Benghazi have undertaken to start a National Dialogue.
There are many People who want a Ceasefire in Libya, which will lead to Negotiations that will bring Peace and Security to all of Libya.
I know that the African Union has Good and Honest Intentions in this Regard, and I will just say that there could be People wondering if the proposals made by the African Union ad-hoc committee; while it sounds nice, perhaps it is an Anglo-French proposal that is designed to fail.
If there are any Anglo-French aspects that were Cleverly and Secretly Slipped in by Puppets of the French African Colonies and Puppets of the English African Colonies, then perhaps the African Union ad-hoc committee proposals need to be fine tuned, given the benefit experience in the NATO induced conflict in Kosovo.
History teaches us that while the NATO Dictated Martti Ahtisaari Plan for Kosovo did contain good elements, it was done only for appearances, and it did fail, because was designed to fail, because it was a NATO trick.
The Kosovo Negotiations were giving artificial timelines to achieve a negotiated settlement.
The Albanians of Kosovo were promised independence by America, and so they did not have to negotiate in good faith, but they only had to run the clock, and then say that a settlement was not able to be reached, and then they Unilaterally declared independence, because that is what they wanted in the first place.
The lessons People can learn from the NATO negotiations was that it had artificial timelines, and perhaps the Libyan Negotiation should not have timelines.
Another feature of the NATO Dictated Martti Ahtisaari Plan for Kosovo was that proposal was already decided by NATO, and Serbia was just expected to follow it.
The NATO Nazi Puppet, Martti Ahtisaari, was not an impartial Mediator, but he was given orders by NATO or America, because NATO spelt backwards is USA.
I would suggest that the African Union Mediators make no suggestions that are Specific, but rather their suggestions are Generic, or Specifically Generic.
The first Generic thing that needs to be agreed upon is that there is a Ceasefire, and the suggestions that the African Union, made sound appropriate, even if they were Secretly Slipped in by Puppets of the French African Colonies and the English African Colonies on the African Continent.
The African Media says that Both Parties in the conflict have committed themselves to immediately start the Negotiations in accordance with paragraph 2 of the United Nations Security Council Resolution 1973.
Since Both Parties have stated this, then it is up to Both Parties to Negotiate a Roadmap that will enable the suspension of hostilities, a Comprehensive Ceasefire, National Reconciliation, and arrangements related to the Good Government of Libya.
Governments of the African Union ad-hoc committee said that the American led NATO should stop its Unjustified and Illegal Terrorist Attack on Libya, so that the Ceasefire to Protect Civilians can begin.
Furthermore, Both Parties in the conflict have committed themselves to start an inclusive dialogue process, and any interference by Foreign War Mongers is only Designed to delay the Protection of Civilians, and to delay National Dialogue and National Reconciliation.
The African Union committee said in its proposals: “Without prejudice to the outcome of the dialogue, the ceasefire shall, among others, entail the following:
Lifting of the siege imposed on cities and cantonment of all troops, militias and armed elements from all parties;
End to all attacks against, and abuses of civilians, including Libyans who were forced to flee their country;
Release of all prisoners and other individuals detained in relation with the current hostilities;
And, the facilitation of unrestricted and unhindered access to the civilian population by all international humanitarian agencies and workers.”
The arms embargo, as provided for in the relevant provisions of the United Nations Security Council Resolution 1970 shall remain in place on the entire Libyan territory, until the completion of the Negotiations.
Relating to the imposition of the no-fly zone as provided for in the United Nations Security Council Resolution 1973 will be lifted by the United Nations Security Council.
It may be Advisable for a least a year to have Eastern Libya as a Highly Autonomous Province of Libya, using the China and Taiwan Model with possible elements of the China and Hong Kong Model, until a series of National Referendums can be held on Libya’s Future Constitution.
The Fact that Eastern Libya wants Democracy; then they might consider having the British Westminster Parliamentary System with individual Constituencies that have very close to equal numbers of Voters in each Electorate.
They do not need any Constitution, just the British have the Sovereignty of Parliament with Parliamentary terms to be no longer than 3 years.
It is Highly Undemocratic with wanting any Libyan Citizen to leave their Country, because no Democratic Country does that.
If the Libyan Guide is to face Trial, then it should be in Libya with all an Uncensored International Media, because that is the Only Way he could receive a Fair Trial.
It is Highly Undemocratic to say who can and who cannot stand for Election to Public Service.
Any sharing of Libya’s Natural resources will be in accordance with the Principles of Genuine Fairness, True Justice, and Proper Equity.
The African Union committee proposed that the international community should facilitate the lifting of sanctions imposed on Libya, in particular the unfreezing of the Libyan assets abroad, because Economic Sanctions are Genocide, and a War Crime, and they are Crimes against Humanity.
The African Union committee also said measures, including sanctions should be taken against those who will undermine the Negotiations and Settlement Process.
These are some of the African Union’s proposals, and I have added some of my own opinions in this comment.