Telegraph View: UN Security Council Resolution 1973 authorised "all necessary measures", a phrase allowing broad interpretation, to stop Col Gaddafi killing civilians.
A missile which the Libyan government said was from a coalition air strike in the house of Saif Al-Arab Gaddafi in Tripoli Photo: REUTERS
By Telegraph View 8:17AM BST 02 May 2011
41 Comments
The reported deaths in a Nato air strike of a son of Muammar Gaddafi and three of his grandchildren has moved the battle for control of Libya on to a new plane. Mobs have sacked the British and Italian embassies in Tripoli, Britain has expelled Libya's ambassador in London, and Russian criticism of the coalition has intensified. Yet this should not come as a surprise. UN Security Council Resolution 1973 authorised "all necessary measures", a phrase allowing broad interpretation, to stop Col Gaddafi killing civilians.
From obvious targets such as tanks on the road to Benghazi, Nato has moved on to strike what it calls "command and control" centres: that is, any point from which government action against the rebels is being prosecuted. As the chief prosecutors are Col Gaddafi and his immediate entourage, they have become legitimate targets, whatever the coalition may say about targeting structures and not individuals.
The same ambivalence is apparent in Western attitudes towards Syria, where the number of protesters killed is approaching 600. Failure to take action is based on the hope that the upheavals will at last persuade President Bashar al-Assad to reform. But he has been in power for over a decade and, while offering the demonstrators promises of change, has turned his tanks and snipers against them. Even if he wished to liberalise now, it is too late. He has lost the confidence of his people, for whom the pious hopes of Western politicians must seem an insult.
The revolt which has spread from Tunisia across the Arab world will continue to present Nato members with difficult choices. In the meantime, plainer speaking about the reality of what is happening, whether in Libya or Syria, would be welcome.
__________
41 comments Add a comment
Comment with a Telegraph account
25 of 41 comments
Herb Spice
Yesterday 07:53 PMRecommended by
2 peopleNext target should be the genocidal Gaddafi and his family of Libya.
The world will be an even better place without the Gaddafi family.
telegraph1
Yesterday 08:08 PMRecommended by
2 peopleAnother wild west cowboy seeks justice. Another sheriff up for re-election. Report Recommend
dicax_maximus
Yesterday 09:39 PM@telegraph1 - Another "armchair" peacenik, with no concept of reality, sanity or humanity.....
Here's an idea for you, why don't you go and enlist in Gaddafi's army ???? Report Recommend
anthony aspals
Yesterday 06:52 PMRecommended by
1 person UNSCR 1973 authorised, on quite weak evidence, intervention for humanitarian, and quite specific, purposes and the sovereign territory of a member state to be violated legitimately. The UNSCR provided the basis in law for taking this major step. Yet there were and are worse offenders in terms of oppression than Gaddafi, but he is the one they decided to get rid of - without any meaningful contribution from the Arab League, who are leaving the dirty work to the west.
Gaddafi's stubbornness has goaded the coalition into seriously breaching the UN mandate - that is the sad truth, no matter how much they protest otherwise. The situation in Libya is now very unstable and if anything this has been exacerbated by NATO/coalition action in its attacks on Tripoli and, in particular, Gaddafi's compound and residential area.
It may be correct that attacks on command and control centres are lawful under the resolution, but it is another matter whether this particular target should have been hit when the reality is that local commanders on the ground are making the tactical decisions and deciding on the weapons to be employed, not Gaddafi. Consequently, it looks very much like an attempted assassination - which although lawful in war is actually illegal under the terms of the UNSCR. There is no authority for it.
The phrase "all necessary measures" does not include the murder of a head of state and his family. That phrase was used in the context of protection of civilians under attack (§4) and a no-fly zone (§8) The recent NATO killings of Gaddafi's son and grandchildren may very well harden attitudes. They were killed by NATO after Libya had offered peace talks. Whatever the reality, it makes it look like NATO is not interested in peace and that its campaign is being driven by the rebels and not by the UN mandate. Certainly, the Russians and Chinese are not of the view that "all necessary measures" permits killing Gaddafi. Perhaps had they thought that would be the way the phrase would be interpreted they would have exercised the veto!
As Jackie Ashley wrote in yesterday's Guardian, "In war, international law is all we have. If we cast it aside, there'll be nothing left but might-is-right, arms, oil and profits." She then adds, "I wonder whether Barack Obama's reluctance to get too involved partly reflects the US intelligence information about Islamist activity in the very same areas of eastern Libya now in rebel hands."
The UK and her allies have leapt in with both feet on the side of the rebels, though we have no real idea who they really are or what sort of a government will be viable or achievable in the aftermath of any defeat for Colonel Gaddafi and, importantly, whether we are unwittingly paving the way for fundamentalism. And, just as with Iraq, there is no post-conflict plan.
Report Recommend
mooncat
Yesterday 09:06 PMRecommended by
1 person "all necessary measures" does not include the murder of a head of state and his family'
Well, I have to disagree. That phrase would include the use of nuclear weapons if whoever is responsible for making the decisions decided that it was a necessary measure.
Frankly I couldn't care less what members of his family get killed as collateral damage - the more the merrier. If you don't want to get you or your family killed, just comply with the UN and surrender.
Might is right has stood us well for thousands of years and at the end of the day we will end up back there again - just as soon as owning oil, water and mineral resources becomes the only game in town. The trick is to make sure you are on the right side. Report Recommend
reason
Yesterday 06:30 PMRecommended by
5 peopleWhat has been plain from the start of this charade is finally out. The protection of civilians has nothing to do with the actions being taken by NATO. It is all about removing or should I say killing Gadaffi. Three innocent children have been killed, have any regrets been fothcoming from Cameron, Obama or Sarkozy? no they have not. Apparently the protection of civilians is secondary to their objective. These men have callously murdered children in their pursuit of Gadaffi. They are war criminals and should be held to account. They protect 'civilians' weilding guns and driving tanks but think nothing of killing innocent children.
NATO's lack of action with regard to Syria etc betrays their 'hidden' agenda.
I am english but ashamed to be a citizen of a country that murders children. Report Recommend
mooncat
Yesterday 09:07 PMRecommended by
1 person Grow up.
Report Recommend
gussiefinknottle
Yesterday 06:18 PMRecommended by
2 peopleWe have been at war with Gaddafi since the PC Yvonne Fletcher outrage. Some of our politicians have lost sight of this fact along the way, but we have not been fooled. His support for the IRA and instigation of the Lockerbie bombing came in the meantime - he is a mad dog and should have been put down long ago. The sooner it happens the better, and I don't care what methods or excuses we use to bring it about. Report Recommend
mooncat
Yesterday 09:20 PMRecommended by
1 person Absolutely. Report Recommend
Clothcap
Yesterday 05:26 PMRecommended by
3 peopleThe coalition with aid of NATO is blatantly supporting a stage managed insurgency.
Here is how the insurgents re-educate children.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...
When you visit the link consider it is evidence of war crime. Report Recommend
mrangry
Yesterday 04:50 PMRecommended by
4 peopleSo much for the “no fly zone” I would imagine that the lack of comments on this article is an indication of how many of us might not agree that murdering Gaddafis grandchildren is the right thing to do. Has a war crime been commited by Nato or is UN Security Council Resolution 1973 merely a licence to kill anyone anywhere and for any reason?
Perhaps one day in the future there will be an uprising in Britain with demands for political change and an end to the draconian EU rule which has been forced upon us without our consent. Would the British government of the day and the EU relinquish their authority over us and stand down to allow the people to form a new government system or will they put armed troops on the street to maintain their authority and suppress any rebellion, and who’s side will the UN be on?
As for the DT and legitimate target, just who were the legitimate targets during the troubles in Northern Ireland, British troops or the Republican rebels?
Report Recommend
ryeatley
Yesterday 08:24 PMRecommended by
2 people"an uprising in Britain with demands for political change and an end to the draconian EU rule"
The uprising is here, but you need to help it. Join and vote for the UKIP (who, incidentally, are also against this precipitate and stupid action in Libya - Farage said "This military intervention in Libya is ill-thought out, unprepared and unjustified"). Report Recommend
Odds50
Yesterday 04:11 PMRecommended by
6 peopleIt is interesting how NATO finds itself legitimate to determine who in Libya are “Libyan people” and therefore deserve to live and who are “non-people”, and therefore should be killed. Gadhafi, his family and his loyalists are labelled as "non-people" and are being mercilessly targeted, and those opposing Gadhafi are called “Libyan people” and are being helped. The greatest irony in this division is that Gadhafi’s loyalists are true Libyan people: Libyan ordinary population living permanently in Libya. On the other hand, Gadhafi’s opposition gathered in Benghazi are the mixture of: some of Gadhafi’s previous officials, obviously in power struggle with Gadhafi; handful of disgruntled citizens; some monarchists living abroad and cooperating with their CIA and NATO friends; and obviously some paid fighters. This group however, NATO decided, are “Libyan people “and are to represent future Libya.
Report Recommend
reddevilalpha
Yesterday 12:48 PMRecommended by
9 peopleWell there you have it, this "newspaper" supports terrorism, the "right sort" of terrorism of course.
I suppose we knew that all along the way it fawns after israel no matter what it does but it is as well to have these things out in the open for all to see.
Can the Telegraph really complain if Obama is targetted, or Mr Cameron, or any of the queen's grandchildren? Obviously not but lack of hypocrisy was never the strong card of the British newspaper industry.
Report Recommend
telegraph1
Yesterday 02:38 PMRecommended by
5 peopleThe way in which the politicians leading this bloody war are stretching the original resolution is disgusting.
The original intent was for a "No Fly Zone" and to stop the killing of "civilians"
The stretching will, allow in the future, any attack on anyone who is considered to be part of the "command and control" apparatus of a particular country, including it seems their family members. As the Queen is the head of the UK armed forces she and her family are legitimate targets by Cameron's new world order.
This change of the UK's attitude to waging war should be tested in our parliament.
Will any of our career MPs put their head above the parapet tomorrow? Report Recommend
Clothcap
Yesterday 05:47 PMRecommended by
4 peopletelegraph1
The original intent was for a "No Fly Zone" and to stop the killing of "civilians"
No it wasn't. That was the stated intent. Boots were on the ground before the blitz, helping the insurgents. The purpose of 1973 was to legalise support for the Libyan IRA equivalent.
The purpose of the support was to "get Gaddafi" and install a puppet gov't - i.e. a gov't more favourable to cartel oil and cartel central bank interests, the latter particularly to avoid the establishment of an African central bank that wasn't cartel owned, and for support of Africom and other strategic interests such as the development of a cold war between the US and China. Then there is the control of the aquifer that waters 4 countries.
Islamification is a low price to pay for the interested parties. If it had been about civilians there would have been a UN investigation before the blitz, as soon as a ceasefire was offerred there would have been bums around a table but regime change has been the objective since before 1973. By any means.
In my opinion of course.
Absolutely no evidence, unless you open your eyes.
"...put their head above the parapet tomorrow? "
A few may be allowed in the interests of continuing the illusion of democracy. If Cameron pulls out he is admitting
1) all the allegations have weight
2) NATO really can't tie its bootlaces without Pentagon support. Report Recommend
shaan16
Yesterday 11:59 AMRecommended by
19 peopleSo according to you irrespective of the fact that the bombing killed 3 children and an apolitical man, the targeting of Gaddafi is right. You cite the UN resolution for this but you must know even UN resolutions cannot flout the international conventions on conduct of war. If Gaddafi as the head of command of the Libyan army is a legitimate target, then Cameron and Sarkozy who ultimately head the command of their respective militaries are legitimate targets for the Libyans too because these countries are at war against Libya. Are you ready to accept it? Report Recommend
mooncat
Yesterday 09:17 PMRecommended by
2 peopleAnyone can flout a convention.
International law is an imaginary construct that cannot be enforced. If the USA was found to be in contravention of such a law, just what could anyone do about that? The real politik answer is simply nothing whatsoever.
Much as the Guardianistas who seem to be out in force here today might not like it, might continues to be right as it has been since the days of the cavemen and it will continue to be so.
I have no doubt Gadaffi has killed way more than 3 children - and that he did it deliberately not as collateral damage. The sooner he is dead (something the Libyans alas seem to have been unable to achieve themselves) the better in the long run.
Then we can move on and delete a few more despots - such as Mugabe. Report Recommend
dicax_maximus
Yesterday 09:27 PM@mooncat - Well said, concur 100%
PS. Memo to DT editors. Sirs, any chance of a login filter that can remove anyone who has EVER logged into the Guardians website ?? Report Recommend
telegraph1
Yesterday 02:40 PMRecommended by
6 peopleWhen did the UK and all the other members of the "contact" group declare war on Libya. The US certainly hasn't, the UK parliament has not voted for war.
This is a "humanitarian" adventure nothing else or have we been misinformed by our Government, the media etc.... Report Recommend
reddevilalpha
Yesterday 12:55 PMRecommended by
2 peopleI think you will find that every member of the British armed forces swears allegiance not to the British people, not to Great Britain, but to one person and one alone, ..... the Queen. There is your legitimate British target ...... and there alone should the buck stop. Do you honestly believe that British pilots would be bombing there if she simply said stop? Report Recommend
hospitaller
Yesterday 11:15 AMRecommended by
16 peopleBritain does not have the death penalty, but feels free to impose it on the rest of the world, whenever and wherever it likes. Don't complain if other people think and act the same way. Once you take this cork out of the bottle, you have a lot of trouble putting it back. Report Recommend
mooncat
Yesterday 09:18 PMRecommended by
1 person That cork has never been IN the bottle. Report Recommend
ryeatley
Yesterday 10:47 AMRecommended by
10 people"Mobs have sacked the British and Italian embassies in Tripoli"?
What surprises me is that we, and the Italians, still have (or had?) embassies in Tripoli. Bearing in mind that we've been acting as mercenaries for "the rebels", and that Tripoli is where we've just murdered various people, including children, I am not in the least surprised that the locals are uppity.
Perhaps in the case of Syria, we should simply direct a unnanounced, heavy and targeted bombardment upon some public function that President Bashar al-Assad is attending, to do for him, too.
Whyever not? Report Recommend
reddevilalpha
Yesterday 12:57 PMRecommended by
4 peopleSyria doesn't have any oil. Report Recommend PreviousPage
1 2 Next Social Media Reactions
No comments:
Post a Comment