by Curtis Doebbler
THE FACTS: Unlike the non-violent demonstrations in Egypt, Tunisia,
Bahrain, Yemen, Saudi Arabia and elsewhere in the Arab world, the
demonstrations that began in Libya on 17 February had deteriorated into a
civil war within days. Both sides had tanks, fighter jets, anti- aircraft
weapons, and heavy artillery. The government's forces consisted of mainly
trained military, while the armed opposition consisted of both defecting
soldiers and numerous civilians who had taken up arms.
Indications of the level of force each side has at its disposal were shown
by claims on Saturday, 19 March, that both a Libyan government fighter and a
fighter jet flown by the opposition had been shot down near Benghazi. As the
civil war increased in intensity, the international community contemplated
action in support of the armed opposition. On 17 March, the UN Security
Council adopted Resolution 1973. And within 42 hours an attack on the troops
of the Libyan government, aimed, according to the British Defence Minster
William Hague, at killing the Libyan leader, had begun.
At around 12:00 noon local time in Washington, DC, on Saturday, 19 March,
French fighters launched attacks against targets described as tanks and air
defence systems. A few hours later, US battleships began firing cruise
missiles at Libyan targets.
. . . The Libyan government did not have a representative present at the
meeting after its nominated ambassador, former President of the General
Assembly Ali Abdel-Salam Treki was denied admission to the United States.
Nevertheless, although officially relieved of his duties more than a week
ago for defecting to the opposition, former deputy permanent representative
Ibrahim Dabbashi was on hand at the Security Council media stakeout
Wednesday to make a statement and take questions.
. . . Paragraph 8 is unusual in that is appears to authorise the use of force
under Chapter VII without applying any of the safeguards for the use force
that are stated in Article 41. There is no determination made that measures
not involving the use of force had failed. In fact, Resolution 1973 was
adopted after the UN Security Council, the UN Human Rights Council and the
African Union had decided to send missions to contribute to a peaceful
solution, but before any of these missions could visit Libya. Moreover,
Resolution 1973 was adopted after an offer by the Libyan leader to step down
and leave the country with his family had been rejected by the armed
opposition without room for negotiation.
. . . Perhaps the most fundamental principle of international law is that no state
shall use force against another state. This principle is expressly stated in
Article 2, paragraph 4, of the UN Charter. . . .
FULL TEXT
Curtis Doebbler is a prominent US international human rights lawyer.
[At one and the same time:
- the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;
- all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;
- there must be serious prospects of success;
- the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the
evil to be eliminated. The power of modern means of destruction weighs very
heavily in evaluating this condition.--"Just War
Doctrine," catholic.com, March 8, 2011
[St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas are our main sources for understanding
classical just war theory. There are three main components to this theory,
all of which must be met for any war to be just. First, a war must be
conducted by an agent that has the authority to declare war. It is not right
for private individuals or lower authorities to wage war since they can
legitimately appeal to a higher authority. Secondly, there must be a just
cause. As you might expect self defense is a just cause, but it is not the
only one. Augustine and Aquinas both seem to argue that a war fought to end
a moral wrong being perpetrated by a nation or its citizens is also just.
Aquinas makes the broad statement under this second principle, that "a just
cause is required, namely that those who are attacked, should be attacked
because they deserve it on account of some fault". Finally, the motive for
going to war must be just. In other words, no matter what the cause - even
if attacking the most evil of regimes - there can be no motives ulterior to
attacking that evil.--Chris Walker, "Iraq
and Just War: How Christians should consider the morality of war in
Iraq," The Evangel Society, October 8, 2004]
Ola Galal, Mariam Fam and Alaa Shahine , "Libya War Prompts Chavez, Arab
Mediation Offer Amid Attacks," The Wisdom Fund, March 3, 2011
Enver Masud, "Libya Oil Grab Disguised As
Humanitarian Assistance," The Wisdom Fund, March 8, 2011
PETITION: "Letter
to President Obama about Libya," Center for the Study of Islam &
Democracy, March 14, 2011
Enver Masud, "Revealed: America's Hidden Hand
Behind The UN Resolution For A No-fly Zone Over Libya," The Wisdom
Fund, March 19, 2011
Enver Masud, "Reply to CSID's Open
Letter Opposing the No-fly Zone," The Wisdom Fund, March 22, 2011
[It is only when peaceful means have been tried and proved inadequate
that the Security Council can authorize action under Chapter VII of the
Charter.--Marjorie Cohn, "Another Illegal
Campaign of Aggression," counterpunch.org, March 22, 2011]
["The president does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally
authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an
actual or imminent threat to the nation."
So said constitutional scholar and Senator Barack Obama in December 2007 -
the same man who, this weekend, ordered U.S. air and missile strikes on
Libya without any authorization from Congress.--Patrick J. Buchanan, "A
Foolish and Unconstitutional War," buchanan.org, March 23, 2011
Dennis J. Kucinich, "Reply to President
Obama's letter regarding the commitment of U.S. Armed Forces to
Libya," Congress of the United States, March 24, 2011
George F. Will, "Scrubbing the blemishes of regime changes,"
stardem.com, March 24, 2011
"Head of African Union: UN blocked
mediation efforts in Libya," Jeune Afrique, March 24, 2011
Pepe Escobar, "Libya Endgame: Divide, Rule And
Get The Oil," Asia Times, March 25, 2011
Peter Dale Scott, "Who
are the Libyan Freedom Fighters and Their Patrons?," Global
Research, March 25, 2011
Michael Snyder, "Libyan Rebels
Have Already Established A New Central Bank Of Libya," businessinsider.com,
March 25, 2011
Chris Adams, "New rebel leader spent much of past 20 years in suburban
Virginia," McClatchy Newspapers, March 26, 2011
"Testimony
of Russia Doctors in Libya: The Destruction of a Country. The Bombing of
Civilian Targets," Global Research, March 28, 2011
Paul Craig Smith, "Obama Raises American Hypocrisy To A
Higher Level," opednews.com, March 28, 2011
Dorian Jones, "Turkey Steps Up to Mediate in
Libya Crisis," voanews.com, March 28, 2011
Chris McGreal, "Libya's rebel government in waiting - and in hiding,"
Guardian, March 29, 2011
Andrew Levine, "On Libya, Who Does
Obama Think He is Fooling?," counterpunch.org, March 29, 2011
Keith Weir and Andrew Quinn, "World
powers raise pressure on Gaddafi to go," Reuters, March 29, 2011
[ . . . the French and the United States government came in and attempted
to, I think, transform the Arab spring to their advantage.
. . . the United States has already committed ground forces. These may not
be boots on the ground, but they're the AC-130 aircraft and the A-10
aircraft, which are both low-flying ground troop support aircrafts. These
are not to create a no-fly zone; these are to attack ground troops.--"A Debate on U.S. Military
Intervention in Libya: Juan Cole v. Vijay Prashad,"
democracynow.org, March 29, 2011]
[In addition to the C.I.A. presence, composed of an unknown number of
Americans who had worked at the spy agency's station in Tripoli and others
who arrived more recently, current and former British officials said that
dozens of British special forces and MI6 intelligence officers are working
inside Libya. The British operatives have been directing airstrikes from
British jets and gathering intelligence about the whereabouts of Libyan
government tank columns, artillery pieces and missile
installationsMark--Mazzetti and Eric Schmitt, "CIA
Agents in Libya Aid Airstrikes and Meet Rebels," nytimes.com,
March 30, 2011]
Enver Masud, "LIBYA TALKING POINTS,"
The Wisdom Fund, April 1, 2011
[In his March 26 radio address, Obama said the United States acted
because Gadhafi threatened "a bloodbath."
. . . these are outlandish scenarios that go beyond any reasonable
interpretation of Gadhafi's words. He said, "We will have no mercy on them"
- but by "them," he plainly was referring to armed rebels ("traitors") who
stand and fight, not all the city's inhabitants.
"We have left the way open to them," he said. "Escape. Let those who escape
go forever." He pledged that "whoever hands over his weapons, stays at home
without any weapons, whatever he did previously, he will be pardoned,
protected."--Steve Chapman, "Did Obama avert a bloodbath in
Libya?," Chicago Tribune, April 3, 2011]
[As neither the United States, nor its citizens, nor any U.S. ally
had been attacked or imperiled, Webb asked, what was the justification for
the U.S. attack on Libya, whose government, Gadhafi's government, the State
Department still recognizes as the legitimate government of Libya?
"To protect lives," was Ham's response.
Yet, as last week brought news of the slaughter of 1,000 civilians by
gunfire and machete by troops loyal to Alassane Ouattara, the man we
recognize as the legitimate president of the Ivory Coast, a question arises:
Why was a real massacre in West Africa less a casus belli for us than an
imagined massacre in North Africa?--Patrick J. Buchanan, "Was Obama Stampeded Into War?," antiwar.com, April
13, 2011]
[Human Rights Watch has released data on Misurata, the next-biggest city in
Libya and scene of protracted fighting, revealing that Moammar Khadafy is
not deliberately massacring civilians but rather narrowly targeting the
armed rebels who fight against his government.--Alan J. Kuperman, "False pretense for war in
Libya?," boston.com, April 13, 2011]
["We see a clear commitment on the part of NATO and the U.S. for regime
change - exactly what the U.N. resolution was not designed to do."--"Phyllis Bennis: U.K. Sends Troops
Into Libya as International Coalition Expands Mission to Include Regime
Change," democracynow.org, April 19, 2011]
Toby Harnden, Washington and Robert Winnett, "Libya: western leaders call for Nato to target Gaddafi,"
boston.com, April 24, 2011
[Last March 19, President Obama initiated war against Libya without
congressional authorization as mandated by Article I, section 8, clause 11
of the Constitution ("the War Clause"). Moreover, the president proclaimed
that the White House is empowered to unilaterally commence war not only to
play Good Samaritan to the Milky Way, but also to advance "regional
stability" or the "credibility" of the United Nations Security Council. That
unprecedented principle would justify endless presidential wars anywhere,
including South Ossetia, Chechnya, Tibet, Zimbabwe, North Korea, Iran,
Syria, Saudi Arabia, Kashmir, the South China Sea, etc. Unless repudiated by
the political leadership of the United States, the principle will lie around
like a loaded weapon ready for invocation by some future self-deified
Caligula to justify martial law.--Bruce Fein, "Libya: western leaders call for Nato to target
Gaddafi," huffingtonpost.com, April 25, 2011]
[That NATO forces may have killed four members of Gadhafi's family who had
no ties to the government or military will likely renew questions about the
legality and legitimacy of the international effort here, sanctioned by a
United Nations resolution to protect civilians from a Gadhafi attack.
Throughout the month-long air campaign, NATO members who abstained from the
resolution vote have said they were concerned that resolution was instead a
subversive attempt by the U.S. and Europe to topple the regime. China called
the strikes a violation of international law; Russia, India and Turkey have
also condemned various NATO strikes here.--Nancy A. Youssef and Shashank
Bengali, "Was Gadhafi the real target of strike that killed his
son?," mcclatchydc.com, April 30, 2011]
Daniel Howden, "Gaddafi's hidden billions may be used to fund the fighters of the
resistance," Independent, May 6, 2011
[The U.S. intervention in Libya's civil war, intervention that began with a
surplus of confusion about capabilities and a shortage of candor about
objectives, is now taking a toll on the rule of law. In a bipartisan cascade
of hypocrisies, a liberal president, with the collaborative silence of most
congressional conservatives, is traducing the War Powers Resolution.--George
F. Will, "Is Obama above the law,"
washingtonpost.com, May 27, 2011]