Ghaddafi Might Not Leave
IRD: Dr. Jamshid Momtaz, professor and former head of the UN Legal Committee, was the third speaker at the “Popular Uprisings in the Arab World, Origins and Implications” meeting.
He said in the meeting, ” in terms of international law, I believe that there is a major difference between the popular uprisings in Libya and other countries. The Security Council twice took a stand against Libya but in other cases, the UN Secretary General and the High Commission for Human Rights only emphasized abiding by human rights standards. I think that the Security Council was doubtful in holding a meeting and taking a firm position with regard to Libya’s case, and it seems like the Human Rights Council was more decisive on it. On February 25th 2011, the Human Rights Council held an extraordinary session and came up with two important decisions. In this session, the HRC decided to suspend Libya from its membership due to the situation in that country, and ordered a fact-finding council to investigate the widespread violation of human rights in Libya. The Secretary General also urged Libyan officials to protect the rights of their people. On February 26th the Security Council held its first meeting on Libya. Initially this meeting was supposed to focus on maintaining peace and security in Africa, while the Secretary General, as the first speaker, emphasized legal standards including the responsibility of protecting citizens and human rights in an attempt to gain the support of other countries in issuing the first resolution against Libya. The second resolution was passed on March 17th. “
The university professor continued his talk, referring to the legal principals of section 7 of the UN charter with regard to Libya, and said, “before I get to the details of these two resolutions, I have to analyze the existing legal principles for resorting to section 7 of the UN charter, and it has to be clear why the Security Council passed this resolution based on section 7”. Interestingly, the Security Council passed the first resolution based on section 7 without being able to prove any violation of human rights; but was able to relate the situation in Libya to a threat against peace. The Secretary General emphasized the subject brought up by the High Commission of Human Rights, and concluded that since Libya is not protecting its people, it is therefore time for the international community to take action. The Secretary General said that if any crime is committed against the people of a country, it is the responsibility of their respective governments to support the victims, but if the respective government does not want to, or cannot provide that support, it is the task of the international community to take action and even exercise force if necessary.
Dr. Jamshid Momtaz also said that the Security Council considered the possibility that the conduct of the Libyan government was a crime against humanity, even in its first resolution. That is why it referred the Libyan case to the Intentional Court. In 2009, the Secretary General had issued an order with regard to the responsibility of protecting citizens, which provided the basis for the Security Council to investigate widespread violations of human rights. The second resolution explicitly defined the situation in Libya as a violation of human rights, and officially recognized engaging in armed conflict in that country.
He continued to state that the interesting fact that was referred to in the resolution was the subject of freedom of speech and the press. This is the first time that the UN Security Council points to the freedom of speech so explicitly, and China and Russia, who have always been sensitive to this issue, voted for the resolution. The first resolution imposes sanctions on Libya and limits the activities of Libyan officials who were responsible for these tragedies. In paragraphs 9 and 11 of the resolution member countries are asked to investigate ships and airplanes heading to Libya to ensure that no weapons reaches there. Paragraph 13 also allows countries to inspect ships on the open sea as well. To punish Libyan authorities, their accounts and personal belongings (and the assets of companies that assisted in the suppression of the Libyan people) were to be frozen.
Dr. Momtaz then referred to a section of the resolution that refers to using military force in Libya and said, “another issue which arises with regard to Libya is the giving of license by the Security Council to use force in order to prevent the actions of Libyan officials, on which China, Russia, Germany, India and Brazil abstained. However, their abstaining did not undermine the legitimacy of the resolution, and it was issued. The first point of section 4 of resolution 1973 allows countries that did not announce their readiness to the Secretary General to use any necessary device of force to prevent this tragedy. Paragraph 6 also emphasizes a no-fly zone. This paragraph creates problems for countries in interpreting the term “necessary device.” Paragraph 5 clearly states that countries that have the possibility of using force are strictly forbidden from deploying their troops on Libyan soil, and therefore it did not issue any license for the occupation of Libya. However, this was the demand of all countries- even the US- to not have any occupation in Libya.
He continued to say, “The second question which is proposed is the no-fly zone, and according to paragraph 6, no Libyan airpcraft is allowed to fly over Libya and countries are permitted to use force in the event they do. Nevertheless, the question is whether member countries are allowed to target military bases or aircraft sitting on the ground, or to destroy Libyan heavy weapons. As you know, this is what NATO has been dong in the past few weeks, and there’s no response to this question. I thought perhaps it would good to talk about Mr. Petraeus Ghali, since we mentioned democracy. He drew the triangle of security, democracy and peace at the end of his cold war statement. The UN Secretary General provided a report on democracy without even having any instructions from UN agencies. This interesting document repeatedly stresses democracy and it says that without democracy, there will be no security or sustainable development in the international community. “
Dr. Momtaz concluded by saying, “the conclusion which I want to draw from my talk is that I doubt that Ghaddafi will leave Libya. The visit of four African presidents- who were close friends of Ghaddafi- is an important issue; however, it is unlikely that the solution to the conflict that these leaders have proposed will be accepted by the rebels. NATO may also lose its fervor in continuing the conflict in Libya, and it is possible that the same situation as that of Saddam after the Kuwait war will happen to Ghaddafi, and interested parties will abandon the goal of his overthrow. In other words, a cease-fire could take effect between the rebels and Ghaddafi so that each side would stay in their own areas, providing an opportunity for Ghaddafi to extricate himself from this predicament in which he is trapped.