[News] NATOS Craven Coverup of Its Libyan Bombing
Anti-Imperialist News
news at freedomarchives.org
Thu Mar 15 12:40:19 EDT 2012
March 15, 2012
http://www.counterpunch.org/2012/03/15/natos-craven-coverup-of-it-libyan-bombing/
Investigations Around Libya
NATOS Craven Coverup of Its Libyan Bombing
by VIJAY PRASHAD
Ten days into the uprising in Benghazi, Libya,
the United Nations Human Rights Council
established the International Commission of
Inquiry on Libya. The purpose of the Commission
was to investigate all alleged violations of
international human rights law in Libya. The
broad agenda was to establish the facts of the
violations and crimes and to take such actions as
to hold the identified perpetrators accountable.
On June 15, the Commission presented its first
report to the Council. This report was
provisional, since the conflict was still ongoing
and access to the country was minimal. The June
report was no more conclusive than the work of
the human rights non-governmental organizations
(such as Amnesty International and Human Rights
Watch). In some instances, the work of
investigators for these NGOs (such as Donatella
Rovera of Amnesty) was of higher quality than that of the Commission.
Due to the uncompleted war and then the unsettled
security state in the country in its aftermath,
the Commission did not return to the field till
October 2011, and did not begin any real
investigation before December 2011. On March 2,
2012, the Commission finally produced a two
hundred-page document that was presented to the
Human Rights Council in Geneva. Little fanfare
greeted this reports publication, and the HRCs
deliberation on it was equally restrained.
Nonetheless, the report is fairly revelatory,
making two important points: first, that all
sides on the ground committed war crimes with no
mention at all of a potential genocide conducted
by the Qaddafi forces; second, that there remains
a distinct lack of clarity regarding potential
NATO war crimes. Not enough can be made of these
two points. They strongly infer that the rush to
a NATO humanitarian intervention might have
been made on exaggerated evidence, and that
NATOs own military intervention might have been
less than humanitarian in its effects.
It is precisely because of a lack of
accountability by NATO that there is hesitancy in
the United Nations Security Council for a strong
resolution on Syria. Because of the Libyan
experience, the Indian Ambassador to the UN
Hardeep Singh Puri told me in February, other
members of the Security Council, such as China
and Russia, will not hesitate in exercising a
veto if a resolution and this is a big if
contains actions under Chapter 7 of the UN
Charter, which permits the use of force and punitive and coercive measures.
Crimes Against Humanity.
The Libyan uprising began on February 15, 2011.
By February 22, the UN Human Rights Chief Navi
Pillay claimed that two hundred and fifty people
had been killed in Libya, although the actual
numbers are difficult to verify. Nonetheless,
Pillay pointed to widespread and systematic
attacks against the civilian population which
may amount to crimes against humanity. Pillay
channeled the Deputy Permanent Representative to
the UN from Libya, Ibrahim Dabbashi, who had
defected to the rebellion and claimed, Qaddafi
had started the genocide against the Libyan
people. Very soon world leaders used the two
concepts interchangeably, genocide and crimes
against humanity. These concepts created a mood
that Qaddafis forces were either already
indiscriminately killing vast numbers of people,
or that they were poised for a massacre of Rwanda proportions.
Courageous work by Amnesty International and
Human Rights Watch last year, then much later the
2012 report from the UN belies this judgment, (as
does my forthcoming book Arab Spring, Libyan
Winter, AK Press), which goes through the
day-by-day record and show two things: that both
sides used excessive violence and that the rebels
seemed to have the upper hand for much of the
conflict, with Qaddafis forces able to recapture
cities, but unable to hold them.
The UN report is much more focused on the
question of crimes committed on the ground. This
is the kind of forensic evidence in the report:
(1) In the military base and detention camp of
Al Qalaa. Witnesses, together with the local
prosecutor, uncovered the bodies of 43 men and
boys, blindfolded and with their hands tied
behind their backs. Qaddafi forces had shot
them. Going over many of these kinds of
incidents, and of indiscriminate firing of heavy
artillery into cities, the UN Report notes that
these amount to a war crime or a crime against humanity.
(2) Over a dozen Qadhafi soldiers were
reportedly shot in the back of the head by thuwar
[rebel fighters] around 22-23 February 2011 in a
village between Al Bayda and Darnah. This is
corroborated by mobile phone footage. After an
exhaustive listing of the many such incidents,
and of the use of heavy artillery against cities
notably Sirte, the UN report suggests the
preponderance of evidence of the war crime of
murder or crimes against humanity.
There is no mention of genocide in the Report,
and none of any organized civilian massacre. This
is significant because UN Resolution 1973, which
authorized the NATO war, was premised on the the
widespread and systematic attacks currently
taking place in the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya
against the civilian population which may
amount to crimes against humanity. There was no
mention in Resolution 1973 of the
disproportionate violence of the thuwar against
the pro-Qaddafi population (already reported by
al-jazeera by February 19), a fact that might
have given pause to the UN as it allowed NATO to
enter the conflict on the rebels behalf. NATOs
partisan bombardment allowed the rebels to seize
the country faster than they might have had in a
more protracted war, but it also allowed them
carte blanche to continue with their own crimes against humanity.
With NATO backing, it was clear that no one was
going to either properly investigate the rebel
behavior, and no-one was going to allow for a
criminal prosecution of those crimes against
humanity. Violence of this kind by ones allies
is never to be investigated as the Allies found
out after World War 2 when there was no
assessment of the criminal firebombing of, for
example, Dresden. No wonder that the UN Report
notes that the Commissioners are deeply
concerned that no independent investigation or
prosecution appear to have been instigated into
killings committed by thuwar. None is likely.
There are now over eight thousand pro-Qaddafi
fighters in Libyan prisons. They have no charges
framed against them. Many have been tortured, and
several have died (including Halah al-Misrati, the Qaddafi era newscaster).
The section of the UN report on the town of
Tawergha is most startling. The thirty thousand
residents of the town were removed by the
Misratan thuwar. The general sentiment among the
Misratan thuwar was that the Tawerghans were
given preferential treatment by the Qaddafi
regime, a claim disputed by the Tawerghans. The
road between Misrata and Tawergha was lined with
slogans such as the brigade for purging slaves,
black skin, indicating the racist cleansing of
the town. The section on Tawergha takes up twenty
pages of the report. It is chilling reading.
Tawerghans told the Commission that during
interrogations they were beaten, had hot wax
poured in their ears and were told to confess to
committing rape in Misrata. The Commission was
told that one man had diesel poured on to his
back which was then set alight; the same man was
held in shackles for 12 days. This goes on and
on. The death count is unclear. The refugees are
badly treated as they go to Benghazi and Tripoli.
To the Commission, the attacks against Tawerghans
during the war constitute a war crime and those
that have taken place since violate
international human rights law and a crime
against humanity. Because of the current
difficulties faced by the Libyan Government, the
Commission concludes, it is unlikely that the
government will be able to bring justice for the
Tawerghans and to undermine the culture of
impunity that characterizes the attacks.
NATOs Crimes.
For the past several months, the Russians have
asked for a proper investigation through the UN
Security Council of the NATO bombardment of
Libya. There is great reluctance to undertake
it, the Indian Ambassador to the UN told me.
When the NATO states in the Security Council
wanted to clamor for war in February-March 2011,
they held discussions about Libya in an open
session. After Resolution 1973 and since the war
ended, the NATO states have only allowed
discussion about Libya in a closed session. When
Navi Pillay came to talk about the UN Report, her
remarks were not for the public.
Indeed, when it became clear to NATO that the UN
Commission wished to investigate NATOs role in
the Libyan war, Brussels balked. On February 15,
2012, NATOs Legal Adviser Peter Olson wrote a
strong letter to the Chair of the Commission.
NATO accepted that the Qaddafi regime committed
serious violations of international law, which
led to the Security Council Resolution 1973. What
was not acceptable was any mention of NATOs violations during the conflict,
We would be concerned, however, if NATO
incidents were included in the Commissions
report as on a par with those which the
Commission may ultimately conclude did violate
law or constitute crimes. We note in this regard
that the Commissions mandate is to discuss the
facts and circumstance of
.violations [of law]
and
crimes perpetrated. We would accordingly
request that, in the event the Commission elects
to include a discussion of NATO actions in Libya,
its report clearly state that NATO did not
deliberately target civilians and did not commit war crimes in Libya.
To its credit, the Commission did discuss the
NATO incidents. However, there were some
factual problems. The Commission claimed that
NATO flew 17,939 armed sorties in Libya. NATO
says that it flew 24,200 sorties, including over
9,000 strike sorties. What the gap between the
two numbers might tell us is not explored in the
report or in the press discussion subsequently.
The Commission points out that NATO did strike
several civilian areas (such as Majer, Bani
Walid, Sirte, Surman, Souq al-Juma) as well as
areas that NATO claims were command and control
nodes. The Commission found no evidence of such
activity in these nodes. NATO contested both
the civilian deaths and the Commissions doubts
about these nodes. Because NATO would not fully
cooperate with the Commission, the investigation
was unable to determine, for lack of sufficient
information, whether these strikes were based on
incorrect or outdated intelligence and,
therefore, whether they were consistent with
NATOs objective to take all necessary
precautions to avoid civilian casualties entirely.
Three days after the report was released in the
Human Rights Council, NATOs chief Anders Fogh
Rasmussen denied its anodyne conclusions
regarding NATO. And then, for added effect,
Rasmussen said that he was pleased with the
reports finding that NATO had conducted a
highly precise campaign with a demonstrable
determination to avoid civilian casualties.
There is no such clear finding. The report is far
more circumspect, worrying about the lack of
information to make any clear statement about
NATOs bombing runs. NATO had conducted its own
inquiry, but did not turn over its report or raw data to the UN Commission.
On March 12, UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon
went to the UN Security Council and stated that
he was deeply concerned about human rights
abuses in Libya, including the more than eight
thousand prisoners held in jails with no judicial
process (including Saif al-Islam Qaddafi, who
should have been transferred to the Hague by
NATOs logic). Few dispute this part of the
report. The tension in the Security Council is
over the section on NATO. On March 9, Maria
Khodynskaya-Golenishcheva of the Russian Mission
to the UN in Geneva noted that the UN report
omitted to explore the civilian deaths caused by
NATO. In our view, she said, during the NATO
campaign many violations of the standard of
international law and human rights were
committed, including the most important right,
the right to life. On March 12, Russias Foreign
Minister Sergei Lavrov accused NATO of massive
bombings in Libya. It was in response to
Lavrovs comment that Bans spokesperson Martin
Nesirky pointed out that Ban accepts the
reports overall finding that NATO did not
deliberately target civilians in Libya.
NATO is loath to permit a full investigation. It
believes that it has the upper hand, with Libya
showing how the UN will now use NATO as its
military arm (or else how the NATO states will be
able to use the UN for its exercise of power). In
the Security Council, NATOs Rasmussen notes,
Brazil, China, India and Russia consciously
stepped aside to allow the UN Security Council to
act and they did not put their military might
at the disposal of the coalition that emerged.
NATO has no challenger. This is why the Russians
and the Chinese are unwilling to allow any UN
resolution that hints at military intervention.
They fear the Pandoras box opened by Resolution 1973.
Vijay Prashads new book, Arab Spring, Libyan
Winter (AK Press) will be out in late March. On
March 25, he will be speaking at the plenary
panel of the United National Anti-War Coalition
National Conference in Stamford, CT, alongside
Bill McKibben, Richard Wolff and Nada Khader on
Global Economic Meltdown, Warming and War.
Freedom Archives
522 Valencia Street
San Francisco, CA 94110
415 863-9977
www.Freedomarchives.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://freedomarchives.org/pipermail/news_freedomarchives.org/attachments/20120315/a0e8fb0f/attachment.htm>
More information about the News
mailing list