<html>
<body>
March 15, 2012<br>
<a href="http://www.counterpunch.org/2012/03/15/natos-craven-coverup-of-it-libyan-bombing/" eudora="autourl">
http://www.counterpunch.org/2012/03/15/natos-craven-coverup-of-it-libyan-bombing/<br>
<br>
</a>Investigations Around Libya<br>
<font size=4><b>NATO’S Craven Coverup of Its Libyan Bombing<br>
</b></font>by VIJAY PRASHAD<br><br>
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.<br><br>
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 report’s publication, and the HRC’s
deliberation on it was equally restrained.<br><br>
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 NATO’s own military
intervention might have been less than “humanitarian” in its
effects.<br><br>
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.”<br><br>
Crimes Against Humanity.<br><br>
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 Qaddafi’s forces were either already indiscriminately killing vast
numbers of people, or that they were poised for a massacre of Rwanda
proportions.<br><br>
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 Qaddafi’s forces able to recapture cities,
but unable to hold them.<br><br>
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:<br><br>
(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.<br><br>
(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.<br><br>
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. NATO’s 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.<br><br>
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 one’s 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).<br><br>
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.<br><br>
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.”<br><br>
NATO’s Crimes.<br><br>
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.<br><br>
Indeed, when it became clear to NATO that the UN Commission wished to
investigate NATO’s role in the Libyan war, Brussels balked. On February
15, 2012, NATO’s 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
NATO’s “violations” during the conflict,<br><br>
“We would be concerned, however, if ‘NATO incidents’
were included in the Commission’s 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 Commission’s 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.”<br><br>
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 Commission’s
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
NATO’s objective to take all necessary precautions to avoid civilian
casualties entirely.”<br><br>
Three days after the report was released in the Human Rights Council,
NATO’s chief Anders Fogh Rasmussen denied its anodyne conclusions
regarding NATO. And then, for added effect, Rasmussen said that he
was pleased with the report’s 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 NATO’s bombing runs. NATO had conducted its own inquiry,
but did not turn over its report or raw data to the UN
Commission.<br><br>
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 NATO’s 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, Russia’s Foreign
Minister Sergei Lavrov accused NATO of “massive bombings” in Libya. It
was in response to Lavrov’s comment that Ban’s spokesperson Martin
Nesirky pointed out that Ban accepts “the report’s overall finding that
NATO did not deliberately target civilians in Libya.”<br><br>
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, NATO’s 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 Pandora’s
box opened by Resolution 1973.<br><br>
Vijay Prashad’s 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.”<br><br>
<br><br>
<x-sigsep><p></x-sigsep>
<font size=3 color="#FF0000">Freedom Archives<br>
522 Valencia Street<br>
San Francisco, CA 94110<br><br>
</font><font size=3 color="#008000">415 863-9977<br><br>
</font><font size=3 color="#0000FF">
<a href="http://www.freedomarchives.org/" eudora="autourl">
www.Freedomarchives.org</a></font><font size=3> </font></body>
</html>