Amr Moussa: Western Countries Betrayed Arab Mandate to Security Council on Libya Civilian Protection

Amr Moussa speaks with Hillary Clinton
Amr Moussa speaks with Hillary Clinton
TT

Amr Moussa: Western Countries Betrayed Arab Mandate to Security Council on Libya Civilian Protection

Amr Moussa speaks with Hillary Clinton
Amr Moussa speaks with Hillary Clinton

In this seventh and final episode of excerpts from the new book of former Arab League Secretary General Amr Moussa, “The Years of the Arab League,” which will soon be published by Dar Al-Shorouk, we continue Moussa’s narration of the events of the Libyan revolution that erupted in February 2011, for which two chapters are devoted.

This episode focuses on the Arab mandate to protect Libyan civilians. Moussa recounts how the Arabs were deceived by a number of Western countries.

He explains that he told all parties in Paris that the Security Council resolution aimed to protect Libyan civilians, not to invade or occupy Libya, and that he condemned the coalition attack on Libyan targets, saying: “Instead of protecting civilians, it caused victims.”

Concerns that some forces will exploit the air embargo on Libya topped discussions during the emergency meeting of the Council of Arab Foreign Ministers on March 12, 2011, Moussa says.

“Whoever reviews the text of Paragraph 1 after the preamble in the decision issued by that meeting will find it stating: To request the Security Council to assume its responsibilities regarding the deteriorating situation in Libya, to take measures to impose an immediate no-fly zone on the movement of Libyan military aircrafts, and to establish safe areas in places subjected to bombing, as preventive measures that allow protection for the Libyan people and residents of Libya of various nationalities, with taking into account the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the neighboring countries.”

Moussa adds that no Arab country objected to the expression, “as a preventive measure.”

“I said that this expression would control the wording and reassure public opinion. We are not only dealing with the Security Council or with the Libyan authorities, but with the public opinion as well; so matters must be clear.”

He continues: “We explained this Arab concept of a flight ban on Libya to the Security Council and the Western powers, who stressed their understanding of it. But the truth is that we were deceived… As soon as the decision was issued, they hit sites in Libya, which led to casualties among civilians. They targeted the country’s air defense systems, which also provoked Russia, as the systems were Russian. The Russians in general had significant objections to hitting ground targets in Libya.”

Moussa notes that it later became clear that the US had a list of Libyan targets that it insisted on striking. The US considered the air embargo to be a symbolic step, and that UN support for more robust military action should be provided if necessary.

Security Council Resolution 1973

Moussa recounts that in response to the ongoing threats against civilians committed by Moammar Gaddafi, the Security Council convened to discuss a draft resolution submitted by Britain, France, Lebanon (the Council’s Arab member) and the US to impose a no-fly zone on Libyan territory to protect civilians. The first session was held on March 15, followed by another the next day.

“But due to a split in the Council on the draft, both sessions ended with no agreement,” he says.

Finally, the Security Council, in Resolution 1973, affirmed the responsibility of the Libyan authorities to protect the Libyan people and condemned the gross and systematic violations of human rights. The Council authorized member states to take “all necessary measures” to protect civilians and areas with civilian populations at risk of attacks, including Benghazi, while excluding any foreign occupation force of any form and on any part of Libyan territory.

Moussa says that the expression, “taking all necessary measures to protect civilians” was exploited by a number of countries with interests in Libya.

The Paris Meeting

The Arab League secretary-general recounts that French President Nicolas Sarkozy was one of the strongest advocates of the military option in striking Gaddafi’s forces, under the pretext of protecting civilians, as the following days have proven.

“On March 10, 2011, Paris was the first capital to recognize the National Transitional Council (NTC), which was formed by the rebel leaders in Benghazi on Feb. 27, as the sole and legitimate representative of the Libyan people…
Sarkozy organized a meeting in Paris on March 19, 2011, in the presence of prominent international figures, including: United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, European Union Foreign Policy chief Catherine Ashton, Spanish Prime Minister Jose Luis Zapatero, and German Chancellor Angela Merkel, Qatari Prime Minister Sheikh Hamad bin Jassim, British Prime Minister David Cameron, Emirati Foreign Minister Abdullah bin Zayed, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Jordanian Foreign Minister Nasser Judeh, Moroccan Foreign Minister Taieb Fassi El-Fihri, and Hoshyar Zebari, Minister of Foreign Affairs of Iraq, as well as others.”

Moussa says he thought about boycotting the meeting over his doubts about the intentions of western countries, especially France. But he adds that former Jordanian Minister of Foreign Affairs, who had been appointed as the representative of the UN in Libya as of March 7, 2011, insisted that he attend the talks.

“Sarkozy addressed the conference, saying: “The French Air Force will oppose any attack by Gaddafi’s planes against the residents of Benghazi. Indeed, our planes prevent airstrikes on this city. There are other French aircraft ready to intervene against armored vehicles that threaten unarmed civilians... Today, we are operating in Libya under the mandate of the Security Council with our partners, including our Arab partners. We are doing this in order to protect the civilian population from the madness of the murderous regime, which lost its full legitimacy by killing its own people... We intervene to allow the Libyan people to determine their fate.””

Moussa continues: “Sarkozy’s speech provoked me to the greatest extent. Because he openly spoke about circumventing the air embargo on Gaddafi’s forces, which was approved by Security Council Resolution 1973… and of his air force’s readiness to strike Gaddafi’s forces on the ground…”

The Arab League secretary-general says that in his address to the meeting, he reiterated that the purpose of the aforementioned Security Council resolution was to protect Libyan civilians only, and that the resolution did not give any party legitimacy to invade or occupy Libya.

“It was clear that I was filled with anger… Hamad bin Jassim told me: “The issue is over, brother Amr,”” Moussa recounts.

“My suspicion soon proved to be true… The civilian issue was a Trojan horse to overthrow Gaddafi. On the same day of the Paris meeting, before I arrived in Cairo back from the French capital, French warplanes began bombing Libyan defensive ground sites. After following up on this news about the military action on the Libyan lands, I knew once again that we were deceived, and that what was actually taking place in warfare went beyond Security Council Resolution 1973, which provides only for a no-fly zone on Libyan territory to prevent Gaddafi from striking civilians who are opposed to him.”

With a special agreement with Dar El-Shorouk. All rights reserved



Legal Threats Close in on Israel's Netanyahu, Could Impact Ongoing Wars

The International Criminal Court (ICC) building is pictured on November 21, 2024 in The Hague. (Photo by Laurens van PUTTEN / ANP / AFP) / Netherlands OUT
The International Criminal Court (ICC) building is pictured on November 21, 2024 in The Hague. (Photo by Laurens van PUTTEN / ANP / AFP) / Netherlands OUT
TT

Legal Threats Close in on Israel's Netanyahu, Could Impact Ongoing Wars

The International Criminal Court (ICC) building is pictured on November 21, 2024 in The Hague. (Photo by Laurens van PUTTEN / ANP / AFP) / Netherlands OUT
The International Criminal Court (ICC) building is pictured on November 21, 2024 in The Hague. (Photo by Laurens van PUTTEN / ANP / AFP) / Netherlands OUT

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu faces legal perils at home and abroad that point to a turbulent future for the Israeli leader and could influence the wars in Gaza and Lebanon, analysts and officials say.
The International Criminal Court (ICC) stunned Israel on Thursday by issuing arrest warrants for Netanyahu and his former defense chief Yoav Gallant for alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity in the 13-month-old Gaza conflict. The bombshell came less than two weeks before Netanyahu is due to testify in a corruption trial that has dogged him for years and could end his political career if he is found guilty. He has denied any wrongdoing. While the domestic bribery trial has polarized public opinion, the prime minister has received widespread support from across the political spectrum following the ICC move, giving him a boost in troubled times.
Netanyahu has denounced the court's decision as antisemitic and denied charges that he and Gallant targeted Gazan civilians and deliberately starved them.
"Israelis get really annoyed if they think the world is against them and rally around their leader, even if he has faced a lot of criticism," said Yonatan Freeman, an international relations expert at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem.
"So anyone expecting that the ICC ruling will end this government, and what they see as a flawed (war) policy, is going to get the opposite," he added.
A senior diplomat said one initial consequence was that Israel might be less likely to reach a rapid ceasefire with Hezbollah in Lebanon or secure a deal to bring back hostages still held by Hamas in Gaza.
"This terrible decision has ... badly harmed the chances of a deal in Lebanon and future negotiations on the issue of the hostages," said Ofir Akunis, Israel's consul general in New York.
"Terrible damage has been done because these organizations like Hezbollah and Hamas ... have received backing from the ICC and thus they are likely to make the price higher because they have the support of the ICC," he told Reuters.
While Hamas welcomed the ICC decision, there has been no indication that either it or Hezbollah see this as a chance to put pressure on Israel, which has inflicted huge losses on both groups over the past year, as well as on civilian populations.
IN THE DOCK
The ICC warrants highlight the disconnect between the way the war is viewed here and how it is seen by many abroad, with Israelis focused on their own losses and convinced the nation's army has sought to minimize civilian casualties.
Michael Oren, a former Israeli ambassador to the United States, said the ICC move would likely harden resolve and give the war cabinet license to hit Gaza and Lebanon harder still.
"There's a strong strand of Israeli feeling that runs deep, which says 'if we're being condemned for what we are doing, we might just as well go full gas'," he told Reuters.
While Netanyahu has received wide support at home over the ICC action, the same is not true of the domestic graft case, where he is accused of bribery, breach of trust and fraud.
The trial opened in 2020 and Netanyahu is finally scheduled to take the stand next month after the court rejected his latest request to delay testimony on the grounds that he had been too busy overseeing the war to prepare his defense.
He was due to give evidence last year but the date was put back because of the war. His critics have accused him of prolonging the Gaza conflict to delay judgment day and remain in power, which he denies. Always a divisive figure in Israel, public trust in Netanyahu fell sharply in the wake of the Oct. 7, 2023 Hamas assault on southern Israel that caught his government off guard, cost around 1,200 lives.
Israel's subsequent campaign has killed more than 44,000 people and displaced nearly all Gaza's population at least once, triggering a humanitarian catastrophe, according to Gaza officials.
The prime minister has refused advice from the state attorney general to set up an independent commission into what went wrong and Israel's subsequent conduct of the war.
He is instead looking to establish an inquiry made up only of politicians, which critics say would not provide the sort of accountability demanded by the ICC.
Popular Israeli daily Yedioth Ahronoth said the failure to order an independent investigation had prodded the ICC into action. "Netanyahu preferred to take the risk of arrest warrants, just as long as he did not have to form such a commission," it wrote on Friday.
ARREST THREAT
The prime minister faces a difficult future living under the shadow of an ICC warrant, joining the ranks of only a few leaders to have suffered similar humiliation, including Libya's Muammar Gaddafi and Serbia's Slobodan Milosevic.
It also means he risks arrest if he travels to any of the court's 124 signatory states, including most of Europe.
One place he can safely visit is the United States, which is not a member of the ICC, and Israeli leaders hope US President-elect Donald Trump will bring pressure to bear by imposing sanctions on ICC officials.
Mike Waltz, Trump's nominee for national security advisor, has already promised tough action: "You can expect a strong response to the antisemitic bias of the ICC & UN come January,” he wrote on X on Friday. In the meantime, Israeli officials are talking to their counterparts in Western capitals, urging them to ignore the arrest warrants, as Hungary has already promised to do.
However, the charges are not going to disappear soon, if at all, meaning fellow leaders will be increasingly reluctant to have relations with Netanyahu, said Yuval Shany, a senior fellow at the Israel Democracy Institute.
"In a very direct sense, there is going to be more isolation for the Israeli state going forward," he told Reuters.