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



Israel-Hezbollah War... More Severe than ‘Al-Aqsa Flood’

An Israeli firefighter aircraft drops flame retardant on fires smoke after rockets fired from southern Lebanon hit an area in the Upper Galilee region in northern Israel on July 4, 2024. (Photo by JACK GUEZ / AFP)
An Israeli firefighter aircraft drops flame retardant on fires smoke after rockets fired from southern Lebanon hit an area in the Upper Galilee region in northern Israel on July 4, 2024. (Photo by JACK GUEZ / AFP)
TT

Israel-Hezbollah War... More Severe than ‘Al-Aqsa Flood’

An Israeli firefighter aircraft drops flame retardant on fires smoke after rockets fired from southern Lebanon hit an area in the Upper Galilee region in northern Israel on July 4, 2024. (Photo by JACK GUEZ / AFP)
An Israeli firefighter aircraft drops flame retardant on fires smoke after rockets fired from southern Lebanon hit an area in the Upper Galilee region in northern Israel on July 4, 2024. (Photo by JACK GUEZ / AFP)

In conflicts, both sides often set traps for each other. Yet today, in the ongoing conflict between Israel and Hezbollah, it appears both sides are falling into their own traps.

In the current Israel-Hezbollah conflict, despite denying interest in widening the war, both are moving towards escalation.

Israel continues military drills for expansion, supported by polls showing public backing, though decreasing recently. This support concerns Tel Aviv’s military leaders, who fear the public underestimates the war’s consequences.

Former Israeli National Security Advisor Eyal Hulata warns such a war could devastate parts of Lebanon and cause significant harm in Israel, potentially resulting in around 15,000 deaths.

The Terrorism Research Institute at Reichman University conducted a study with 100 military and academic experts on potential war scenarios with Hezbollah.

Their findings were alarming: they warned that such a conflict could quickly escalate across multiple fronts, involving Iranian militias in Syria, Iraq, and Yemen, alongside Hamas and Islamic Jihad in the West Bank.

The study predicted that Hezbollah could launch a daily barrage of 2,500 to 3,000 rockets for 21 days, targeting military bases, cities like Tel Aviv, and critical infrastructure such as power plants, gas fields, desalination plants, airports, and weapon depots.

This onslaught would likely cause widespread chaos among Israelis.

Furthermore, Hezbollah might employ its strategy of sending “Radwan” units to infiltrate Israeli borders and occupy towns, similar to Hamas’ actions during operation Al-Aqsa Flood on Oct. 7.

The “Gaza-style destruction” scenario was initially floated to dampen calls for the army to invade Lebanese territory.

The Israeli military, wary of right-wing political pressures and their own hesitations about war, countered by publicizing plans indicating serious readiness.

Leaked drills suggest they are preparing for a large-scale ground invasion, aiming to occupy southern Lebanon up to the Litani River, possibly further to the Zahrani River.

They state that if Hezbollah rejects a political deal to stay away from borders, the military will enforce this with force.

They detail that the war could start with intense airstrikes, similar to Gaza, followed by a ground invasion.

Military sources reveal Israel has received delayed US weapons, including smart bombs, set to be used in airstrikes on southern Beirut suburbs and the Bekaa region at least.

The Litani River lies four kilometers from the border at its closest and extends 29 kilometers at its furthest, covering 1,020 square kilometers. It includes three major cities: Tyre (175,000 residents), Bint Jbeil, and Marjayoun, housing half a million people, with over 100,000 displaced.

Occupying this entire area won’t be easy. Hezbollah is stronger than Hamas, with a more extensive tunnel network and advanced weaponry. They’ve long been prepared for this war.

If Israel plans a short 21-day war, nothing guarantees that timeline, risking entanglement in Lebanon’s challenges once again.

The Israeli military is gearing up for a long war, preparing emergency reserves in hospitals, factories, government offices, and shelters.

They fear Hezbollah could launch thousands of rockets and drones, targeting key infrastructure like power plants, water desalination facilities, and gas wells.

Recent drills also factor in possible direct Iranian involvement, which could disrupt Red Sea shipping and possibly lead to strikes on Cyprus. This means all of Israel could face serious threats.

The Tel Aviv-based Institute for National Security Studies reports that Hezbollah has already fired over 5,000 projectiles from Lebanon, causing 33 deaths and extensive damage to both civilian and military targets in Israel.

There’s growing concern about the future of northern Israel, including 28 evacuated settlements and the city of Kiryat Shmona, whose residents are uncertain when they can safely return home.