It was this 44 day sit down strike in Flint, Michigan from 1936-1937 that won the right to industrial unions in the US. Twenty-five years ago, on February 11, 1987, we celebrated the 50th anniversity with some of the sit down pioneers in Flint, Michigan.

We were privileged then to have met and learned about the sit down and the developments before and after from some of the labor pioneers who had waged the battle to win the right to unions in the large industrial factories in the US.

Some of these pioneers that we met and had the chance to know included Jack Palmer, Roscow Rich, Kenny Malone, Doc Wilson, and Floyd Hoke-Miller. There were of course, many more pioneers that we only met occasionally or learned about, but these five are some of those who especially stand out as having passed on some of the story and above all the spirit of ’37, of resistance to tyranny that the sit down in the Flint auto factories in 1936-7 represented.

Floyd Hoke-Miller’s labor poems, Doc Wilson’s labor cartoons and the writing in the Searchlight newspaper by Kenny Malone and others who we only met through their articles like George Carroll, and Carl Johnson, represented were some of the legacy of labor literature left by the Flint labor pioneers.

In honor of the sitdowners we put together four small books, collections of different sorts documenting the achievement of the sit downers. The book “A Laborer Looks at Life: Then and Now” was a collection of Floyd’s labor poems that had appeared over the years in the Searchlight, the union newspaper of the Plant 4 workers whose achievement in occupying the Chevy Engine Plant helped to win the victory of the Flint Sit Down Strike.

Another book was “The Story of the Searchlight: the Voice of the Chevy Worker” documenting how Flint labor pioneers maintained and spread the spirit of their sitdown years afterwards in their articles and poems and cartoons published in the Local 659 newspaper “The Searchlight”. This newspaper maintained their militant spirit and so it became the subject of censorship by the international union of the UAW in early 1950s. “The Story of the Searchlight” tells the story of how this labor journalism helped to build the union that the sitdowners had won the right to by the victory of the sitdown.

The introductory article in “The Story of the Searchlight” is the article “Lest We Forget: In Tribute to the Pioneers of the Great Flint Sit-Down Strike”.

The article opens with the opening lines from one of Floyd Hoke-Miller’s poems, titled “Subversive”. The full text of the poem reads:

Subversive

by Floyd Hoke-Miller

Remember when the “Sit Down” came?
And all the papers laid the claim,
Against each Union Member’s name?
“SUBVERSIVE!”

‘Twas then the “Big Shots” howled with fear,
“The revolution now is here;
The stand they take is naught but sheer.”
“SUBVERSIVE!”

You worked in chains that galled your pride,
And when you tried to save your hide,
The “Bulls” and “Bears” stook up and cried:
“SUBVERSIVE!”

The economic ills you feared
And increased crops of “Stools” appeared,
But when you called their hand they jeered:
“SUBVERSIVE!”

http://www.ais.org/~jrh/searchlight/poem.txt

Still another of the little books put together to document the achievements of labor in Flint was the book “Tough Cookies: Pioneers of the Flint Labor Press”. This documented some of the different forms of labor journalism that helped to build the UAW in Flint in the period after the victory of the sit down strike.

The little book “Holding the Fort: A Sit Downer’s Diary” tells the story of 44 days inside the Fisher No. 2 factory, one of the Flint auto factories that took part in the Great Flint Sit Down Strike. This diary was published in one of the Flint union newspapers. The anonymous diary from December 1936 to February 11, 1937 is reprinted in this book with an introduction by Jay Hauben.

The early issues of the Amateur Computerist newsletter, whose first issue was published on February 11, 1988, contains articles not only from auto workers and others interested in labor and computing issues at the time but also the newsletter includes articles by some of the sit down pioneers who were still alive then, especially contributions from Floyd Hoke-Miller. And when Floyd died, there is an issue including tributes to him. (See especially,Michael Hauben’s article in tribute to Floyd, “A Common Man of Greatness”)

In these times of economic and political crisis, the labor movement needs to understand the heritage left to it by those labor pioneers of the past. Hopefully on this special anniversary of one of the important labor struggles in the US, there will be a renewed sense of the importance of building on the lessons and heritage of the past.

References

Anonymous, “Holding the Fort: A Sit-Downer’s Diary”, with introduction by Jay Hauben, Flint, Michigan, August, 1986.

Ronda Hauben, “The Story of the Searchlight: the Voice of the Chevy Worker”, Flint, Michigan, 1987
With introduction “Lest We Forget:

http://www.ais.org/~jrh/searchlight/lest.we.forget.txt

http://www.ais.org/~jrh/searchlight/sl.1.txt

http://www.ais.org/~jrh/searchlight/sl.2.txt

http://www.ais.org/~jrh/searchlight/sl.3.txt

http://www.ais.org/~jrh/searchlight/sl.4.txt

Floyd Hoke-Miller, “A Laborer Looks at Life: Then and Now”, Flint, Michigan, 1984

Michael Hauben, “A Common Man of Greatness”, Presented at Memorial in Honor of Floyd, July 14, 1990

http://www.ais.org/~hauben/Michael_Hauben/Collected_Works/Amateur_Computerist/Common_Man_of_Greatness.txt

Ronda Hauben, “Tough Cookies: Pioneers of the Flint Labor Press”, Flint, Michigan, May, 1986.

The Observer Mission determined that there were armed opposition elements in Syria. (Paragraph 71) The original protocol setting up the Observer Mission did not take into account this aspect of the situation. By detailed observations in the Report, the Observer Mission documented that there were armed opposition elements attacking civilians and government officials, blowing up trains and pipelines, civilian buses and killing not only Syrian civilians but also a French journalist.(2) (Paragraphs 25, 26, 27, 44, 75)

The Observer Mission Report noted that as a result of the Mission’s insistence on a complete end to violence, the problem of violence by the Government forces and exchange of gunfire with armed elements in Homs and Hama had receded. “The most recent reports of the Mission,” the Report stated, “point to a considerable calming of the situation and restraint on the part of those forces.”

The Report documented that the Observer Mission witnessed peaceful demonstrations by both the opposition and the supporters of the government while the Mission was on the ground. (Paragraph 30)

Also, the Report said that, “The most important point in this regard is the commitment by ‘all sides’ to cease all aspects of violence thereby allowing the Mission to complete its tasks and ultimately lay the groundwork for the political process.” (Paragraph 79) The Report warned that discontinuing the Mission “could lead to chaos on the ground”. (Paragraph 81)

To seek a peaceful resolution to the conflict in Syria, the continuation of something like the Observer Mission would be needed. The Report concluded that there needed to be an ”expansion of and a change in the Mission’s mandate.“ (paragraph 79) Also the Mission needed political, media and technical support to fulfill its mandate. (Paragraphs 80, and 82)

The dominant states in the Arab League, however did not support changing the protocol to include the problem represented by the armed groups in Syria, as recommended by the Report. Instead, the Arab League introduced a plan to require President Assad of Syria to step down and to turn over power to the Vice President to fulfill a plan drafted without the Syrian government’s agreement.(3) This ignored the recommendations of the Report of the Observer Mission, and substituted the imposition of an Arab League political plan for Syria in place of the recommended modification and continuation of the Observer Mission. The Arab League political plan had as its aim the removal of the Syrian president, as opposed to creating a peaceful solution so that the Syrian people could make the political changes they desired in a Syrian determined process.

The Arab League brought their regime change political plan to the UN Secretary General asking him to submit it to the Security Council. The Arab League was seeking the UN’s endorsement for its plan.

The Arab League submitted a letter to the UN Secretary General requesting a meeting of the Security Council. The letter listed several enclosures.

Though the Report of the Observer’s Mission (Report) to the UN was listed as one of the enclosures, this document was not included in the material originally sent to the UN.

The Russian Ambassador, however, insisted that the Report be submitted to the UN Security Council. No Security Council discussion of the Arab League plan was to be held until the Report was submitted to the Security Council. Also it was to be treated as an official document of the UN and translated into the six official languages as is customary of official documents.

Russia had requested that the Security Council hold a session to discuss the Report. Russia also requested that the head of the Observer Mission, General Mohammed Al-Dabi, be invited to the Security Council to discuss the Report. Russia’s request to the Security Council to discuss the Report was not accepted, even though there were other Security Council members who agreed about the importance of the report. Instead some members of the Council wanted to schedule the Security Council to discuss the Arab League plan on Monday, January 30. Other members wanted the meeting on Tuesday, January 31 to give Security Council members time to read the Report.(4)

On January 31, as part of the Security Council meeting, the Report was officially circulated in English and Arabic along with the letter from the Arab League to the Secretary General. The Arab League, represented by its Secretary General Nabil Elaraby and the current rotating chairman of the League, Prime Minister Al-Thani of Qatar, presented its plan to the Security Council. They discouraged the Security Council from asking to meet with Al Dabi.Though some members of the Security Council recognized the importance of the Report, the discussion in the Council was diverted to the Arab League plan for Syria.

Subsequently, a draft Security Council resolution was submitted by Morocco. Though Russia also had submitted a revised version of the Resolution it had submitted weeks before, the discussion turned to the Moroccan draft. (5) The issue in contention over this draft was whether the Council would agree to “fully support” the Arab League plan for regime change in Syria.

The recommendations of the Observer Report presented the need to expand the protocol agreed to by the Syrian government and the Arab League to include a provision related to the presence of armed groups and the violence perpetuated by them. The Arab League proposal for regime change in Syria ignored this issue. The Security Council members differed on the need to make an independent judgment about whether the Arab League plan fit the criteria of Chapter VIII in the UN Charter. This provision of the Charter requires that regional actions supported by the Security Council be consistent with the Purposes and Principles of the United Nations. ( Article 52(1) )

On Saturday, February 4, the Russian Federation submitted several amendments to the draft resolution, amendments it said would enable Russia to support a resolution on Syria. (6) It asked that these amendments be discussed before taking a vote on the draft resolution.

To deal with the problem of armed groups and violence perpetuated by them, Russia proposed that a line be added to the Security Council Resolution that would not only demand the withdrawal of the government’s military forces from conflict areas, but in conjunction would require that armed groups be prevented from taking advantage of the vacuum to occupy those areas. (7)

Also the Russian Federation identified another important loophole in the draft Security Council resolution. The Arab League plan required that President Assad step down and turn over negotiations for a political transition to his vice president. This is essentially a call for Assad to agree to a forced regime change for Syria. If Assad were to resist, which one would expect of the head of State of a nation being attacked by armed insurgents who are killing civilians and destroying infrastructure. Then what? The arbitrary and mandatory time deadlines would provide a pretext for the advocates of foreign intervention to claim that the UN supports intervention into the internal affairs of Syria. This is what had been done with Libya. The Russian amendments proposed the need to change the mandatory time deadlines in the Arab League timetable to make the deadlines advisory, instead of mandatory. Mandatory time deadlines could be used as a pretext to violate the UN Charter which prohibits foreign interference in the internal affair of a member state. (UN Charter, Article 2(7) )

The request for time to discuss the amendments was denied, leading to a vote on the draft resolution at a public meeting of the Council on February 4. Russia and China as expected by all, vetoed the resolution. Chinese Ambassador Li Baodong supported Russia’s request for continued consultations as “reasonable”. (8) He said that it was “regrettable” that Russia’s request for a few days of discussion on its proposed amendments had not been honored.

Referring to the Charter to explain why China vetoed the resolution, Li Baodong said:

“(T)he sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity of Syria should be fully respected. The actions of the Security Council on the Syrian issue should comply with the purposes and principles of the UN Charter….”

“Under these principles,” he said, “China has taken an active part in the consultations on the draft resolution, and supported the efforts made by the Arab League to facilitate a political settlement of the Syria issue and maintain stability in the region. Like many Council members, China maintains that, under the current circumstances, to put undue emphasis on pressuring the Syrian government, prejudge the result of the dialogue or impose any solution will not help resolve the Syrian issue, but instead may further complicate the situation.”

Talking to journalists at a media stakeout at the UN, Russian Ambassador Vitaly Churkin described some of what led to his nation’s veto of the proposed Security Council resolution. (9) “As Syrian forces were pulling out, armed groups were moving in. We were trying to address that situation,” he explained. To support a peaceful political solution to the crisis in Syria as required by the UN Charter, both sides capable of substantial violence had to be observed and called on to be restrained and to cease all acts of violence, thereby allowing the Mission to complete its tasks and, ultimately lay the groundwork for a political solution.

Commenting on the impact on Russia of the Security Council action on Libya, a columnist for Russia Today (RT), Fyodor Lukyanov, explains that, “Russia has drawn lessons in Libya last year after Moscow refrained from using its veto in the UNSC, paving the way for ‘humanitarian intervention’ by NATO. The ‘no-fly’ mandate was almost immediately shifted into a regime change operation led by France and Britain. Russia felt its cooperation had been abused.”

The result of this experience, Lukyanov argues, is that, “Russia opposes any call for Bashar al-Assad to resign because ultimatums of this kind will mean entering onto a path whose final destination is invasion. This is because the UNSC will not allow its demand to be ignored, while it is unlikely that Assad will be in any hurry to fulfill it.” (10)

At a media stakeout after he spoke with the Security Council on Wednesday, February 8, Ban Ki-moon said that he had told the Security Council that the Arab League Secretary General had spoken with him on the phone and asked the UN Secretary General about setting up some sort of Observer Mission in Syria in conjunction with the UN. The question this raises is whether such a possible joint Observer Mission would take into account the recommendations of the January 22 Observer Mission Report. The obligations of the UN Charter require that the UN Security Council act in line with the UN Charter, rather than just endorsing the actions of regional organizations even if such actions are in violation of the UN Charter. (11)

The struggle continues at the UN Security Council to find a way to support a peaceful resolution to the conflict in Syria without violating the Purposes and Principles of the UN Charter. The February 4 veto was in the words of the Foreign Minister of the Russian Federation Sergey Lavrov, “the (United Nations) Charter at work.”

Notes

(1)“League of Arab States Observer Mission to Syria: Report of the Head of the League of Arab States Observer Mission to Syria for the period from 24 December 2011 to 18 January 2012″

http://www.columbia.edu/~hauben/Report_of_Arab_League_Observer_Mission.pdf

The official UN document distributed January 31 2012 at the UN contained the Observer Report as Enclosure 4 of S/2012/71

(2)See for example, Ronda Hauben, Al Observer Report Corrects Media Narratives about Syria, taz.de January 31, 2012

http://blogs.taz.de/netizenblog/2012/01/31/observer-mission-report-syria/

(3)Security Council S/2012/71, Enclosure 1“Elements of Arab Plan to Resolve the Syrian Crisis”, January 30, 2012
Enclosure 1 listed the following steps to be taken in Syria:

1.Govt of national unity formed within 2 months. The President should grant his Vice-President full powers to fulfill transition phase

2.Within 3 months of its formation free and fair elections should be held for a constituent assembly

3.This should prepare a new draft constitution for approval by popular referendum and an electoral based on that draft constitution

(4) I was told that Security Council members received a copy of the Observer Mission Report sometime on Friday, January 27.

(5)Draft resolution S/2012/77

http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N12/223/75/PDF/N1222375.pdf?OpenElement

vetoed on February 4, 2012

(6)Mathew Lee, “Russian Amendments Condemn Armed Groups, Only ‘ Take Into Account’ AL”, Inner City Press, February 4, 2012

http://www.innercitypress.com/syria1rusam020412.html

(7)Change proposed by Russia from the text of the Resolution on Syria.

Resolution said: 5d)withdraw all Syrian military and armed forces from cities and towns, and return them to their original home barrack;

Russia’s requested change:

Requested change said: 5d)wthdraw all Syrian military and armed forces from cities and towns, and return them to their original home barrack; in conjunction with the end of attacks by armed groups against State institutions and quarters and towns.

(8)UN Transcript, Security Council Meeting on Middle East Situation (February 4, 2012) – Syria, S/PV.6711 , p. 9-10

http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/PRO/N12/223/56/PDF/N1222356.pdf?OpenElement

(9)Stakeout, Vitaly L. Churkin (Russian Federation) on Syria, Security Council Media Stakeout, February 4, 2012

http://www.unmultimedia.org/tv/webcast/2012/02/h-e-mr-vitaly-i-churkin-russian-federation-on-the-situation-in-syria-security-council-media-stakeout-2.html

(10)Fyodor Lukyanov,“Why is Russia so Resolute on Syria?”, RT, February 3, 2012

http://rt.com/politics/columns/unpredictable-world-foreign-lukyanov/russia-syria-assad-un/

(11)Ban Ki Moon at stakeout at Security Council on February 8, 2012.

http://www.unmultimedia.org/tv/webcast/2012/02/un-secretary-general-ban-ki-moon-on-the-middle-east-security-council-media-stakeout.html

The report of the Observers mission that was concluded on January 19, noted several important observations.(1)

1. The mission noted that there were false reports being made of explosions or violence and when the observers went to the location, they found that the reports were unfounded.

2. The mission found that media accounts were exaggerated about the nature of incidents or numbers of people killed in incidents and protests.

3. There were discrepancies in the lists the Mission received of people in detention. Names were repeated, or information was missing or inaccurate about detainees.

4. The Mission observed armed groups committing acts of violence against Government forces, resulting in the death and injury of the forces being attacked. Some of the armed groups were using flares and armour-piercing projectiles.

5. A French journalist who was killed and a Belgium journalist who was injured were the victims of opposition mortar shells.

6. The mission was the target of a hostile media campaign with media publishing untrue statements, distorting the truth, and attributing statements to the head of the mission which were never made.

7. Such accounts by the media undermined the work of the observer mission and seemed to be aimed toward making the mission fail.

8. The Observer mission was able to fulfill its mandate.

The most important observation was as the Report stated, that it had “determined that there is an armed entity” that had not been mentioned in the protocol setting up the mission. This armed opposition entity was a force that needed to be taken into account in structuring the mission. The report listed a number of violent incidents, some of which were carried out by the Free Syrian Army and some of the other armed opposition groups, stating that such incidents would widen the gap and increase the bitterness in the situation.

The observers requested the continuation of the mission, but with proper equipment and numbers, for another month. The committee in charge approved the request. The mission was to be extended. But suddenly, a different agenda was put into action, an agenda calling for regime change in Syria. Similarly, armed attacks against the government were stepped up and government forces sought to stem these attacks.

What had been a promising beginning for a contribution to a peaceful settlement of the conflict, was hijacked by forces intent on imposing a military solution of regime change on Syria.

Subsequently, pressure was put on the UN Security Council, pressure from both inside and outside the Council to authorize a proposal for regime change in Syria and for foreign intervention against Syria.The scenario is to play out with a high level meeting at the Security Council on Tuesday, January 31, of Foreign Ministers of some of the nations on the Council.

Also there was a report at Voltaire Network that on Sunday night, January 29, the Secretary General of the Gulf Cooperation Council, Abdul Al-Zayani, went to Brussels to meet with the Secretary General of NATO, Anders Fogh Rasmussen. (2)

Recent information is that the Arab League Secretary-General decided to freeze the Observer Mission which had been renewed for another month by the League’s Ad Hoc Ministerial Council. The Committee, according to an article at Voltaire Network is “an Arab Plan follow-up organism consisting of 5 States out of 22 (Algeria, Egypt, Oman , Qatar, Sudan). (3) This Ad Hoc Ministerial Committee adopted the observer’s report by a vote of 4 votes in favor (Algeria, Egypt, Oman and Sudan), 1 against(Qatar). Little media coverage was given to this vote.

Voltaire Network also reported that the Secretary General of the Arab League, Nabil Al-Arabi took the view that the observers were jeopardized after “the spiritual leader of the Syrian Salafists, Sheikh Adnan Al-Arouri announced over Al-Arabiya airwaves that it was lawful to kill the Arab observers.” (4)

The decision to support the regime change plan by the Arab League was also made by a vote of the Ad Hoc Ministerial Council. According to the Voltaire Network, this vote was 3 in favor (Egypt, Oman and Qatar), 1 against (Sudan) and 1 abstention (Algeria). On the basis of this vote of 3 members of the Arab League, the Prime Minister of Qatar and the Secretary General of the Arab League were going to the UN to ask the Security Council to back their plan for regime change in Syria.(5)

On Friday, January 27, a new resolution drawn up by some of the members of the council and presented by Morocco, was introduced to the Security Council diverting the discussion from focusing on the positive results of the Arab League Observer Mission and how to support its continuation.

The hijacking of the Security Council Agenda from a discussion on continuing the process begun by the Observer Mission to a regime change resolution against Syria was a process that received little media attention, but much media hype reminiscent of the media pressure on the Security Council which resulted in its resolutions against Libya.

While there has been the claim of great media concern over unverified reports of 5000 casualties in Syria over an 8 month period, there was comparatively no media attention to the estimated 60,000 or more casualties of the NATO bombing and armed rebels attacks in Libya over a comparable period.

The buildup of pressure on the United Nations to undertake support for using the Security Council to provide legitimacy for military and political action against Syria is a challenge to the obligation of the UN Charter to support peaceful solutions to conflict situations and to respect the sovereignty of nations.

Notes:
1. “League of Arab States Observer Mission to Syria: Report of the Head of the League of Arab States Observer Mission to Syria for the period from 24 December 2011 to 18 January 2012″
http://www.columbia.edu/~hauben/Report_of_Arab_League_Observer_Mission.pdf

(2)“The GCC and Turkey Turn to NATO”, Voltaire Network, 29 January 2012,
http:// www.voltairenet.org/a172551

(3)“Media confusion around the Arab League meeting”, Voltaire Network, 23 January 2012,
http://www.voltairenet.org/a172476

(4)“The GCC and Turkey Turn to NATO”, Voltaire Network, 29 January 2012,
http://www.voltairenet.org/a172551

(5)“Media confusion around the Arab League meeting”, Voltaire Network, 23 January 2012,
http://www.voltairenet.org/a172476

As is customary, a press conference was held by Ambassador Vitaly Churkin to mark the beginning of the Russian Federation’s Presidency of the Security Council for the month of December 2011. Ambassador Churkin’s comments in this press conference provide insight into an important problem in the structure of the Security Council that became evident in the course of the implementation of the Security Council resolutions against Libya.

The press conference was held on December 2. There is video of the press conference for those who are interested in viewing the conference itself. (1)

Though other issues were brought up, many of the questions asked by journalists related to the Russian Federation’s views concerning Security Council action on Libya and Syria.

II– Critique of Implementation of SCR 1973 on Libya

During the press conference Ambassador Churkin revealed that NATO had been asked for a “final report…summing up their view of their complying or not complying, of performing or not performing under the resolutions of the Security Council.” But no summary had been received from NATO. Ambassador Churkin said it was his understanding that NATO was not planning to send the Security Council any summary.

The importance of this revelation is that during its military action against Libya, NATO claimed it was acting under the authorization of UNSC Resolution 1973 (SCR 1973). Yet when asked to provide the Security Council with an evaluation of how its Libyan campaign complied with the actual resolution, apparently NATO did not see itself as being held accountable to the Security Council.

This situation reinforces the observation made by some inside and others outside the Council.(2) The Council passed SCR 1973, but it had no means of monitoring or controlling how this resolution was implemented. Thus the implementation of this Security Council resolution on Libya reveals a serious flaw in the structure of the Council itself.

Some members maintained that the resolution called for a cease fire and political settlement of the conflict in Libya.

Other Security Council members began bombing Libyan targets, and brought NATO in to carry out a bombing campaign against military, civilian and infrastructure targets in Libya. Ironically, NATO claimed such bombing was about the protection of civilians.(3) Similarly a self appointed “Contact Group” on Libya set as its goal, regime change in Libya. Members of the Security Council who expressed opposition to these activities, arguing they were contrary to SCR 1973, had no means to stop such usurpation of Security Council control over the implementation of the resolution.

The December 2 press conference with Ambassador Churkin helped to illustrate and examine this problem.

In an earlier Security Council meeting, Brazil had indicated it was planning to do a concept paper on the “responsibility while protecting” under the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) concept. (4) Brazil’s two year term on the Security Council will be over at the end of December, but no such concept paper has yet been presented. When Churkin was asked what he could tell journalists about the progress on this paper, he said, “My understanding is that it is going to be a serious process, a fundamental process of revisiting those things.”

On the issue of the Security Council’s summary of what had happened in the course of implementing Resolution 1973 against Libya, Ambassador Churkin explained the dilemma this posed for the Council.“As to lessons learned, this is a much broader issue which unfortunately I think we cannot put together as council members. It is something for round tables, academics, politicians to discuss in various flora. We discussed that. We have had a number of discussions of the various lessons we have learned, and the things we need to do or not to do.”

He recommended looking back at the Security Council meetings held in open chambers, particularly at the statements he had made in his capacity as the Russian Federation Permanent Representative. “I minced no words about some of the conclusions that need to be drawn from our Libyan experience,” he said, “But I am sure the Libyan experience is something that will have an impact of such importance that this will be a subject of attention for years to come.”

Asked whether the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) concept had been misused by the Security Council, Ambassador Churkin responded, “This is a very dangerous thing.” This was not only the view of his delegation, but also of others both on the council and outside of the council, he explained.

“That is something that makes the life and work on the Security Council very difficult because words are no longer what they used to be. They have different meanings,” he said, offering as an example the implementation of the No Fly Zone on Libya contained in SCR 1973.

He described how, “No Fly Zone in the good old world, used to mean that nobody’s flying. That you prevent aircraft from being used against civilians.”

“In the brave new world,” though, said Churkin, “No Fly Zone means freewheeling bombing of the targets you choose to bomb in whatever modality and mode you want to bomb. Close air support ok. Bombing a television station, ok. And that is a matter of grave concern.”

The significance of there being such a big difference in how words are being used, Churkin explained, was that, “Now we have to think not only about the words and concepts, but about the enormous ability of some of our colleagues to interpret the world out of them. And this is a very serious issue.”

“We need to return to the Council, to our interaction and cooperation with our colleagues, a clear understanding of what we mean,” maintained Churkin.

Demonstrating the significance of this discrepancy between how different members of the Council interpreted the words of resolutions, Churkin pointed out that in the case of Libya, there had been reports that the Gaddafi regime was using airplanes to bomb civilians. (But no evidence was ever presented to support these claims, at the time, or since.-ed) (5)

There were, however, no such reports about Syria. How then could there be “such uncritical enthusiasm” for setting up a No Fly Zone for Syria, Churkin wondered. Where was this enthusiasm coming from?

“Is it,” he asked, “an indication that in fact when they are saying that they don’t plan any military action (against Syria-ed), they don’t really mean it? When they talk about a no fly zone, they are already planning targets to bomb in Syria?”

Referring to the implication of this problem, Churkin noted, “On various issues which can have dramatic repercussions for regions and countries, and unfortunately this is clearly the case about Syria and about Iran and about some other issues, so it is not a perfect day for diplomacy, a perfect day to work in the Security Council.”

III- Security Council Action Against Syria

In response to several questions from journalists asking about the Russian Federation’s view of what action was appropriate with respect to Syria, Churkin explained the principles that should guide such action.

“We think it’s the role of the international community to try to help resolve internal crises by promoting dialogue,” Churkin told journalists, “This is what we have been doing with our contacts with the Syrian authorities, opposition, and the Arab League.”

Referring to the proposal of the Arab League to conduct a monitoring mission in Syria, he explained, “We think that the Arab League has a unique opportunity to play a constructive role in Syria.”

This required, however, that the Arab League be willing to consider Syria’s proposed amendments to the Arab League proposal, rather than just offering Syria an ultimatum that it had to accept the Arab League proposal with no negotiations over it, said Churkin.

“We think the Syrian government’s proposed amendments to that plan could have been considered,” he explained. “Personally I looked at the two texts. I haven’t seen in the texts anything which couldn’t have been bridged there with some negotiations on the modalities of the deployment of that mission.”

Concerned that, “this opportunity to really mediate between the government and the opposition is not lost,” Churkin proposed that the Arab League economic sanctions imposed on Syria were “counterproductive.”

Comparing Security Council action on Syria with its action on Yemen, Churkin said that Russia was able to “exercise our position of principle” in Security Council Resolution 2014 (2011) about Yemen, “by encouraging dialogue and political accommodation on the basis of the Gulf States initiative.”(6) In the case of Yemen, Churkin noted, the Security Council and the international community had rallied in support of the action that Russia proposed.

But when it came to Syria, he described how Russia and China had proposed a resolution that “had many of the same elements which were contained in the resolution which was adopted on…Yemen.” In the case of Syria, however, the Russian-Chinese sponsored Resolution, was not supported by several other members of the Council.(7)

“So I think in Yemen the international community can be proud that even in a situation with bloodshed and very serious conflict in a country we were giving a strong signal in favor of dialogue and of political accommodation and this is what we achieved,” said Churkin.

“What we don’t understand,” he noted, “is why if that can be done in Yemen, why that can’t apply to Syria.”

Furthermore, in the case of Syria, he said, the Security Council met with opposition from some of the capitals, to any form of dialogue to resolve the Syrian conflict. The governments opposed to dialogue, he reported, took the position that there was, “no way dialogue can help. That those who go into dialogue they should stop it immediately,” and that “there is no future in the Arab League initiative.”

Such action is, he proposed “something very counterproductive. And this is something that has acerbated the situation in Syria.”

While maintaining that there is “no prescription for different countries” since they are all structured differently with regard to their traditions and political set up, Churkin proposed that there is a general attitude and principles that can be applied in a general way. This is that “the international community is not there to smell blood and to fan confrontation. But the international community is there to prevent further bloodshed and to encourage dialogue.”

Reflecting on the importance of such an international effort in favor of domestic dialogue, Churkin said, “This is what the United Nations is all about. This is what the Security Council is about.”

IV – Concerns about Libya

With respect to Gaddafi, Churkin said members of the council, including Russia, thought that what happened to Gaddafi is something that shouldn’t have happened.”

Ambassador Churkin was asked whether the Security Council was concerned about the conditions in Libya for those who had supported the Gaddafi government and particularly, about the situation of Saif al Islam Gaddafi and whether it was conceivable he could get a fair trial in Libya when there was no functioning legal system in the country.

Churkin responded that these concerns about the situation in Libya had been discussed very often and the delegation of the Russian Federation and of a number of other countries had raised these concerns. Also he spoke to concern over the plight of migrant workers in Libya. “We directed the UN mission in Libya to pay proper attention to these issues,” he said.

He indicated that they would continue to follow these issues closely.

V – Conclusion

Ambassador Churkin’s press conference was an important and all too rare example of a press conference held by a member of the Security Council which helps to shed light on the workings of the Council. All too often the problems that develop in the course of Security Council activity are shrouded in shadows and kept from public view. This is contrary to the obligations of the Council, which is obliged to report on its actions to the General Assembly in annual and special reports under the UN Charter, Article 15(1). Members of the General Assembly responding to the annual report from the Security Council ask for more analytical reports, rather than just summaries of the activities that have gone on over the year.

In his December 2 press conference, Ambassador Churkin shared some of the problems that developed in the Security Council over the course of the implementation of the resolutions on Libya. In the process he has helped clarify what future difficulties in the Security Council will be given a failure to understand and resolve the problems he has outlined. By helping to reveal the difficulties in the functioning of the Security Council, Ambassador Churkin has provided important details that need further attention and consideration.

Notes

1)Ambassador Vitaly Churkin, Permanent Representative of the Russian Federation and President of the Security Council for the month of December 2011 on the Programme of Work of the Security Council for the month.

http://www.unmultimedia.org/tv/webcast/2011/12/press-conference-ambassador-vitaly-churkin-president-of-the-security-council.html

2) See for example the critique of Resolution 1973 by the Concerned Africans, “An Open Letter to the Peoples of Africa and the World from Concerned Africans,” July 2011.

http://www.concernedafricans.co.za/

See also Mahmood Mamdani, “A Ugandan’s Perspective: What Does Gaddafi’s Fall Mean for Africa.”

http:// www.unaatimes.com/2011/10/

3)For some of the examples of NATO’s bombing of civilians that went on during its military campaign against Libya see:
Global Civilians for Peace in Libya

http://globalciviliansforpeace.com/tag/bombing/

“Libya: War Without End” by Stephen Lendmain, ThePeoplesVoice.org, October 30, 2011.

http://www.thepeoplesvoice.org/TPV3/Voices.php/2011/10/30/libya-war-without-end

4)See Nov. 9, 2011 meeting of the Security Council on Protecting Civilians in the Situation of Armed Struggle, S/PV.6650, pg. 16

Ambassador Viotti said:
“The Brazilian delegation will shortly circulate a concept paper. It elaborates on the idea that the international community, as it exercises its responsibility to protect, must demonstrate a high level of responsibility while protecting.”

http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/PRO/N11/585/43/PDF/N1158543.pdf?OpenElement

5)Actually no evidence was ever presented that airplanes were ever used to bomb civilians under the Gaddafi government. It was only under NATO that there is evidence that airplanes were used resulting in the bombing of civilians. See for example:

http://globalciviliansforpeace.com/reports

“Despite detailed investigation we could not find any evidence that the three regions of Tripoli cited in UN resolution 1973 had been subjected to government forces bombardment nor that their had been fighting between government troops and the people, we received many testimonies to the contrary.”

6) See SCR 2014 (passed October 21, 2011)

http://daccess-ods.un.org/access.nsf/Get?Open&DS=S/RES/2016 (2011)&Lang=E

7) See for example Ronda Hauben, “UN Security Council Challenges Hidden Agenda on Syria,” taz.de

http://blogs.taz.de/netizenblog/2011/10/27/security_council_veto_on_syria/

On Tuesday, October 4, the UN Security Council announced it would take up a draft resolution on Syria. This meeting was to be an instance, when the lessons some Security Council members had drawn from the experience with the resolutions on Libya could be reflected in their action on a draft resolution against Syria.

Several weeks earlier, journalists had been told that there were two different draft resolutions about Syria tabled at the Security Council.

One draft resolution on Syria had been proposed by Russia and China. Russia and China said their resolution had been designed to encourage a peaceful process to help the Syrian government deal both with its stated desire for reforms and with the extremist violence against the Syrian government that was making such reform difficult.

The other draft resolution was tabled by four of the European members of the Security Council – France, UK, Germany and Portugal. (1) This draft condemned the actions of the Syrian government. It did not oppose foreign intervention into Syria’s domestic affairs. The European draft called on all states to deny the Syrian government arms, but made no such call to deny weapons to the armed opposition.

The European draft framed the problem as the Syrian government, similar to how Resolution 1973 framed the problem in Libya as being due to the government guided by Muammar Gaddafi.

Coming to the stakeout area where the journalists were congregated, the four European Security Council members informed journalists that they had called for a vote on their resolution that evening at a meeting scheduled to start at 6 pm.

II – The Security Council Vote on the European Draft Resolution

At 6:20 pm, the Nigerian Ambassador U. Joy Ogwu as the President of the Security Council for the month of October, opened the meeting.(2) Under Rule 37 of the Provisional Rules of Procedure of the Security Council, she invited the Syrian UN Ambassador Bashar Ja’afari to participate in the meeting.(3)

The Security Council President called for a vote on the European draft resolution. No members spoke before the vote.

There were nine votes in favor of the resolution, two votes opposed and four abstentions. Voting in favor of the draft resolution were Bosnia-Herzegovina, Colombia, France, Gabon, Germany, Nigeria, Portugal, the UK, and the US . Voting against were China and Russia. Abstaining were Brazil, India, Lebanon and South Africa. The ‘no’ votes by China and Russia, as permanent members of the Security Council, represented a double veto of the European draft resolution. The European draft resolution failed to pass.

III – Comments by Nations Voting ‘No’ on the Resolution

What was different in this situation from the vote on Security Council Resolution 1973 about Libya, is that instead of the two permanent members Russia and China abstaining, as they had done on the Libyan resolution in March, this time they both voted ‘no’.

Russian Federation UN Ambassador Vitaly Churkin explained his vote. He said that working with China, Russia had prepared a draft resolution which was supported by Brazil, India and South Africa. The fundamental philosophy of the draft resolution he had worked on, he explained, was to support a respect for the national sovereignty and territorial integrity of Syria, and the principle of non intervention in its internal affairs. These are key principles of the UN Charter. Such an effort, he argued, necessitated the need to refrain from confrontation. There should be no threats, ultimatums, or sanctions against the Syrian government.

“The situation in Syria cannot be considered in the Council separately from the Libyan experience, “ Ambassador Churkin said. (Transcript, p. 4) He referred to the alarm expressed in the international community at NATO statements that Security Council resolutions on Libya provided a model for future actions by NATO.

Churkin specifically pointed to how the language of Resolutions 1970 and 1973 on Libya was turned into its opposite by some members of the Council. The language calling for a quick cease fire, he said was turned into a full-fledged civil war. The provision of a no fly zone, he explained, “has morphed into the bombing of (Libyan) oil refineries, television stations and other civilian sites.”(Transcript, p. 4) The arms embargo was used as a pretext for a naval blockade affecting humanitarian goods. The call to prevent a tragedy in Benghazi led to a tragedy in Sirte and Bani Walid, observed the Ambassador.

Though Churkin did not present a specific description of this tragedy, NATO bombing campaigns were being waged against civilians in Bani Walid and Sirte, even as the Council met. “These types of models should be excluded from global practices once and for all,” said Churkin.

One of the reasons Churkin gave for voting against the European draft, was that those writing the resolution had refused to build in a prohibition against foreign intervention into the Syrian conflict. “Our proposals for wording on the non-acceptability of foreign intervention were not taken into account and, based on the well-known events in North Africa that can only put us on our guard,” Churkin told the Council.

While the Russian Ambassador condemned Syrian government repression of non-violent demonstrations, he also pointed to the need to condemn the extremists’ violent actions against the Syrian government taken outside the law and aimed at gaining foreign sponsors for their actions. Churkin offered to continue to work on the Russian-Chinese draft resolution to support a process toward a peaceful resolution of the internal Syrian conflict.

China’s UN Ambassador Li Baodong, explaining his own vote against the European draft resolution, called on all parties in Syria to avoid violence. Whether the Security Council takes further action on the question of Syria, he said, should depend on whether such action would facilitate the easing of tension in Syria, help to defuse differences through political dialogue , and contribute to the maintenance of peace and stability in the Middle East.

Important for China was whether the Security Council’s efforts comply with the UN Charter and the principle of non-interference in the internal affairs of states, “which has a bearing upon the security and survival of developing countries, in particular small and medium sized countries,” Ambassador Li told the Security Council.

China’s Ambassador reminded the Council that there were two draft resolutions, one of which China supported because “it advocates respect for the sovereignty of Syria and resolving the crisis through political dialogue.” The other draft, the one that was voted down, focused “solely on exerting pressure on Syria, even threatening to impose sanctions,” he explained.

IV – Nations Abstaining Explain their Vote

The four nations that had abstained also spoke to the Council about the reasons for their votes.

The Indian Ambassador, Hardeep Singh Puri, explained that states have an obligation “to respect the fundamental aspirations and respond to the grievances” of their people. (Transcript, p. 6) “At the same time,” he said, “states also have the obligation to protect their citizens from armed groups and militants.” Clarifying his concern, he said, “While the right of people to protest peacefully is to be respected, states cannot but take appropriate action when militant groups – heavily armed – resort to violence against State authority and infrastructure.”

He saw the need for “the international community” to give “time and space for the Syrian government to implement far-reaching reform measures they have announced.” For this to happen, he proposed, it is necessary “that the opposition forces in Syria give up the path of armed insurrection and engage constructively with the authorities.”

The Indian Ambassador cautioned that the international community should “not complicate the situation by threats of sanctions, regime change, et cetera.”

Ambassador Basu Sagqu of South Africa explained his nation’s abstention. He observed, “We have seen recently that Security Council resolutions have been abused, and that their implementation has gone far beyond the mandate of what was intended.” (Transcript, p. 11)

He questioned whether the plans of the European sponsors of the draft resolution were not part of “a hidden agenda aimed at once again instituting regime change which has been an objective clearly stated by some.” He referred to the rejection by the European Security Council members of “language that clearly excluded the possibility of military intervention in the resolution….” He proposed that, “the Security Council should proceed with caution on Syria lest we exacerbate an already volatile situation.”

Lebanon’s Ambassador Nawwaf Salam said his country had abstained to defend Syria’s right to sovereignty and “the integrity of its people and land” and in protection of Syria’s unity and stability. (Transcript, p. 9)

Explaining why her nation abstained from voting for the draft resolution, Ambassador Maria Luiza Ribeiro Viotti of Brazil said that the European draft resolution had been rushed to a vote rather than allowing the needed time to accommodate the serious concerns raised by members about it. (Transcript, p. 11-12)

V – Votes of Nations Sponsoring the Draft Resolution

Explaining their votes in favor of the resolution, France, the UK, Germany and Portugal portrayed what is happening in Syria mainly as a movement for “freedom and democracy” essentially denying that there have been violent attacks against the Syrian government or foreign intervention which encourages these attacks. Their response to the concerns raised by Russia and China and other Council members was to dismiss the issues that they raised. The four European members brought their draft resolution to a vote without resolving the disagreements. While it is likely they had anticipated a veto, they claimed to be surprised at the results of the vote. UK Ambassador Sir Mark Lyall Grant maintained that their text “contained nothing that any member of this Council should have felt the need to oppose.” (Transcript, p. 7)

VI – Other Council Members Voting in Favor Draft Resolution

The US Ambassador Susan Rice said that the US was “outraged” by the action of the Council.(Transcript, p.8 )The US offered no specific responses to concerns raised by other council members about the resolution, such as Ambassador Churkin’s concern about how the words of the Libyan resolution were turned into their opposites, or the South African concern that the draft European resolution on Syria would be used for actions far beyond any mandates intended by all members of the Council. Ambassador Rice merely said that the resolution against Syria was “not about military intervention” or about Libya.

Nowhere in her comments was there any response to the problem other Council members raised about alleged foreign intervention, like that of Turkey and other States which are repeating with Syria the pattern of what NATO nations had done in the case of Libya. Colombia and Bosnia expressed their support for the resolution condemning the Syrian government. Gabon and Nigeria did not speak to explain why they voted in favor of the European resolution.

VII – Syrian Comments to the Council

After all of the Council members who had asked to speak, had been given the floor, Syrian Ambassador Ja’afari was called on to present his comments to the Council. It is the usual Security Council practice to allow a UN member with a material interest in an issue being considered, to present its position, but only after a vote is taken.

The Syrian Ambassador proposed that the reason the NATO countries are targeting his country for hostile action is not because of any humanitarian concerns. The basis for their hostile actions, he said, is “due to our independent political position which does not conform to the agendas of those capitals.” (Transcript, p. 12) Pointing to massacres and human rights violations by the US and other western nations in Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, Algeria, many African countries, Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya, Ja’afari said he did not see how anyone could ignore these. The implication was that the nations bringing the draft resolution to the Council had a double standard about whose human rights violations they asked the Council to condemn. While he acknowledged the need and desire of the Syrian people and government for economic, political and social reforms, he denounced the misuse of such demands to try “to facilitate external opposition,” and to “pave the way for external intervention.”

He proposed that, “encouraging the radical demands of the opposition in Syria to topple the government by force of arms, violence and terrorism amounts to a coup supported by outside powers….” (Transcript, p. 14)

He argued that “the intervention of the Security Council in Syrian internal affairs further aggravates the situation and sends a message to extremists and terrorists – that their acts of deliberate sabotage and violence…are encouraged and supported by the Security Council.” (Transcript, p. 14)

Concluding his comments, he expressed his appreciation to the States that had rejected what he characterized as abuse of the Council. “If we are optimistic about the Council,” he said, “it is because we continue to hear the voice of the wise echoing in the Chamber.”

The Security Council meeting ended at 7:45 pm.

VIII – Some Examples of Netizen Comments on the Resolution

While much of the mainstream Western media portrayed the October 4 Security Council meeting in the terms offered by the US and European members of the Council, several responses posted on the Internet demonstrated that there are many people who oppose the actions of the western members of the Security Council.(4)

For example, in one response to media reports that Ambassador Rice said the US was “outraged” by the Russian and Chinese vetoes of the European draft resolution, one netizen asked, “Where is all the outrage over US and Europe’s cracking down on their protesters? Where is the UN resolution on all that?”

A number of netizens applauded Russia and China for vetoing the European resolution against Syria.

Some netizens wrote that Russia and China “should also have vetoed the Libyan resolution.” One netizen explained the view that “they (Russia and China) just allowed NATO to kill Libyans, and destroy the country so they can make big money in reconstruction contracts. “

A US netizen who expressed a similar view said, referring to the US President Obama, “So I guess our Nobel Peace Prize winner wants to spread more peace around the globe. He will have to do it Bush style without UN approval.”

Another netizen said that such a veto a few months ago in the Libyan situation would have prevented the “now ongoing genocide and catastrophe that the US, France and so-called UK have brought the Libyan nation via NATO bombings and flagrant – shameless support of armed revolt. Perhaps there’s still a chance for the ‘United Nations’ to vindicate itself historically and salvage its long lost credibility and honorable standing.”

Expressing a similar viewpoint, a netizen ended his comment, “If a ‘no-fly zone’ is interpreted by Obama and Sarkozy as 6 months of unlimited bombing (of Libya), how could China and Russia risk allowing any kind of resolution on another country.”

IX – Conclusion

Comparing the October 4 Security Council meeting which rejected the hostile European draft resolution against Syria with the March 17 meeting approving Resolution 1973 against Libya, what stands out is that on October 4, some members of the Security Council acknowledged the violent actions of some of the internal opposition against the Syrian government. In March the Council had failed to acknowledge the armed insurrection against the Libyan government.

One lesson that several members of the Council appear to have drawn from the Security Council action on Libya, was the need to avoid passing a vague or hostile resolution which could be abused by powerful nations as a pretext to carry out a hidden agenda of regime change.

The opposition on the Security Council to the European draft demonstrated a determination to prevent a NATO type intervention against Syria, similar to that which had been carried out by the US, France, and the UK against Libya using NATO. The Libyan experience had shown that these powerful western governments would do as they wished using a Security Council resolution as a pretext and the Security Council had no means to stop such abuse of its resolutions.

The UN Charter obligation of the Security Council is to work for the peaceful resolution of conflicts affecting peace and security in the international arena. The situation in Syria, as it was in Libya, is a domestic affair complicated by foreign intervention. The fact that many Libyan civilians have been and continued to be killed by NATO bombing missions in Libya as the Council considered a similar resolution against Syria, offered a grotesque backdrop to the fact that some NATO members who are members of the Security Council have continued to try to use the Security Council to claim legal authority for their clearly illegal attack on the sovereignty of UN member nations.(5)

Netizen comments in response to western media reports in support of such illegal actions demonstrate a rejection by these netizens of the kind of action NATO has undertaken against Libya. The effort of NATO members of the Security Council to use the Libya resolution as a model to support their attack on Syria, was met by a double veto and four abstentions in the Security Council. It was also met by netizens posting articles and comments on the Internet to oppose NATO’s actions and to welcome the Russian and Chinese vetoes of the European draft resolution.

Notes

1) S/2011/612, Security Council Draft Resolution (Not approved)

http://daccess-ods.un.org/TMP/8257293.10512543.html

2) Rule 37 of the “Provisional Rules of Procedure of the Security Council”

http://www.un.org/Docs/sc/scrules.htm

“Any Member of the United Nations which is not a member of the Security Council may be invited, as the result of a decision of the Security Council, to participate, without vote, in the discussion of any question brought before the Security Council when the Security Council considers that the interests of that Member are specially affected, or when a Member brings a matter to the attention of the Security Council in accordance with Article 35 (1) of the Charter.”

3) S/PV.6627, The Security Council Meeting of Oct 4, 2011. I refer to this UN document as “Transcript” in the text of the article. A url for the document at the UN website is:

http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N11/529/74/PDF/N1152974.pdf?OpenElement

4) Comments in response to an article in the Washington Post.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/russia-china-block-syria-resolution-at-un/2011/10/04/gIQArCFBML_allComments.html#comments

5) See for example an excerpt from a talk given by John Pilger at the October 8, 2011 protest in Trafalga Square, UK http://mrzine.monthlyreview.org/2011/pilger101011.html
“(T)he United States, Britain, and France are bombing a city in Libya called Sirte. There are 100,000 people. Day and night, residential buildings, clinics, schools have been hit with fragmentation bombs and Hellfire missiles. . . .The media refer to Sirte as a true Gaddafi stronghold. The Channel 4 reporter in Libya describes the attacks as “cutting off the head of the snake.” For such heroic journalists, there are two types of humanity in war: there are worthy victims and unworthy victims. The people of Sirte are unworthy victims, and therefore they are expendable both as people and as news. In Iraq the people of Fallujah were also unworthy victims. American Marines, helped by the British, killed some 5,000 people there. . . . As Harold Pinter would say . . . none of it happened. It didn’t happen even as it was happening. It didn’t matter. . . . We’ve had ten years of such crimes that didn’t happen, that didn’t matter. . . . The war on Afghanistan was a fraud right from the beginning, just as the attack on Iraq was a fraud and the invasion of Libya is a fraud.”

24 October 2011

On Thursday 20 October 2011, Libya’s former leader, Colonel Muammar Gaddafi, was publicly executed in an act of vigilante violence. A day before his capture and execution, US Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, called for Col. Gaddafi to be captured or killed while on a visit to Libya.

These two acts have provoked feelings of revulsion from millions across the globe. The extra judicial execution of Gaddafi is not only morally repugnant but a violation of international law. He was a prisoner of war and should have been handled in accordance with the Geneva Convention.

Article 13 of the Geneva Convention to which NATO member states are signatories states that: “Prisoners of war must at all times be protected, particularly against acts of violence or intimidation and against insults and public curiosity.”

NATO member-states, without whose help the so-called Libyan rebels would not have been able to effect regime change in Libya, have blood on their hands. It has now been confirmed that Col. Gaddafi’s convoy was bombed by a NATO drone and that Col. Gaddafi was captured injured and alive by NATO special forces who in turn handed him over to the rebels.

None of these actions including the relentless NATO bombing of infrastructure and loss of civilian life over last eight months are in accordance with United Nations Security Council (UNSC) Resolution 1973 which authorised a no fly zone over Libya. Similarly, none of these acts were carried out to protect civilians.

The governments of the United States, Britain and France had no interest in a peaceful and inclusive resolution of the Libyan conflict. Rather, their objective was to replace Col. Gaddafi’s regime with a Western client state, regardless of the cost and consequences for the people of Libya.

Tragically, Libya risks a long period of conflict and instability of Somalian proportions. The military intervention has ensured a long period of political instability not only for Libya but the Sahel region as a whole.

On 25 May 2011, the Forum for Former Africa Heads of State and Governments issued a statement alluding to the same issue. It said:

“It is very obvious that the perpetuation of the current violent conflict, with no end in sight, including the further exacerbation of the animosities among the Libyans and the destruction of infrastructure, will make it ever more difficult to reconstruct Libya as a united, democratic and peaceful country”.

In our Open Letter, we raised concerns about the UN’s lack of independence and the complete marginalisation of the African Union (AU).

We are extremely perturbed that the UN allowed NATO to effect regime change in Libya with impunity. We are shocked that Secretary of State Clinton, has the audacity to stand up and call for the murder of a Head of State and then celebrate the death with glee. This illustrates moral bankruptcy of the worst kind from those who pretend civilisation.

It is clear that the US and its European allies are reverting to crude military means to re-colonise Africa. The independence that Africans fought so hard for must be defended. We cannot allow the second scramble for Africa to occur on our watch.

We condemn the US, UK and France for the flagrant abuse of the UN Security Council and demand that the International Criminal Court investigate NATO to establish if war crimes were committed in Libya.

We condemn the extra judicial killing of Col. Gaddafi and call for an independent transparent international enquiry to establish the true facts surrounding it.

Most importantly, we call on the AU to launch its own investigation into the murder of Colonel Gaddafi.

Contacts:
Chris Landsberg – 082 791 7907
Vusi Gumede – 082 336 7462
Wally Serote – 082 568 3501
David Maimela – 083 420 0133
Christine Qunta – 082 658 7747
Issued by Concerned Africans:
concernedafricans.global@gmail.com

The website of Concerned Africans is:
http://www.concernedafricans.co.za/

The demonstration on Saturday, October 15 was one of the most impressive demonstrations I have ever been to. As part of the Occupy Wall Street events in New York City, a demonstration was called for Times Square at 5 pm.

There were people of all ages represented who filled a crowded area between 42nd and 43rd Street on Broadway. This was just one of several areas in the next several streets filled with protesters. Many people carried homemade signs. The 42nd-43rd area probably included more than one thousand people. Some of the slogans on the signs people carried included slogans such as, “Don’t occupy Iraq or occupy Afghanistan, Occupy the US, Bring Democracy to America”, “Normal Person”, “All the news we’re paid to print”.

Along with all of the homemade signs, another aspect of the demonstration that was impressive was the free speech stage. Anyone who wanted to speak to the crowd was invited to come up to speak. But as there was no microphone or other electronic means of amplification, another means of amplification of the voice of the speaker was needed. The participants in the demonstration turned to a do-it-yourself means of amplifying the speaker’s voice. The mechanism used was what could be called the people’s microphone. The person speaking would have his or her words repeated by one person, and then by a small circle of people standing nearby. Then a larger group of people who had heard the words would repeat them, until even those at the outer edges of the crowd heard the words. Thus the words of the speaker were repeated by many in the crowd so that all could hear what was said.

Most of the speeches were from each speaker’s own experience or concerns and so the subject matter was often very touching. For example, one speaker described how he had been out of work for four years and had to live on the street. But people are important, he told the demonstrators. Another speaker described how during the depression, the Works Projects Administration (WPA) had hired people for works projects. She pointed to the more than 500 bridges in the US in danger of collapse and the many tasks in our society that need to be done, and the need to have the government learn from the WPA project.

One speaker described the need to, “pressure those in power to finally listen to us.” Still another speaker dedicated her remarks to, “All of those who can’t be here themselves.” At one point people in the crowd chanted “until my voice is heard.” Another chant that was repeated was “We are the 99%”. When it was announced that three blocks away, the demonstrators were having trouble with the police, people in our area chanted, “This is a peaceful demonstration.”

People were participating in the demonstration in ways that grew out of their sense that a more democratic society is needed which will encourage more participation by the people. Also the recognition that there were over 900 demonstrations or occupations in over 80 countries around the world showed that the sentiment being expressed in Times Square was shared by others around the world.

What was impressive about this demonstration was the inclusive nature of the demonstration and grassroots character of the event. If it is possible to create new forms for demonstrations and protests, forms that open up the processes to more democratic participation and input, then there is hope that these more inclusive forms will be make it possible to grapple with the difficult issues facing our societies. The Times Square demonstration in New York was only one many of what is now a broad and dynamic movement spreading across the US and around the world. The Occupy Wall Street encampment and the Occupy Wall Street movement are precious developments of our times which are leading many to think about what the problems are we are facing and how to be a participant in the processes that will be needed to solve them.

“The Art of Resistance on Jeju, Island of Peace” was the subject of a program at New York University on Saturday, September 24. The program described the protest on Jeju Island against the building of the Gangjeong Naval Base. Koh Gilchun, an artist from Jeju and Gloria Steinem, the American feminist and peace activist made presentations to an audience of students, activists and other interested people. Hong Sukjong, a researcher and activist, was the moderator who introduced the program putting the anti-base struggle in Jeju in its broader context.

Gloria Steinem described how she had first gone to Jeju 9 years ago and was impressed with the beauty of the island. More recently she was invited to visit Gangjeong Village and to see the damage to the people and natural beauty of Jeju being wrought by the construction of the naval base.

Steinem also mentioned that before he died, the former President of South Korea, Roh Moo-hyun said that he regretted only two things during his presidency of South Korea, namely sending troops to Iraq and secondly, allowing the building of a naval base on Jeju.

Koh Gilchun presented slides of some of his art work showing the devastation suffered by the people of Jeju after the 4.3 uprising in 1948 when they tried to prevent the division of Korea. In the following two years many thousands of Jeju residents were killed to suppress their militant struggle for one Korea. The US military government sent police and soldiers from the mainland who conducted a scorched earth suppression of the uprising.

Koh’s art work links the current struggle of the Jeju villagers to the heroic struggle of Koreans living south of the 38th parallel against the imposition of US military rule after WWII and the arbitrary division of Korea set in place by the 1948 United Nations election that created South Korea.

Koh also presented some of his art work protesting the devastation being brought to Jeju and its people by the construction of a new naval base on what has been a UNESCO-designated World Natural Heritage site This art work was a form of graffitti which he painted on walls and other areas near the construction site.

During the short question and answer period the issue of Chinese tourists to Jeju and the effect that the naval base would have on that tourist business was considered. There has been discussion in the Chinese media about the danger the naval base will represent for China. Already there has been a debate among over 200 Chinese netizens on one Chinese website over whether Chinese tourists should boycott Jeju if the naval base construction is completed.

Before coming to the program at NYU, I had stopped in Korea Town, the area in Manhattan where there are many Korean stores and restaurants. I saw a large poster encouraging people to vote for Jeju in the upcoming election to name it one of the new 7 wonders of nature. The construction of a new naval base on Jeju at the same time that the Jeju Tourist Organization is promoting Jeju as one of the new 7 wonders of nature provides a stark contradiction.

In 2006 Jeju was designated as a Peace Island to provide a means for healing from the devastation and trauma experienced by the people of Jeju after what has come to be known as the 4.3 Uprising. Under the Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) between the US and South Korea, however, the US has the right to use any of the South Korean military bases. One of the serious concerns raised by the building of this naval base on this beautiful Island which has had such a heroic and tragic history, is that the naval base could be used by the US or South Korea to take military action against China, making the Jeju residents a potential target if hostile clashes erupt. Just the building of the base represents an increased militarization of the region. Opposition to building the new naval base has included Gangjeong villagers predominantly, but also people from all of Jeju and the Korean mainland, and from international peace activists, artists and scholars.

The program was sponsored by the Korean Studies Colloquium Series, NYU and the Asian/Pacific/American Institute, NYU. It was co-sponsored by Nodutdol for Korean Community Development.

A short reception followed the presentations.

The occasion was the report of the credentials committee recommending that the seat held by the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya be taken by the National Transitional Council (NTC). The Credentials Committee is a committee appointed by the President of the General Assembly. The Credentials Committee for the 66th Session of the UN General Assembly which began on September 13, 2011 and will last until September 12, 2012 consists of nine member states. They are China, Costa Rica, Egypt, Italy, Maldives, Panama, Russian Federation, Senegal and the United States. The representative from Panama presented the results of the report of the Credentials Committee to the General Assembly as a consensus report .

Ambassador Jorge Valero of Venezuela was the first speaker to offer a response to the Credential Committee’s report.(1) He spoke on behalf of ALBA (the Bolivian Alliance for the People’s of Our America which is made up of Antigua and Barbuda, Bolivia, Cuba, Dominica, Ecuador, Nicaragua, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines and Venezuela.)

Ambassador Valero objected to the General Assembly seating the NTC, which he explained was “a group under the guidance of the Government of the United States and NATO, which has no legal or moral authority for deciding who should govern a country.” Noting the ongoing continuing NATO bombing of Libya, Ambassador Valero reminded members of the General Assembly, “While we discuss in this forum, the possible recognition of the self named National Transitional Council (NTC), NATO’s bombings continue on Libya. More than 20,000 criminal air raids have been carried out in order to impose a puppet government in that sister nation of northern Africa.” Ambassador Valero condemned the NATO bombings, explaining that “on behalf of the alleged defense of civilians, thousands of civilians and innocent people have been killed and the infrastructure of a country has been destroyed.”

“We support the good officers of the African Union in their pursuit of peace,” he said. This is in line with the role for a regional body provided for in Article VIII of the UN Charter. “ He explained, however, that the “well-known powers that make up the Security Council sabotaged these calls for peace….blatantly violating the (Security Council) resolution that they had previously promoted.”

Several other members of ALBA spoke, including Cuba, Bolivia, Nicaragua and Saint Vincent and the Grenadines.

In her remarks to the General Assembly, Ambassador Maria Rubiales de Chamorro of Nicaragua demanded an immediate and unconditional end to NATO’s bombing of Libya. She said, “We denounce and condemn the manipulations and distortions of those states that are openly and blatantly violating the UN Charter and Resolution 1973 of the Security Council [with the]intent to impose a regime change in a sovereign state, using the blatant and deceptive guise of protecting civilians and once again attacking the sovereign equality of states.”

The Cuban Ambassador explained that the foreign intervention and military aggression by NATO had only worsened the conflict using the “clumsy pretext of protection of civilians.”

Speaking on behalf of SADC (the Southern African Development Community), the Permanent Representative of Angola, Ambassador Ismael Gaspar Martins said that the African Union had planned a meeting at the UN on Monday, September 19, to try to determine answers to some questions important for determining whether or not to give the Libyan seat to the NTC. He explained that the NTC intended to form a government, but that had not yet occurred.(2)

Under Rule 27 of General Assembly, the request for credentials must be issued by heads of State or government or the minister of foreign affairs of a state. There was a need to determine who had signed the NTC credentials that were accepted by the Credentials Committee and whether such a person constituted a head of state or government or a minister of foreign affairs of that government. In order to preserve the integrity of the General Assembly, Ambassador Martins asked that the matter be deferred to be able to answer this question.

Another speaker pointed out that it was wrong for the General Assembly to decide to accept the credentials of the NTC before the African Union had had a chance to consider the issue and to make its recommendation.

The representatives of Zambia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Kenya, and Equatorial Guinea raised related issues recommending that it was not yet appropriate to issue credentials to the NTC.

Among the nations speaking in defense of the NTC being granted the credentials were Egypt, Gabon, Senegal, Iran and Chad. The vote in favor of granting the credentials passed with 114 voting in favor, 17 against, 15 abstentions, and 47 absent for a total of 193 members.

Though those with objections to the NTC being issued the credentials for Libya without further consideration of the issues involved, did not prevail in the vote, this was first time at an official session of a UN body that there was substantial public condemnation of NATO’s bombing of Libya as contrary to its claims of protecting civilians. Several nations spoke up, breaking the silence that had hitherto protected the aggression against Libya as being carried out in the name of the UN.

The Summary of the General Assembly Meeting prepared at the UN noted that the decision on credentials for the NTC only occurred “after much wrangling.” Also, in several of the mainstream media news reports there were indications there had been opposition to seating the NTC as the unelected, and self appointed, NATO installed representative of Libya.

The actions of those nations who raised their opposition and concern about the recommendation of the Credentials Committee began a process of public debate over the UN actions against Libya basically absent from the UN for the past 6 months. This in itself represented a victory for those who publicly raised their objections and who urged the importance of respecting the rules of procedure of the General Assembly and the principles of the UN charter. The layers of diplomacy no longer served to silence the debate over what is happening at the UN as the representatives of several nations spoke up in defense of the principles of sovereignty and non intervention into the internal affairs of member nations that are enshrined in the UN charter.

Notes

1) A video of the session of the General Assembly can be seen at:

http://www.unmultimedia.org/tv/webcast/2011/09/general-assembly-2nd-plenary-meeting-english.html

The statement by Venezuela starts at 00:48:40

2) http://www.unmultimedia.org/tv/webcast/2011/09/general-assembly-2nd-plenary-meeting-english.html
The statement by Angola starts at 01:12:08

Chapter VIII of the UN Charter, the letter explained, provides for a relevant regional organization to be supported in working toward a peaceful resolution of a conflict such as that which developed in Libya. The African Union drafted a Road Map to provide a process toward a peaceful resolution of the conflict in Libya.(2) The bombing by NATO of one side in the conflict and support for the other side has made such a peaceful resolution impossible. The Open Letter on Libya by Concerned Africans states, however, that the “AU Road Map remains the only way to peace for the people of Libya.”

The Concerned Africans have set up a web site. The url is http://www.concernedafricans.co.za Their letter is one of the first indications at the UN that among people in Africa and around the world, there is a fundamental criticism of how the UN has allowed NATO to wage war against Libya and its people with little or no condemnation at the UN. This letter appears to be but one of a growing effort of people around the world to let the UN know that there are people watching the UN and who are “immensely pained and angered” by the way “fellow Africans in Libya are, and have been subject to the fury of war by foreign powers which have disregarded the noble and very relevant vision enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations.” (3)

Notes

1.Web site for Concerned Africans

http://www.concernedafricans.co.za/

2. The Road Map included the following steps:
(i) the immediate cessation of all hostilities;
(ii) the cooperation of the concerned Libyan authorities to facilitate the diligent delivery of humanitarian assistance to the needy populations;
(iii) the protection of foreign nationals, including African migrant workers living in Libya; and
(iv) the adoption and implementation of political reforms necessary for the elimination of the causes of the current crisis.

In addition, the AU Committee:
(i)made an urgent appeal to all parties concerned, namely the Government of Libya and the National Transitional Council (NTC), to observe, without any further delay, a comprehensive cessation of hostilities and to take other measures aimed at defusing tension and ensuring the protection of the civilian population.
(ii)In this respect, the Committee invited the Libyan authorities and the NTC to a meeting to be convened, as soon as possible, in Addis Ababa or in any other venue agreeable to the parties, to discuss this Roadmap, in particular the establishment and the management of an inclusive transitional period that would lead to political reforms meeting the aspirations of the Libyan people.
http://au.int/en/dp/ps/sites/default/files/2011_mar_11_psc_265theeting_libya_communique_en.pdf

3.Another effort to let the Security Council know that there is condemnation of the NATO bombing of Libya has been initiated by U.S. Citizens for Peace and Justice in Rome, Italy.
See “Take Part in the E-Mail Campaign Against the U.S./NATO War in Libya”
http://www.peaceandjustice.it/libya.php