Libya rejects Arab League resolution - state TV

[JanDutchy]

Source: Reuters

CAIRO, March 13 (Reuters) - Libya said on Sunday an Arab League resolution calling on the U.N. Security Council to impose a no-fly zone over Libya was "an unacceptable departure" from the body's charter, Libyan state television said

Read more: http://af.reuters.com/article/energyOilNews/idAFLDE72C0J720110313

---

[faz]

1. The "Arab League" is a funny name because

these folks have long sold out the interests of Arabs to the highest foreign bidders.

[Name removed]

2. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[defendandprotect]

3. kr

[David__77]

4. So, the vote would have been 9-3, but it was 9-2 because Libya was excluded.

Algeria and Syria voted "no," as would have Libya had it not been barred from the meeting. The loss of life and the future impact of people's quality or life is terrible... we will see how this plays out. The Arab countries and Libya haven't been on good terms for quite some time, since Gaddafi switched to his "African focus" in the 1990s. It is interesting that the neighboring non-Arab African countries have been pro-Gaddafi to varying extents. Again, I think this is largely related to Libya's stronger political and economic relations with them in recent years. Hence the opposition to intervention by the African Union.

I do not understand the calls for intervention. If the Arab League wants intervention, then why does it not organize it themselves? They are instead calling for the UN Security Council to approve it. That is not going to happen. Russia would veto, and China will abstain or possibly join Russia in voting no. So, either this call for intervention is symbolic, as it seems, or it is misdirected effort. In my opinion, the Arab countries would never, ever lead a no fly zone, even they collectively have the ability to do so. Instead, they want "the West" to blame so they can if needed play both sides of the fence.

[JanDutchy]

5. The Elders: To end bloodshed in Libya, maintain pressure on Gaddafi

to step down


2 Mar 2011


The Elders today (2 Mar 2011) called on the international community to maintain pressure on Colonel Muammar Gaddafi to step down as the only way to end the bloodshed in Libya.

Welcoming the strong resolution adopted unanimously by the UN Security Council to try to halt the violent repression in Libya, they urged the rapid implementation of agreed measures including an arms embargo, targeted financial sanctions and travel bans. The Elders also underlined the need for swift humanitarian assistance to those in need, including people fleeing the violence.

The decision by the UN Security Council to refer recent events in Libya to the International Criminal Court to examine whether crimes against humanity have been committed and to potentially prosecute those involved also marks an important step forward. However none of these measures is likely to provide immediate protection to the civilian population.

UN Member States should consider whether other measures may be necessary to protect the people of Libya when their leader has manifestly failed to do so.

Ultimately, the Elders say, it is Colonel Gaddafi's departure from power, along with that of key members of his regime, that will forestall further bloodshed.


Chair of The Elders, Archbishop Desmond Tutu, said:

“This is a moral universe – the Libyan people have right on their side and I am confident that they will succeed in their quest for freedom.

“I admire their courage in facing up to a leader who has in effect declared a brutal war on his own people to cling onto power.

“Gaddafi must recognise the truth – that the people of Libya are demanding change and he cannot stand in their way.”

http://theelders.org/media/mediareleases/libya-gaddafi-step-down

[Alamuti Lotus]

6. Do you have a listing of the votes?

I find it very difficult to take the resolution and similar proclamations seriously--so Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Yemen, Oman, and the rest all decided that shooting crowds is wrong? Perhaps they should stop doing the very same things, or some imperialist figurehead might get the same idea about their little fiefdoms tomorrow.

[joshcryer]

7. Algeria and Syria have been providing mercs and weapons and pilots to Gaddafi.

Why wouldn't they vote no.

[pinboy3niner]

8. The Arab League statement said the vote was unanimous

Other reports indicate that Algeria and Syria agreed to approve the resolution in a compromise--under which a second resolution (opposing foreign military 'intervention') was added.

[joshcryer]

9. Thanks for the clarification, I tried to find a break down of the vote given the uncertainty.

Good that it was unanimous, that may be why it was said that a NFZ was "very likely."

[David__77]

10. Syria and Algeria did not vote for it.

See http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/world/2011/0314/1224292063249.html for instance.

By the way, for some reason, there is little media coverage of the African Union opposition to a no fly zone. It has 54 member nation-states, but it seems like the Western media do not care. http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/MC15Ak02.html

The international community is far from united on this. There is strong opposition to intervention not just by many developing countries, but by a number of developed countries like the US and Germany, as well.

[JanDutchy]

11. It was weekend and the press is looking at Japan; 'matter of choice personal capacity'

today the news on it give ca. 12.000 hits; beispiel http://www.cartoonstock.com/directory/l/libya.asp