The following is a statement given by British Prime Minister David Cameron to the British Parliament in a bid to justify the UN Security Council’s resolution to authorise international military intervention in Libya, ahead of today’s air strikes. Maldivian President Mohamed Nasheed was among the first world leaders to urge intervention.
Over three weeks ago, the people of Libya took to the streets in protest against Colonel Gaddafi and his regime, asking for new rights and freedoms. There were hopeful signs that a better future awaited them, and that, like people elsewhere in the Middle East and North Africa, they were taking their destiny into their own hands. Far from meeting those aspirations, Colonel Gaddafi has responded by attacking his own people. He has brought the full might of armed forces to bear on them, backed up by mercenaries. The world has watched as he has brutally crushed his own people.
On 23 February, the UN Secretary-General cited the reported nature and scale of attacks on civilians as “egregious violations of international and human rights law” and called on the Government of Libya to
“meet its responsibility to protect its people.”
The Secretary-General said later that more than 1,000 people had been killed and many more injured in Libya amid credible and consistent reports of arrests, detention and torture.
Over the weekend of 26 and 27 February, at Britain’s instigation, the UN Security Council agreed Resolution 1970, which condemned Gaddafi’s actions. It imposed a travel ban and asset freezes on those at the top of his regime. It demanded an end to the violence, access for international human rights monitors and the lifting of restrictions on the media. Vitally, it referred the situation in Libya to the International Criminal Court so that its leaders should face the justice they deserve.
In my statement to the House on 28 February, I set out the steps that we would take to implement those measures. Our consistent approach has been to isolate the Gaddafi regime, deprive it of money, shrink its power and ensure that anyone responsible for abuses in Libya will be held to account. I also told the House that I believed contingency planning should be done for different scenarios, including involving military assets, and that that should include plans for a no-fly zone.
Intervening in another country’s affairs should not be undertaken save in quite exceptional circumstances. That is why we have always been clear that preparing for eventualities that might include the use of force—including a no-fly zone or other measures to stop humanitarian catastrophe—would require three steps and three tests to be met: demonstrable need, regional support and a clear legal basis.
First, on demonstrable need, Gaddafi’s regime has ignored the demand of UN Security Council Resolution 1970 that it stop the violence against the Libyan people. His forces have attacked peaceful protesters, and are now preparing for a violent assault on a city, Benghazi, of one million people that has a history dating back 2,500 years. They have begun air strikes in anticipation of what we expect to be a brutal attack using air, land and sea forces. Gaddafi has publicly promised that every home will be searched and that there will be no mercy and no pity shown.
If we want any sense of what that might mean we have only to look at what happened in Zawiyah, where tanks and heavy weaponry were used to smash through a heavily populated town with heavy loss of life. We do not have to guess what happens when he has subdued a population. Human Rights Watch has catalogued the appalling human rights abuses that are being committed in Tripoli. Now, the people of eastern Libya are faced with the same treatment. That is the demonstrable need.
Secondly, on regional support, we said that there must be a clear wish from the people of Libya and the wider region for international action. It was the people of Libya, through their transitional national council, who were the first to call for protection from air attack through a no-fly zone. More recently, the Arab League has made the same demand.
It has been remarkable how Arab leaders have come forward and condemned the actions of Gaddafi’s Government. In recent days, I have spoken with the leaders of Saudi Arabia, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates and Jordan. A number of Arab nations have made it clear that they are willing to participate in enforcing the resolution. That support goes far beyond the Arab world. Last night, all three African members of the UN Security Council voted in favour of the resolution.
The third and essential condition was that there should be a clear legal base. That is why along with France, Lebanon and the United States we worked hard to draft appropriate language that could command the support of the international community. Last night, the United Nations Security Council agreed that Resolution.
Resolution 1973 “Demands the immediate establishment of a ceasefire and a complete end to violence and all attacks against, and abuses of, civilians”. It establishes “a ban on all flights” in the airspace of Libya “in order to help protect civilians”. It authorises member states to take “all necessary measures to enforce compliance with the ban”.
Crucially, in paragraph 4, it “Authorises member states… acting nationally or through regional organisations or arrangements, and acting in co-operation with the Secretary-General, to take all necessary measures…to protect civilians and civilian populated areas under threat of attack… including Benghazi”.
The resolution both authorises and sets the limits of our action. Specifically, it excludes an occupation force of any form, on any part of Libyan territory. That was a clear agreement between all the sponsors of the resolution, including the UK, and of course, the Arab League. I absolutely believe that that is the right thing both to say and to do.
As our ambassador to the United Nations said, the central purpose of this resolution is to end the violence, protect civilians, and allow the people of Libya to determine their own future, free from the brutality unleashed by the Gaddafi regime. The Libyan population want the same rights and freedoms that people across the Middle East and North Africa are demanding, and that are enshrined in the values of the United Nations charter. Resolution 1973 puts the weight of the Security Council squarely behind the Libyan people in defence of those values. Our aims are entirely encapsulated by that resolution.
Demonstrable need, regional support and a clear legal base: the three criteria are now satisfied in full. Now that the UN Security Council has reached its decision, there is a responsibility on its members to respond. That is what Britain, with others, will now do. The Attorney-General has been consulted and the Government are satisfied that there is a clear and unequivocal legal basis for the deployment of UK forces and military assets. He advised Cabinet this morning, and his advice was read and discussed.
The Security Council has adopted Resolution 1973 as a measure to maintain or restore international peace and security under chapter VII of the United Nations charter. The resolution specifically authorises notifying member states to use all necessary measures to enforce a no-fly zone and to protect civilians and civilian populated areas, including Benghazi.
At Cabinet this morning, we agreed that the UK will play its part. Our forces will join an international operation to enforce the resolution if Gaddafi fails to comply with the demand that he end attacks on civilians. The Defence Secretary and I have now instructed the Chief of the Defence Staff to work urgently with our allies to put in place the appropriate military measures to enforce the resolution, including a no-fly zone. I can tell the House that Britain will deploy Tornadoes and Typhoons as well as air-to-air refuelling and surveillance aircraft. Preparations to deploy those aircraft have already started and in the coming hours they will move to air bases from where they can start to take the necessary action.
The Government will table a substantive motion for debate next week, but I am sure that the House will accept that the situation requires us to move forward on the basis of the Security Council resolution immediately. I am sure that Members on both sides of the House call on Colonel Gaddafi to respond immediately to the will of the international community and cease the violence against his own people. I spoke to President Obama last night and to President Sarkozy this morning. There will be a clear statement later today, setting out what we now expect from Colonel Gaddafi.
We should never prepare to deploy British forces lightly or without careful thought. In this case, I believe that we have given extremely careful thought to the situation in hand. It is absolutely right that we played a leading role on the UN Security Council to secure permission for the action, and that we now work with allies to ensure that that resolution is brought about. There will be many people in our country who will now want questions answered about what we are doing and how we will go about it. I intend to answer all those questions in the hours and days ahead, and to work with our brave armed services to ensure that we do the right thing, for the people of Libya, for the people of our country and for the world as a whole.
Tonight, British forces are in action over Libya. They are part of an international coalition that has come together to enforce the will of the United Nations and to support the Libyan people. We have all seen the appalling brutality that Colonel Gaddafi has meted out against his own people. And far from introducing the ceasefire he spoke about, he has actually stepped up the attacks and the brutality that we can all see.
So what we are doing is necessary, it is legal, and it is right. It is necessary because, with others, we should be trying to prevent him using his military against his own people. It is legal, because we have the backing of the United Nations Security Council and also of the Arab League and many others.
And it is right because we believe we should not stand aside while this dictator murders his own people. Tonight, of course our thoughts should be with those in our armed services who are putting their lives at risk in order to save the lives of others. They are the bravest of the brave. But I believe we should all be confident that what we are doing is in a just cause and in our nation’s interest.
David Cameron is the Prime Minister of the UK.
All comment pieces are the sole view of the author and do not reflect the editorial policy of Minivan News. If you would like to write an opinion piece, please send proposals to [email protected]
12 thoughts on “Comment: We should not stand aside while this dictator murders his own people”
Of course they should, the problem with a moralistic foreign policy is that the extent to which you can implement it is set by the paramteres of realpolitick.
The U.S can condemn Qaddafi, but they can't do the same for Bahrain Monarchy, or heck, even Saudi Arabia - because they can't allow the situation to be de-stabilized, and have their military bases kicked out as a prelude to a Sunni - Shi'ite intra-Islamic war with Iran. Anyone who thinks the Iranians wouldn't want to duke it out with the Saudis without the detterence of American military presence is completely fooling herself.
Ordinary people (especially, naive, idiotic, liberals) can't grasp the implications this would have on the price of oil, and consequently, the global economy - the de-stabilization of which has always historically provided the context for aggressive jingoism.
Here are the Western goals in the Middle East: Not necessarily in order.
1) Preserve the balance of power between Iran, and the Saudis. War is bad for the economy.
2) Keep the oil flowing. Oil is necessary for the economy.
3) Liberalizing Islam (they fear fundementalist theology breeds terrorism - and as long as extremism exists in the context of foreign presence, it's a security risk - but conversely, pulling out those bases, would lead to regional war - which would be bad for the economy.
4) Well, then there's Israel - this probably has more to do with the presence of Zionist lobbies.
The West wants peace in the Middle East, but morals have nothing to do with it. Really, the greatest virtue of our time is that peace is profitable. And this is why we get to call their governments hypocritical behind the safety of our computer screens.
(Of course, there's that whole matter of Iraq - but that was just Bush being an idiot, and being manipulated by the neo-cons.)
When did David Cameron, the British Prime Minister become an article writer in Minivan News?
Mr Cameron, why Libya? why this double standardness? Democracy protesters are been killed in Yemen, Bahrain and Syria. Arab world is full of dictators. Why not bomb all of them. Why only libya? This is not a question of saving people from a tyrant. It is purely your interest in another oil rich country and gaining control of world energy. Innocent civilians were killes in Gaza war by Iraelis. US nor UK never thought of creating a no fly zone over Gaza at that time. You guys are all selfish and double standard. You want just another war in this world. Haven't we had enough? Iraq, afghanistan and now Libya.
Oh well. Time to set up shop there and start selling anti-tank weapons to the rebels.
See Mr.Cameron. I warned you. Now Ibrahim Yasir is taking you to task.
Ibrahim Yasir - I have already elaborated that any action on Bahrain and Saudi Arabia would make a Sunni region vulnerable to shi'ite Iran. Regional war benefits neither the economy, nor the people - and the US needs to be able to keep its military bases in the region to prevent this from happening. Of course, this creates all sorts of problems.
It's very simple really - dictatorship imposed peace in Bahrain and Saudi Arabia is profitable. In Libya - Qaddafi does not fit neatly with that logic, being a lunatic and all.
Western governments are correct to be hypocrites - keeps Muslims from killing each other, while Israel distracts them. Theu just shouldn't be so loud about it that's all. Because such blatant hypocrisy breeds terrorism, and terrorism is bad for the economy.
Ibrahim Yasir; why do you care about Bahrain - they are mostly shi'ite Rafidhi heretics, of the sort we, as good Sunnis, do not tolerate in the Maldives. Their Sunni king is guarding against a heretic uprising.
Our Prime Minister is an idiot. Shame on Minivan news for printing this nonsense word for word.
We will pay the price for this in the future, probably in the form of terrorist attacks. The British public do not support this involvement in a civil war. The Arab Council no longer supports this because the UN have gone beyond the original remit and America is distancing itself (because Obama know his country will not stand for it) by handing over control to Britain and France. Cameron and Sarkozy will kill many of the Libyan citizens they are supposedly protecting, by this vindictive bombing campaign.
The only countries to come out of this with credit are Russia, China, India, Brazil and Germany who abstained from voting.
There are many regimes in the world that we do not like, we ignore them and their crimes totally but we are now attacking (and apparently willing to assassinate) Gadaffi who has been supported by us the last 30 years. Only the weak are attacked, especially if they have oil which is what this is all about.
We are being fed the usual pro war lies and propaganda by the UK media.
The governments supporting action in Libya have no idea who or what Gadaffi will replace Gadaffi, IF he is actually defeated!
What about African nations Cameroon? For the last many years, the NATO was looking for an opportunity to enter Libya, their patience has now been awarded. Even Gadaffi's ceasefire would now have no affect. The NATO will enter Libya, plunder oil between themselves then leave Libya high & dry. Sorry only DRY.
Is it mentioned in Sunni Islam that we obey and follow the Kuffaar? Is it in Sunni Islam that we conspire with the United States to fight Muslim countries? Those who say that Bahraini king and his cronies are Sunni and those opposing them are Shia must consider this.
Rishmi; actually the West was against the crackdown on the shi'ite heretics, it's just that Iran is a political danger to them and Saudi Arabia. America is a puppet of the Arab World, and Israel - currently the Jewish lobby has more clout in washgington, hence support for Palestine is more open.
You must consider that American bases are the only reason Muslims are NOT fighting each other. Or do you think the Iranians and the Saudis are best friends?
And why do you consider the shia to be our Muslim brothers? They reject the rashidun caliphate, and insult the prophets (swt) wives.
*support for Israel I mean
"You want just another war in this world. Haven’t we had enough? Iraq, afghanistan and now Libya."
If they had intervened in Yemen, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, then you would still complain. Only, your statement would expand to become :
"You want just another war in this world. Haven’t we had enough? Iraq, afghanistan, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, Yemen and now Libya."
Are you, or are you not for the UN intervention to disarm Muammar Gaddafi - an obviously deranged individual with no inhibitions in killing? That's all that matters.
Comments are closed.