Tag: parliament

Maldives dismisses Gaddafi’s government as illegitimate, backs rebels

The President’s Office has issued a statement refuting the legitimacy of the Libyan government, and recognising the rebels as the country’s official representatives.

“The Maldives has decided to recognise the Libyan National Transition Council (LNTC) as the sole legitimate representative body of the Libyan people,” the President’s Office said.

The decision followed Qatar’s decision on March 28 to recognise the LNTC, a body given legitimacy on March 10 by France following a meeting with rebel leaders in Paris.

“The Maldives will always support people who stand up against human rights violations,” said President Nasheed. “The Libyan National Transition Council has become the sole legitimate representative of Libya and its people.”

Minister of Foreign Affairs Ahmed Naseem said that Muammar Gaddafi’s government had lost legitimacy through “gross and systemic human rights violations, which appear to amount to war crimes and crimes against humanity.”

The rebel advances made in the wake of NATO airstrikes after Gaddafi’s tank columns came within miles of the rebel stronghold of Benghazi have stalled. Both sides have entered a push-pull statemate over key towns such as Brega

Al Jazeera journalist Hoda Abdel-Hamid, present in Ajdabiya, reported that the rebels were only advancing when Gaddafi’s forces retreated and lacked the discipline to hold ground when pushed back, or coordinate with NATO.

In once instance of friendly-fire, rebels confessed that an air-strike that killed 13 fighters near Brega on Sunday was triggered during a celebratory firing of an anti-aircraft gun while NATO aircraft were operating in the area.

“If you compare where we are today to where we were a few weeks ago, then we are in the exact same position,” Abdel-Hamid said.

Western powers are seeking a diplomatic end to the civil war by persuading Gaddafi to give up his rule of the country, while US President Barack Obama signed an order authorising the use of covert action in Libya, obstentiously providing training and possibly weapons to the rebel fighters.

However Western – and Maldivian – support of the LNTC is likely to be complicated by the complex tribal power struggles in the country once the rebels reach Tripoli.

Veteran war correspondent Robert Fisk, writing for the UK’s Independent newspaper, previously observed that the West has largely ignored that the powerful tribal group leading the rebellion in Libya, the Senoussi, were overthrown in 1969 when Gaddafi deposed their King Idris, and the red, black and green ‘rebel’ flag – the old flag of pre-revolutionary Libya – is in fact the Idris flag, a Senoussi flag.

“Now let’s suppose [the rebels] get to Tripoli. Are they going to be welcomed there? Yes, there were protests in the capital, but many of those brave demonstrators themselves originally came from Benghazi. What will Gaddafi’s supporters do? ‘Melt away’? Suddenly find that they hated Gaddafi after all and join the revolution? Or continue the civil war?”

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Parliament falling short of public expectations despite work rate, says Speaker Shahid

Parliamentary Speaker Abdulla Shahid believes the People’s Majlis has had success in passing legislation, at least statistically, yet he concedes parliament has still failed to meet the public’s expectations in terms of its conduct.

Speaking to Minivan News, Shahid – a member of the opposition Dhivehi Rayyithunge Party (DRP) – claimed that since constitutional amendments were introduced in 2008 to try and transform parliament from a “ceremonial” institution to a functioning national body, vital regulation was beginning to be passed.  He conceded though that changes were not necessarily occurring in line with public sentiment.

“The three branches of government are trying to deal with a situation where, as in any transition, the expectations of the public are at a very high level. When you have a new democracy come in, citizens will be wanting things to change overnight. [These expectations] have been seen in many countries,” the Speaker said.   “The challenges that we have here – with the judiciary and parliament – are not because we are unable to perform, but that we are unable to perform to the expectations of the people.”

Shahid said that after living for decades under a non-democratic system, he believed peoples’ demands for political reform have been “suppressed” for such a long period of time that their sudden release created a “huge burst” of energy to ensure change that the Majlis was not always succeeding in providing.

“These expectations have been let out, so the public wants changes not today or tomorrow, but amendments that should have perhaps occurred yesterday and the day before,” he claimed, adding that parliament has in recent years undertaken a much more prolific workload regards to passing legislation.

However, Shahid, who is also a member of the opposition Dhivehi Rayyithunge Party (DRP), stressed that he was optimistic that, despite recent criticisms of judicial reform and even government economic policy, parliament would be able to catch up in meeting these expectations.

“To give a feel of how much work has been done in the parliament, when you look at the statistics, in 2000 for example, there were four bills submitted to the parliament and these were all completed. In 2001, seven bills were submitted and two of them were completed. In 2004, eight were submitted, four were completed,” he said.

By 2005, Shahid added that official statistics showed 17 bills were proposed and five were completed, followed a year later by another five bills being completed from a total number of 30 that were put forward.  The Speaker claimed that there was limited media experience among the various outlets to detail the work being conducted in parliament.

“No one was talking to the public that 30 bills had been submitted to parliament and only five were completed. No one was talking about this,” he said.

By 2008 – the year that the current Maldivian constitution was put in place -the same parliament-supplied figures showed that out of a total of 25 bills submitted, 15 were put into practice.

By the formation of the currently serving 17th national parliament in May 2009, Shahid said that over the second half of the year, a total of 55 bills, including a number of outstanding pieces of legislation, were all passed.

“The government sent everything back, they just changed the covering note and submitted it, so 55 bills were passed. That year, when the 17th parliament came in with the new constitution, we were faced with the challenge of devising the standing orders and the broader mandate of how to cope with the constitution,” he said. “When the constitution was drafted and adapted, there was no work done to get [parliament] to catch up with constitutional demands. The [Majlis] was just as it was in the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s. It was just a ceremonial set up here. But the new constitution demanded more constructive development needed to be done.”

As a result of trying to implement these changes, by last year Shahid said that the statistics showed 42 bills had been passed out of a total of 52 submitted.

Amidst this seeming rise in the output of parliament during recent years, the parliamentary speaker said that private and public media, as well as new rights protecting freedom of expression in the country, were responsible for furthering debate between people over whether parliament was functioning properly.

However, the Speaker accepted that subjects such as outlining a clear and clarified penal code, as well as an Evidence Bill to support judicial reform and policing, partisan behaviour between rival parties within the Majlis was creating the impression that there was no interest in having such bills passed.

In order to facilitate a faster moving reform of criminal legislation, Shahid claimed that talks had been opened between the various political stakeholders required to finalise any agreements.

“I met with party leaders and also the chair of all the committees yesterday. There is the general desire amongst the leadership to find ways of increasing the productivity rate of the house. We feel even though we continue to do work ahead of what any other parliament had done, still we are far behind in meeting the public’s expectations,” he said. “The reality is that we need to meet these public expectations. The committee chairs have given me an agreement that they will try and finds ways of fast tracking many of the bills, while political parties supplied an agreement that on issues on which they may disagree, they will endeavour to deal with the technical and more mundane bills faster.”

Aside from MPs working along partisan lines, Shahid said that the issue of language was another significant challenge for MPs to overcome, especially in translating very technical proposals relating to legal definitions into Dhivehi from other languages. While other Commonwealth countries were able to take existing legislation and adapt the document accordingly, the Speaker took the example of the Penal Code. In its original English draft, put together by Professor Paul Robinson at the University of Pennsylvania Law School, the code was said to have perfect sense, yet the Speaker said it did not translate directly into the Dhivehi language.

In the previous parliament, Shahid said that the question had therefore arisen as to whether the text should be adopted as it was or be amended.

“If we adopt something that we ourselves [parliament] can’t make sense of, can the Appeal Court, which is going to punish the average person on the street, use it?”

Under the current parliament, a committee was now said to be reviewing every individual article in the document to ensure it was to the satisfaction of parliamentarians.

Shahid added that similar issues had also been raised in relation to an evidence bill that had been adapted, originally from a Malaysian document.

With the bills now in the process of engagement with the Attorney General and Prosecutor General’s office, both of which the speaker acknowledged parliament had not had “the best of relationships with” during the previous year, there was optimism they could be passed.

“The Attorney General has taken the bill back for redrafting and I understand that it will be submitted back to the committee very soon,” he said. “The process of ‘throwing it out’ or rejecting the bill has not taken place because if we reject the bill, then the message again to the public is mixed: ‘We don’t want the evidence bill’. This is the message if we reject it, but if we accept the bill and approve it, along with the assistance and cooperation of the government and then submit it, then the process is starting to move.”

Shahid claimed he had already seen more engagement between the executive and parliament and was confident the bills would be passed.

Not all of the proposals put before parliament, have been welcomed by the public though. This has been seen, perhaps most noticeably, in the Privileges Bill that led to protests outside the Majlis at the end of last year to try and highlight public dissatisfaction with proposed pay rises and other benefits for MPs.

Although the speaker said that he believed there were “issues” with the Privileges Bill, he claimed these did not detract from its importance for both MPs and judges.

“The members of parliament have certain functions entrusted by the people who elected them. For example the privileges bill in many countries would give the right for the MP to have the right access to parliament. So he cannot be arrested on his way to the parliament for certain offences,” he said. “If there is an important vote in the parliament and the MP is on his way, say there is a narrow margin and the guy gets stopped for traffic offences. The constitution allows him to be held in custody for 24 hours and the vote is then done. I’m not saying that the current government would act like this, but what if we have a government that would?”

The Speaker took the example of the drafting of the new constitution and electing a Speaker for the constitutional assembly back in 2004 as an indication of what could happen.

“One just needs to find out how many members were included when they elected a Speaker. So thinking that the current government would [not act this way] just because of journalists is not right. We have to have the rights of MPs to defend the constitution described in the bill,” he said. “I do not agree with the tax free cars for the members for parliament and I do not agree with many other things, but the international standards have to be respected.”

The bill has recently been returned by the president to be redrafted, with Shahid claiming that he has recommended that they be sent to the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association in order to be adapted in line with international standards.

When dealing with public perceptions of parliamentarians, particularly with how they are dealt within the media, the parliamentary speaker said that he believed in light of recent, yet rare controversies surrounding journalists being summoned before the Majlis, politicians needed to adapt their attitudes rather than restricting media coverage.

Local media bodies like the Maldives Journalist Association (MJA) hit out at the Majlis earlier this month after parliament cut a live feed to private radio station DhiFM and ordered two of its reporters before a committee over allegations it was in contempt.

No clarification has been given over the exact offense caused during an edition of the broadcaster’s “Breakfast Club” show, though Shahid said he agreed that occasional suggestions of media censorship in the Majlis should be opposed to prevent creating a fear of using free speech.

“I think because we are at the infant stage of democracy, we need the public and especially politicians to develop a thick skin. Because we are public figures, of course we will be attacked and scrutinised – that is the beauty of democracy,” he said. “If you do something right or do something wrong they will talk about you. That is what has happened.”

In addressing media conduct, the speaker said that after years of being restricted or “guided”, journalists had now been “let loose”, yet there was no indication of how many trained reporters were currently operating in the country.

“What I know is that the institutions that are supposed to be regulating or promoting independent media have still not started functioning,” he said.

Shahid claimed that any restrictions emplaced on the media would be a step in the wrong direction for democracy and ensuring people had the right to express thoughts and discuss them – even when this may difficult for the population at large.

The speaker claimed that if a culture developed where MPs resorted en masse to take up litigation against journalists and commentators, then freedoms that had been won in the Maldives would in essence, be retracted.

“My vision is that five years, 10 years, 15 years from now, we will be developed. Our minds, the minds of our children, will be more developed and more tolerant. I have experienced this when we began parliament,” he claimed. “In 2009, when the 17th parliament was formed, the first day the amount of abuse I got as a Speaker on the floor itself was tremendous. A lot of people asked why I took it. But I firmly believed we had a young and new group of people becoming parliamentarians and they hadn’t had experience.”

However, the Speaker said he believed that a lot of members had now grown and learnt to be more responsible parliamentarians, even despite occasions where tempers flared.

Shahid said that the scale of changes within society, as well as the nation’s parliamentary system should not be underestimated though; claiming that the two years that have passed since the current constitution has come into place was still too short a period of time to expect a total democratic transition.

“Things have changed, on paper, overnight. But up here, mentally, are we prepared? Are we able to cope with the change?” he asked. “I firmly believe that if we are able to sustain and consolidate the situation, ultimately, the desired democratic system will be in place. But we have to be very careful not to let the public trust deteriorate to a level whereby the entire system fails and we again slide back into dictatorship.”

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

“Translation errors” slow Evidence Bill

Some articles of the pending Evidence Bill “made no sense at all”, Chair of Parliament’s Independent Commissions Committee Mohamed Mujitaz said today, at a press conference in parliament.

He said the bill was sent to the committee in 2009 and that MPs in the committee had noted that there were many issues with the bill.

MPs had tried to determine what sources were cited in drafting the bill, discovering that the Malaysian Evidence Act was the original source.

”But the translation of the Act was not accurate and in a Maldivian court where they speak the Dhivehi Language, judges would not be able to reach the expected verdicts with that translation,” he said.

The bill had had been sent back to the Attorney General’s office in January, he said.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Parliament confirms ongoing “confidential” investigation of JSC

Parliament’s Committee for Independent Commissions has confirmed it is conducting a closed-door investigation of the Judicial Services Commission (JSC), the body responsible for the appointment of judges and oversight of the judiciary.

The JSC has been both the subject of a damning report by the International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) and an investigation by the Anti-Corruption Commission into the JSC’s awarding of extraneous committee allowances.

Several judges – including Chief Judge of the Family Court Hassan Saeed – who were passed over for appointment to the High Court by the JSC have come forward to complain about issues relating to the JSC’s procedures after his appeal was dropped by the Supreme Court.

During a press conference held in parliament today, Committee Chair Mohamed Mujitaz confirmed that a sub-committee was conducting an ongoing investigation into the JSC, but said the members of the sub-committee had decided to keep the proceedings confidential.

According to Parliament’s regulations, closed door meetings can be held on issues relating to national security, law enforcement, or where a person is at risk of being defamed or perceived “as having committed a wrong.”

Minivan News understands that the three members of the Sub-Committee include Chair Ahmed Hanza, Mohamed Mujitaz and Independent MP Mohamed Nasheed. Hamza and Nasheed had not responded to Minivan News’ request for comment on the matter at time of press.

The President’s Member of the JSC, Aishath Velezinee, an outspoken whistleblower and critic of the JSC who has previously accused it of not just compromised independence but collusion with members of parliament to oust the executive, said the sub-committee had shown no interest in answering the letter of no-confidence she had sent in February 2010.

“On August 4 I sent a letter requesting an injunction order on the reappointment of judges until parliament had completed its investigation [of the JSC],” she said, adding that this too had gone unanswered.

Velezinee confirmed that JSC members had been summoned by the sub-committee, but had been informed that the questioning had related to her own conduct.

“The focus of the investigation appears to be taking action against me,” she claimed. “They’ve also asked for attendance sheets. Why is this being conducted in secret?”

“I’ve named five people – including two members on the sub-committee – as involved in this ‘silent coup’,” she said.

“The judiciary has not transformed [since the introduction of separation of powers], just transferred. The old boys [of the former administration] are trying the legitimise their return to power with a court order. Judging from the recent behaviour of the Supreme Court, it is in on it now which is utterly irresponsible and a tragedy.”

Professor Murray Kellam, a former Australian Supreme Court Justice who recently spent several weeks observing the JSC on the invitation of UNDP, pressed for transparency stating that “sunlight is the best antiseptic”.

“The process in your Constitution is that [in the event of] gross misconduct and gross incompetence, the Majlis (parliament) has the job of dismissing [the JSC], and that’s consistent with other places in the world,” he said.

“But the problem here is that the body making the recommendation is also the membership.”

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Bill mandating parliamentary approval for Managing Directors rejected

Parliament today rejected an amendment to the Companies Act proposed by Republican Party MP Ibrahim Muttalib stipulating that the President must seek parliamentary approval before appointing Managing Directors for public companies and state-owned enterprises.

Of the 68 MPs in attendance, only 16 MPs voted in favour of the amendment while 49 voted against and three abstained.

The amendment was severely criticised by MPs of the ruling Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) as the latest in a series of bills intended to wrest control from the executive and undermine presidential prerogatives.

Several opposition MPs also argued that the amendment would threaten the independence of public companies, claiming that a single amendment was not enough to overcome the shortcomings of the existing Companies Act.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

President appoints ministers after parliament approves four out of five ministerial appointees

President Mohamed Nasheed has appointed State Minister Ahmed Naseem as Foreign Minister and Solicitor General Abdulla Muizz as Attorney General hours after parliament approved four out of five ministerial appointees.

Housing Minister Mohamed Aslam had been acting Foreign Minister after parliament rejected the reappointment of former Foreign Minister Dr Ahmed Shaheed in November.

The new Ministers were sworn in by High Court Judge Yousuf Hussein. After presenting letters of appointment, Nasheed expressed confidence that the newest additions to the cabinet would receive parliamentary consent.

Earlier in the day, parliament approved four out of five ministerial appointees, rejecting the reappointment of Attorney General Dr Ahmed Ali Sawad for a second time.

Dr Sawad received 36 votes in favour and 37 against from the 73 MPs in attendance.

Home Minister Hassan Afeef and Transport Minister Adhil Saleem were narrowly approved in spite of the fractured main opposition Dhivehi Rayyithunge Party (DRP) declaring that it would impose a three-line whip to reject the two nominees.

Afeef and Saleem were approved after a few independent MPs along with Dhivehi Qaumee Party (DQP) MP Riyaz Rasheed and Republican Party MP Gasim Ibrahim sided with the ruling Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) – Saleem was approved with 39 votes in favour while Afeef received 37 votes from the 73 MPs present and voting.

Briefing press after yesterday’s DRP parliamentary group meeting, Majority Leader Ahmed Thasmeen Ali noted that Sawad had already been rejected once while Afeef “acted outside the law” during the transfer of powers to the newly elected local councils.

Thasmeen however announced that the party would give consent to Education Minister Shifa Mohamed and Tourism Minister Dr Mariyam Zulfa.

Shifa was approved with 66 votes in favour and six against while Dr Zulfa received 71 votes in favour and none against.

“Secret meeting”

Addressing accusations from the opposing DRP faction that Thasmeen secretly met President Nasheed over the weekend at Raa Atoll, the DRP Leader asserted that he was ready to meet the President at any time.

“Even if [the President] calls and asks for a meeting at [Raa Atoll] Alimatha tonight, I will go because he is the President of the Maldives,” Thasmeen told reporters outside parliament yesterday, attributing the allegations of collusion with the ruling party to an internal campaign to discredit his leadership.

“In truth, they are talking about this because they don’t have any other way to responsibly carry out political activities,” he claimed.

However, asked if the alleged meeting took place, Thasmeen replied “thank you very much” and walked away.

In November 2010, parliament rejected seven ministers reappointed by President Nasheed after the entire cabinet resigned in protest of alleged obstruction and vote-buying in the legislature.

President Nasheed appointed then-Political Advisor Hassan Afeef as Home Minister in December, replacing Mohamed Shihab, who was appointed Advisor on Political Affairs.

Shifa Mohamed was meanwhile promoted from Deputy Minister of Education to Minister in place of Dr Musthafa Luthfy, recently appointed Chancellor of the Maldives National University.

Both Afeef and Shifa were appointed on December 11 while AG Sawad was reappointed two days later.

Transport Minister Adil Saleem and Tourism Minister Dr Mariyam Zulfa took their oaths of office on November 7, 2010.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

MDP MP withdraws controversial death penalty amendment moments before vote

Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) MP Ahmed Rasheed has withdrawn his amendment to the Clemency Act at the last minute, hours before a vote to send the bill to committee. The controversial amendment would have required implementing agencies to execute murderers if the Supreme Court upheld a guilty verdict.

After the preliminary debate over the past three sittings, MP Rasheed was given the opportunity to say his last words on the amendment, which he used as an opportunity to withdraw the bill.

Presenting the bill to the parliament earlier this month, the Hoarafushi MP explained that he was prompted by the recent increase in assaults and murder cases, which had “forced the living to live amid fear and threats.”

In 2008, said Rasheed, 104 cases of assault were sent to the Prosecutor General’s Office (PGO), rising to 454 cases in 2009 and 423 cases in 2010.

”In Quran, Sural Al Baqarah verse 178, God says: ‘O ye who believe! the law of equality is prescribed to you in cases of murder: the free for the free, the slave for the slave, the woman for the woman. But if any remission is made by the brother of the slain, then grant any reasonable demand, and compensate him with handsome gratitude, this is a concession and a Mercy from your Lord. After this whoever exceeds the limits shall be in grave penalty’,” he then said. ”During broad day light in this very city of Male’ people have been chopped, sliced and crushed using axes, machetes – just like fish are chopped.”

While he did not specify reasons for his decision to withdraw the amendment, Rasheed claimed that he would resubmit the amendment once belated bills on evidence laws, criminal justice procedures and the penal code were enacted. Criticism of the amendment had centered around the capacity of the Maldivian justice system to rule fairly and impartially in such cases.

Unlike most parliamentary debates, MPs were not divided on the issue of death penalty along party lines. Several MPs of the ruling MDP as well as some opposition MPs argued that the fledgling Maldivian judiciary did not have the capacity or public confidence to dispense justice fairly.

The decision comes after 21 year-old Ahusan Basheer was murdered on the streets of Male’ during a gang attack on Thursday night.

The last person to be executed by Maldivian state was Hakim Didi in 1953 for the crime of practicing black magic.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Parliament cuts off live feed to DhiFM, summons journalists

A parliament decision to cut a live feed to private radio station DhiFM and summon some of its journalists before its general affairs committee tomorrow over allegations of contempt during a live broadcast has been roundly condemned by the Maldives Journalist Association (MJA).

”We believe that the media has the authority to report the dialogue of MPs, broadcast what is going on inside the parliament as well as the authority to criticise,” read a press release by the MJA. ”It is a right guaranteed by the constitution and we call on the parliament not to violate that right.”

The MJA notes that the parliament’s action to last week cut the feed – reportedly in response to “disrespect” exhibited to some MPs by DhiFM presenters – was both unwarranted and disproportionate, adding that parliament should have recourse to other means than unilaterally terminating the live coverage of parliament sittings.

”This association does not believe that a responsible institution of the state would have to stop sending live feed to a media outlet in order to complain about its reporting,” reads the MJA statement. ”It is also questionable whether the live feed was stopped after investigating the matter.”

The press association warned that such actions could undermine press freedom by silencing the media.

However, the MJA also called on local media to be responsible in their duties as well as appealing for MPs to ensure the freedoms guaranteed by the constitution are practiced to their full extent.

Parliament Secretary-General Ahmed Mohamed is currently abroad and was unavailable for comment.

CEO of DhiFM, Masoodh Hilmy confirmed that the parliamentary committee sent two letters to the radio station requesting a recording of its ”Breakfast Club” programme last week and summoning the two DhiFM journalists who presented the programme in front of a committee tomorrow.

”We have not yet decided whether we will send the two journalists, because currently we are seeking legal advice to determine whether legally we are obliged to attend parliament if requested,” said Masood. ”We will abide by all laws, and we do not believe that we violated the privileges of MPs.”

Masood characterised the action taken by the parliament as a challenge to the freedom of press.

”It is a step backwards in terms of democracy, I think its the first time in history the parliament has summoned journalists,” he said, adding that the incident was “regrettable”.

Masood added that while DhiFM has not officially been informed that the live feed had been disconnected, “our technical department says that we haven’t been receiving signals from the parliament.”

The MJA’s criticism comes just a month after it spoke out along with other media figures like the editor of Haveeru to criticise police in requesting to speak with some of the paper’s journalists concerning the identity of sources on which it based a report.

The story focused on an alleged blackmail ring that reportedly obtained pornographic images of some high-profile national figures through the internet, which has been the basis of an ongoing police investigation.  Haveeru said at the time that its staff declined to reveal the identities of its sources.

Likes(3)Dislikes(0)

Comment: We should not stand aside while this dictator murders his own people

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]

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)