Sunday, 24 July 2011
Tuesday, 19 July 2011
France-Côte d'Ivoire: la tentation coloniale
Depuis le kidnapping du president Laurent Gbagbo, le 11 avril 2011, la diplomatie et e l’armée françaises sont en première ligne à Abidjan. Selon le politologue Michel Galy, cette situation ramène la Côte d'Ivoire 50 ans en arrière.
Le Premier ministre français François Fillon avec Alassane Ouattara, le 15 juillet 2011, à Abidjan. REUTERS/Luc Gnago
l'auteur
partager
taille du texte
Et ce dans des circonstances encore floues, tant dans la préparation en amont de l’opération avec la mission de l’ONU en Côte d’Ivoire (Onuci) et avec l’ex-rébellion, bras armé du pouvoir d’Alassane Ouattara, que dans le bombardement d’objectifs plus symboliques que militaires.
Tous les observateurs savent bien, une fois le drame retombé, que le bombardement de la présidence et de la résidence présidentielle d’un pays étranger n’entre pas dans le cadre d’un quelconque mandat onusien! Quand les armes lourdes, les tanks et les hélicoptères d’assaut des deux corps expéditionnaires occidentaux tirent sur de tels objectifs (résidence, présidence, hôpital et supermarché, foule de jeunes civils voulant servir de «bouclier humain», etc.), qui pourrait croire à l’application de la résolution 1975, censée protéger les civils?
Un coup d'Etat programmé
Il s’est agi de toute évidence de changer de régime et de président, en prenant le contrôle d’une capitale de 5 millions d’habitants. En toute clarté terminologique: un coup d’Etat franco-onusien.A quel prix? Voilà un point qu’une commission d’enquête parlementaire ou internationale ou pourquoi pas un rapport enfin objectif d’organisations de droits de l’homme —décidément bien ambiguës— pourraient éclaircir. A moins que des chercheurs africanistes, que l’on a connu plus diserts pour condamner le régime précédent, se livrent à des enquêtes de terrain ou des analyses argumentées.
Il est question, lors de ce coup d’Etat, de centaines ou de milliers de morts, dont nombre de civils désarmés. Où est la vérité? Les forces pro-Ouattara ont torturé et exécuté plusieurs milliers de civils, tant à Yopougon (quartier pro-Gbagbo) que dans l’ensemble de la capitale, et commis des crimes de guerre dont Duékoué n’est que l’exemple le plus connu.
Qui nous donnera des chiffres exacts et détaillera la complicité —même dans la passivité— des forces occidentales? Tout ce qu’on sait de la «triple alliance» force Licorne, Onuci-FRCI (Forces républicaines de Côte d’Ivoire, ex-rebelles pro-Ouattara) font craindre une implication de l’armée française plus importante qu’au Rwanda.
Une gouvernance de l’ombre en Côte d’Ivoire
Ces graves problèmes sont en fait la conséquence d’une délégitimation programmée du régime précédent, coupable sans doute d’une résistance larvée à une volonté de normalisation franco-africaine, et d’une volonté pourtant très relative de se tourner vers de nouveaux partenaires, comme la Chine.Délégitimation intellectuelle et politique, depuis Paris et Abidjan, concomitante à une aide multiforme au coup d’Etat de 2002 où les forces de Guillaume Soro et Alassane Ouattara ont conquis les deux tiers du pays. Cette descente vers le Sud des conquérants dioulas n’a été possible in fine que grâce à l’aide des services français et de la force Licorne, dont seules les grandes lignes sont connues.
«Et maintenant, on fait quoi?», disent volontiers les Abidjanais… La «tentation coloniale» semble se traduire par une mise en coupe réglée du pays et, pire encore, une mise sous tutelle du nouveau régime, qui ramène 50 ans en arrière.
Tous les observateurs le savent: en cas de retrait de la force Licorne et des troupes de l’ONU, l’armée et le régime Ouattara ne tiendraient pas longtemps dans une ville qui leur reste majoritairement hostile. D’où la tendance, pour les responsables français d’Abidjan, à se substituer ou à collaborer aux centres de décision ouattaristes: de nommer très récemment, par exemple, un colonel français au poste de conseiller sécurité à la présidence.
Le retour des institutions internationales —et particulièrement françaises, comme l’Agence française de développement (AFD)— (absentes depuis 10 ans, avec la volonté implicite de couper toute aide au régime Gbagbo) se traduira par des experts étrangers tout puissants et par des conditionnalités renforcées: une gouvernance de l’ombre qui formate en amont projets et programmes.
Décapitalisation aussi de l’économie: de nombreuses sociétés d’Etat seraient alors privatisées, comme pendant la primature Ouattara, au profit de ses proches (et des clients étrangers) qui trustent déjà ministères et postes-clés —au détriment du Parti démocratique de Côte d’Ivoire (PDCI, ancien parti unique de Felix Houphouët Boigny de 1960 à 1990, de droite, à tendance libérale), décidément la dupe du coup d’Etat.
Les matières premières comme le café, le cacao et surtout le pétrole offshore du golfe de Guinée sont bien plus importants, et les Américains sont à l’affût, en rivalité directe avec les entreprises françaises.
L’opposition muselée
Le prix de ce retour à l’ordre colonial est hélas celui d’une brutale criminalisation de l’opposition, de l’incarcération et de la déportation de ses dirigeants —tandis qu’une répression multiforme décime ou terrorise ses partisans. Le plus scandaleux est la déportation non seulement de Laurent Gbagbo à Korhogo, mais de sa famille (son fils, de nationalité française, Michel Gbagbo, qui subit des mauvais traitements à Bouna, est-il coupable d’un «délit de parenté»?) et des «Cents d’Abidjan» eux aussi emprisonnés dans des conditions indignes dans des zones hostiles, malgré la présence complice des troupes de l’ONU. Les conventions de Genève stipulent des conditions de détention décentes et la possibilité de consulter un avocat; des droits déniés à ces prisonniers politiques ivoiriens.Encouragé par l’absence de réactions internationales, le pouvoir vient très récemment de déporter à Boundiali les réfugiés de la Pergola, hôtel où, dans une sorte de guet-apens, l’ONU était censé assurer leur sécurité. Le Premier ministre Aké Ngo Gilbert, que j’ai connu dirigeant l’université d’Abidjan et garant scientifique des remarquables colloques de 2010 (pour fêter les 50 ans des «indépendances»!) a-t-il fait autre chose que de gérer honnêtement une situation économiquement très difficile depuis les élections?
On a hélas l’impression qu’au-delà de l’opposition, ce sont les élites intellectuelles et même les classes moyennes qui sont condamnées, tandis que les criminels de guerre et autres rebelles reçoivent les prébendes et la reconnaissance internationale!
Abidjan «hors de contrôle»
Sur le plan militaire, les pouvoirs français et ivoiriens (ou «franco-ivoiriens»?) sont devant un dilemme: soit ils s’appuient sur les FDS (Forces de défense et de sécurité) pro-Gbagbo, foncièrement hostiles à l’armée de Ouattara; soit ils aident comme pendant la «bataille d’Abidjan» (entraînement, logistique, armes et uniformes) les rebelles pro-Ouattara, dont tout laisse deviner qu’il ne suffit pas de les baptiser «FRCI» pour que cessent leur pratiques de prédation.L’amalgame étant difficile —si ce n’est impossible— tant les deux factions militaires sont hostiles, l’armée française peut être tentée de se substituer à l’armée ivoirienne (comme sous le président Houphouët-Boigny) ou de l’«encadrer», c'est-à-dire de la diriger par une présence massive de «conseillers», comme au Vietnam autrefois, ou en Libye aujourd’hui.
La situation à Abidjan est en effet «hors de contrôle», selon l’aveu des dirigeants civils pro-Ouattara: outre les centaines de meurtres d’opposants, notamment à Yopougon, d’immenses quartiers comme Angré ont été totalement pillés; plus de police et de gendarmerie, et les Dozos (qui auraient massacré un millier de civils à Duékoué) sont dans les commissariats.
Dès lors la tentation est grande pour les Franco-onusiens d’aider le gouvernement Ouattara à éliminer les rebelles les plus dangereux, sur le modèle de la liquidation d’Ibrahim Coulibaly —ce qui entraînerait plus loin les forces occidentales dans les violences ivoiriennes.
Contre ce programme néocolonialiste, une autre politique franco-ivoirienne se dessine, qui pourrait favoriser un retour à la paix civile et à des élections législatives représentatives, faute de quoi l’hypothèse d’un nouveau cycle de violences ne serait pas à exclure, tant à l’extérieur qu’à l’intérieur du pays. Retrait des deux corps expéditionnaires occidentaux, libération des prisonniers politiques et réintégration de ceux-ci dans le jeu politique en seraient les points-clés.
Dans le cas contraire, la «bataille d’Abidjan» et ses nombreuses victimes aurait été menée pour rien: à terme, les intérêts et même les ressortissants français courraient de graves dangers, tant le ressentiment est important à Abidjan.
Décidément, l’image quasi «bushienne» de lutte du bien contre le mal —comme en Libye?— n’était pas très réaliste… Pas plus que celle d’un «post-conflit» idyllique et consensuel.
On parierait qu’un terrible scandale politico-médiatique reste à venir, quand on saura enfin ce qu’il s’est réellement passé à Abidjan, il y a aujourd’hui trois mois.
Michel Galy
Côte d’Ivoire, dans le nord rebelle, les douaniers ne sont toujours pas les bienvenus
Les entrées d’argent du port suffisent à Ouattara et à ses amis blancs. Il veulent fermer nos postes, mais qu’ils arrêtent d’abord les tickets de Wattao au port d’Abidjan et des autres à San-Pedro.
Wattao taxe les camions vides à 5000 Fcfa et les camions remplis à 10.000 Fcfa, est-ce que eux ils ne voient pas ça ? et c’est nous ici, ils viennent emmerder.
Dernièrement nos éléments ont reçu 100.000 FCFA à la CTK, mais toi-même tu es journaliste vieux-père, est-ce que c’est normal ça, cent mille pour tout le travail qu’on a fait. Nos frères et amis sont tombés (mort, Ndlr ) au front, leurs parents n’ont rien reçu, mais Soro et Ouattara parce que l’armée française les soutient pensent qu’ils peuvent nous forcer à déposer les armes et puis fermer la Centrale.
Eux, ils ont leurs milliards, nous on a nos régisseurs aux postes frontaliers. Je répète, l’argent du port suffit à Ouattara et à ses amis. Ils nous ont trompé eux tous, on a compris ça depuis la mort du Major (IB), on va te recontacter frère, ya des choses tu dois savoir (…)»
« Le port suffit à Ouattara et ses amis »
Voici le résumé des propos d’un soldat FRCI, ancien des Forces nouvelles que nous avons joint samedi dernier au téléphone depuis la localité de Ponondougou dans le nord de la Côte-d’Ivoire. Au mois de juin, nous vous faisions cas du refus des hommes du commandant « rebelle » Fofié Kouakou, de laisser les postes de contrôles frontaliers aux fonctionnaires des douanes, affectés depuis Abidjan. Ceux-ci avaient d’ailleurs été menacés et sommés sous la menace des armes de retourner d’où ils venaient. Un mois plus-tard, nous sommes repartis aux nouvelles. Le constat est que le statut-quo demeure, « les douaniers de Ouattara » ne sont toujours pas les bienvenus dans le « Soroland ».Ainsi, des difficultés budgétaires pour le gouvernement Ouattara pointent déjà à l’horizon. L’information sur cette crainte, circule déjà dans les milieux économiques ivoiriens. On comprend mieux tout le sens de l’annonce faite la semaine dernière par le gouvernement Ouattara, sur son incapacité à faire face au service du remboursement de la dette contractée auprès du Club de Paris, pour l’exercice 2011. Cette dette s’élève à 2,3 milliards de dollars US, plus de mille cent (1.100) milliards de FCFA.
Hervé Coulibaly
Source: Connectionivoirienne.net
19 juillet, 2011 a 09:25
Monday, 18 July 2011
Open letter to Mr. Ban Ki-Moon
Open letter to Mr. Ban Ki-Moon
To the Secretary General of the United Nations Organization (United States/Governments Organization)
Timothy Bancroft-Hinchey
Mr. Ban Ki-Moon, are you or are you not the Secretary-General of the United Nations Organization? Are you or are you not supposed to promote peace in the international community? Are you or are you not supposed to uphold the terms of the UNSC Resolutions? Yes, or no?
Mr. Ban Ki-Moon, France has broken international law. What are you going to do about it?
Mr. Ban Ki-Moon, are you or are you not the Secretary-General of the United Nations Organization? Are you or are you not supposed to promote peace in the international community? Are you or are you not supposed to uphold the terms of the UNSC Resolutions? Yes, or no?
If no, then fine. Let us admit once and for all that the United Nations Organization is excellent at humanitarian affairs, helping refugees, distributing food, classifying world heritage, upholding gender equality, defending women's rights, the rights of the quadra-sexual community and so on and so forth, wonderful job, pat on the back, great, mate.
As for international law, it appears the UNO is very good at drawing up resolutions but pig-awful at implementing them or making sure that nations uphold them. Well, certain nations let us say. I will tell you what, Mr. Ban Ki-Moon, let us draw up a rule.
If a nation is one of the Big Five, or actually, no, the Big Three (USA, UK or France) then basically it can do what it likes, correct? Because when for instance Russia and the People's Republic of China ask these three for details on their actions (as was the case with Libya) they promise to give them later and then are not forthcoming despite what was said before the vote.
So Mr. Ban Ki-Moon, suppose we dissolve the UNO as it exists today and admit it is a snivelling failure at upholding what it purports to uphold? Then we can found the WHORE (World Humanitarian Organization for the Resolution of Emergency situations), which your Organization is extremely good at, and as for making and keeping the law, let us either admit that international law does not exist, once and for all, or else set up another organization with the competence to practise what it preaches.
Because, Mr. Ban Ki-Moon, one of the five permanent members of the Security Council - in this case, France - has just admitted that it has broken international law by supplying weapons to the terrorists in Libya, against the terms of UNSC Resolution 1970 (2011). Please read my legal argument below:
The legal principle which governs international law
The legal principle of the UN Charter is to avoid war and to ensure peace; that is why any act of aggression outside the specific scope of a Resolution must necessarily pass by a separate Resolution in the UN Security Council. Since the scope of the resolutions covering Libya - UNSC Resolutions 1970 (2011) and 1973 (2011) - do not include the supply of weaponry to the "rebel" cause in Libya - but instead prohibit it and cover attacks on civilians, then under no circumstances whatsoever would it be admissible, acceptable or legal for any entity to supply weapons or train the "rebels" against the Libyan authorities.
Definition of a civilian
Let us now turn to the definition of a civilian: someone who is not an active member of the military, police or a belligerent group. For this reason, men in uniforms, sporting weapons, heavy artillery, tanks, machine-guns and rockets are not civilians and for this reason if such persons use violence against the Libyan armed forces, then any counter-attack by such forces cannot be deemed to be an attack against civilians. And therefore, Mr. Ban Ki-Moon, any actions by NATO taken under these precepts are void, are they not?
UNSC Resolution 1970 (2011)
Paragraph 9 prohibits the supply of weapons to Libya:
"9. Decides that all Member States shall immediately take the necessary measures to prevent the direct or indirect supply, sale or transfer to the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, from or through their territories or by their nationals, or using their flag vessels or aircraft, of arms and related materiel of all types, including weapons and ammunition, military vehicles and equipment, paramilitary equipment, and spare parts for the aforementioned, and technical assistance, training, financial or other assistance, related to military activities or the provision, maintenance or use of any arms and related materiel, including the provision of armed mercenary personnel whether or not originating in their territories,..."
UNSC Resolution 1973 (2011)
There is nothing whatsoever in this document which contradicts the scope of Resolution 1970 above. For a start, its introduction is very clear about the need to commit to the territorial integrity of Libya:
"Reaffirming its strong commitment to the sovereignty, independence, territorial integrity and national unity of the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya,"
Paragraph 4 does not contradict Paragraph 9 of Resolution 1970 on the supply of weaponry. It does not state anywhere that the terms are revoked or annulled. The insinuation that it does is a puerile and very devious attempt to twist around what is very clear under international law. The expression "all necessary measures" is qualified and restricted to the protection of civilians:
"4. Authorizes Member States that have notified the Secretary-General, acting nationally or through regional organizations or arrangements, and acting in cooperation with the Secretary-General, to take all necessary measures, notwithstanding paragraph 9 of resolution 1970 (2011), to protect civilians and civilian populated areas under threat of attack in the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya," and "notwithstanding" does not mean "substituting". It means "in spite of" in the context of "in conjunction with" and not "in contradiction of"; otherwise it would be necessary to state clearly that the terms and conditions of Paragraph 9 of UNSC Resolution 1970 (2011) are revoked, annulled, substituted or replaced. This not being the case, the argument that 1973 allows such supply or weaponry is an indication of the malice of those politicians who propose it and certainly does not constitute a legal basis for action.
Paragraph 8 reiterates the expression "all necessary measures" but qualifies this as pertaining to a ban on flights:
"8. Authorizes Member States that have notified the Secretary-General and the Secretary-General of the League of Arab States, acting nationally or through regional organizations or arrangements, to take all necessary measures to enforce compliance with the ban on flights imposed by paragraph 6 above,"
Finally, the reference by US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton that 1973 substitutes 1970 is as much an unadulterated, barefaced lie as the claim that she went into a war zone in the Balkans under fire. The expression "replace" indeed reiterates the implementation of the arms embargo and adds the provision for inspection of sea or air vessels.
"13. Decides that paragraph 11 of resolution 1970 (2011) shall be replaced by the following paragraph : "Calls upon all Member States, in particular States of the region, acting nationally or through regional organisations or arrangements, in order to ensure strict implementation of the arms embargo established by paragraphs 9 and 10 of resolution 1970 (2011), to inspect in their territory, including seaports and airports, and on the high seas, vessels and aircraft bound to or from the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, if the State concerned has information that provides reasonable grounds to believe that the cargo contains items the supply, sale, transfer or export of which is prohibited by paragraphs 9 or 10 of resolution 1970 (2011) as modified by this resolution, including the provision of armed mercenary personnel, calls upon all flag States of such vessels and aircraft to cooperate with such inspections and authorises Member States to use all measures commensurate to the specific circumstances to carry out such inspections;".
As we see, the legal question is perfectly simple to follow and is very clear to see.
Bombing attacks
The bombing attacks are therefore illegal. What are you going to do about it, Mr. Ban Ki-Moon? Ha, ha...nothing...ha, ha...right...
Supply of weapons
The French military has confirmed that it has supplied the Libyan terrorists with weapons in the Nafusa mountains. Le Figaro newspaper has quoted Colonel Thierry Burkhard, of the French General Staff, in an interview with AFP, stating that:
"We began by dropping humanitarian aid: food, water and medical supplies. During the operation, the situation for the civilians on the ground worsened. We dropped arms and means of self-defence, mainly ammunition".
This follows the admission by France, the UK and Italy that it has "military advisors" in Libya (illegal) and reports that Qatar (the "queen" of the USA in the Middle East) has been supplying the terrorists from the east, in Benghazi.
So now we see the whole picture, Mr. Ban Ki-Moon. The frontiers were conveniently secured to the east and west of Libya, arms were smuggled in, the fight was started, the Libyan authorities reacted as anyone else would in the circumstances and not, against YOUR laws, the terrorists are being supplied.
So either you do something about it Mr. Ban Ki-Moon, or else go back to the WHORE and let someone else make the law. As the legend of Tan-Gun has it, there were three entities in the cave which preceded the formation of your nation, Korea - a tiger, a bear and a pile of mugwort. Which one of the three are you, Mr. Ban Ki-Moon? Yes, we noticed.
Thank you.
To the Secretary General of the United Nations Organization (United States/Governments Organization)
Timothy Bancroft-Hinchey
Mr. Ban Ki-Moon, are you or are you not the Secretary-General of the United Nations Organization? Are you or are you not supposed to promote peace in the international community? Are you or are you not supposed to uphold the terms of the UNSC Resolutions? Yes, or no?
Mr. Ban Ki-Moon, France has broken international law. What are you going to do about it?
Mr. Ban Ki-Moon, are you or are you not the Secretary-General of the United Nations Organization? Are you or are you not supposed to promote peace in the international community? Are you or are you not supposed to uphold the terms of the UNSC Resolutions? Yes, or no?
If no, then fine. Let us admit once and for all that the United Nations Organization is excellent at humanitarian affairs, helping refugees, distributing food, classifying world heritage, upholding gender equality, defending women's rights, the rights of the quadra-sexual community and so on and so forth, wonderful job, pat on the back, great, mate.
As for international law, it appears the UNO is very good at drawing up resolutions but pig-awful at implementing them or making sure that nations uphold them. Well, certain nations let us say. I will tell you what, Mr. Ban Ki-Moon, let us draw up a rule.
If a nation is one of the Big Five, or actually, no, the Big Three (USA, UK or France) then basically it can do what it likes, correct? Because when for instance Russia and the People's Republic of China ask these three for details on their actions (as was the case with Libya) they promise to give them later and then are not forthcoming despite what was said before the vote.
So Mr. Ban Ki-Moon, suppose we dissolve the UNO as it exists today and admit it is a snivelling failure at upholding what it purports to uphold? Then we can found the WHORE (World Humanitarian Organization for the Resolution of Emergency situations), which your Organization is extremely good at, and as for making and keeping the law, let us either admit that international law does not exist, once and for all, or else set up another organization with the competence to practise what it preaches.
Because, Mr. Ban Ki-Moon, one of the five permanent members of the Security Council - in this case, France - has just admitted that it has broken international law by supplying weapons to the terrorists in Libya, against the terms of UNSC Resolution 1970 (2011). Please read my legal argument below:
The legal principle which governs international law
The legal principle of the UN Charter is to avoid war and to ensure peace; that is why any act of aggression outside the specific scope of a Resolution must necessarily pass by a separate Resolution in the UN Security Council. Since the scope of the resolutions covering Libya - UNSC Resolutions 1970 (2011) and 1973 (2011) - do not include the supply of weaponry to the "rebel" cause in Libya - but instead prohibit it and cover attacks on civilians, then under no circumstances whatsoever would it be admissible, acceptable or legal for any entity to supply weapons or train the "rebels" against the Libyan authorities.
Definition of a civilian
Let us now turn to the definition of a civilian: someone who is not an active member of the military, police or a belligerent group. For this reason, men in uniforms, sporting weapons, heavy artillery, tanks, machine-guns and rockets are not civilians and for this reason if such persons use violence against the Libyan armed forces, then any counter-attack by such forces cannot be deemed to be an attack against civilians. And therefore, Mr. Ban Ki-Moon, any actions by NATO taken under these precepts are void, are they not?
UNSC Resolution 1970 (2011)
Paragraph 9 prohibits the supply of weapons to Libya:
"9. Decides that all Member States shall immediately take the necessary measures to prevent the direct or indirect supply, sale or transfer to the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, from or through their territories or by their nationals, or using their flag vessels or aircraft, of arms and related materiel of all types, including weapons and ammunition, military vehicles and equipment, paramilitary equipment, and spare parts for the aforementioned, and technical assistance, training, financial or other assistance, related to military activities or the provision, maintenance or use of any arms and related materiel, including the provision of armed mercenary personnel whether or not originating in their territories,..."
UNSC Resolution 1973 (2011)
There is nothing whatsoever in this document which contradicts the scope of Resolution 1970 above. For a start, its introduction is very clear about the need to commit to the territorial integrity of Libya:
"Reaffirming its strong commitment to the sovereignty, independence, territorial integrity and national unity of the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya,"
Paragraph 4 does not contradict Paragraph 9 of Resolution 1970 on the supply of weaponry. It does not state anywhere that the terms are revoked or annulled. The insinuation that it does is a puerile and very devious attempt to twist around what is very clear under international law. The expression "all necessary measures" is qualified and restricted to the protection of civilians:
"4. Authorizes Member States that have notified the Secretary-General, acting nationally or through regional organizations or arrangements, and acting in cooperation with the Secretary-General, to take all necessary measures, notwithstanding paragraph 9 of resolution 1970 (2011), to protect civilians and civilian populated areas under threat of attack in the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya," and "notwithstanding" does not mean "substituting". It means "in spite of" in the context of "in conjunction with" and not "in contradiction of"; otherwise it would be necessary to state clearly that the terms and conditions of Paragraph 9 of UNSC Resolution 1970 (2011) are revoked, annulled, substituted or replaced. This not being the case, the argument that 1973 allows such supply or weaponry is an indication of the malice of those politicians who propose it and certainly does not constitute a legal basis for action.
Paragraph 8 reiterates the expression "all necessary measures" but qualifies this as pertaining to a ban on flights:
"8. Authorizes Member States that have notified the Secretary-General and the Secretary-General of the League of Arab States, acting nationally or through regional organizations or arrangements, to take all necessary measures to enforce compliance with the ban on flights imposed by paragraph 6 above,"
Finally, the reference by US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton that 1973 substitutes 1970 is as much an unadulterated, barefaced lie as the claim that she went into a war zone in the Balkans under fire. The expression "replace" indeed reiterates the implementation of the arms embargo and adds the provision for inspection of sea or air vessels.
"13. Decides that paragraph 11 of resolution 1970 (2011) shall be replaced by the following paragraph : "Calls upon all Member States, in particular States of the region, acting nationally or through regional organisations or arrangements, in order to ensure strict implementation of the arms embargo established by paragraphs 9 and 10 of resolution 1970 (2011), to inspect in their territory, including seaports and airports, and on the high seas, vessels and aircraft bound to or from the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, if the State concerned has information that provides reasonable grounds to believe that the cargo contains items the supply, sale, transfer or export of which is prohibited by paragraphs 9 or 10 of resolution 1970 (2011) as modified by this resolution, including the provision of armed mercenary personnel, calls upon all flag States of such vessels and aircraft to cooperate with such inspections and authorises Member States to use all measures commensurate to the specific circumstances to carry out such inspections;".
As we see, the legal question is perfectly simple to follow and is very clear to see.
Bombing attacks
The bombing attacks are therefore illegal. What are you going to do about it, Mr. Ban Ki-Moon? Ha, ha...nothing...ha, ha...right...
Supply of weapons
The French military has confirmed that it has supplied the Libyan terrorists with weapons in the Nafusa mountains. Le Figaro newspaper has quoted Colonel Thierry Burkhard, of the French General Staff, in an interview with AFP, stating that:
"We began by dropping humanitarian aid: food, water and medical supplies. During the operation, the situation for the civilians on the ground worsened. We dropped arms and means of self-defence, mainly ammunition".
This follows the admission by France, the UK and Italy that it has "military advisors" in Libya (illegal) and reports that Qatar (the "queen" of the USA in the Middle East) has been supplying the terrorists from the east, in Benghazi.
So now we see the whole picture, Mr. Ban Ki-Moon. The frontiers were conveniently secured to the east and west of Libya, arms were smuggled in, the fight was started, the Libyan authorities reacted as anyone else would in the circumstances and not, against YOUR laws, the terrorists are being supplied.
So either you do something about it Mr. Ban Ki-Moon, or else go back to the WHORE and let someone else make the law. As the legend of Tan-Gun has it, there were three entities in the cave which preceded the formation of your nation, Korea - a tiger, a bear and a pile of mugwort. Which one of the three are you, Mr. Ban Ki-Moon? Yes, we noticed.
Thank you.
Saturday, 16 July 2011
Human Rights Watch reveal the crimes of NATO rebels in Libya
Human Rights Watch reveal the crimes of NATO rebels in Libya http://t.co/h90BZiI #Libye #HRW #sarkozy #ump #jeunesump #ps #jeunesSocialist
information to be Massively relayed.....
We call on the Ivorian to stand firm, to overcome their fear because Ouattara has not won the war. It was France that defeated us by deploying unconventional ways. This chance he will not have it a second time again. The fight will resume. Tunisia and Egypt have given us the example. Ouattara has to get out of our country for good ... so taht. the land of our ancestors should not return to these mercenaries in the at hands of Ouattara.
Get organized in the city as in the countryside, because this power is dying and be sure that when the trumpet shall sound, your troops will be at your side to get the imposto out. Be firm and strong as when the enemy develops strength, you must redouble our efforts.
Forget the traitors and pray for those who decided to live in dignity and honor, despite the difficulties they endure for some in overseas and others within. Yes we will win! "Vinceremos" said the Argentine, Lift up your hearts, we shall overcome!
Done at Abidjan 11 July 2011
For the dignity and honor of the defense forces and security
A group of officers of national armed forces of Côte d'Ivoire
Infos à Relayer Massivement !
Nous demandons aux ivoiriens de tenir bon, de vaincre leur peur car Ouattara n’a pas gagné la guerre. C’est la France qui nous a battu en déployant des moyens hors normes. Cette chance il ne l’aura plus une seconde fois. La lutte doit reprendre. La Tunisie et l’Egypte nous ont donné l’exemple. Ouattara doit partir afin que notre pays …nous revienne. Les terres de nos ancêtres ne doivent pas revenir à ces mercenaires à la solde de Ouattara.
Organisez-vous, en ville comme dans nos campagnes, car ce pouvoir est moribond et soyez sûrs que lorsque la trompette sonnera, vos troupes seront à vos côtés pour faire partir l’imposteur. Soyez fermes et forts car quand l’ennemi développe des forces, vous devez redoubler d’effort.
Oubliez les traitres et priez pour ceux qui ont décidé de vivre dans la dignité et l’honneur, malgré les difficultés qu’ils endurent à l’étranger pour certains et à l’intérieur pour d’autres. Oui nous vaincrons ! « Vinceremos » disaient les argentins, HAUT LES CŒURS, nous vaincrons !
Fait à Abidjan le 11 juillet 2011
Pour la dignité et l’honneur des forces de défense et de sécurité,
Un groupe d’officiers des forces armées nationales de Côte d’Ivoire
Organisez-vous, en ville comme dans nos campagnes, car ce pouvoir est moribond et soyez sûrs que lorsque la trompette sonnera, vos troupes seront à vos côtés pour faire partir l’imposteur. Soyez fermes et forts car quand l’ennemi développe des forces, vous devez redoubler d’effort.
Oubliez les traitres et priez pour ceux qui ont décidé de vivre dans la dignité et l’honneur, malgré les difficultés qu’ils endurent à l’étranger pour certains et à l’intérieur pour d’autres. Oui nous vaincrons ! « Vinceremos » disaient les argentins, HAUT LES CŒURS, nous vaincrons !
Fait à Abidjan le 11 juillet 2011
Pour la dignité et l’honneur des forces de défense et de sécurité,
Un groupe d’officiers des forces armées nationales de Côte d’Ivoire
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)