Finally

UN resolution: The key passage

The Security Council… Acting under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations.

1. Demands the immediate establishment of a cease-fire and a complete end to violence and all attacks against, and abuses of, civilians;

2. Stresses the need to intensify efforts to find a solution to the crisis which responds to the legitimate demands of the Libyan people and notes the decisions of the Secretary-General to send his Special Envoy to Libya and of the Peace and Security Council of the African Union to send its ad hoc High Level Committee to Libya with the aim of facilitating dialogue to lead to the political reforms necessary to find a peaceful and sustainable solution;

3. Demands that the Libyan authorities comply with their obligations under international law, including international humanitarian law, human rights and refugee law and take all measures to protect civilians and meet their basic needs, and to ensure the rapid and unimpeded passage of humanitarian assistance; protection of civilians

4. Authorizes Member States that have notified the Secretary-General, acting nationally or through regional organizations or arrangements, and acting in co-operation 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, including Benghazi, while excluding a foreign occupation force of any form on any

part of Libyan territory, and requests the Member States concerned to inform the Secretary-General immediately of the measures they take pursuant to the authorization conferred by this paragraph which shall be immediately reported to the Security Council;

5. Recognizes the important role of the League of Arab States in matters relating to the maintenance of international peace and security in the region and bearing in mind Chapter VIII of the Charter of the United Nations, requests the Member States of the League of Arab States to cooperate with other Member States in the implementation of paragraph 4

The abstainers

Brazil: Has a long history of supporting pariah states.

India: Like Germany and Brazil, has no veto on Security Council. Its abstention came even as the US championed its promotion to permanent membership.

China: Usually abstains when it disapproves of a resolution, sparing its veto for issues of direct strategic interest. Its authoritarian government is concerned about setting precedents for interfering in a sovereign state.

Germany: Outspoken critic of the UK-French plans for a no-fly zone, saying it did not want to get sucked into a war.

Russia: Has its own internal problems, including in Caucasus. Unwilling to get involved in other countries’ affairs.

Source: The Independent (UK)

Facebook Comments Box

The Horse's Mouth

I got an email from Joseph Muscat. The subject line said “Pajjiz verament ewropew”. It was a link to a one minute video clip by His Inhobbkomness trying to wriggle out of the fact that the Party of Moderates and Progressives DOES NOT HAVE A POSITION ON DIVORCE.

Inhobbkom is bandying around the idea of the frijjvowt (one word for “free vote”). It turns out that his magnanimous self has “granted” the people a “frijjvowt” – something the Nasty Dastardly DottorGonzi denied them. Yay! We should thank Inhobbkom Joseph for enfranchising the nation.

Really? What has this battle been about? Well Joseph gives us the first half of an answer:

“Jien ma nemminx li din il-kwistjoni hija dwar referendum jew divorzju”.

There you have it. The horse has spoken. So there you are you stupid, peddling peasant who has been celebrating for a great victory for the progressive modern Malta being catapulted into Europe by Joseph and his Horde (+JPO and Mugliett). You thought it was about divorce? Fuck no. It isn’t.

You have been GIVEN the right to express your opinion on the 28th May. It’s an expression that will count for Jack Shit come the vote in parliament following the referendum. Because the same party that is claiming to be dragging us kicking and screaming into the Europe of modern progressive values DOES NOT HAVE A POSITION ON DIVORCE. It has a position on frijvowts. It gives its MPs the frijvowt on the referendum question. It gives the people a frijvowt to say what it thinks on divorce AND it will give another frijvowt to its MPs to vote on the eventual bill in parliament ACCORDING TO THEIR CONSCIENCE. (see “Tie Your Brother Down“).

That means that this sniggering geezer who is so patronisingly smug about moving Malta closer to Europe (puhlease) would love to have y’all believe that the frijvowt is actually a yes to divorce. It is not. Because the probability is that even with a positive referendum result (and Joseph is not doing much to encourage that) the chances are that the 69 eejits voting “according to their conscience” shoot down the bill. Godbless.

Daphne Caruana Galizia wrote a good analysis in today’s Independent that shows how many of us who are in favour of divorce legislation but not in favour of this partisan circus feel. I have heard many friends in the last few hours who are considering abstaining or even voting NO in a referendum because of the whole hijack by this PLPN charade.

J’accuse remains convinced that the truly modern, progressive and (if you want, though I do not see the point of this) “European” way of introducing divorce can only happen when one or more parties have the balls to declare that should they be elected to government they will introduce divorce legislation. It is the only way that the people can be empowered to decide – with a vote at the electoral ballot.

Meanwhile as we discuss our referendum question in 2011 and as our leader of the opposition kids himself of having “allowed” us to express our opinion, (Thank the Flying Spaghetti Monster for that)  this is the stage Luxembourg is at with regard to divorce legislation. I won’t bother translating. If you can’t read French then you’re not European enough and you’re not bloody worth it.

Le divorce possible dans six mois

Dans les cartons du Parlement depuis plus de cinq ans, le texte tarde à se finaliser. Les difficultés des députés à s’accorder tiennent en deux points: l’opportunité de maintenir le divorce pour faute à certaines conditions (violences conjugales) et la question des points retraite pour le conjoint qui aurait interrompu sa carrière pendant la durée du mariage.

Hier, les députés ont toutefois réussi à s’entendre sur le divorce par consentement mutuel. Ainsi, la durée de la procédure a été ramenée à six mois au lieu d’un an. Les parlementaires ont acté que la pension alimentaire versée lors d’un divorce par consentement pouvait être révisée ce qui n’est pas le cas aujourd’hui. Pour la députée socialiste Lydie Err, «les progrès sont laborieux, mais au moins nous avançons».

– L’Essentiel, 17th March 2011

I almost forgot… but it’s become our new byline:

In un paese pieno di coglioni ci mancano le palle.

– J’accuse 2011

 

Facebook Comments Box

Risks of a Libyan No-Fly Zone

RANIER FSADNI penned a brilliant article in today’s Times of Malta analysing the risks of a Libyan No-Fly Zone. He has kindly agreed for J’accuse to reproduce this article here as a Zolabyte:

As I write (Tuesday morning), Muammar Gaddafi is advancing east towards a showdown with Benghazi. Pressure is growing on the United Nations’ Security Council to approve the imposition of a no-fly zone in Libya.

The case is being made by the Libyan rebels as well as (most prominently) by France, the UK and the Arab League. The US has been troubled, however, by the consideration that military action could end up bolstering Libyan support for Col Gaddafi.

One can see why. At least three of the major assumptions behind the request are not as solid as they look.

First, it is assumed that the battle for Libya is a fight between the Libyan people, as a whole, and Col Gaddafi’s militias. However, there are important western centres that have conspicuously not committed themselves.

There is Tarhuna, with its major tribe, the Ferjan. There is Bani Walid, centre of the Warfalla, said to be a million strong. And there are the two major tribes of the south, the Magarha and the Awlad Suleiman. Between them, these tribes dominate large parts of Tripolitania, down to the south proper. If they take a stand, several smaller tribes are likely to join them.

All four have branches settled in Sirte and its hinterland, which means they are settled on the major boundary the rebel army in the east has to cross. And they are inter-married with Col Gaddafi’s tribe, the Gadadfa.

They have not taken a formal stand for Col Gaddafi. (However, on Tuesday, Libyan state TV announced a letter of support from a group of unnamed representatives of Tarhuna.) But neither have they taken an unequivocal stand with the rebels. Occasional reports concerning the Warfalla have come to nothing so far.

So, what would these tribes do in the face of the considerable military aggression needed to impose a no-fly zone? They all have a proud history of anti-colonial struggle. So do the tribes of the east but the imposition of a no-fly zone is more likely to afflict the western tribes with inevitable “collateral damage”, the accidental killing of civilian men, women and children.

I’m not sure anyone knows the answer to that question. But if Col Gaddafi persuades that the allied attacks constitute imperial aggression, the no-fly zone could end up sparking the civil war that has so far been avoided.

The second assumption is that the rebels do want a no-fly zone. They are, of course, explicitly requesting it and recognising that it would entail bludgeoning attacks on Libyan territory. But it is not clear their understanding of one of their key conditions – no foreign ground troops – is the same as that of, say, a supporter like US Senator John Kerry.

When one of the rebel leaders sought to illustrate what he meant, he said that, of course, if a foreign pilot’s plane was shot down, it would be all right if he parachuted himself down to Libyan territory – “he would be our guest”. It is indicative of how strictly the rebels reject the idea of foreign ground troops that it was thought worth pointing out that concession.

In any case, however, the likelihood is that a pilot would bail out far closer to Col Gaddafi’s forces.

And the record of the US and UK armies is that they send troops on helicopter gunships to rescue soldiers stranded behind enemy lines. Nor is it to be excluded (a notorious case arose in Afghanistan) that stranded soldiers may need to decide, at short notice, whether to kill civilians who have accidentally discovered their hideout.

In short, the distinction between a no-fly zone and ground troops could be messy in practice. Even if the rebel leaders relent on their current firm rejection of any foreign troops on Libyan soil, specific incidents may give them a difficult time with their own people. The third assumption is that regional Arab involvement in a no-fly zone unequivocally aids the effort. Not necessarily; it depends on whose narrative carries the day.

Libyan state TV is portraying the Arab League’s secretary general, Amre Moussa, as a munafiq (hypocrite, but with connotations of treachery in Islamic history), bribed with US support for his presidential candidacy in Egypt. News of Egypt resuming exports of gas to Israel has been given prominence. The narrative of US/Israeli control over oil supplies and the Arab world is being pushed.

It may gain currency if the US continues to take a meeker stance in response to state repression of protests in Bahrain and Saudi Arabia. A weak stance may indeed be the price the US has to pay for Saudi support in Libya. In that case, however, it would be easier for Col Gaddafi to portray US concerns over violence in Libya as a hypocritical pretext, with the real motive being control over oil.

Individually, each of these risks can be mitigated. In combination, they must feature prominently in the calculations of the US and Col Gaddafi as they assess what lies within grasp and what could be fatal overreach.

*****
Zolabytes is a rubrique on J’accuse – the name is a nod to the original J’accuser (Emile Zola) and a building block of the digital age (byte). Zolabytes is intended to be a collection of guest contributions in the spirit of discussion that has been promoted by J’accuse on the online Maltese political scene for 5 years.
Opinions expressed in zolabyte contributions are those of the author in question. Opinions appearing on zolabytes do not necessarily reflect the editorial line of J’accuse the blog.
***

Related articles
Enhanced by Zemanta
Facebook Comments Box

Overwhelming (In a world gone mad)

It’s been a difficult day for us expats. For starters we could not tune in to the parliamentary “debate” that preceded the vote on the wording of the referendum question so we had to rely on secondary sources. Then like the early tremors before the quake and storm it started to come across. The information seeped slowly at first until it built itself up into a tsunami, an orgy of inconsequential non-sequiturs, a glorification of partisan ignorance and a confirmation that it is reasonable for many of us to lose hope.

Why bother? As I sounded out friends by email and facebook I noticed that as the debate raged on many people who I like to consider intelligent were thinking of packing their bags and leaving the country. For yes, even though the debate and vote were simply about the phrasing of a consultative referendum question we we were getting a taster of what the real debate would be about. Ferraris, conscience, Jesus, stereotypically ignorant Irish and battered wives featured randomly in this tasteless spectacle.

Then came the vote. A vote, mind you, that was not tied to any government confidence vote, a simple vote that basically determined the format of the question in the consultative referendum. Those who liked the conditional question (or as Lawrence would have it – the “complicated” one) won the vote on the day. 36 -33 with JPO and Mugliett voting with the PL clan.

Then it all went haywire. The labour rent-a-crowd went ballistic. On facebook, Luciano Busuttil, the erudite constitutionalist, fed the faithful with the “GONZI HAS LOST HIS PARLIAMENTARY MAJORITY” (caps complimentary of labour newspeak). There you had it again. It was not about divorce after all. It was about Gonzi’s government. Little did it matter that this was an open vote, not tied to any government confidence. No. Busuttil would descend to the sublimely ridiculous when I would point out the legal inconsistency of his argument. Backed by his crowd of fawning lejberites he retorted: “Can you feel it Jacques? Power slipping from your hands?”

J’acccuse? Power. Ah the ignorance. Sublime. This is what you will get with PLPN style confrontation on a theme. This is what we get if we are unwitting accomplices to the programme for the introduction of divorce as conceived by the PLPN crowd. This is what we get when we give our consent to the idea of a consultative referendum to introduce a “minority right”.

How else can I write it? Let’s try bold.

Muscat’s Labour has NO POSITION on divorce. It has a position on a free vote. Gonzi’s PN has a position on divorce but it doesn’t count because the PN MPs will be given a free vote. SO WHAT THE FLYING SPAGHETTI MONSTER IS EVERYONE SO HAPPY ABOUT? A consultative referendum?

And then what? The people have spoken? We all know what that means to most MPs…. Vox Populi, Vox Xejn.

I don’t know what irritates me most: the hypocritical contradictions of a supposedly christian democrat party that abuses of the system or the unlimited opportunism of a pseudo-progressive party that doesn’t have the balls to take a clear lead on the issue that counts. No Luciano or Joseph – a lead does not mean asking the people… it means giving them the clear option by saying that a Labour MP means a YES vote for the divorce law.

But what am I saying? Balls? In today’s parties? That’s a good one. No wonder today’s activities have been overwhelming. It’s back to the trenches.

In un paese di coglioni, ci mancano le palle. – J’accuse 2011.

Facebook Comments Box

Tie Your Brother Down

“Nationalist MP Peter Micallef said yesterday that the result of the consultative referendum on divorce would in no way tie him down when the vote on the Divorce Bill was held.” The plot thickens.

Isn’t Peter right? It all boils down to the meaning of the vote that he exercises in parliament. Is it Peter‘s vote and his alone – making him free to tie it down with his heavy (or light, as the case may be) moral convictions? Does it belong to his constituency or the couple of thousand electors who rushed to casually elect  Peter to his cosy seat in parliament? Would a quick head count among his electors convince Peter to vote in accordance to their will?

On the other hand does his vote belong to the nationalist party that worked so hard for men like Peter to get to his p’mentary seat? In that case Peter could only follow the PN’s guidance and in the event of their “position” (we don’t like divorce but our MPs will have a free vote) he is granted a one off chance to use his vote according to his cerebral and spiritual likings.

So what of the people? Peter is not Muammar after all. He cannot say “they love me all” and he definitely knows where they can stick their collective advice in a consultative referendum. It is consultative after all and this particular MP has been admirably frank and open about his position as to how much he values the opinion of the people in this particular consultation.

But is Peter wrong? How can he be? This has become a free for all in lascivious political nonchalance. It is what happens when we cut ourselves loose from all the “lawyering” and “legal niceties” and “verbal somersaults”. Parties with no position except for the fact that they have unleashed a collective of pussyfooting MPs to do as they like. Disquistions on referendum questions that are ultimately purely consultative – and as such allow geezers like Pete to say “I won’t be tied by the people”.

Which is why J’accuse still insists that there is only one way divorce can and should be introduced. On a party manifesto that wins the election and introduces the right to remarry via a legislative motion in parliament. Business as usual in a normal world.

In un paese di coglioni ci mancano le palle. – J’accuse 2011.


 

Facebook Comments Box

Appeasement

At 8pm on the 27th September 1938, Neville Chamberlain, UK Prime Minister broadcast to the nation:

“How horrible, fantastic, incredible it is that we should be digging trenches and trying on gas-masks here because of a quarrel in a faraway country between people of whom we know nothing”.

The “people of whom we know nothing” were the Czechs, Slovaks and Germans in the Sudetenland. Chamberlain would go on to sign the Munich Agreement with “the German Chancellor Herr Hitler”. A year later he would be declaring war on Herr Hitler following the invasion of Poland.

Peace in our time? Go tell it to the rebels in Brega.

Facebook Comments Box