The UN, Obama Finally Act Against Qaddafi

Joseph Klein is a Harvard-trained lawyer and the author of Global Deception: The UN’s Stealth Assault on America’s Freedom and Lethal Engagement: Barack Hussein Obama, the United Nations & Radical Islam.


Pages: 1 2

Both President Obama and the United Nations, particularly the Human Rights Council, deserve criticism for their delayed reaction to the brutality of the Qaddafi regime toward the people of Libya. Though the UN is certainly not known for its swift response to crimes against humanity, the relative indifference to the situation on the part of the leader of the free world, President Obama, is a surprising abandonment of leadership responsibility. The Obama administration has disgracefully chosen play second-string to the bureaucracy and indecision of the international community, which itself has only maneuvered to stop Qaddafi’s maddness in the last few days.

One day after Libya’s United Nations Ambassador Abdurrahman Shalgam pleaded to the United Nations Security Council to “save Libya” from dictator Col. Muammar Qaddafi’s murderous regime, the Security Council listened. Shalgam, whom has been associated with Qaddafi since they both were involved in the coup d’état that toppled Libya’s king in 1969, finally had enough. Reversing his earlier reluctance to directly criticize Qaddafi or call for him to step down, he told the Council on February 25th that Qaddafi’s callous killings of unarmed civilians were on par with the brutalities of Hitler and Pol Pot. “Leave the Libyans alone” was his message to Qaddafi.  Sadly, the United States’ UN Ambassador, Susan Rice, was not in the Security Council chamber to hear this historic speech. She was half way around the world in South Africa attending a UN panel discussion on global sustainability.

After some initial hesitancy, the Security Council passed a unanimous resolution on Saturday night, February 26th, imposing strong sanctions on Qaddafi and his close associates. The Security Council resolution also imposed an arms embargo, an international travel ban on sixteen Libyan leaders and a freeze on the assets of Qaddafi and members of his family. It did not, however, impose a no-fly zone over Libya.

In perhaps its most significant move, the Security Council resolution referred the Libyan regime to the International Criminal Court (“ICC”) for an investigation into its “widespread and systematic attacks” against Libyan citizens protesting in the streets for more freedom. This was only the second time that the Security Council has referred a member state to the ICC. The previous case was Sudan.

The Security Council’s decision to refer the Libyan regime to the ICC did not come easily. Brazil and Portugal were among the members of the Council who originally were hesitant to support the referral because of fears of reprisals against their citizens still remaining in Libya.  China also showed some initial reluctance. It took a follow-up letter to the Council from Libyan Ambassador Shalgam to overcome this resistance. He wrote:

With reference to the Draft Resolution on Libya before the Security Council, I have the honour  to confirm that the Libyan Delegation to the United Nations supports the measures proposed in the draft resolution to hold to account those responsible for the armed attacks against the Libyan Civilians, including trough [sic] the International Criminal Court.

After the Security Council resolution was approved, Ambassador Shalgam said it would “help put an end to this fascist regime.”

Richard Dicker, Director of Human Rights Watch’s international justice program, praised the Security Council for showing “leaders worldwide that it will not tolerate the vicious repression of peaceful protesters. Gaddafi’s henchmen are now on notice that if they give, tolerate or obey orders to fire on peaceful protesters they may find themselves in The Hague.”

The UN Human Rights Council had met in emergency session on the same day that Libyan Ambassador Shalgam had pleaded to the Security Council for help. To its credit, the dysfunctional Human Rights Council got its act together long enough to pass a resolution condemning Qaddafi’s violence against the anti-government protestors and recommending suspension of Libya from its seat on the Human Rights Council. However, two-thirds of voting and present countries in the General Assembly would have to vote to actually suspend or expel Libya from the human rights body.

Pages: 1 2

  • Chezwick_Mac

    Absolutely reminiscent of Jimmy Carter.

    When a joint US/UN delegation went to Tehran in late 1979 to try and negotiate the release of the hostages, the Carter Administration officials agreed to every demand of the Iranians…and it took the UN reps to demand of Iran some reciprocity and adherence to international law. The negotiations failed, but I'll never forget the irony of the UN playing hawk to the American dove. It took 32 years and another weak, liberal, US President for the scene to be duplicated.

    • scum

      Funny how FPM was behind the 8 Ball in Egypt when 'THE RADICAL MUSLIMS WERE ABOUT TO TAKE OVER'. But now in Libya, suddenly FPM is all gung-ho about an intervention on the side of 'democracy.' It's funny, really.

      • Chezwick_Mac

        A seeming incongruity with one important caveat: Mubarak was a relatively benign despot – as Mid-Eastern standards go – and cooperated with the West in the so-called 'war on terror; Qaddafi was a practitioner of terrorism for decades (until a change of heart late in the game) and had a lot of American blood on his hands. It would be ridiculous to expect us to see the respective situations identically.

        Having said that, I think a post-revolutionary, fundamentalist take-over of Libya is more probable than in Egypt…and, with Libya's oil wealth, will put enormous resources into the hands of fanatics. In Egypt, the military is tenuously holding on to power and is essentially moderate as an institution. In Libya, the security forces are disintegrating and it's the tribes and the fundies that will take control.

        My original comment was not meant to convey support for intervention in Libya…it was just meant to point out the irony of those moments in history when the UN is more hawkish than the US…and of course, always during Democratic Administrations.

        PS – Your nic-name indicates a real problem with self-image. Have you tried therapy?

        • trickyblain

          In retrospect, Chez, Libya is exactly the total and complete REVERSE of Iran, circa '79. That is, unless you hate Reagan.

          Can you provide us a list of ME despots along with two boxes next to their name — one box says "good (or "benign" [unless you happen to live under said depot]) despot") and another that says "Bad despot", then check one?

          Then we'll know. You'll have no ground to accuse Obama of being a muslim-commie-fascist-boo-boo if a "bad despot" is not supported, and if "bad despot" is, actually, supported by your fellow 00.0002% of like-minded Americans, we'll know that it's all about some silly Glen Beck thing that the rest of us hear and just turn to one another — laugh -and go: "wtf"?.

          So, can you make up this despot checklist? Soon? The sane folks would really appreciate it.

          Thanks Chez.

          • Chezwick_Mac

            1) Libya is indeed very different than Iran in 1979. What is SIMILAR is the rudderless leadership of the US government (Carter then, Obama today) and the irony of the UN taking a harder line than the US government. Got it?

            2) When have I ever accused Obama of being a "Muslim-commie-fascist-boo-boo"?…(whatever the hell that last adjective is supposed to mean). I've accused him of being weak, clueless, leftist, and anti-American, OK? At least get your facts straight.

            3) Benign despots – within the parameters of Mid-East standards – would include Tunisia's Ben Ali, Egypt's Mubarak, Algeria's current President, Jordan's King Abdullah, the rulers of Bahrain, Qatar, Oman, and the UAE. My characterization doesn't mean they are "good" per se, just that they have cooperated with the West on a range of issues.

            Those whom I consider malevolent include Syria's Assad, Iran's Khameini (Ahmadinijad is just a figure-head), and Sudan's Bashir. The first two are active facilitators of terror and are both pursuing WMDs. The third is a practitioner of genocide…just ask the people of Darfur and southern Sudan.

            The House of Saud is in a category all its own…benign in terms of oil production/price policy and security cooperation, very malevolent in terms of spreading Wahhabi influence throughout the world and corrupting Western media, politicians and educational institutions.

            I've already described Qaddafi in this context.

            Not so hard to understand, eh? Especially for the "sane" folk like yourself. Your basic geo-politics.

          • Chezwick_Mac

            1) When have I ever accused Obama of being a "Muslim-commie-fascist-boo-boo"?…(whatever the hell that last adjective is supposed to mean). I've accused him of being weak, clueless, leftist, and anti-American, OK? At least get your facts straight.

            2) Benign despots – within the parameters of Mid-East standards – would include Tunisia's Ben Ali, Egypt's Mubarak, Algeria's current President, Jordan's King Abdullah, the rulers of Bahrain, Qatar, Oman, and the UAE. My characterization doesn't mean they are "good" per se, just that they have cooperated with the West on a range of issues.

            Those whom I consider malevolent include Syria's Assad, Iran's Khameini (Ahmadinijad is just a figure-head), and Sudan's Bashir. The first two are active facilitators of terror and are both pursuing WMDs. The third is a practitioner of genocide…just ask the people of Darfur and southern Sudan.

            The House of Saud is in a category all its own…benign in terms of oil production/price policy and security cooperation, very malevolent in terms of spreading Wahhabi influence throughout the world and corrupting Western political, informational and educational institutions.

            I've already described Qaddafi in this context.

            Not so hard to understand, eh? Especially for the "sane" folk like yourself.

  • ObamaYoMoma

    I don’t know about anyone else, but I certainly could care less about the opinion of the Director of Human Rights Watch or any of the other self-proclaimed human rights NGOs that spend the vast overwhelming amount of their time not on human rights issues but instead on vilifying and demonizing Israel to help facilitate another mass genocidal holocaust of Jews and that receive the bulk of their donations for operations from oil rich Sheiks and anti-Semitic leftists. Their opinion certainly doesn’t add to the credibility of this article.

  • geez

    Here's a good example of the Obama administration trying to make our community organizer sound intelligent, and I quote. "on the same day that the Security Council passed its resolution, the White House reported on a telephone call between President Obama and Chancellor Merkel of Germany in which the President told Mrs. Merkel that Qaddafi “has lost the legitimacy to rule and needs to do what is right for his country by leaving now". Talk talk talk, but say and do nothing…. he's so far in over his head morally and ethically it's hard to believe he hasn't been impeached. 2012 can't get here soon enough for me.

    • scum

      and your response would have been…?

  • Wesley69

    Why didn't the US take the lead on the crisis in Libya?

    Once again this is deliberate and by design. Obama is weakening US standing in the world. By undercutting Mubarak, allies question their alliances with the US. By waiting until the UN takes action, Obama has tamed the ROGUE STATE, the last vestige of colonialism in the world.

    You see, Obama believes the US is responsible for all the evils and we have built our standard of living upon the backs on the poorer nations. What is needed now, is a humbling of US power, hence the apologies to the world and the lack of action by the US, except in the case of allies, allies who are examples of colonialism in themselves.

    These were the dreams of his anti-colonial father. They are now being carried out by the son.

    I would advise reading , THE ROOTS OF OBAMA'S RAGE, by DINESH D'SOUZA. Once you read it, you can understand the whys behind almost everything Obama does.

  • Wesley69

    Why didn't the US take the lead on the crisis in Libya?

    Once again this is deliberate and by design. Obama is determined to weaken US standing in the world. By undercutting Mubarak, allies question their alliances with the US. By waiting until the UN takes action, Obama tames the Rogue State, the last vestige of colonialism in the world.

    You see, Obama believes the US is responsible for all the evils and we have built our standard of living upon the backs on the poorer nations. What is needed now, not only a transfer of wealth back to these countries, but a humbling of US power, equalizing it with the nations of the world. This explains Obama’s apologies to the world and the lack of action by the US, except in the case of allies, allies who are examples of colonialism in themselves. Obama is interested in Libya. But, he is using it to show the new face of the US., a team player, acting within the rules, anti-colonial.

    These were the dreams of his anti-colonial father. They are now being carried out by the son.

  • Wesley69

    I would advise reading , THE ROOTS OF OBAMA'S RAGE, by DINESH D'SOUZA. Once you read it, you can understand the whys behind almost everything Obama does.

  • BS77

    Interesting how the US/UN did mostly nothing about China's invasion and brutal occupation of Tibet. Did nothing about the slaughter in Rwanda and Zaire….where were the sancitons against the horror called Sudan? Sanctions against North Korea or the hideous Taliban regime in Afghanistan? Sanctions against all the human rights violations in Saudi Arabia.? Gee, sorry to throw a wet blanket over the misplaced moral smugness of those who think that sanctions against Libya mean much. The Iranians must be quaking in their little slippers.

  • sneed5

    Here we are BROKE, and we are talking about sending aid to oil-rich nations. This would be a good time to start pulling out of all the countries (and the United Nations) in which we have our noses and U.S. taxpayer money. Cut off the funds we give them, reinforce our defenses here at home, get busy drilling for oil and natural gas, produce more coal, and strive for more renewable energy(with no taxpayer subsidies)! To a man, all countries of the world hate us!! So I say, let
    them go on their own and let's take care of our own people. We are now being held hostage by the Islamists!! The following link can give you an idea of what can happen when other nations are left to their own devices!!
    http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,171

  • Stephen_Brady

    Too little, incompetently–delivered, and way too late …

    The presence of a Carrier battle group off the coast of Libya would have wonderfully concentrated the attention of TheDaffy before he started killing his own people.

    • trickyblain

      How's that?

      He is pretty busy going from hideout-to-hideout to avoid being terminated by his own people. Why would he care about some boats in the Gulf of Sidra? If anything, they'd be a distraction that the 'Daff could point to and scream "Look! Imperalists!"

      The funny thing here: in a year's time, FPM will be running articles on how Obama "lost Libya."

      • Stephen_Brady

        Air power could not only interdict troop movements within Libya, but it could keep TheDaffy's ariforce firmly planted to the soil. It would prove that the United States still has the will and the means to project its power across the world. And it would get the attention of other dictators considering the murder-in-the-mass of their own people.

        We never had Libya, so how could Obama be accused of losing it? However, a weak response during the civil war, and a vacillating attitude towards the new government, could result in something as bad or worse than Qadaffi.

  • Theo Prinse

    De Arab uprise is insinuated by the mohamedan in the White House – after his 2010 Cairo speech – and his Muslim Brotherhood and Mudjahedeen as embryonal Al Qaeda CIA of Leon Panetta reaction against the in Europe emerging storm against islamization. The upheavels in the Arab countries are provoked by the Kenyan. The goal of the Kenyan is that 1. all those countries (Libya, Tunesia, Algeria, Maroc, Jordan, Bahrein, Oman, Jemen etc) ) are forced into a Sunnie variant of a Iranian islamic regime and 2. under disguise of moderate refugees secretly floating Europe with jihadi fighters to establish a Caliphate with the consent of the political elites in Washington

  • USMCSniper

    It is a civil war – let the Muslims all kill each other.

    • Sergey

      Apparently our socialist president Obama and "conservative" British PM Cameron think that the intervention is needed, and they are sending Navy and Air force close to Lybian shores. I am afraid that the US and UK and perhaps other NATO countries action against Gaddafi will help to topple this thug, but it will also help to further ignite civil war in Lybia among the tribes. This will be an ideal environment for Islamists to move in (in fact, there are reports that they move in already) and spread their power in Lybia. I am afraid that the free world is run by complete idiots who I am sure see what is going on and continue to promote policies that help Islamic thugs gain power.

  • Fred Dawes

    Keep a real eye on Obama he is not what you think. let the muslim kill each other Now that is the right and great idea USMCsniper. We need to stop all muslim immigration here and start a real cultural war and use real Iogic against the monkey world it really isn't a Quantum Leap to understand how the monkeys work.

  • antileft

    This Quadafi creature is a real baffoon-his introductory words in one of his public speeches were : Where were you, you rats( sic!!!) when I fought for you, while his mercenaries (from Chad, and from Europe? –can anyone elucidate here?) were massacring everyone that happened to, well, simply be, live in his house-i.e. a woman went to the balcony and got her head blown, and these are politicos, soldiers, you simply die, because you exist!? What kind of a monster this character and his so-called sons are- one of them, who is supposedly more western-prone – just because the sum total of western rags he is wearing comes somewhere around 5000$, that makes this sick Lennon look-alike –is his name Arif?-pro-western? Who´s come up with this, the same guys who gave AAA ratings to Freddy Mac and the like? This psycho Arif, who ´s still got snot under his nose, has been wiggling his index finger at his own people, threatening there will be rivers of blood? But all in all, the Quadafafy era is over, and this breed of monsters has been pushed to the corner, while the army is preparing for the final push against the Dracul´s last strongold, Tripoli. It is sad, though, that the American response has been beyond any criticism, but what can you expect from someone with the name O´bummer and his foreign secretary, who´s been trying to immitate Madonna, even when her time of beauty that never was has long gone ! Mr. Reagan would have a simple and quick medicine- the fourth fleet, which he did in the 80s , making him today even a greater president then he ever was ! My respect to the Libyan people, you have suffered enough, I hope you´ll create a better world for yourselves and your children.

  • SoCalMike

    Contrast the calls for "democracy" in the Middle East today from the Left with their decades of mute silence for democracy in Darfur, Sudan and Congo.
    Because they "care about people."