Does Resolution 1973 mean the importation of arms to Libyan rebels is legal?

March 30th, 2011 § 1 comment § permalink

Hilary Clinton and William Hague have expressed the view that UN Resolution 1973, the one that makes the bombing of Libya legal, rolls back the arms embargo.

Ladies and Gentlemen, we are open for business!

The Guardian

The US and Britain have raised the prospect of arming Libya’s rebels if air strikes fail to force Muammar Gaddafi from power[*].

At the end of a conference on Libya in London, Hillary Clinton, the US secretary of state, said for the first time that she believed arming rebel groups was legal under UN security council resolution 1973, passed two weeks ago, which also provided the legal justification for air strikes.

America’s envoy to the UN, Susan Rice, said earlier the US had “not ruled out” channelling arms to the rebels.

The British foreign secretary, William Hague, agreed that the resolution made it legal “to give people aid in order to defend themselves in particular circumstances”.

[*] Just quick, before we go on, I thought the air strikes and no fly zone weren’t meant to get rid of Gaddafi. I thought it was just to help the rebels get rid of him. So what is this? All the big grown up nations kick Gaddaffi to the ground and let the rebels try to finish him, if they take to long we push them out the way and stamp on his head? I didn’t think we did that sort of intervention anymore.

Clinton and Hague, in my opinion, are wrong. I am quite prepared to be wrong about this myself as I’m not a politician or lawyer so my definition of the words ‘arms embargo’ might not be the same as international statesmens’ definitions.

UN Resolution 1973 (.pdf) states…

Enforcement of the arms embargo

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”;

This paragraph replaces one in UN Resolution 1970 (.pdf)…

11. Calls upon all States, in particular States neighbouring the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, to inspect, in accordance with their national authorities and legislation and consistent with international law, in particular the law of the sea and relevant international civil aviation agreements, all cargo to and from the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, in their territory, including seaports and airports, if the State concerned has information that provides reasonable grounds to believe the cargo contains items the supply, sale, transfer, or export of which is prohibited by paragraphs 9 or 10 of this resolution for the purpose of ensuring strict implementation of those provisions;

They say the same thing except the amended paragraph in UN/Res/1973 is a bit tidier. They both in essence say do not allow the transportation/sale of anything in paragraphs 9 and 10 of UN/Res/1970.

So what is and isn’t allowed under that arms embargo? Paragraph 10 of UN/Res/1970 states that Libya can not export arms. Paragraph 9 is the one all about selling and exporting 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

That’s pretty unambiguous and clear. Even under paragraph 4 on UN/Res/1973, ‘Protection of Civilains’ there is no room for the movement of arms in to Libya…

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, 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 tothe Security Council;

Nations acting under the UN can go in and bomb Libya, to protect civilians, but they cannot use ground forces and cannot supply arms to anybody in Libya.

But, and there is always a ‘but’, there are some exceptions to this rule in taking arms into Libya…

(a) Supplies of non-lethal military equipment intended solely for humanitarian or protective use, and related technical assistance or training, as approved in advance by the Committee established pursuant to paragraph 24 below;

‘No lethal’. Not very good if you want to get rid of a dictator, really. Could be handy for putting down any protests the local population might want to hold though.

(b) Protective clothing, including flak jackets and military helmets, temporarily exported to the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya by United Nations personnel, representatives of the media and humanitarian and development workers and associated personnel, for their personal use only;

Military style safety equipment that actually belongs to someone rather than for distribution once inside Libya. Still no good for overthrowing megalomaniac leaders.

(c) Other sales or supply of arms and related materiel, or provision of assistance or personnel, as approved in advance by the Committee;

This subclause of the arms embargo is important. It is the get out clause for supplying arms to Libya. This is the little bit of text that will open the door to the possibility of legally supplying arms to the rebels. All a nation has to do is persuade the rest of the UN Security Council committee to agree. How hard can that be? The majority voted in favour of intervening in Libya so they’re half way there already, and if they can give guns to someone else to do it a) they’ll make a bit of money and b) they’re one step removed if/when the shit hits the fan.

I know what you’re thinking, too. I’ve just proved myself wrong. But, no. This get out clause is in UN/Res/1970. Clinton and Hague said UN/Res/1973 allowed them to go arm the rebels. There was always the option of removing the arms embargo but it is in resolution 1970 and would need the agreement of the Security Council committee. Resolution 1973 does not automatically mean the importation of arms to anybody in Libya is legal or sanctioned by the UN.

(link: UN Resolutions 2011)

The danger of protesting

March 29th, 2011 § 0 comments § permalink


There’s always the danger when protesting of coming across as sanctimonious, patronising and just plain wrong, and UK Uncut fit the bill in so many ways that it’s difficult to count. Direct action and civil disobedience will have always have a role to play in protest; getting a criminal record however for aggravated trespass for occupying Fortnum and Mason, as many seem likely to, will rank up there as probably the most stupid misstep of the entire anti-cuts movement. Every single occasion on which a representative, or at least someone who’s taken part in the protests has appeared on television, such as on Newsnight tonight, they’ve come across as the kind of pretentious, self-satisfied, smug and thoroughly gittish middle-class wankers you would normally cross the street to avoid, repeatedly refusing to answer a straight question and taking no responsibility whatsoever for what some might do under their banner. Only with the advent of Twatter could so many utter cunts make common cause.

Myth & Magic

March 27th, 2011 § 0 comments § permalink

For those of you that might be interested for some reason, This is the route we cycled this morning (.pdf).

It’s a route called Myth and Magic presumably because the first half is along the Ridgeway which has some ancient mystical places along it, such as the Uffington White Horse and castle and Waylands’ Smithy. It took us 2 hours 7 mins which is, according to my riding buddies, a very good time for the 23 miles. They’d previously done it in about 2 hrs 40-ish.

Anyway, as we’re officially entered in the Polaris Challenge in the Peak District in June, there will be lots more of this, as well as 20 miles a day round trip to work most days, weather permitting.

Selective military help

March 18th, 2011 § 1 comment § permalink

I don’t know about if the no-fly zone in Libya is gonna help or completely turn to ratshit. At least there is a UN mandate for it, for what that’s worth.

It does strike me a little odd (if that’s the right word) that our glorious leaders have jumped and scrabbled for this no-fly zone over Libya when it is an internal conflict between the Libyan people and Gaddafi and his supporters about who gets to run the place. It’s Libyans fighting about Libya. No one else is involved. Yes, people are gonna get hurt, in various horrible ways, but the rebels or opposition or whatever you want to call them have at least some weapons and are fighting back and holding positions.

Why, though, haven’t the leaders of the free world jumped at the chance to militarily help the people of Bahrain who have been protesting about their dictator? After all, they are not just fighting against their own despot, but their despot has invited his despot mate to join in fucking over Bahrains civil population in the form of the Saudi army.

Libya is a purely internal conflict. Bahrain isn’t. Aren’t their rules about this sort of thing?

Dear Relative

March 17th, 2011 § 0 comments § permalink

I got this email from a relative. Any other day I would’ve just binned it but today, it really pissed me off.

In 1952 President Truman established one day a year as a “National Day of Prayer.”

In 1988 President Reagan designated the First Thursday in May of each year as the National Day of Prayer.

In June 2007 (then) Presidential Candidate Barack Obama declared that the USA “Was no longer a Christian nation.”

This year President Obama canceled the 21st annual National Day of Prayer ceremony at the White House under the ruse Of “not wanting to offend anyone”

BUT… on September 25, 2009 from 4 AM until 7 PM, a National Day of Prayer FOR THE MUSLIM RELIGION was Held on Capitol Hill, Beside the White House. There were over 50,000 Muslims in D.C. that day.


I guess it Doesn’t matter if “Christians” Are offended by this event – We obviously Don’t count as “anyone” Anymore.

The direction this country is headed should strike fear in the heart of every Christian, especially knowing that the Muslim religion believes that if Christians cannot be converted, they should be annihilated.

This is not a Rumor – Go to the website To confirm this info:

Send this to ten people and the person who sent it to you!… to let them know that indeed, it was sent out to many more.

So I replied…

Hi [relative],

I hope you are well.

Could you please stop sending me this stuff, I’m not interested in this type of overhyped, usually racist, usually false, propaganda.

For instance, this claims that Obama cancelled the Americans National Day of Prayer. This isn’t true. The White House may not have hosted it as usual, but the observance of the Day of Prayer was not cancelled. There is a subtle, but importance, difference.

This “National Day of Prayer for the Muslim religion” (the Muslim religion more commonly known as Islam) is not connected to the White House or Obama at all. It was an independent event that was authorised by the Capitol Hill police just like any other event.

Obama is a Christian. Praying with another religion does not make him that religion. Many leaders of countries join worship with religions other than their own. So what’s wrong? Is he not Christian enough? Is he secretly a Muslim? Do you really, honestly believe that Obama wants to turn the USA into a Muslim nation ruled by strict Sharia law and all that entails? Is the leader of a country only allowed to make every members of that country feel a part of it?

The quote about Muslims annihilating Christians is ridiculous as well. Sure, there are Muslims that believe that, but then the vast, vast majority, especially amongst the Western living population of Muslims that think that is complete rubbish. The Bible has just as many calls for violence in it as the Quran.

Te US is a secular country. Everybody is free to do as they please within the law. The people that put together these emails do not want that. They have an agenda. They do not want equality before the law. They wish to discriminate because of religion and/or race.

I don’t mean to offend, and I am not defending Muslims or Obama, just a little sick of the hyperbole that certain groups push over an isolated incident, especially when two minutes can show that the incident has been twisted and exagerated.


Peter Bone MP thinks the Daily express speaks for the whole of Britian

March 16th, 2011 § 0 comments § permalink

Peter Bone, the Conservative MP for Wellingborough, is exagerating a little I think…

Mr Speaker, 373,000 Daily Express readers want it, 80% of Conservative Members support it, the Deputy Prime Minister would love it, and my wife demands it. The British people, Conservative supporters, the leader of the Liberal party and especially Mrs Bone cannot all be wrong. Prime Minister: may we have a referendum on whether the United Kingdom should remain in the European Union?

60% of Daily Express readers is the British people is it? Hardly? Sales of the Express is about 7% of all national daily newspaper sales.

(My maths is shit so the percentages may be a little out, but you get the idea)

h/t Devils Kitchen

Earhquake Karma

March 14th, 2011 § 0 comments § permalink

There really are some cunts about, but then this is the internet so you already knew that didn’t you.

Since the fucking huge earthquake in Japan a few days ago there’s some cunts tweeting and posting that the earthquake is Karma for Japans attack on Pearl Harbour. Lets put to one side that karma is actually bullshit itself (for evidence, look at how many wankers never get a come-uppance) and see why the fuck would an earthquake in 2011 be karma for an act done in 1941, 70 years earlier.

According to Wikipedia (because of a lack of time and although Wikipedia takes some shit for inaccuracies it’ll do for this) the total US deaths and casualties at Pearl Harbour was 3741 people. 3649 of those were military personnel. This was in December 1941.

Since 1941 Wikipedia lists 28 earthquakes, 16 with a death toll. All of them with a magnitude greater than the earthquake that hit New Zealand.

Of those 16 with death tolls, you get a death toll of 3625 and a ‘missing’ number of 1180 just from the first 3, which happened before 1947. In just the first six years after Pearl Harbour more people suffered in Japanese earthquakes than the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour.

According to the karmacunts, the Japanese had only just started their payback at this point.

But, still presuming karma is real, how do all these people know which disaster is the result of karma? Are all the earthquakes and natural disasters, like typhoons, due to karma? If not then how do these wankers know this earthquake is the one resulting from karma? Can a country be beholden to the actions of its’ past, where those that ordered and carried out the dreadful deed are in many cases dead, if not seriously ravaged by old age?

This latest earthquake has fucked over 10,000 people. Isn’t that a little overkill to restore the cosmic balance?

And I’m not even going to mention the two nukes the USA dropped on Japan.

Karma = crock of shit.
People blaming karma for the earthquake = total fucking cunts.

Jill Duggan: Crashes and burns

March 11th, 2011 § 0 comments § permalink

This is truly fucking shocking.

Jill Duggan is the EC’s National Expert on Carbon Markets and Climate Change. She was head of Britain’s International Emissions Trading and was in Australia to sell the idea of how good Carbon Trading is. Just remember, Jill is an expert and was the head of the Emissions Trading. No lackey then and should know her arse from her elbow when talking about what thsi type of scheme will, and does, cost and how much benefit it brings.

Jill, here, is talking to radio host Andrew Bolt on the subject…

Andrew Bolt: Can I just ask; your target is to cut Europe’s emissions by 20% by 2020?

Jill Duggan: Yes.

AB: Can you tell me how much—to the nearest billions—is that going to cost Europe do you think?

JD: No, I can’t tell you but I do know that the modelling shows that it’s cheaper to start earlier rather than later, so it’s cheaper to do it now rather than put off action.

AB: Right. You wouldn’t quarrel with Professor Richard Tol—who’s not a climate sceptic—but is professor at the Economic and Social Research Institute in Dublin? He values it at about $250 billion. You wouldn’t quarrel with that?

JD: I probably would actually. I mean, I don’t know. It’s very, very difficult to quantify. You get different changes, don’t you? And one of the things that’s happening in Europe now is that many governments—such as the UK government and the German government—would like the targets to be tougher because they see it as a real stimulus to the economy.

AB: Right. Well you don’t know but you think it isn’t $250 billion.

JD: I think you could get lots of different academics coming up with lots of different figures.

AB: That’s right. You don’t know but that’s the figure that I’ve got in front of me. For that investment. Or for whatever the investment is. What’s your estimation of how much—because the object ultimately of course is to lower the world’s temperatures—what sort of temperature reduction do you imagine from that kind of investment?

JD: Well, what we do know is that to have an evens chance of keeping temperature increases globally to 2°C—so that’s increases—you’ve got to reduce emissions globally by 50% by 2050.

AB: Yes, I accept that, but from the $250 billion—or whatever you think the figure is—what do you think Europe can achieve with this 20% reduction in terms of cutting the world’s temperature? Because that’s, in fact, what’s necessary. What do you think the temperature reduction will be?

JD: Well, obviously, Europe accounts for 14% of global emissions. It’s 500 or 550 million people. On its own it cannot do that. That is absolutely clear.

AB: Have you got a figure in your mind? You don’t know the cost. Do you know the result?

JD: I don’t have a cost figure in my mind. Nor, one thing I do know, obviously, is that Europe acting alone will not solve this problem alone.

AB: So if I put a figure to you—I find it odd that you don’t know the cost and you don’t know the outcome—would you quarrel with this assessment: that by 2100—if you go your way and if you’re successful—the world’s temperatures will fall by 0.05°C? Would you agree with that?

JD: Sorry, can you just pass that by me again? You’re saying that if Europe acts alone?

AB: If just Europe alone—for this massive investment—will lower the world’s temperature with this 20% target (if it sustains that until the end of this century) by 0.05°C. Would you quarrel with that?

JD: Well, I think the climate science would not be that precise. Would it?

AB: Ah, no, actually it is, Jill. You see this is what I’m curious about; that you’re in charge of a massive program to re-jig an economy. You don’t know what it costs. And you don’t know what it’ll achieve.

Now, never mind whether we’re fucking ourselves up the shitter with all this man-made climate change or not, how the cunting-fuck can someone so involved with something as big as this, at such a high level, not know or not be able to give at least afucking clue as to what this is all costing us and what, if any, benefits it brings?

And they wonder why people want the EU, the European Commision and all that bollox to get to fuck.

The extract above is from a post by the Devil, where he has a better explanation of who Jill Duggan is, what she was doing in Australia and links to the full interview, both audio and the transcript.

The Dear Guest

March 10th, 2011 § 0 comments § permalink

I’m not the only one that feels a little uneasy (it’s not quite the right word, but can’t seem to get the right one) about this, am I?

“[Prince Andrew] wants to raise the profile of the all-party group and wants us to make the case in parliament and to the business secretary of the business opportunities out in Azerbaijan. He feels it is a Cinderella country that has tremendous opportunities.

“One of the things he talked about was his feeling that a place like Azerbaijan is somewhere of great opportunity, and the more British politicians and businesses engage themselves with their counterparts in Azerbaijan, there will be material benefits.”

I know Prince Andrew is envoy for trade and not something touchy-feely like morals and ethics, but it’s a bit crass to say the least, isn’t it? Nevermind that ‘we’ would be doing business with a torturer and his regime, eh? Just show me the money!

Maybe I’m being a little unfair. Business, especially big business has never been about that, and if Andrew started bleating on about human rights everyone would wonder what had gotten into him. After all, he is the Trade Envoy, not the Amabassador For Not Being Beastly To People. That role is somebody elses. Probably.

I can’t be easy for Andrew, having to visit these places, be entertained by horribe characters and in turn entertain them when they visit UK. At least he only visits Azerbaijan in his proffessional capacity. If he visited there in his personal capacity, that might really cast doubt over whether he gives a toss or not.

Andrew has been to the former Soviet republic three times since 2008 in a private capacity

Oh. Well, it’s only three times in just over three years. It could be worse. The media there could give him pet name. Now that would be disatrous for ones’ reputation.

He is often described as “the dear guest” by local media


How to kill IE6

March 9th, 2011 § 7 comments § permalink

Internet Explorer 6 is a piece of shit for a variety of reasons that, but mainly because it is dangerously flawed.

But now, at last, it is being killed off completely.

What I don’t understand, not being much of a techie, is what all the fuss about it being killed of is for. Microsoft even has a site dedicated to it with how to help – educate, encourage, join the cause and other stuff.

Microsoft could kill IE6 in one go. No fuss. No bother.

All Microsoft have to do is issue one last update. Make it a security update that when installed installs IE8 or whatever the latest version is that MS has cobbled together.

The majority of savvy non-commercial users don’t use IE anyway, the mojority of non-commercial users of Windows have the auto-updates set so it will do it itself when the user clicks the prompt when asked and if a security update is issued rather than just ‘an update’ any one looking after a commercial IT system would have to be a muppet not to update. Job done.

Those people left that don’t want to upgrade from IE6, well, fuck em.

As I say, I’m no whizz when it comes to these things so it may be a little more involved than that, but still, the premise remains unchanged. Doesn’t it?

Where am I?

You are currently viewing the archives for March, 2011 at Sim-O.