Sim-O

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)

… as the saying goes. It doesn’t apply here though.

The question over at the BNP site is “Who are the minorities?”. And guess who are the minorities…

Over and over again, British people — and Europeans generally — are told that they must “accommodate the minorities” in their countries. Yet the worldwide reality is that European-origin people are the true global minority, and, using the liberal logic which demands special rights for minorities, it is Europeans who should receive the special perks.

Yes. The poor old white man is the true minority. The white man might not be a minority in their own country so the BNP are making the battle global. Suddenly, the Nationalists are worried about other countries. If the white man clubs together, then and only then, and even then only in absolute numbers does he become an endangered species.

[There are several reports mentioned in the BNPs’ pamphlet of shit and it’s late so if someone else wants to look into how good/reliable they are, go for it..]

Consider the following: The world’s population is forecast to hit 7 billion in 2011, the vast majority of its growth coming in ‘developing’ and, in many cases, the poorest nations, according to the latest World Population Data Sheet issued by the Population Reference Bureau in America.

Some 97 percent of global growth over the next 40 years will happen in Asia, Africa, Latin America and the Caribbean, said the report

And there is a lot of talk of birthrates, quoting various population increases in various countries and suchlike, all of which may be accurate, but just as likely not. But then there’s also stuff like…

A United Nations population survey in 2007 predicted the 21st century disappearance of western man.

By 2050, a fourth of all the people of Eastern Europe will have vanished. Ukraine will lose one-third of its population. Russia, 150 million at the breakup of the Soviet Union, 142 million today, will be down to 108 million.

Ah, ‘Western Man’. That’s what the racists are worried about, aren’t they? So, in the next 91 years, there will be no true white man, eh? Why are they quoting Eastern Europeans in the decline of western man? Aren’t they one of the groups of people coming over here, taking ‘our’ jobs and taking ‘our’ benefits whilst shagging ‘our’ women?
Here’s the first solid bit of bullshit numbering. Either the BNP are adding their own numbers or the report they got it from was written by an uninformed twat because didn’t the Soviet Union break up twenty years ago? Any recent self-respecting, legitimate report wouldn’t count anything to do with the Soviet Union. The USSR is history already. Oh, and where do all these people in the Ukraine get lost? In the sodding permafrost?

The UN statistics, however, show the populations of Northern, Western and Southern Europe stabilising or falling only slightly.

That’s just not good enough, is it? Come on. It’s your duty to your race to fuck more!

It is time, therefore, that liberals stopped talking about ‘minorities’ as if European people were somehow the dominating majority. European-origin people across the world are the true minority, and as such deserve extra special treatment in their home nations.

Ok. Taking their figures, the dodgy groupings and double accounting, at face value, so what? Aren’t they supposedly ‘Nationalists’? Isn’t the clue in the name? What do these Nationalists care about other countries? Don’t they have an isolationist twang to their policies? All of a sudden, the go-it-aloners are worried about other nations ‘indigenous people’.

[added during a read through: When liberals (and that could be anyone when the BNP say it) talk about minorities, they talk about the minority ethnic groupings of that country. In South Africa the minority is the white bloke. In European countries, European descended people are the majority. FFS.]

I just spotted too, ‘European-origin people’ don’t just deserve an equal crack at the whip, not even special treatment, but extra special treatment. What do they want? A fucking house given to them? They want immigrants that come here to work (until they can send them packing), but want extra special treatment themselves. Sounds like aparthied would be just up their street.

Here come the big guns of the arguement: The United Nations stuff…

The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, adopted by General Assembly Resolution 61/295 on 13 September 2007, states very clearly that:

Oh, go on. Lets see what you make of this. I’m going to quote everything they do and then deal with it in one go at the end…

“Article 3
Indigenous peoples have the right to self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.
Article 4
Indigenous peoples, in exercising their right to self-determination, have the right to autonomy or self-government in matters relating to their internal and local affairs, as well as ways and means for financing their autonomous functions.
Article 6
Every indigenous individual has the right to a nationality.
Article 8
1. Indigenous peoples and individuals have the right not to be subjected to forced assimilation or destruction of their culture.
2. States shall provide effective mechanisms for prevention of, and redress for:
(a) Any action which has the aim or effect of depriving them of their integrity as distinct peoples, or of their cultural values or ethnic identities;
(b) Any action which has the aim or effect of dispossessing them of their lands, territories or resources;
(c) Any form of forced population transfer which has the aim or effect of violating or undermining any of their rights;
(d) Any form of forced assimilation or integration;
(e) Any form of propaganda designed to promote or incite racial or ethnic discrimination directed against them.
Article 33
1. Indigenous peoples have the right to determine their own identity or membership in accordance with their customs and traditions. This does not impair the right of indigenous individuals to obtain citizenship of the States in which they live.
2. Indigenous peoples have the right to determine the structures and to select the membership of their institutions in accordance with their own procedures.”

Indigenous people do have all those rights. They are meant, primarily, where a land has been occupied, colonised or conquered. A good example of this are the Aboriginal people of Austrialia. Foreign people came and conquered the land and for fuck knows how long denied them full rights, equal rights in their own land.
I challenge anyone to give me an example of where one of the UN articles quoted above are being violated with regard to the ‘indigenous’ population of Great Britian.

Those UN articles apply to individual countries, territories, irrespective of what is happening in other countries. The Republic of Ireland could have a majority population of Easter Islanders and it wouldn’t matter to the rights of anybody in the UK at all.

I would imagine ‘Western Man’ is already a minority. Think about it. There’s a fuck load of people spread over this earth and western Europe and North America is a small part of it. If the fascist nationalists are having to club together with unnatural bedfellows to become the put-upon victims, the rest of their arguments disappear like sand through their fingers

Parts of the US right likes abstaining, whether sex or international politics, so this should come as no surprise, especially with the USs’ record:

The Guardian

The UN last night passed a resolution calling for an immediate ceasefire in the 13-day conflict in Gaza, breaking a deadlock in the international community’s response to the crisis that risked exposing the UN to ridicule .

The vote was passed by 14 votes to nil, though the US, represented by secretary of state Condolleeza Rice, abstained. It came after three days of intense Arab pressure at the UN’s headquarters in New York and in the face of stiff Israeli opposition.