The international criminal court's decision to charge Muammar Gaddafi with crimes against humanity both tightens and legitimises the noose that David Cameron and others had gratuitously hung around the Libyan leader's neck.
But far from hastening his removal from power, the court's demarche may reinforce Gaddafi's determination to stay and fight to the bitter end. Few would dispute that Gaddafi and two close associates, his son, Saif al-Islam, and Libya's military intelligence chief, Abdullah al- Senussi, have a case to answer.
The pre-trial chamber judges said there were reasonable grounds to believe the three men conspired to impose a state policy "aimed at deterring and quelling, by any means, including by the use of lethal force, the demonstrations of civilians against the regime which started in February".
Gaddafi "had absolute, ultimate and unquestioned control over the Libyan state apparatus of power, including the security forces", and used it to enforce his plan to crush the uprising, the judges declared. Saif Gaddafi, his father's "unspoken successor and the most influential person within his inner circle", and Senussi "both made an essential contribution to implement that plan", the court alleged.
The ICC's action will be applauded by advocates of universal justice and humanitarian law and by supporters of UN notions of the international community's responsibility to protect. It will also be welcomed by the British and French governments, prime movers in the Libyan military intervention, as further evidence that their parallel, non-military campaign to isolate, ostracise, delegitimise and undermine Gaddafi is working, even if Nato bombing is not.
"The warrants demonstrate why Gaddafi has lost all legitimacy and why he should go immediately," said the British foreign secretary, William Hague. He went on to urge Gaddafi supporters to consider their own positions in the light of the ICC ruling. "People at all levels of seniority should think carefully about the consequences of what they do," Hague warned.
Those involved in continuing regime attacks on civilians would be held responsible. It's an obvious divide-and-rule tactic, but it may slowly be having a cumulative effect. Reports this week of secret talks in Tunisia involving senior Libyan cabinet members, high-profile defections and a renewed offer by the regime spokesman (later partially withdrawn) to put Gaddafi's continued tenure to a popular vote have encouraged those looking for fatal cracks in the Tripoli edifice.
Welcoming the warrants, a rebel spokesman suggested they meant Gaddafi was finished and there was no longer any point in even trying to negotiate with a "war criminal" regime. As usual, there is a large dose of unreality and wishful thinking about all this. The ICC's action could easily backfire, as have other aspects of Libyan policy.
The court's personal targeting of Gaddafi will revive questions about the wisdom of the Anglo- French-US approach (distinct from that of Nato) of making his removal from power the key measure of success in Libya. It will also fuel claims that the ICC is only interested in pursuing African leaders, as in Sudan and Kenya, and that the US in particular (which is not a party to the ICC) is guilty of double standards.
The UN security council resolution authorising military intervention was silent on the issue of Gaddafi's status. It had to be. If the resolution had been openly portrayed as authorising regime change, or a de facto assassination, it would certainly have been vetoed by Russia or China or both.
Yet British officials now privately admit that nothing less than a fresh start will suffice – and that if Gaddafi were perchance to die in a bombing raid on a command and control target, his killing would be regarded as justified. Thus is one man's fate now dictating the course of the war and the wider international policy associated with it. For his part, Gaddafi and his people are adamant he will not stand down, will not leave the country and will not hand himself over to the ICC or anybody else.
"Muammar Gaddafi is Libya's historical symbol and he is above all political actions and tactical games," said Libyan government spokesman Moussa Ibrahim. "In this current stage and in the future, Gaddafi is the historical choice which we cannot drop."
On his refusal to budge, Gaddafi has been entirely consistent from the outset and, because he has nowhere to go and because the ICC has effectively branded him an international outlaw, it seems implausible to believe he will change his mind now. The ICC has added its weight to attempts to corner Gaddafi. But cornered, he is rendered all the more dangerous.
But far from hastening his removal from power, the court's demarche may reinforce Gaddafi's determination to stay and fight to the bitter end. Few would dispute that Gaddafi and two close associates, his son, Saif al-Islam, and Libya's military intelligence chief, Abdullah al- Senussi, have a case to answer.
The pre-trial chamber judges said there were reasonable grounds to believe the three men conspired to impose a state policy "aimed at deterring and quelling, by any means, including by the use of lethal force, the demonstrations of civilians against the regime which started in February".
Gaddafi "had absolute, ultimate and unquestioned control over the Libyan state apparatus of power, including the security forces", and used it to enforce his plan to crush the uprising, the judges declared. Saif Gaddafi, his father's "unspoken successor and the most influential person within his inner circle", and Senussi "both made an essential contribution to implement that plan", the court alleged.
The ICC's action will be applauded by advocates of universal justice and humanitarian law and by supporters of UN notions of the international community's responsibility to protect. It will also be welcomed by the British and French governments, prime movers in the Libyan military intervention, as further evidence that their parallel, non-military campaign to isolate, ostracise, delegitimise and undermine Gaddafi is working, even if Nato bombing is not.
"The warrants demonstrate why Gaddafi has lost all legitimacy and why he should go immediately," said the British foreign secretary, William Hague. He went on to urge Gaddafi supporters to consider their own positions in the light of the ICC ruling. "People at all levels of seniority should think carefully about the consequences of what they do," Hague warned.
Those involved in continuing regime attacks on civilians would be held responsible. It's an obvious divide-and-rule tactic, but it may slowly be having a cumulative effect. Reports this week of secret talks in Tunisia involving senior Libyan cabinet members, high-profile defections and a renewed offer by the regime spokesman (later partially withdrawn) to put Gaddafi's continued tenure to a popular vote have encouraged those looking for fatal cracks in the Tripoli edifice.
Welcoming the warrants, a rebel spokesman suggested they meant Gaddafi was finished and there was no longer any point in even trying to negotiate with a "war criminal" regime. As usual, there is a large dose of unreality and wishful thinking about all this. The ICC's action could easily backfire, as have other aspects of Libyan policy.
The court's personal targeting of Gaddafi will revive questions about the wisdom of the Anglo- French-US approach (distinct from that of Nato) of making his removal from power the key measure of success in Libya. It will also fuel claims that the ICC is only interested in pursuing African leaders, as in Sudan and Kenya, and that the US in particular (which is not a party to the ICC) is guilty of double standards.
The UN security council resolution authorising military intervention was silent on the issue of Gaddafi's status. It had to be. If the resolution had been openly portrayed as authorising regime change, or a de facto assassination, it would certainly have been vetoed by Russia or China or both.
Yet British officials now privately admit that nothing less than a fresh start will suffice – and that if Gaddafi were perchance to die in a bombing raid on a command and control target, his killing would be regarded as justified. Thus is one man's fate now dictating the course of the war and the wider international policy associated with it. For his part, Gaddafi and his people are adamant he will not stand down, will not leave the country and will not hand himself over to the ICC or anybody else.
"Muammar Gaddafi is Libya's historical symbol and he is above all political actions and tactical games," said Libyan government spokesman Moussa Ibrahim. "In this current stage and in the future, Gaddafi is the historical choice which we cannot drop."
On his refusal to budge, Gaddafi has been entirely consistent from the outset and, because he has nowhere to go and because the ICC has effectively branded him an international outlaw, it seems implausible to believe he will change his mind now. The ICC has added its weight to attempts to corner Gaddafi. But cornered, he is rendered all the more dangerous.
No comments:
Post a Comment