UN chief Ban calls for immediate Libya cease-fire

[Xithras]

Source: CBS News

U.N. chief Ban Ki-moon called for "an immediate, verifiable cease-fire" in Libya on Wednesday and said Moammar Gadhafi's government had agreed to another visit by a special envoy.

The secretary-general said he spoke with Libya's prime minister by phone late Tuesday to urge a ceasefire and demand unimpeded access for U.N. humanitarian workers there. He also called on Gadhafi's forces to stop attacking civilians.

Ban said the prime minister, Baghdadi al-Mahmoudi, agreed to receive a special U.N. envoy who would now travel to Tripoli to undertake "negotiations for a peaceful resolution of the conflict and unimpeded access for humanitarian workers."




Read more: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/05/11/ap/europe/main20061945.shtml

---

This could get interesting. Gaddafi offered a ceasefire in late April, but NATO rejected it saying that ceasefire offers from him are not credible. The African Union similarly attempted to broker a ceasefire agreement in early April, but the Benghazi leadership rejected it, stating that they won't accept any ceasefire that doesn't include ejecting Gadaffi from the country.

Now you have the U.N. chief calling for an immediate ceasefire. This begs an interesting question...if NATO and the rebels have essentially stated that ceasefire offers from Gaddafi will be ignored, aren't we the ones blocking the ceasefire that the U.N. chief is now calling for?

[Name removed]

1. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Xithras]

3. So you oppose ceasefires?

It isn't in the UN's mandate to depose Gaddafi, or to support the rebels. The primary directive in the UN action authorizing the no fly zone was to protect civilians from injury and death. The most effective way to implement that is to impose an immediate cease fire on both sides.

If the head of the UN is calling for an immediate ceasefire, anybody who opposes that call is supporting war crimes.

[Kurska]

4. The head of the UN's opinion isn't legally binding, so no it isn't a war crime.

The UN may help define war crimes, but not doing what the head of the UN asks isn't a war crime.

[Xithras]

6. I wasn't clear

The UN resolution called for members to take actions to prevent civilian casualties. If we encourage combat, which kills civilians, when a ceasefire could protect them, then our behavior is contravening the intent and letter of the UN resolution. If we're bombing Libya when less damaging options are available, then we ARE committing a war crime, because we're violating the very resolution that we are using to justify the intervention. The validity of Moon's personal opinion is irrelevant, because the resolution itself carries the force of law, and the resolution simply states that UN members must take action necessary to prevent civilian deaths. The only way to fully comply with that resolution is to pursue a total ceasefire. Anything else, including our current bombing, is merely a "necessary evil" that has to be carried out until a ceasefire can be put into place.

If you, in opinion, support the idea of continued combat when a cease fire is available as an alternative, then you also support the notion that war crimes are acceptable when they are used to accomplish "greater" humanitarian or political goals.

[JackRiddler]

8. Note that the NATO spokesperson knows not to talk trash, like you do in your post.

Whatever legitimacy NATO has in the Libya campaign derives (on NATO's word) from the UN resolution 1973. They may disregard Ban, but they're not going to talk trash about it or drop their fig leaf.

[Name removed]

9. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[dipsydoodle]

2. This becoming a complete farce

Innit.

[killbotfactory]

5. Gaddafi has offered a ceasefire before

Unfortunately he never ceased firing. He doesn't give a fuck. He is not an honest broker, and never will be.

[JackRiddler]

7. Which the "rebel government" refused to negotiate...

(In quotes since the Bengazi government recognized by NATO is no longer the original rebels but former Gaddafi officials.)

Ceasefires are not implemented unilaterally. First they get negotiated, then they go into force at an agreed time. Only then does it become possible to violate them. The "rebel government" refused to engage the offer in the first place. Since no ceasefire was negotiated, the one thing you can't accuse Gaddafi of is that he violated a ceasefire.

[killbotfactory]

10. "Gaddafi Declares Ceasefire After U.N. Security Council Backs No-Fly Zone in Libya"

"International forces are threatening to launch air strikes inside Libya following Thursday’s vote by the U.N. Security Council to authorize a no-fly zone over Libya, and to undertake "all necessary measures" to protect civilians against leader Col. Muammar Gaddafi’s forces. Earlier today, Libya’s Foreign Minister announced an immediate end of military operations. We get analysis from UCLA Law Professor Asli Bali, who has written and commented extensively on the question of international intervention in Libya."
http://www.democracynow.org/2011/3/18/gaddafi_declares_cease_fire_after_un


Guess what happened next?