We want civilians to be protected, not shelled – Arab League leader
Published: 20 March, 2011, 18:56
Edited: 21 March, 2011, 08:58
France's president Nicolas Sarkozy (L) speaks to Secretary-General of the Arab League Amr Moussa of Egypt (R) on March 19, 2011 (AFP Photo Pool / Lionel Bonaventure)
(18.8Mb) embed videoTAGS: Conflict, Military, UK, Politics, Europe, Kevin Owen, Matt Trezza, Libya, Gaddafi, Laura Smith
The Arab League has harshly criticized military actions by Western powers in Libya. The head of the organization, Amr Moussa, said international actions have gone beyond what the Arab League backed and are now causing civilian deaths.
Moussa told reporters Sunday that "what happened differs from the no-fly zone objectives and said “what we want is civilians' protection not shelling more civilians."
In comments carried by Egypt’s official state news agency, Moussa also said he was calling for an emergency Arab League meeting.
The Arab League’s support for a no-fly zone provided crucial underpinning for the passage of the UN Security Council resolution that made possible the Western intervention, the biggest against an Arab country since the 2003 invasion of Iraq.
Political analyst Adil Shamoo says Amr Moussa’s comments should be taken very seriously, though he doubts that coalition forces will consider the criticism and review its operations.
“The Arab League is really not very credible – for decades they represented despots,” he said. “So, their words are not worth a lot among the Arab people. Maybe worth a lot at the UN and among Western powers, but not in the Arab states. His comment should be taken very seriously because he said they are going way beyond UN resolution 1973. And I agree with that statement – they are way beyond UN resolution 1973.”
However, Stephen Lendman, the host of a Chicago-based radio talk show, says the Arab League knew that there would not be any humanitarian aid.
“This is naked aggression,” he said. “They know that. What did they expect when America goes in? No attack? Nothing whatsoever? They knew that was coming. They endorsed that, and now they are complaining about civilian casualties.”
Balkans expert Marko Gasic says that now that the cease-fire is needed for peace, that should be the aim of the mission. The mission has now become compromised, he says, and should be stopped as soon as possible.
"We should remember that the resolution calls for dialogue. It requires both sides in order to engage in that dialogue. So, it should not be about getting rid of Gaddafi. If it is, then this action on day one is already in breach of the resolution. We needed dialogue, we needed a cease-fire, we got bombs instead. The bombs are not necessary for peace."
Moscow has called on coalition forces to refrain from using indiscriminate force in Libya.
Russian officials were initially against any military intervention in Libya, saying the West should let the country decide its own future. Russia's Foreign Ministry said that the international intervention in Libya, which began on Saturday evening with French air strikes, was regrettable.
Meanwhile, Libyan TV quoted the armed forces command as saying that 48 people had been killed and 150 wounded in the allied assault.
Britons protest Libya intervention
Meantime, there have been a range of reactions in the UK because of the military operation. The Stop the War Coalition says the Tomahawk missiles which have been used are not actually precision guided weapons and will cause a lot of civilian casualties. They are very critical of the UN resolution. They say that it has begun as it will continue with a full scale military assault on the Libyan people. They believe the end result will not be the freedom of Libyans and their democracy, but their enslavement by the western world. People in the streets are asking why their country is intervening in Libya and stays away from other states which are also seeing large-scale civilian casualties caused by governments.
There is also concern about the cost of war. They are puzzled by their government's decision to get involved in another war and spend money on military actions, while as they say there is a lack of money for solving social problems.
Responding to Mussa's reported comments, the Foreign Office stated:
"All missions are meticulously planned to ensure every care is taken to avoid civilian casualties. We will continue to work with our Arab partners to enforce the resolution for the good of the Libyan people."
20.03.2011, 14:43
5 comments
Progress at Fukushima-1: too little, but not yet too lateJapan is making some progress in its efforts to restore power to the quake and tsunami-damaged Fukushima-1 nuclear power plant. Police warn the disaster death toll may reach 15,000 in a single prefecture. Earthquake in Japan Fukushima nuclear disaster |
20.03.2011, 22:06
3 comments
Colonel Gaddafi orders ceasefire in LibyaColonel Gaddafi issued an order to all military forces in Libya to cease fire by 19:00 GMT, according to Reuters. Libyan conflict |
So why didn't the Arab League set up their own peacekeepers or even send contingents of soldiers that could have been sent there before it happened? The ambivalence between complaining AFTER it happens and not sending any aid at all is very suspicious. Who's in cahoots with who? If you stand by while your friend Libya us getting pounded, what does that make you? At least send some AA vehicles as a deterrent to Western powers.
Civilian casualties , as predicted. Shameful jingoism from Cameron , who seems to consider military aggression a prime ministerial rite of passage.
Does anyone SERIOUSLY believe the West would do this , if Libya had no oil ?
Who is next ? Bahrain ? They have oil , don't they ? Oh , hang on - Bahrain is an ally of the West , so there will be no military intervention by Cameron , or Obama.
Even though I would still disagree with intervention , I would have a smidgin oi respect for Cameron , IF he told the TRUTH .
But I don't.Because he doesn't.







The Arab league supports N.A.T.O and then disagrees once they start. This is the Arab league's fault for not fixing their own problem. N.A.T.O has one choice so do not blame them. They must get rid of Gadaffi and support the rebels or they will look like the fool for helping others. As for civilian death that is completly unaviodable. Gadaffi is killing civilians ,threatened Europe, and said would use missles against the rebels. The threat he made means if we let him stay we will have Lybia as an enemy for a while. All western powers are trying hard to get this done as quick as they can with minimal civilian deaths. I think many politicians relize that another long war is not going to help their economies. The arguement of a war for oil also does not make sense with South stream and Nord stream pipelines. Especially when the first of two of the Nord stream pipelines will be operational in October 2011