webmaster
© Copyright DEHAI-Eritrea OnLine, 1993-2011
All rights reserved
From: Berhane Habtemariam (Berhane.Habtemariam@gmx.de)
Date: Tue Mar 22 2011 - 16:22:29 EST
Questions That Require Serious Attention
Tuesday, 22 March 2011 11:58 | Written by Shabait Admin |
<http://www.shabait.com/section-blog/40-editorial/5067--questions-that-requi
re-serious-attention?format=pdf> PDF
<http://www.shabait.com/section-blog/40-editorial/5067--questions-that-requi
re-serious-attention?tmpl=component&print=1&layout=default&page=> Print
<http://www.shabait.com/component/mailto/?tmpl=component&link=aHR0cDovL3d3dy
5zaGFiYWl0LmNvbS9zZWN0aW9uLWJsb2cvNDAtZWRpdG9yaWFsLzUwNjctLXF1ZXN0aW9ucy10aG
F0LXJlcXVpcmUtc2VyaW91cy1hdHRlbnRpb24%3D> E-mail
As implied earlier, acts of conspiracy that have been resorted to wield
full-scale attack against Libya have on the spur of the moment culminated in
military action that principal western countries along with their satellite
states have launched aerial and missile strikes on March 19-exactly eight
years after the invasion of Iraq-against the sovereignty of the people and
government of Libya.
The heavy-handed assault that is being exercised to legitimize illegal
operations in the name of the Arab League and other regional organizations,
as well as through employing some member states of the UN Security Council
as willing tools while at the same time toning down others' voices by means
of bewildering political game raises endless moral and logical questions
with sound proof of evidence.
On what justification and legal process has the "No-Fly Zone" resolution the
UN Security Council passed under the rubric of setting up 'safe haven'
escalated on impulse into aerial strikes and missile attacks? In the wake of
the beleaguered 'at a roundtable' rhetoric, what is the rationale beyond the
imposition of resolution for swift escalation into military intervention? On
what logic could the interference be justified for saving nationhood? How is
the fatality of civilians from external forces tolerable and objectionable
to internal arms? If the advocacy is meant to salvage nationhood, why is not
similar state of affairs of other nations handled in such a manner? Why is
not military intervention levied on other countries for nationhood's sake?
Contrary to the military intervention imposed in the rhetoric of rescuing
nationhood upon Libya, does military interference intended to safeguard
governments in other countries not attest to the double standard?
Could such heavy firepower that essentially results in devastation and chaos
resolve comparable political and economic questions which different peoples
might raise? Why are nations deprived of the independence to keep their
ranks intact and undertake nation-building programs on their own? What is
the real objective of such intervention? Is it to facilitate political
evolution and developments, or hamper and shake it to assume new direction.
Further than dwarfing the living standards of peoples, previous U.S.-led
military adventurism in Afghanistan, Iraq and Somalia merely created a
breeding ground for terrorism and sectarian propensities, which in turn have
now given rise to dreadful mass killings. The massacre of innocent Iraqis on
daily basis, as well as the sight of soldiers who take photographs with
their feet on dead bodies of Afghan civilians is now a regular episode. And
hence, why has the international community remained voiceless when this
dismaying experience is being repeated? Would not erstwhile adventurisms
that caused mass killings be enough? Why have some member states of the UN
Security Council vested with veto power preferred to constantly abstain and
observe the massacre of peoples sitting on the fence? Have not those forces,
who are pondering to prevail peace and stability by subduing peoples and
punishing governments with air strikes and missile attacks, drawn a lesson
from their past futile experiences? What rational judgment could justify the
trend to subdue the entire people? Is not the history from Vietnam to Iraq
quite telling? In view of this fact, for how long the UN and other
international organizations will remain ostensible when such wild
adventurisms are sustained to cause further massacres?
Chapter 1 Article 1 (1) of the UN Charter postulates that the principle of
the organization is: "To maintain international peace and security, and to
that end: to take effective collective measures for the prevention and
removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of
aggression or other breaches of the peace, and to bring about by peaceful
means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international
law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which
might lead to a breach of the peace." Therefore, are peoples and governments
of the world paying heed to the role of the UN that organization itself is
continuously standing against its principles? While Article 2 (1) of the
same chapter states: "The Organization is based on the principle of the
sovereign equality of all its Members", Why then is the UN manipulated at
the whim of few nations? By the same token, chapter 1, Article 2 (4) of its
charter hypothesizes: "All Members shall refrain in their international
relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity
or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent
with the Purposes of the United Nations. Why has then the UN failed, in
compliance with its charter, to watch over endless adventurisms by some
nations that are exercising power for parochial interests? Chapter 1 article
2 (7) of the UN Charter stipulates: "Nothing contained in the present
Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are
essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require
the Members to submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter."
Why this same organization is then allowing repeated bombardment of detested
nations?
While Chapter 6 Article 34 of the UN charter again postulates: "The Security
Council may investigate any dispute, or any situation which might lead to
international friction or give rise to a dispute, in order to determine
whether the continuance of the dispute or situation is likely to endanger
the maintenance of international peace and security", why is the UN passing
resolutions upon preposterous judgments? Yet, Article 51 of the same chapter
states: "Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of
individual or collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs against a
Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures
necessary to maintain international peace and security." Why is this
organization then assuming authority to deny the rights of some countries
for self-defense?
Punitive measures that are being taken by adventurous nations and titular
international organizations invoke endless legal and logical questions.
Answers of the aforementioned questions would ascertain that the world is
experiencing an eminent danger of the new world order. However precarious
the current global state of affairs might be, the end result of this vicious
world order will definitely prove contrary to the aspirations of the
minority, provided that popular consciousness is ever on the rise; for, it
is unrealistic that all peoples will remain silent forever.
----[This List to be used for Eritrea Related News Only]----