ONE MORE WAR IN THE NAME OF HHRR

ONE MORE WAR IN THE NAME OF HHRR
HAS, March 17, 2011

Before going to the Human Rights argument in favor of war in Libya let’s make clear six points:

1. March 17. This is a unilateral NATO military intervention in domestic foreign affairs, an act of war of aggression that has nothing to do with the consent of the international community, a UN Assembly, not even the approval by consensus in the UN Security Council. This is a unilateral war of aggression manufactured by the US, the UK, and Israel and France rulers without the consent of their own population.

1. UPDATE MARCH 18. UNCLEAR UN RESOLUTION ADOPTED BY THE UN
"At the United Nations headquarters in New York, Russian and Chinese envoys said the resolution's backers failed to explain adequately how the no-fly zone would work and what the rules of engagement would be".
SOURCE: CHINA VOICES "SERIOUS RESERVATIONS" on Libya no-fly decision
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/18/us-china-libya-idUSTRE72H12K20110318
BEIJING | Fri Mar 18, 2011 12:54am EDT


2. NATO objective is obviously clear: divide Libya and take control of their oil reserves.

3. The no-fly-zone means indiscriminate bombing of Libya at very high social cost of innocent lives, much more costly than the current internal war. The NATO will commit war-crimes and talk about collateral damages, even if pre-selected sector of the rebels against Gaddafi (Muslims and Shias) are already been targeted by their bombing.

4. International rules of war (before and during war) will not be respected, among them: a) right cause (or right intention), legally approved by the Senate or the Executive if the nation is already invaded or is under military attack; b) respect of rights that even war-time can never be suspended (see below the list of these rights); c) the rule of proportionality (the excessive use of force will be considered war-crime and prosecuted in the ICC); and d) clear end and immediate reparation of damages cause by war to the civilian population and their civil infrastructure.

5. The chances of war escalation are greater than before given the civilian unrest in the whole Arabian region and foreign interests involved on this issue (the case of Europe, specially Germany, China and Russia that depend on the Arabian oil). If war escalation goes on, peace and stability not only in the Arab region but at world level will be affected, with high risk of nuclear hecatomb.

6. If this war last two more months, the US, EUROPE and the whole world will suffer economic effects and the social unrest derived from the rise of oil and gas prices.

Now, think about Who will paid for this war and who will be their profiteers?. Certainly most tax payers in the US-EU (middle classes, workers and common people) will pay this new oil-war and only few big corporations and the rich (tax-evaders in the US) will be the beneficiaries.

Then, stand up for what is right and be ready to participate in national demonstration against war. DON'T LET THE CORPORATE MEDIA USE JAPAN's CASE AS SMOKE SCREEN TO COVER UP THIS OTHER HUMAN CATASTROPHE -THE WAR IN LIBYA- THAT WILL AFFECT DIRECTLY YOUR LIFE

======================

THE HR AS ARGUMENT for war : THE MOS CINICAL and UNETHICAL CLAIM SO FAR

1. It is true that Human Rights are first and stand above citizen-political rights and State rights (sovereignty and non-foreign intervention in domestic affairs). However, during war most HR has been obliterated. This is a fact and there are many evidences on this regard (you named: start checking what happens in Iraq, Afghanistan and Palestine, just to mention the last ones, still covered with impunity). Then be cautious when any group of imperial states uses this argument to plunder oil abroad. The argument of HR has more appealing than a war in the name of democracy and freedom (story tell for stupids) especially in international relations. The HR argument for war is wrapped with the ambiguous and euphemistic word of “humanitarian intervention”. In this way is easy to be manipulated by the corporate mass media among misinformed and un-educated people, but this tale is not easy to be swallowed by middle classes and educated people.

2. The fact that war obliterates most human rights can be demonstrated with the following legal fact: European Convention on Human Rights, International Covenants and Civil and Political Rights and American Convention on Human Rights agreed that the following rights can never be suspended, even during war: right to life; to human treatment; no slavery, no ex post facto law; juridical personhood, freedom of thought, conscience and religion. In addition, the American Convention on Human Rights added the following Human Rights: rights of family; right to a name; right of a child, right to nationality, and right to participate in government. The US –as we see- is championing the rhetoric and diplomacy on rights, but it is also the country that during wars has violated in the most brutal way those rights.

3. The most cynical and hypocritical US-EU diplomacy on Human Rights is the fact that they want to indict authoritarian rulers on the charge of HR abuses only when they put at risk their interests, even when there are clear evidences that they sponsored their authoritarian behavior , the most recent case is Mubarak in Egypt and the same with Gaddafi in Libya. They still sponsor the human rights abuses of Israel in Palestine and the exclusion of education rights to Bedouins and Shia minorities by the feudal Royalty in Saudi Arabia.

This double standard and uses of Human Rights for convenience is the most unethical and immoral fact that undermine any ground for “humanitarian intervention in Libya”. Not to mention the fact that the US not even signed the UN agreement for the International Criminal Court in which they want Gaddafi be processed and not the US war criminals. Simply, the US has not moral basis to claim Human Rights as argument for military intervention in domestic affairs of Libya.