It is being reported that the French government has officially recognized the “Libyan rebels transitional government”, the UN is about pass “no-fly zone” resolution and that NATO is ready to carry out military intervention in Libya. Again, these and other absurd utterances raise several legal and logical questions. It is being reported that the French government has officially recognized the “Libyan rebels transitional government”, the UN is about pass “no-fly zone” resolution and that NATO is ready to carry out military intervention in Libya. Again, these and other absurd utterances raise several legal and logical questions.
Before proceeding to the questions, however, it is worthwhile to once again reiterate the Eritrean government’s unflinching stance: “it is the sovereign right of any people to raise and decide their national issues or other demands free from any foreign interference.” Within this framework, it is imperative to raise the following legal questions.
What is the root cause of the current changes being witnessed in North Africa and the Middle East? What direction is the change witnessed in Tunisia is assuming? What about that of Egypt? Is the necessary atmosphere being created that satisfies the popular demands regarding social justice and legality or is it being aborted? What about the prevailing situation in Yemen, Bahrain, Oman and etc heading to? Why are such situation being given religious and ethnic color? Why is the Libyan situation being handled in a special way in every aspects? France has officially announced that it has recognized the ‘transitional government of the Libyan rebels’. On what legal basis? On what logic? Isn’t it the Libyan people that should decide the government of that nation? Or has the French government solely got the chance to ask the Libyan people? What is the criteria for governments to recognize or not recognize? The right of the people concerned or any party that feels it has the power to do so? In any case, what are the yardsticks for labeling governments legal or illegal? Is it international, unilateral or power-driven and double standard? What is the basis of its legality and the yardstick of its logic? In a given country, one party like that of China, two parties as practiced in the US, a republic like that of Libya, Emirate as in Abu Dhabi, parliamentary elections as is being proposed in Yemen or the hatching of 60 political parties as commonly witnessed in some African countries? Or constitutional monarchy like that of Britain and Morocco? Or even a monarchy like that of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and etc.? Or like Switzerland that has the right to reject membership in the UN? Is it the people of such countries that have the right to choose and decide? Or is it the USA or the EU? Why is external interference in other peoples affairs called for? What does such a move benefit? And to whom? And on what legal basis resort to the act of compelling another country’s fate under lame godly excuse? Why the Gaza Massacre was not accorded humanitarian attention? In any case, why is Libya drawing more attention compared to other countries? Is it so because of previous grudge or the country’s lucrative oil resource? What is the legality and logic of the statement that Portugal issued in the name of the EU alleging that the “Libyan government has no more legality.” Initially, Libya was accused for hiring mercenaries and shooting civilians; and lately the US State Department issued a statement claiming that “the intention to possibly resort to military intervention is because Libya possesses chemical weapons and other nasty military hardware”. What kind of chemical weapon? How much of such a weapon does Libya possess? A couple of years ago, Khadafi was accorded red carpet treatment and it was said that “Libya has willingly handed over to us the intended program of producing chemical weapons; and other countries should emulate its example.” So, how come now that the praised Libyan government is presently owning chemical weapons? And what does the so-called nasty weapons imply?
The Ivory Coast too, is nowadays becoming major topic of discussion? Why that much attention to that country? Why sending a UN team or Raila Odinga who used to claim falling victim to fraud? Why not let nations free to exercise sovereign choice as deemed fit? Why is the United States trying to pose as the savior of nationhood? And how are decisions made? As the saying “putting the cart before the horse” has it, it is now being uttered for holding talks after the adoption of the “No Fly Zone” resolution and the suspension of Libya’s membership. Should discussion take place first and then adopt resolution? Or first resolution and then discussion? It is being reported that the already US-decided “No Fly Zone” would be officially adopted by the Arab League. The AU too, apart from condemning Libya on orders, has appointed a 5-member panel composing Heads of State. First condemnation, then investigation under what reasoning? Likewise, the UN is preparing to unanimously adopt a resolution jointly sponsored by the UK and France. Are people taking note of the manufacturing resolutions activities which the AU and the Arab League are involved in to provide cover to an already finalized US resolution. By the way, shouldn’t people around the globe draw a lesson from the historical experience of Iraq and Afghanistan? Why deliberately trying to insult human intelligence? Why also try to create another Iraq and Afghanistan? Why resort to instigating crises and turmoil that would entail an unimaginable loss of human lives in the name of crisis management? The issue of terrorism that was once a fashion has now been forgotten. Why? And who are the parties required to forget the phenomenon? Moreover, attempts are being made for people to forget the world economic meltdown. And who wants this phenomenon to be forgotten?
Somalia is on the brink of total demise. Why no attention was given while it was undergoing turmoil for 20 years? The US, which was accusing Eritrea of not giving recognition to the ‘Somali transitional government’, has deported the Libyan government’s UN Representative from its territory. Which are the schools and directors that give certificates to authorize whether a particular governments is legal or not? Who authorizes them to do so? What is the logic behind the repeated acts of fomenting crises and trying to manage them on the part of forces in the West? What about the theories expounded by Fukuyama and Hamingto about the inevitable end of this planet?
It a natural right for nations and peoples to raise questions regarding logic, legality and values. Hence, they should raise questions. The Eritrean people are duty-bound to ponder over the cause and justification for countries like Somalia, Sudan and Ethiopia to get exposed to the danger of disintegration. Why, how and under what legality are the forces resorting to the practice of encouraging scenarios of this type? All peoples have the legal right to ask questions. The whole affair has nothing to do with having relations with this or that party. Eritrea opposed acts of adventurism against Iraq not because Saddam Hussein was a well-wisher of Eritrea. On the contrary, he maintained an anti-Eritrea stance both in the time of the armed struggle for independence and during the Hanish Islands war. However, in accordance with their principles, the people and Government of Eritrea opposed the invasion of Iraq as it lacked any legality and justification.
It is the firm conviction of the people and Government of Eritrea that people everywhere have an inalienable right to exercise independent choice. It is the right of the people of the world to ask questions. Wouldn’t the people of the world get surprised if the aforementioned quarters of adventurism call for the overthrow of the monarchy in Saudi Arabia, there should take place change of government in that country or advocate the stirring up of turmoil? By the same token, wouldn’t the world community get surprised if such western forces call for the creation of chaos in Saudi Arabia and instability in the region?