French
Bombing in
Mali Relies on
Mere UNSC
Press
Statement, Not
a Resolution
By
Matthew
Russell Lee
UNITED
NATIONS,
January 12 --
As France
launched air
strikes in
Mali on
January 11, it
tossed off a
letter to the
UN asserting
that its
actions were
within the
bounds of
international
legality. This
was the
position the
US
administration
of George W.
Bush took on
Iraq.
What's
the
difference,
under
"international
legality" such
as it is?
On
January 10,
France called
for and got a
UN Security
Council closed
door
meeting at
6 pm, New York
time.
What issued
was a press
statement, a
type of action
described in
other contexts
as
non-binding,
which issued a
reminder "call
for a rapid
deployment of
the
African-led
International
Support
Mission in
Mali
(AFISMA)."
France
and the
Security
Council have
spent months
questioning
the plans for
AFISMA, before
most recently
issued a
("binding")
resolution on
December 20.
Some
wonder, why go
through all
that if you
can launch air
strikes and go
to war relying
on a mere
press
statement? If
only George W.
Bush had
known.
But
the trick
here, for
France and its
supporters, is
to blur the
distinction
between
Security
Council
resolutions
under Chapter
VII of the UN
Charter, and
these press
statements,
which the UN
often churns
out at the
drop of a hat.
Inner
City Press
covers the
Security
Council, for
example two
wan press
statements,
also drafted
by the French,
on another of
its former
colonies the
Central
African
Republic,
issued on
successive
Fridays on January 4
and January
11, both times
after 5 pm.
On January
11, Inner
City Press was
the only
journalist at
the Security
Council stakeout
to hear the
statement and
asked
questions.
On
Mali, Inner
City Press asked
rhetorically
on Twitter,
forum for
rhetorical
questions in
140
characters,
"France claims
its bombing's
within bounds
of
international
legality,
didn't GW Bush
say that about
Iraq?"
A
sample "former
intelligence
analyst" with
a blog on Le
Monde
replied, in
fine Twitter
fashion,
"@innercitypress
ever heard
about UN? It's
in NY."
Yes,
we've heard
of the UN:
we cover it
and its
Security
Council. And
it's because
of that we
note: a press
statement is
not a
resolution.
Solution?
TIME
Magazine,
in an
otherwise deft
article,
simply mis-describes
the January 10
press
statement as a
resolution
-- "the UN
Security
Council held
an emergency
session Jan.
10 to pass a
resolution
calling for
the 'swift
deployment' of
an
international
intervention
force."
To call
it a
resolution is
not accurate.
Watch this
site.
Footnote:
In
fairness to
TIME's African
coverage, they
were right on
in their
reporting on
the failures
of the UN
mission in the
Congo overseen
by Herve
Ladsous, the
fourth
Frenchman in a
row to head UN
Peacekeeping.
While failing
and
stonewalling
in the Congo,
Haiti and
elsewhere,
Ladsous
alongside proposing
UN drones
went to France
in December to
opine that no
force would
begin action
in Mali until
September. He
is supposedly
involved in
the planning
of the force.
This further
illuminates
and
complicates
France's role.
We'll have
more on this.
, 
