Amid
Killing
in Sabha in
Libya, UN Does
Nothing &
Sells Out
Sudan
Opposition
By
Matthew
Russell Lee
UNITED
NATIONS,
March 28 --
When the UN
sent a mission
to Libya under
Ian
Martin it
claimed it
would also
work on human
rights. But
amid the
killing in
Sabha, the UN
has had
nothing to
say, much less
do. Wednesday
at the UN
Inner City
Press asked
Secretary
General Ban
Ki-moon's
deputy
spokesman
Eduardo Del
Buey:
Inner
City
Press: there
has been this
reported
fighting in
Libya, Sabha,
the death
count is
reported up to
50, some
people have
different
numbers. And I
wonder, since
there is a UN
Mission there,
what does
UNSMIL have to
say about this
fighting? Has
it tried to
play any
role in
bringing it to
a close?
What’s the
death count
and how
does UNSMIL’s
team and
mandate relate
to things like
this taking
place in the
country? What
does UNSMIL
do?
Deputy
Spokesperson
Del Buey:
Well, UNSMIL
is not a
peacekeeping
mission as
such; there
are no
peacekeepers
there. It is
up to the
Libyan
Government to
negotiate with
the militias
and to disarm
them. UNSMIL
is there to
assist the
Libyan
authorities in
developing its
policies
and
strengthening
its
institutions.
But it is up
to the Libyan
authorities to
bring the
militias to
the table,
integrate them
into
the mainstream
of the
security
forces and
disarm them.
Inner
City
Press: But
doesn’t UNSMIL
have some kind
of a human
rights
component? I
have heard Mr.
Martin talk
about the
plight of
detainees
and arrestees;
these are
people being
killed, so I
am just
wondering,
does UNSMIL --
Deputy
Spokesperson:
Well, there is
a human rights
component, but
again,
the Libyan
authorities
are the
authorities
who are tasked
with
maintaining
peace and
security in
the country.
Inner
City
Press: I
understand
that UNSMIL is
not able to
jump in with a
gun and stop
the fighting,
but I just
wonder, do
they now send
some
team to find
out how many
people died?
Deputy
Spokesperson:
We’ll have to
check; we’ll
have to check
on that
and find out
for you.
Eight
hours later,
there was no
information.
It is perhaps
not
surprising:
when Ian
Martin was
last at the
Security
Council, Inner
City Press
asked him a
simple
question about
the filmed
abuse of
Africans in
cages in
Libya. He
refused to
answer,
claiming it
was Keib's day
--
ironic now, or
worse.
Del
Buey proceeded
to proclaim
that the UN
supported the
rebels in
Libya
because
Gaddafi killed
civilians: "we
don’t talk
about the
intervention.
This was a
popular
uprising by
the Libyan
people
against a
regime that
was
autocratic,
dictatorial
and did not
have
any
fundamental
respect for
human or
political
rights. The
people of
Libya rose up
against this
regime, and
they began
looking for,
and
calling on the
Government to
give them the
basic
political and
humanitarian
and democratic
rights they
wanted."
So
Inner City
Press asked,
not now about
Sri Lanka but
Sudan:
Inner
City
Press: in
light of what
you’ve just
said, I wanted
to sort of
ask you, in a
country like
Sudan that
people have
risen up, that
there are not
only armed
rebel groups
but student
groups and
others
that have said
that there
should be a
democratization
and a change
in
the country,
but it doesn’t
seem that the
UN is saying
they should
continue going
until they
change the
Government. In
fact, if
anything, the
UN’s message
to the rebels
seems to be
“disarm”,
and to the
people seems
to be “don’t
go for regime
change”. So
I am just
wondering, how
does the UN
decide in
which
circumstances
to
declare
dissatisfaction
by the
populace to be
legitimate and
to be
encouraged or
in another
case, of Sudan
currently to
be discouraged
and told to
sort of get
with the
program.
What’s the
distinction?
Deputy
Spokesperson
Del Buey:
Well, the
distinction is
that what the
Secretary-General
has called for
is for all
Governments to
listen to
their people
and to permit
and respect
their right to
peaceful
demonstrations.
The people of
Libya were
demonstrating
peacefully.
The Government
decided to
attack them
with armed
force. In the
Sudan, there
is a peace
process
currently
under way that
the United
Nations is
working on.
The objective
is to have
this peace
process
work, and it
is not helpful
for people to
be carrying
out violent
acts when
there is a
mechanism
there for
achieving a
dialogue
between
the parties.
Inner
City
Press: Thanks
a lot.
At
least for the
clarity. Watch
this site.
, 
