NEW YORK - "There must be an atrocity, a massacre documented that the international community arrive to authorize the use of force in Libya." The New York sky is clear and cold, as the powerful words of a diplomat to the United Nations, from his office in Midtown Manhattan, dissects the Libyan crisis with the tenacity of a surgeon.
In his view it is unlikely that the UN can give the green light to a military option is, however, opposed by the military of various countries. At the moment the UN headquarters focused on emergency humanitarian efforts is mounting on the border between Libya and Tunisia, with armed men ready to repel the Gaddafi refugees trying to escape.
Then there is the question of diplomatic relations, many ambassadors have turned their backs to the Colonel, who has appointed a new, but these are not always recognized by the countries now openly hostile to Tripoli. But first things first, starting with the ability to block Libyan airspace to stop the bombing against the population.
It 'hard to guess, for military reasons and policies. From a technical point of view, it would be extremely expensive to control the skies of Libya - which is three times larger than France - using, in all likelihood, Italian bases as Sigonella. From the political point of view, then, a NATO intervention against an Arab country is very dangerous: better to be the umbrella of the African Union or the Arab League, even if these organizations do not have sufficient military capabilities.
In short, diplomacy is hoped that the rebels alone, to topple Qaddafi, and that they do so soon. If, however, it will lead to a bloody tragedy, you could have a reaction force by individual countries and, perhaps, the United Nations. But the UN building at the time, aims to aid the refugees trying to escape from Libya.
So far, according to estimates of the Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Aid, people who have left the country are at least 172mila, mostly migrant workers who want to go home. Their odyssey is awesome, maybe concluded to a man of the regime that sends them back. The number of refugees has dropped dramatically for this reason: at the beginning of the crisis, the daily flow ranged from 10 to 15 thousand people.
And even if you are unable to enter Tunisia, mobile phones and cameras are confiscated and remain in Libya. Finally there is the chapter properly diplomat. Who is representing Libya at the United Nations? At the UN say no one knows for sure if the ambassador is still the former Foreign Minister Abdurrahman Shalgam, a former ambassador to Italy who left the regime of Colonel (and his former close friend) Muammar Gaddafi and was denied by Tripoli.
Or if the permanent representative is now called Ali Treki, himself a former foreign minister, for which the Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon has just received a letter that calls for the credit. With a clear embarrassment to Ban's spokesman, Martin Nesirky, responded to journalists on the theme with an unusual "It 's a good question," adding that the issue "is designed" by the lawyers of the United Nations.
Any country which is part of the UN "has the right to revoke and appoint its delegates at the UN," he pointed out, however, the spokesman said. The fact is that many of the Libyan delegation to the UN diplomats have turned their backs on Gaddafi, with the Deputy Ambassador Ibrahim Dabbashi has even spoken of "genocide" carried out by the Colonel.
It is said that Trek will be able to return to the Palace of Glass: The United States could theoretically refuse a visa, especially if the credentials committee of the General Assembly of the United Nations (of which they are part of the U.S.) expressed concern over the next few days. The situation is complicated even in Washington, where Ali Aujali was ambassador to Tripoli until a few days ago, resigned Feb.
22. The State Department continues to consider a valid interlocutor and has so far ignored a fax arrived from Libya that calls for his removal. 
In his view it is unlikely that the UN can give the green light to a military option is, however, opposed by the military of various countries. At the moment the UN headquarters focused on emergency humanitarian efforts is mounting on the border between Libya and Tunisia, with armed men ready to repel the Gaddafi refugees trying to escape.
Then there is the question of diplomatic relations, many ambassadors have turned their backs to the Colonel, who has appointed a new, but these are not always recognized by the countries now openly hostile to Tripoli. But first things first, starting with the ability to block Libyan airspace to stop the bombing against the population.
It 'hard to guess, for military reasons and policies. From a technical point of view, it would be extremely expensive to control the skies of Libya - which is three times larger than France - using, in all likelihood, Italian bases as Sigonella. From the political point of view, then, a NATO intervention against an Arab country is very dangerous: better to be the umbrella of the African Union or the Arab League, even if these organizations do not have sufficient military capabilities.
In short, diplomacy is hoped that the rebels alone, to topple Qaddafi, and that they do so soon. If, however, it will lead to a bloody tragedy, you could have a reaction force by individual countries and, perhaps, the United Nations. But the UN building at the time, aims to aid the refugees trying to escape from Libya.
So far, according to estimates of the Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Aid, people who have left the country are at least 172mila, mostly migrant workers who want to go home. Their odyssey is awesome, maybe concluded to a man of the regime that sends them back. The number of refugees has dropped dramatically for this reason: at the beginning of the crisis, the daily flow ranged from 10 to 15 thousand people.
And even if you are unable to enter Tunisia, mobile phones and cameras are confiscated and remain in Libya. Finally there is the chapter properly diplomat. Who is representing Libya at the United Nations? At the UN say no one knows for sure if the ambassador is still the former Foreign Minister Abdurrahman Shalgam, a former ambassador to Italy who left the regime of Colonel (and his former close friend) Muammar Gaddafi and was denied by Tripoli.
Or if the permanent representative is now called Ali Treki, himself a former foreign minister, for which the Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon has just received a letter that calls for the credit. With a clear embarrassment to Ban's spokesman, Martin Nesirky, responded to journalists on the theme with an unusual "It 's a good question," adding that the issue "is designed" by the lawyers of the United Nations.
Any country which is part of the UN "has the right to revoke and appoint its delegates at the UN," he pointed out, however, the spokesman said. The fact is that many of the Libyan delegation to the UN diplomats have turned their backs on Gaddafi, with the Deputy Ambassador Ibrahim Dabbashi has even spoken of "genocide" carried out by the Colonel.
It is said that Trek will be able to return to the Palace of Glass: The United States could theoretically refuse a visa, especially if the credentials committee of the General Assembly of the United Nations (of which they are part of the U.S.) expressed concern over the next few days. The situation is complicated even in Washington, where Ali Aujali was ambassador to Tripoli until a few days ago, resigned Feb.
22. The State Department continues to consider a valid interlocutor and has so far ignored a fax arrived from Libya that calls for his removal.
No comments:
Post a Comment