These are the essential words of UN Resolution 1973.
Yesterday the Chief of the Defence Staff (CDS) speaking on whether the targeting of Col. Gaddafi was something to be considered, said:
"No, absolutely not. It's is not allowed under the UN resolution and it's not something I want to discuss any further."
That's pretty unequivocal and also, apparently, pretty unpopular with some of those in government here. BUT, it is what makes the British armed forces the force that it is. Whilst some forces have 'all the gear but no idea' the British forces find themselves sometimes poorly equipped but always head and shoulders above the rest when it comes to rules of engagement (RoE) and values and standards. What we have here is yet another example of that.
What is most important now is that as the coalition stop Gaddafi's forces from advancing, which is protecting civilian life, they must also ensure that this does not permit opposition forces to form-up and engage. Although this would be regarded as two combatant forces, thus rendering it outside resolution 1973, it would also mean that by the actions of the intervention a regime change by force had been supported.
A niggling point perhaps, but we have to stand in the middle and keep to the protection of non-combatants, for they are afforded full status under the Geneva Conventions, not facilitate a militia.
Pax
3 comments:
A brief encounter with a naval chaplaincy a few years ago impressed me with the attention to the moral and ethical dimensions of military life in the training of ratings and officers.
One of the biggest elements of a Padre's engagement is the teaching of values and standards, Law of Armed Conflict, Rules of Engagement, Just War, ethics and more besides.
Ironically, our forces are more moral and ethical and have higher standards than many of our civillian society.
An excellent role with many rewards.
Pax
It is interesting that politicians who have never been to war, and have no experience or even knowledge of military matters can try to slap down General Richards, who was stating the obvious.
It is essential that the CDS maintains that distance between the uniformed services and government as some of his predecessors have been accused of being to much in awe and
debt of the government of the day.
The legal position with Iraq is pretty grey - with ongoing allegations of a political decision being made to go to war, and making the facts and legal opinion fit that decision. I am not sure that military voices were as forthright as General Richards has been before and during that conflict.
Post a Comment