6 April 2011 — Voice of Russia
‘There is no rule to intervene militarily for humanitarian reasons’
Interview with Giulietto Chiesa, former member of the European Parliament and Italian journalist covering international relations.
The subject of today’s program would be the legitimacy of decisions of international organizations and their role in today’s political environment, so to say. For instance the official representative of the French government said that the only reason why French troops had been engaged in combat in Cote d’Ivoire was that the French government was asked by Mr. Ban Ki-moon about that, so the whole picture does seem a little bit sinister to me. But perhaps I am wrong. So how do you see that, how legitimate have been the recent decisions of the United Nations and international organizations in general?
In this case I believe that you are right that you believe that it is a little bit sinister, this kind of declaration, because it demonstrates that at this moment there is no legitimacy at all from the international community about the acts and decisions they take, this is clearly illegal, because Mr. Ban Ki-moon has no juridical possibility to ask personally the chief of a state or the government to intervene in another country, he has no legitimacy, and if it is true, it is a completely illegal act.
But I would like to remind you that some weeks ago we assisted in another very serious and much more important violation of all the rules of international law when the Security Council of the United Nations approved by a majority, with the abstention of China, Germany and Russia, a resolution giving the right to intervene militarily on the territory of a sovereign state like Libya; this was a clear, evident violation of the same Charter of the United Nations, as in the 3rd paragraph of this Charter it is written clearly that such a military intervention would be acceptable, would be legal, only if this state violates peace and international security which never happened, because Libya did not menace any international security and certainly not international peace; this means that the Security Council voted for the resolution canceling completely the fundamentals of the Charter of the United Nations. That means that you are fully right when you say that it is a threatening situation when all the rules of international law are violated by the international community.
Mr. Chiesa, but is there any clause in any international law which envisages intervention to protect the civil population, like the pretext that was used in case of Libya?
Now we know that it was a pretext, because many documents are appearing now in the last days that show that there was no mass killing in Libya, and the first information that was given by Al-Jazeera for instance, speaking of 10,000 dead, was absolutely false, and mass graves in Libya have never been shown, and many other things we know now.
I would like to add that now we know that France and Great Britain organized, signed a pact in November 2010, which means several months before the beginning of that war, signed a pact to defend themselves – there is more or less an official formulation which has been published on the Internet, and it is possible to see it on the Internet – calling for such a kind of a military exercise, named Southern Mistral 2011, and in this document it is written that the military action from the part of France and Great Britain should be done between March 21st and 25th.
It means that we have in this military exercise the full description of the aggression against Libya; it means all the argumentation according to which the intervention is done for humanitarian reasons is completely false, and it was a pretext. But I would like to add that there is no rule in international law giving authorization to intervene militarily against a state for humanitarian reasons. Probably someone would want to have this rule, but till now this rule doesn’t exist, and probably it would be very good and very interesting if the General Assembly of the United Nations would discuss the introduction of this rule, but this has to be very seriously examined and approved, and we have no approval of this kind.
Mr. Chiesa, now you have just mentioned the United Nations, but if we remember the role of the United Nations in the war against Iraq, if we remember what we have just seen now in the case of Libya – doesn’t it seem to you that the role of international legislation and respect for the decisions of international bodies as well as their own stance are in a crisis so to say?
It was evident at that time, but in the case of the intervention in Iraq, the one side that decided about the intervention was the United States, and it was clear at that moment, and many in Europe and all over the world understood, that it was a violation of the law.
But I would like to come back to another situation which was the decision to intervene into Afghanistan. This decision was taken under the approval of the Security Council, but now we know that this approval was concocted, was not honestly and really taken; this decision, because the United Nations was given a false interpretation of the events.
Officially, immediately after 9/11 2001 the government of the United States said that they had proof of the participation of Osama bin Laden in the operation against the United States, but this proof has never been shown. There was a meeting at the beginning of October at NATO headquarters and in that meeting we know that no proof was shown, there was a declaration saying that the United States had proof, but no proof had been shown, that means that the United Nations gave the legitimation for intervention in Afghanistan having been given false information.
That means that we are now in front of – it is clear but nobody wants to clearly speak about it publicly – we are in confronted with a clear violation, which means that all that happened in the last 10 years including the so-called international war against terrorism has been based on falsification, on violation of rules. We have lived these years in full, complete international illegality.
If we analyze what the United Nations has been doing as well as the International Monetary Fund, for instance, as well as the World Bank, it seems to be quite clear that those bodies are acting in the best interests of their major shareholder which is the United States. What is to be done? Is there anything to be done to restore the international law and order?
I believe this is a very difficult task, because at this moment we are in a particular situation which I should describe this way: we are in a situation where the main shareholders are those organizing and producing dollars, which means that we are under the domination of one currency, which became the world currency.
And this is the situation which has been accepted by the whole international community for many, many years after the Bretton Woods agreement. But this situation has already changed, and from this point we are in a very serious and dangerous situation, because this situation has the condition where the dollar is dominating the world market, and that means that the United States is dominating the world market, but this picture is not corresponding to reality; for instance China has a very large and decisive role in the international situation, the euro has a very large and decisive role, and the dollar, it means, is not in the condition – and we know that it is not in the condition – to dominate the world.
We have a situation where the political power of the country – the United States – does not correspond anymore to the real situation of the international community, and we are for that reason in a big danger because the United States is the most powerful and armed nation in the world, and that means that this nation would have to accept the idea of dividing its own power with other protagonists, but they do not do that, they continue to push in the old situation, that is the origin, I believe, of the turmoil we are undergoing now.
What is your forecast?
I believe that for as long as the rest of the world will not be able to compel the United States to accept the new situation, the situation will become more and more unstable. For that reason I believe that the danger of war is growing – not a little war, but a big war – because the situation is absolutely untenable for a long time; we can leave it for 5, 7, 10 years maximum, not more.
Remember that in 5 years we will have in front of our house not one China, but one and a half Chinas, and at that moment that means in 5 years we will have a situation that clearly will not be tenable for a serious peace situation.