By John Amoda
EVENTS in the Middle East and Africa are yet to be adequately appraised by the Security Council. That organ responsible for maintaining and protecting the global peace is yet enmeshed in its near 50 years of improvisation security diplomacy. This fact is exemplified in its Resolution 1973 that provides cover for NATO’s no-fly-zone in Libya.

Enforcing the right to protection of non-combatants in war zones is right observed more in its breach.

The introduction of this right to protection into contexts of pro-regime change protests as has been the case from Tunisia, Egypt, Libya to the Middle East takes the Security Council beyond the limits of improvised use of its Chapter 7 powers under the Charter.

These regime change politics of mass protests address the foundation of the post-World War II global political order in the Middle East and the African regions. What these protests portend go far beyond the reform of governments and the constitutionalist limitation of the state.

They draw attention to the need for appraisal of the appropriateness of the structure of governments in these regions of the United Nations. This need is brought into focus by the response of governments to these protests. It is obvious what goals are being pursued by the organisers of these protests and by their external supporters.

These goals of regime change pose national security threats to affected governments. These governments have reacted with force to maintain their security and regime. Libya is where these issues have been logically defined, where mass protests from the very beginning had as its focus the overthrow of the over four decades regime of Gaddafi.

The “need for protection” of civilians have arisen because Gaddafi has deployed the full array of its apparatus of external defence to destroy an internal regime change movement, thus showing that Gaddafi defined the opposition in enemy war terms. I submit that the present crises are crises of order defined and secured by the structures of government in the Middle East and in Africa in particular.

Governments like those of Gaddafi have ruled for long with diplomatic blessings of the Security Council of the United Nations. In those decades of uninterrupted despotic rulership a society supportive of his regime had been nurtured with ruthless repression of all opposed to the domestic order.

Thus the sea waves of mass protests covered by the global news media have in view both the change of government and the society instituted by regimes whose survival are now issues in the street protest contestations. These mass protests in the Middle East and North Africa thus involve both explicit demands for overthrow of government and of the society it has nurtured.

It is instructive to review expressed concerns of member of the Security Council leading to the passing of Resolution 1973 of March 17, 2011.

The following are excerpts from the communiqué of the Security Council’s Department of Public Information on the adoption of Security Council resolution 1973 approving “No-Fly Zone” over Libya, authorizing “all necessary measures to protect civilians by vote of 10 in favour with five abstentions.

These are quotes from addresses of members before the vote. Allain Juppe, Minister For Foreign Affairs, France, said the world was experiencing a wave of great revolutions that would change the course of history as people throughout North Africa and the Middle East were agitating for “a breath of fresh air”, for freedom of expression and democracy. France’s response to these agitations had been to work with the United Kingdom, the United States and other members of the international community to protect the civilian population.

Nawaf Salam (Lebanon) expressed agreement with the League of Arab States calling for the Security Council to establish measures to protect civilians. Mark Lyall Grant (United Kingdom) asserted that the Libyan regime had lost legitimacy and that partners in the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation and the Arab League were ready to act in support of the text of the resolution.

Peter Wittig (Germany) saw the intention of the Security Council as stopping the violence in Libya and sending a message to Colonel Gadhafi and his associates “that their time is over (and) that they must relinguish power immediately”.

Susan Rice (United States) said the Council had responded to the Libyan people’s cry for help, that the Council’s purpose was clear, to protect Libyan civilians; that the Council was acting in strong support of the call by the Arab League for stringent measures to effect the protection of civilians.

Towards that end the US’s representative said that the Security Council had authorised the use of force, including the enforcement of a non-fly-zone, to protect civilians and civilian areas targeted by Colonel Qadhafi.  U. Joy Ogwu (Nigeria) said the resolution had been necessitated by the grave situation in Libya- concluding that the “current state of affairs compels us to act”.

The above were some justifications of Resolution 1973 (2011) that included in its preamble some of the following observations; that the Council of the League of Arab States had as of March 12, 2011 called for the imposition of a no-fly-zone on Libyan military aviation to establish safe areas exposed to shelling as a precautionary measure that allows the protection of the Libyan people.

·That the situation in Libya constituted a threat to international peace and security;
·That the Security Council was acting under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations;
·That the Security Council recognised the important role of the League of Arab States in matter relating to the maintenance of international peace and security in the region, and “bearing in mind Chapter VIII of the Charter of the United Nations, requests the Member States of the League of Arab States to cooperate with other member states in the implementation of the paragraph 4 of the resolution which reads as follows:

“Authorises member states that have notified the Secretary-General, acting nationally or through regional organisations or arrangements, and acting in cooperation with the Security-General, to take all necessary measures, to protect civilians and civilian populated areas  under threat of attack in the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, including Benghazi”.