The Times, 20 April 2011
The Independent, 20 April 2011
The Times, 15 April 2011
Le Figaro, 15 April 2011 Sarkozy, Obama, Cameron: “Gaddafi must go"
UK Prime Minister: There is no question of an invasion or occupation of Libya
compiled by Cem Ertür
20 April 2011
1) UK Foreign Minister Hague: Top British army officers in Libya to aid the rebels (19 April 2011)
2) UK Prime Minister Cameron: There is no question of an invasion or occupation of Libya (17 April 2011)
3) Obama, Cameron, Sarkozy: The bombing will continue until Gaddafi goes (15 April 2011)
excerpts from: Foreign Secretary announces assistance to the National Transitional Council in Libya
The Foreign and Commonwealth Office website, 19 April 2011
“We regard the National Transitional Council [in Libya] as legitimate political interlocutors for the UK. The National Security Council [National Transitional Council] has decided that we will now move quickly to expand the [British] team already in Benghazi led by [senior diplomat] Christopher Prentice to include an additional military liaison advisory team.
This contingent will be drawn from experienced British military officers. [...] In particular they will advise the NTC [National Transitional Council] on how to improve their military organisational structures, communications and logistics. [...]
This deployment is fully within the terms of UNSCR [UN Security Council resolution] 1973 both in respect of civilian protection and its provision expressly ruling out a foreign occupation force on Libyan soil. Consistent with our obligations under that Resolution, our officers will not be involved in training or arming the [Libyan] opposition’s fighting forces. Nor will they be involved in the planning or execution of the NTC’s military operations or in the provision of any other form of operational military advice.”
Murnaghan talks the Prime Minister, David Cameron, about the AV referendum, Libya and health reforms
Sky News, 17 April 2011
Murnaghan: [...] I say a year into the coalition, a year on, it’s almost like we’ve rewound in some aspects to 2003 in that we have a British Prime Minister, a US President and indeed others, talking about regime change in an oil rich Muslim country without full international legal cover.
Cameron: Well I would say there are many, many differences. First of all we have had two United Nations Resolutions about Libya and the second one specifically enabled us to do what we’re doing, put in place a no fly zone, put in place attack sorties to stop Colonel Gaddafi from murdering his own people. [...]
Murnaghan: Sorry to interrupt Prime Minister, but nothing about regime change and getting rid of Colonel Gaddafi in those resolutions, nothing about removing Colonel Gaddafi. [...]
Cameron: That is right, the resolutions are about protecting civilians and enforcing a no fly zone and that is what we are doing but separately and politically, I think almost every political leader in the world bar about three have said that the future for Libya must be a future without Gaddafi. [...]
Murnaghan: Well it’s said, and I’m sure you’ve looked at it, that there is some wriggle room in that UN Resolution 1973 when it comes to forces on the ground there, that it talks about no occupation force but clearly looking towards Colonel Gaddafi. If it took ground forces, can you guarantee there would be no British ground forces employed?
Cameron: What we’ve said is there is no question of an invasion or an occupation, this is not about Britain putting boots on the ground, this is not what we are about here. What we’re doing is enforcing the [UN] resolution [...]
Murnaghan: [...] Could it ultimately lead to some form of on the ground invasion force – it doesn’t stay there, it’s not an occupation force but to fulfil the Resolution 1973 to protect those civilians, do you have to go further here militarily?
Cameron: [...] [I]n a way, Dermot, you’re right, it’s because we’ve said we’re not going to invade, we’re not going to occupy this is more difficult in many ways because we can’t fully determine the outcome with what we have available but we’re very clear, we must stick to the terms of the UN Security Council Resolution [...]
Murnaghan: So you are categorically ruling out putting any form of British troops, British forces, on the ground in the Libya?
Cameron: What I’ve said is there is no occupying force, no invasion, that is absolutely clear, that hasn’t changed right from the start, I said that and the position hasn’t changed.
Murnaghan: But it could be temporary?
Cameron: Dermot, I think I’ve answered the question and I’ve said this many times, there’s no change in our position. We are complying with the UN Security Council Resolution, we’re not occupying, we’re not invading, that’s not what we’re about and that is obviously a restriction on us but I think it’s the right restriction.
The bombing continues until Gaddafi goes
The Libyan leader will make his country a pariah state. To leave him in power would be an unconscionable betrayal (*)
Joint article by David Cameron, Barack Obama and Nicolas Sarkozy,
published simultaneously in The Times, The International Herald Tribune, Le Figaro and al-Hayat on 15 April 2011
Number10.gov.uk (the official website of the UK Prime Minister’s Office), 15 April 2011
“Our duty and our mandate under UN Security Council Resolution 1973 is to protect civilians, and we are doing that. It is not to remove Gaddafi by force. But it is impossible to imagine a future for Libya with Gaddafi in power. [..] It is unthinkable that someone who has tried to massacre his own people can play a part in their future government. [...] It would be an unconscionable betrayal.
Furthermore, it would condemn Libya to being not only a pariah state, but a failed state too. Gaddafi has promised to carry out terrorist attacks against civilian ships and airliners. And because he has lost the consent of his people any deal that leaves him in power would lead to further chaos and lawlessness. We know from bitter experience what that would mean. Neither Europe, the region nor the world can afford a new safe haven for extremists. [...]
[S]o long as Gaddafi is in power, Nato and its coalition partners must maintain their operations so that civilians remain protected and the pressure on the regime builds.”
(*) title of The Times’ print edition.
Intensified bombing, military “advisers” on the ground
Britain and France escalate war in Libya
by Patrick Martin, World Socialist Web Site, 20 April 2011
What next in Libya?
by Stephen Lendman, 19 April 2011
NATO data confirms the magnitude and destructive nature of the Libya military operation
2771 sorties since March 31st
by Michel Chosudovsky, Global Research, 19 April 2011
When war games go live: "Staging" a "humanitarian war" against "SOUTHLAND"
Under an imaginary UN Security Council Resolution 3003
by Prof. Michel Chossudovsky, Global Research, 16 April 2011
from the archives:
Full text of UN Security Council resolution 1973 (2011) on Libya
United Nations website, 17 March 2011
UK: Bombers who killed a policeman in Northern Ireland may have used explosives from Libya
by Cem Ertür, 911 Blogger, 5 April 2011
NATO commander: Al-Qaeda among Libya rebels
by Cem Ertür, 911 Blogger, 30 March 2011
UK minister: Britain at risk of a new Lockerbie
by Cem Ertür, 911 Blogger, 26 March 2011
The wars on Iraq and Libya: Front pages from 2003 and 2011
by Cem Ertür, 911 Blogger, 21 March 2011
Obama to Qaddafi: Comply with UN resolution or face military action
British Army ready for Libya mission at 24 hours’ notice
by Cem Ertür, 911 Blogger, 6 March 2011
UK Prime Minister Cameron: We will use military force to free Libya