A senior Iranian lawmaker has called on the UN Security Council to condemn the British prime minister for the brutal repression of protesters in the UK as a ‘war criminal.’

Deputy Chairman of Iran’s Majlis (parliament) National Security and Foreign Policy Committee Mohammad-Karim Abedi on Friday lashed out at David Cameron for his regime’s crackdown on protesters, describing it as “unacceptable,” Fars News Agency reported.

Speaking at a news conference outside 10 Downing Street on Thursday, British Prime Minister Cameron said he had authorized the use of rubber bullets and water cannon by the Metropolitan Police to suppress the widespread protests by youths — who UK politicians refer to as gangs of criminals.

“If the Security Council does not put David Cameron’s trial as a war criminal on its agenda and does not meet this demand of the British nation, nations’ view of this council will definitely change more than ever before,” he said.

“The Islamic Republic of Iran as an establishment which considers itself an advocate of the rights of nations cannot remain silent on the British kingdom’s crimes,” Abedi underlined.

The unrest in Britain broke out on August 6 in Tottenham, north London, after a few hundred people gathered outside a police station to protest the fatal shooting and killing of a black man, Mark Duggan, by the police.

Violent protests soon erupted in major cities like Birmingham, Liverpool, and Bristol, contributing to Britain’s worst riot since the 1930s.

On Thursday, the Iranian Foreign Ministry summoned the British chargé d’affaires in Tehran to convey Iran’s concern over the heavy-handed handling of protests in Britain.

Earlier, Iran’s President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad called for an end to the use of force against demonstrators in Britain.

Deputy chairman of Iran’s Majlis National Security and Foreign Policy Commission Hossein Ebrahimi said on Tuesday that Iran is ready to send a delegation to investigate human rights in Britain.

The commander of Iran’s Basij Force has also expressed readiness to deploy peacekeepers to monitor the rights situation in Britain.

Source.

Iran’s President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on Wednesday urged the U.N. Security Council to take action over the rioting in Britain, arguing it was hypocritical in its reaction to such events.

Ahmadinejad, whose government is under international sanction for its controversial nuclear program and has been condemned by the Western countries such as Britain for its handling of protests and dissent, also called on British officials to listen to the demands of their people.

“The U.N. is silent. Human rights bodies are silent,” Ahmadinejad said on state radio following a Cabinet meeting. “If one percent of this happens in countries that oppose the West, they scream until they are hoarse.”

“Why is the Security Council silent?” he said, also questioning its willingness to take action directed at one of its five veto-wielding permanent members.

Iran’s nuclear file has been a fixture before the council, where the United States, Britain, China, Russia and France hold permanent seats. The other 10 spots rotate between other U.N. member states, and the council is the only body within the United Nations that can authorize any punitive measure, including military action, on countries.

Tehran is under several rounds of sanctions for its disputed nuclear program — one which the United States and its allies believe is aimed at developing nuclear weapons. Iran disputes that claim, saying the program is for peaceful purposes only, such as generating electricity.

Ahmadinejad’s comments appear to be a direct jab at Britain, which supported the opposition movement during postelection turmoil in 2009.

Iranian opposition members say scores were killed in heavy crackdowns by government forces and militia allied to Ahmadinejad, while hundreds more were either wounded or carted off to prison. The government has said 30 people were killed in the protests.

The unrest in Britain began Saturday after an initially peaceful protest over a police shooting in a London neighborhood turned violent. It has since spread to other cities in the country.

Iranian state media has seized on the rioting as an opportunity for payback, dubbing the violence there a “civil war.” Hardline lawmakers have urged London to allow an Iranian human rights delegation to monitor the situation in the country.

In comments directed at Britain’s leadership, including Prime Minister David Cameron, Ahmadinejad said the officials should “stand by their own people.”

“They should change their attitude, change their management and deal with their own people instead of intervening in others’ affairs,” he said, referring to Britain’s role in Afghanistan, Iraq and its participation in the NATO airstrikes on Libya.

“They were claiming that they are a role model and advocator of freedom, human rights and democracy, but what behavior do they apply in dealing with their own people,” said Ahmadinejad.

Source.

PRESIDENT Dmitry Medvedev said Russia was ready to use its veto to block a Western-sponsored resolution on Syria at the United Nations as it could be used as cover for military action.

Speaking in an interview with the Financial Times whose full transcript was released by the Kremlin on Monday, Medvedev argued that March’s UN Security Council vote on Libya had paved the way for a military operation.

“What I am not ready to support is a resolution (similar to the one) on Libya because it is my deep conviction that a good resolution has been turned into a piece of paper that is being used to provide cover for a meaningless military operation,” he said.

“There will not be such a resolution. Russia will use its Security Council permanent member rights,” he said, referring to Moscow’s veto as one of the five permanent UN Security Council members.

“But other calls, declarations, including from the Security Council, towards Syria are possible.”

Britain, France, Germany and Portugal have distributed a resolution condemning the Syrian military crackdown on the opposition. Britain’s Prime Minister David Cameron has said if any permanent member tries to veto it, then “that should be on their conscience”.

But Medvedev said, “Right now I am not sure that any resolution is needed because a resolution may say one thing, but actions would be quite different. The resolution may say ‘We condemn the use of force in Syria’ and after that planes will take off into the air.

“We will be told, ‘Well, it says there that we condemn so we condemned, (and) dispatched a certain amount of bombers there.’ I don’t want it. In any case, I don’t want to have it on my conscience,” Medvedev said.

The Kremlin chief spoke in sympathetic terms about President Bashar al-Assad, whose rule has been rocked by protests demanding greater freedoms and democracy since March.

“Syria faces a very tough choice,” he said. “As a person, I feel sorry for President Assad who is in a very difficult situation. As I see it, he wants political changes for his country, he wants reforms.

“But at the same time he is somewhat late with them, hence casualties which could have been avoided and which of course will largely be on the conscience of the authorities.”

Source.

RT – Following a decision by the UN Security Council to take “all necessary measures” against Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi, Russian politicians and experts are warning of further destabilization in the region.

The UN Security Council voted on Thursday to impose a no-fly zone, which includes the possible use of military force, against pro-Gaddafi forces.

Presently, the Libyan strongman’s military is successfully beating back a large anti-government uprising, and is in the process of consolidating his forces around Benghazi, a city to the north where the “interim Libyan government” is penned in.

Diplomats said the resolution, which was written in the eleventh hour of the Libyan conflict, allows for a wide range of actions, including strikes on air-defense systems and missile attacks from ships.

Indeed, full-blown military activity could commence “within hours,” they said.

Russia and four other council members – China, Germany, Brazil and India – abstained from the vote.

Will outside interference aggravate situation?

Vladimir Zhirinovsky, Russian Liberal Democratic Party leader and State Duma vice speaker says the Security Council resolution does not bode well for the prospects of peace in the region.

“The consequences will be extremely negative,” the LDPR leader said at a press conference at Interfax on Friday, adding that the resolution is “a symptom of preparations for a full-scale military operation.”

The outspoken Russian politician, who is known for his loaded language, drew parallels between yesterday’s Security Council vote and past military actions undertaken on the part of NATO and the United States military.

“We must not forget how NATO and US aircraft bombed Yugoslavia, and that is not the only precedent,” Zhirinovsky warned. “Libya may become the fourth country in 12 years to be threatened with direct military foreign interference after Yugoslavia, Afghanistan and Iran.”

He said the international community should understand the danger of such interference “on the pretext of protecting peaceful Libyans.”

Meanwhile, Russia’s Ambassador to the UN, Vitaly Churkin, said the blame for “humanitarian consequences” following any military action will be on the shoulders of those involved in such operations.

“Responsibility for inevitable humanitarian consequences caused by excessive use of outside force in the Libyan situation would be fully born by those who resorted to such actions,” Churkin told reporters following the Security Council vote.

The Russian ambassador warned that some provisions of the resolution may result in a large-scale use of force.

“They potentially open the door for a large-scale military intervention,” Churkin said. “During our discussion, assurances were voiced about the absence of such intentions. We take them into account.”

The ambassador added that no explanations were provided as to how the no-fly zone would be enforced and “what will be the rules and limits of the use of force.”

Asserting that Russia did not veto the resolution as it was “guided by the necessity to protect civilians and by general humanitarian values,” he remained convinced that “an immediate ceasefire is the shortest way to reliable security of the peaceful population and long-term stabilization in Libya.”

With no details as to how the Security Council will organize a military response against Gaddafi, military experts are waiting to hear from NATO, which is convening a meeting in Brussels on Friday to discuss the issue.

A diplomatic source in the Russian mission to NATO told Interfax that the meeting…is the first such meeting since the adoption of the resolution and “it is better to refrain from making any predictions.”

Meanwhile, Chief of the General Staff of the Russian Armed Forces Nikolai Makarov has ruled out the possibility of Russia’s involvement in a military operation against Libya.

“No, that is out of the question,” he told Interfax on Friday.

A “lesson” for would-be proliferators of WMD?

Finally, military involvement on the part of international forces may play into the hands of violators of the non-proliferation of weapons of mass destruction regime, Alexei Arbatov, the head of the International Security Center of the Institute of World Economy and International Relations of the Russian Academy of Sciences, said in an interview with Interfax.

“An attack against Libya would be a gift for all violators of the Non-Proliferation Treaty,” Arbatov said. “If Libya becomes an object of a military operation, it will lead some countries to believe that no one would think of threatening Gaddhafi with a military operation now if he had not voluntarily given up his nuclear program several years ago.”

“The imposition of a no-fly zone is a military operation,” he said. “It envisions attacks on aerodromes and air defense systems, not just a ban of flying.”

Arbatov predicted that any military action taken against Libya will be watched carefully by certain states that are now borderline pariah states, at least as far as the United States, and some other governments, is concerned

“This will lead Iran, Syria, and some other countries violating the non-proliferation regime to make a new powerful step towards obtaining nuclear weapons,” the expert said.

Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi officially halted the development of weapons of mass destruction programs in December 2003, a move that temporarily restored his reputation in the eyes of the global community.

Robert Bridge, RT

Press TV – Libya has closed its air space to all flights after the UN Security Council (UNSC) passed a resolution, imposing a no-fly zone over the country,

Europe’s air navigation organization, Eurocontrol, said on Friday that it obtained the information from Maltese authorities who said “Libya does not accept any traffic until further notice,” according to wire reports.

The move comes after the French government announced an imminent attack against Libya that could include France, Britain and possibly the United States.

The three powers are reportedly scrambling fighter jets. Canadian media have reported that it is planning to send six CF-18 fighter jets to join the military action against the Libyan regime.

Norway has also expressed readiness to participate in the effort, but Russia has ruled out taking part in the military measure, reports said.

Five members of the Arab League, including Jordan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, will also contribute to the military effort, according to an AFP report, quoting diplomats, which did not elaborate on specific details.

Libyan Defense Ministry has warned of quick retaliation to any military action, saying their response could endanger all air and maritime traffic in the Mediterranean Sea.

Despite the passage of a no-fly zone resolution by the UNSC on Thursday, Libyan ruler Muammar Gaddafi has remained defiant by vowing an offensive on the eastern city of Benghazi which is the revolutionaries’ stronghold.

Source – The French prime minister says France would support military action against Moammar Gadhafi’s Libya within a matter of hours if the U.N. Security Council approves it.

Francois Fillon says “time is of the essence” and “the threat of Col. Gadhafi shows how urgent it is that the international community mobilizes itself.”

Fillon’s comments on France-2 Television Thursday came just hours before a scheduled Security Council vote on a resolution that would impose a no-fly zone over Libya.

The resolution would also authorize “all necessary measures” to protect civilians from attacks by Gadhafi’s forces.

France and Britain have been among the biggest proponents of a no-fly zone over Libya and French Foreign Minister Alain Juppe was arriving in New York for the debate.

BBC - British forces could be in action over Libya as early as Friday, if a UN resolution is agreed, a senior government source has told the BBC.

BBC political editor Nick Robinson said the source stressed talks were continuing and it could take longer but would be within days of a yes vote.

The UN Security Council is expected to vote on whether to authorise a no-fly zone in Libya within hours.

Britain’s ambassador to the UN said there would be a vote at 2200 GMT.

The UK, France and Lebanon drafted the resolution but others on the Security Council are wary of a no-fly zone.

Downing St said Prime Minister David Cameron had called Arab, African and European leaders to “make the case for strong action” by the UN and will continue making calls on Thursday evening.

A Foreign Office spokesman told the BBC that anything short of a strong comprehensive resolution on Libya would be considered “too weak” by the British government, which would not be satisfied by a resolution calling for a ceasefire.

In response to warnings from Libya’s defence ministry that any outside attack would trigger retaliation and destabilise the Mediterranean region, the Foreign Office said Britain would not be diverted from its objective.

The UN vote comes as forces loyal to Libyan leader Col Muammar Gaddafi launch air raids on the Libyan rebel stronghold of Benghazi.

A draft UN resolution tabled by the UK, France and Lebanon on Tuesday proposed a ban on all flights in Libya, authorised member states to enforce it and called on them to participate in it.

But on Thursday the US, which had been cool on the effectiveness of a no-fly zone, said the UN should go further. Diplomats are now debating a strongly worded draft resolution calling for “all necessary measures short of an occupation force” to protect civilians under threat of attack from the Gaddafi regime.

The BBC’s correspondent at the UN, Barbara Plett, said there was still no indication of UN agreement over a no-fly zone – nor the stronger language in the current resolution – which could authorise some form of military intervention, like air strikes.

DEBKAfile – Shortly before she left Egypt for Tunis Wednesday, March 16, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton urgently asked the head of Egypt’s military junta Field Marshal Mohammed Tantawi for permission to use Egyptian air bases for American military jets to enforce a no-fly zone over Libya. This is reported exclusively by DEBKAfile’s military and Washington sources.

Clinton told Tantawi she hoped for UN Security Council approval of the no-fly zone at its special session Thursday March 17. But this might not be enough to stop Muammar Qaddafi’s advance and the US might have to resort to military action against his army. She did not elaborate on this.

But DEBKAfile’s sources say the White House is weighing the option of US aerial strikes for halting Qaddafi’s march on Benghazi, Libya’s second largest city and the primary rebel stronghold. The point of this action would be less to preserve rebel control of the city and more to keep Qaddafi from proclaiming his victory over the opposition to his rule and its foreign champions.

Another part of the plan under consideration in Washington would entail strikes against Qaddafi’s government and military centers in Tripoli, the capital.

Tantawi promised Clinton to convene the Supreme Military Council Thursday before the Security Council session and inform her of its decision before she flies out of the Middle East.

According to our Washington sources, the Pentagon proposes to use the big Egyptian air base at El Mansoura in the Nile Delta for enforcing the no-fly zone and launching air attacks on Libya.

The Obama administration’s U-turn on direct military intervention in Libya was discernable early Thursday morning (Wednesday night Washington time) in the remarks of America’s UN Ambassador Susan Rice:

She said: “The US view is that we need to be prepared to contemplate steps that include, but perhaps go beyond, a no-fly zone, at this point, as the situation on the ground has evolved and as a no-fly zone has inherent limitations in terms of protection of civilians at immediate risk.”

By “the situation on the ground,” she was referring to Qaddafi’s three army columns, reinforced with thousands of fighters from the Warefla tribal federation, which are rapidly advancing on Benghazi.

DEBKAfile’s military sources report that the Saadi and Khamis brigades, the latter being the 32nd Libyan Brigade most of whose troops move in APCs, are approaching the last rebel stronghold.

They are backed by an artillery brigade and a tank brigade. From the west, Libyan missile ships have blockaded Benghazi.

Our sources add that Libyan army units based in Benghazi went into action ahead of the main body’s arrival. Those troops were caught by the onset of the Libyan uprising on Feb. 15 in rebel-held territory. They stood by and waited for Qaddafi’s orders to go into battle.

Another sign of President Obama’s strong inclination to undertake military action beyond a no-fly zone came from the deployment Monday, March 14 of the nuclear attack submarine USS Providence off the Libyan coast.

In the past decade, this submarine has often been called in to support US missile attacks, usually with Tomahawk, whether in 2003 in Iraq or in Afghanistan.

The US fleet present off the Libyan coast includes also the marine assault ship USS Kearsarge, which is a helicopter carrier; the Marine Amphibious Transport Docks vessel and the missile destroyers USS Barry, USS Ponce and USS Mason.

The American aircraft carrier USS Enterprise, now near the Red Sea, could also be called in for an American missile attack on Libya.

eurasiareview.com - As the international community continues to debate the role it should take in the Libyan unrest, Russia’s Envoy to NATO, Dmitry Rogozin expresses concern over NATO’s plans for military intervention in the country.

He tells RT that certain countries are pushing to get involved in Libya because they are reliant on its oil resources.

RT: Do you support NATO and EU backing for Libya’s rebels?

Dmitriy Rogozin: In principle, what usually happens is this: in order to start military operations, you have to ask someone to invite you. So, it’s not proper to come in uninvited. There should be a side doing the inviting. For this side to look presentable, it has to be legitimized.

What is now happening with the Libyan opposition is approximately the same thing. The problem lies elsewhere. No one knows who those people are. In reality we know just one person who formerly worked as part of Mr. Gaddafi’s entourage.

But all others are total strangers. More than that, there is no information regarding the degree of consolidation of the Libyan opposition. The case in point, quite likely, is different centers in different provinces of that country. This is why, in my view, the fact that separate European countries, like France, for example, or the UK did legitimize the opposition may lead to Europe or the West as a whole being involved, even against its own will, into someone else’s civil conflict. It’s a big problem. It must be said, incidentally, that the latest events in Libya indicate that Mr. Gaddafi is not going to surrender quickly.

There are loyalty problems in his armed forces and the police force, but as long as the Libyan army retains its positions in Libya and wins victories over the Libyan opposition, it is a mistake to say that the collapse of the Gaddafi regime is just round the corner. This is why, to my mind, the West so far has been playing games for its own consumption. They hold meetings with all sorts of people, trying to invest in their powers, but that has nothing to do with the agenda of stabilizing the situation in that North African country.

I think no one knows today what scenario is the optimal one. The problem is, we don’t have the facts or enough information. The conflict inside Libya has become protracted.

Many Arab leaders say as much. Even though the attitude to Mr. Gaddafi in the Arab world has always been highly complex, and despite the pressure that France and the UK are bringing to bear on the Arab League, we cannot say that everyone would be wildly enthusiastic to see a Western invasion in Libya. There is yet another important aspect that Arab analysts are warning about. They say that Mr. Gaddafi, if faced with foreign intervention, will immediately become a martyr, a victim in the eyes of the whole Arab world and a very popular person. And no one in fact wants this to happen.

RT: Are you concerned by France’s call for aerial bombardment of the country?

DR: It’s a big problem how to do it. From the technical military point of view, NATO doesn’t have a clear idea about the level of training and quality of Libya’s air defenses. Let’s assume that a country which begins military intervention by launching an air attack will lose several combat aircraft. Libya possesses some sufficiently modern, including portable, anti-aircraft missile systems. Who will bear responsibility for the first air casualties? No one. This is why, I believe, two processes are currently in progress.

On the one hand, aggressive rhetoric is used and political consultations are held inside the Western states and in the UN Security Council. Work is under way to identify reputable opposition figures.

On the other, military planning is in progress that considers very different options.

AWACS planes are in the air; space reconnaissance systems and naval reconnaissance are fully operational as well, trying to reveal the real situation in Libya, the organization and strength of the Libyan armed forces, and the situation within the framework of regional, provincial conflicts. The info is fed to NATO’s relevant military structures but its readiness for action is equal to zero.

RT: Libya is rich in oil. Is that why the US is so interested in the country?

DR: Everyone says so. I think if Libya were just a banana-growing country, there wouldn’t be so much interest in its domestic situation, including in the humanitarian sphere.

Of course, Libya is a big enough energy supplier to Europe. Certain countries, like Italy, for example, are heavily dependent on Libyan deliveries. Others are not so much dependent, but either way, Libya’s share is considerable. We know that NATO, for example, puts energy security matters at the top of its main agenda.

For this reason I think that this factor has a most direct bearing on the speed of the West’s decision-making regarding Libya. No one wants to let this conflict become protracted. All of them want it to be over as quickly as possible so as to be reassured about guarantees of energy supplies to Europe. I think it’s a very important problem.

Aside from that, there is yet another factor. Some major Western oil companies with an axe to grind, where their concessions and oil development projects in Libya are concerned, are quite likely to be pushing certain Western countries towards hasty decisions with regard to an intervention in Libya.

They think they’ll be able to follow the military and thus get unique access to Libya’s oil riches. So this factor is also taken into account and discussed.

RT: Would unilateral invasion by NATO be a war crime?

DR: Of course. Any invasion would, be it an initiative of NATO as a whole, or of any NATO member state. If an action is not authorized by the UN, it is an illegal intervention.

What I am saying now is not a warning. It is just a statement of fact. As a matter of fact, many people inside NATO agree with Russia. Note the position of the US on the situation in Libya – Washington is being very restrained, if not passive, here. Some are laughing at the overly-zealous France and the UK, saying that those two are running ahead of Uncle Sam. Nobody knows why this is happening and whether there is some common scenario in place.

I think that the US administration would not like to take any hasty actions against Libya now. Most likely, they are monitoring the situation closely, and preparations to possible military engagement are perhaps in progress, but a new war is dangerous for the US now. Especially now, with presidential elections looming ahead.

RT: Are there any conditions under which you would support foreign military intervention in Libya?

DR: Facts, that’s all. Only facts on the table of the UN Security Council saying that weapons were used against peaceful civilians in Libya, or heavy military machinery was used against humanitarian targets, may force the Security Council to consider measures more substantial than political sanctions against the regime.

The thing is, we don’t have any facts. We only have reports from BBC, CNN, and other media, featuring some machine gunner firing his machine gun in the air. At the same time, we don’t see any aircraft attacking; instead, we see people applauding the gunner for looking so cool. If there were a real aircraft attack in progress, they wouldn’t be applauding there.

The footage we see on American and British channels looks fake. They create an illusion of military action. Where are the aircraft? Where are the bomb raids? Where are the destruction and casualties we hear so much about? If all that it true, evidence should be now on the table of the Security Council.

Doing that requires carrying out the decisions already passed by the Council, including the creation of special committees that should establish the facts. Unless the facts are established, the Council cannot take the responsibility of judging something that doesn’t exist.

RT: How are the rebels holding out against Gaddafi’s regular army? Are they already being aided by the West?

DR: We assume that something is being done by the rebels and by the opposition and that the Special Forces that were used to evacuate citizens of Western countries from Libya have most likely remained there. There have been instances of the rebels themselves detaining members of Special Forces combat groups from the West.

We are not naïve and are well aware that some parts of special operations have long been done in Libya, on the side of the opposition.

Otherwise, Gaddafi, to whom most of the army and police forces are loyal, could long have clamped down on the opposition. Since he has not done so as yet, it is a question of secret and illegal military backing by Special Forces. This is my personal opinion. I have no facts yet, but I have experience and I can analyze the situation.

I can’t confirm this, but I think it’s true.

RT: In an ideal world, how integrated would NATO’s missile defense be integrated with Russia’s.

DR: What is missile interception? It’s to see the attack on you, to track it and then to shoot. What stage does the co-operation occur at? At the stage of exchanging information on transforming the risks into threats; then at the stage of detecting by the tracking stations of started the attack started; thirdly, at the stage of identification of the target – this attack may be across Russia towards Europe, or US bases, or across Europe on Russia.

So, tracking the identification of the targeting is the third task.

And the fourth task is to destroy the target jointly.

Some NATO skeptics tell us that, or Russo-skeptics, rather, tell us that NATO can’t be involved in the outsourcing of security for Europe. Well, it’s stupid, because Russia also means Europe. Russia is Europe and not only up to the Urals. In a political sense, it’s as far as the Far East.

Therefore, I do believe it’s our common European cause, and we should think strategy-wise about the people’s, but not our own egoistic, interests. Not to dabble in politics, but be politicians. This kind of system should be created in such a way so it could equally guarantee security both to Russia, on the one hand, and to its partners on the European continent, on the other.

And we still have time for that, let me emphasize this.

The UN Security Council will probably convene an emergency session on Saturday on the escalating tension between North and South Korea, council diplomats said.

“We will very likely have a meeting this afternoon,” a diplomat told Reuters on condition of anonymity. Diplomats said the meeting was tentatively scheduled for 3 p.m., although it could change.

The meeting was called at the request of Russia, an envoy said. It was unclear what the 15-member council planned to do. Diplomats said they hoped to issue some kind of statement to help ease the tension in the region.

Bad weather on Saturday appeared likely to delay a live-fire drill by South Korean marines that has drawn North Korean threats of another military attack.

Read the full article.