Following the unanimous UN Security Council resolution on Saturday, referring Libya to the International Criminal Court, British Foreign Secretary William Hague Monday warned other abusers of human rights:

“The international community has come together in way it has not done before, setting aside differences … We have signalled that crimes will not be condoned, will not go unpunished and will not be forgotten.

“This is a warning to anyone contemplating the abuse of human rights in Libya or any other country: Stay your hand. There will be a day of reckoning and the reach of international justice can be long.”

See ITN's extracts of his address to the United Nations Human Rights Council in Geneva on Monday:

If a country is not a member of the International Criminal Court (such as Libya and Sri Lanka), its citizens can be prosecuted by the ICC for crimes against humanity, war crimes, or genocide only if the UN Security Council refers it.

The below are extracts from UNSC resolution 1970 (2011) related to the referring of Libya to the ICC:

“The Security Council,

“Recalling article 16 of the Rome Statute under which no investigation or prosecution may be commenced or proceeded with by the International Criminal Court for a period of 12 months after a Security Council request to that effect,

“4. Decides to refer the situation in [Libya] since 15 February 2011 to the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court;

“5. Decides that the Libyan authorities shall cooperate fully with and provide any necessary assistance to the Court and the Prosecutor pursuant to this resolution and, while recognizing that States not party to the Rome Statute have no obligation under the Statute, urges all States and concerned regional and other international organizations to cooperate fully with the Court and the Prosecutor;

“6. Decides that nationals, current or former officials or personnel from a State outside the [Libya] which is not a party to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court shall be subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of that State for all alleged acts or omissions arising out of or related to operations in [Libya]established or authorized by the Council, unless such exclusive jurisdiction has been expressly waived by the State;

“7. Invites the Prosecutor to address the Security Council within two months of the adoption of this resolution and every six months thereafter on actions taken pursuant to this resolution;

“8. Recognizes that none of the expenses incurred in connection with the referral, including expenses related to investigations or prosecutions in connection with that referral, shall be borne by the United Nations and that such costs shall be borne by the parties to the Rome Statute and those States that wish to contribute voluntarily;

The resolution won a rare unanimous endorsement on Saturday from the UNSC's 15 members, including India, China and Russia.

See also, comments by UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon and the representatives of these and other countries presently on the Council here (at the bottom).

“In the Bush White House it was forbidden to speak of "root causes" of terrorism, as this would suggest some degree of legitimacy on the part of those who should only be thought of as mindless killers."

- Robert L. Grenier, Director of the CIA Counter-Terrorism Center (CTC) from 2004 to 2006. See his comment forAl-Jazeera here.

“When there is a systematic link between cultural identity and economic status, democracy becomes a problem, rather than a solution. It exacerbates cultural conflicts to the point of violence, because it provides a formal opportunity for the majority to force their will on the minority.

“Whoever wants democracy under these conditions must first come up with a creative and consensual formula, according to which each cultural group would be free to live its unique cultural life without attempting to force its identity and customs on the entire citizen body.”

- Lev Grinberg, Professor of Political Economy and Sociology at the Ben-Gurion University of the Negev.

See his comment for Al-Jazeera here

The UN Security Council has unanimously adopted an arms embargo against Libya, a travel and assets ban on Moamer Gaddafi's regime and ordered a crimes against humanity investigation into the bloodshed.

The vote is thought to be the first time the Security Council has voted unanimously to refer a member state to the International Criminal Court.

Notable is the support by the United States, Russia and China for referring Libya to the ICC.

China and Russia have traditionally resisted sanctions against governments.

The US, which is not a member of the ICC, abstained when the Darfur conflict in Sudan was sent to the international court 2005 for a crimes against humanity investigation.

The UK, France, Germany and US spent eight hours overcoming opposition by several countries in the UNSC to the ICC referral , the Wall Street Journal reports.

The UNSC resolution came on the same day that President Obama said that Colonel Qaddafi had lost the legitimacy to rule and should step down.

See also reports by the New York Times and AFP.

“The honest truth is that part of the support western governments offered the likes of President Mubarak was because he appeared to be a guarantor of stability in the region.

“The central assumption of the durability of long-standing and unpleasant regimes has been swept away. This change in circumstance has left many of the old orthodoxies seeming out of date and on the wrong side of history.

“It is clear that stability based on the suppression of [popular] demands is no genuine stability at all and serves neither the interests of the people of these countries nor those of the wider international community.

“Against the odds, people are bringing about extraordinary change … We must be on the right side of their struggles.”

- Ed Miliband, leader of Britain’s main opposition Labour Party. See the full text of his op-ed in The Guardian.

“[Liberal] ideas, to a large extent nurtured in the hothouse of Western consciousness and then innocently exported as a sign of goodwill … might originally be intended only as public relations move.

“But over time such ideas gave rise to the dreams of the oppressed and victimised - and when the unexpected historical moment finally arrived, burst into flame.

“Ideas may be disseminated with conservative intent, but if they later become appropriated on behalf of the struggles of oppressed peoples, such ideas are reborn - and serve as the underpinnings of a new emancipatory politics.

“Nothing better illustrates this … than the idea of ‘self-determination.”

 - Richard Falk, Professor Emeritus of International Law at Princeton University and Visiting Distinguished Professor in Global and International Studies at the University of California, Santa Barbara.

See the full text of his comment (Feb 14, 2011) for Al-Jazeera here

“The Libyan Diaspora has a significant role to play in this uprising. Though undeniably important, it is not enough for Libyans to protest outside embassies overseas. Due to Qaddafi’s shut down of the Internet, the Diaspora has become more important, particularly in spreading information about gatherings … and pressuring the international community to support the well-deserved and long overdue freedom for the Libyan people.”

- Ibrahim Sharqieh, Deputy Director of The Brookings Institution’s Doha Center. See his comment here.

“We are also listening to the voices of the Libyan diaspora, including the voices of Libyan Canadians, who are saying enough is enough.”

- Bob Rae, Liberal Party of Canada’s Foreign Affairs Critic. See the party’s statement here (See also 2009 reports on Rae and Sri Lanka here and here) 

“My body is here, but my heart and soul is in Libya. My life is at a standstill. I can’t work. I feel sad and angry and sometimes can’t even bear to watch the news.”

- Soad El-Rgaig, a Libyan Diaspora member. See her comment for the Institute for War and Peace Reporting (IWPR) here.

Also, listen here to one Libyan diaspora journalist, Sarah Abdurrahman, describe how she, along with friends and family, have been trying to bring about change in Libya from laptops in Washington (source On The Media):

Amid mass demonstrations in the Middle East, around 3,000 people took to the streets across southern Yemen last week in a "Friday of Rage", demanding secession from the north, but heavily deployed security forces quickly stamped out protests.

See Reuters’ report here, and AFP’s here.

President Ali Abdullah Saleh, a key U.S. ally against al Qaeda, has ruled Yemen for three decades.

The south was independent from 1967 until 1990 when it united with the north. It launched an abortive secession bid in 1994, crushed by Saleh’s forces, and is still home to an active secessionist movement.

Many in the south, which holds most of Yemen's oil installations, complain that northerners usurp their resources while denying them their identity and political rights.

Meanwhile, Saleh continues to face popular protests from other parts of the country too. He has promised to quit in 2013, and not appoint his son, and to reform parliamentary election laws.

But having in the past retracted promises to step down, Saleh, a canny politician, has a credibility problem.

"Yemenis want real reform, while the president's statements have consisted of hot air. He has not yet grasped the lessons of Egypt and Tunisia," opposition lawmaker Abdulmoez Dabwan told Reuters.

"It has become totally unacceptable. The army is staffed with his relatives. Sovereign resources, especially oil and gas, are in his hands or his proteges."

See Reuters' analysis here.

“We don’t decide between countries we trade with on the basis of whether they are nice or not. There are lots of regimes around the world. If we didn’t trade with them we would be shooting ourselves in the foot.”

- Libyan British Business Council director-general Robin Lamb, Feb 22.

See the Daily Mail’s report here.

UK trade with Libya is worth an estimated £1.5billion a year, with British exports soaring more than 50% between 2008 and 2009.

And Libya’s newly well-off have attracted other firms, including British high street chains Next, Monsoon, Accessorize and Marks & Spencer.

On Monday, the United States accused Britain of legitimising the Gaddafi regime.

Louis Susman, the US ambassador to London, suggested moves to repair relations with the Libyan dictator had only served to give him "greater stature" on the world stage, while campaigners condemned the rapprochement as a failure.

“I would suggest that to deal with him, to give him greater stature, greater ability on the world front to look like he is a good citizen is a mistake.”

See The Telegraph’s report here.

The US ambassador was referring to UK ties to Libya which began when former Premier Tony Blair struck his now infamous 'Deal in the Desert' in 2004.

It paved the way for oil contracts worth billions for European countries.

Among the firms that benefited are the Anglo-Dutch company Shell signing an agreement worth up to $1bn, Spain's Repsol, and BP, which struck its largest exploration commitment to date, in a deal worth at least $900m in Libya.

Italy has been taking the largest proportion of Libya’s oil exports.

See Al-Jazeera’s report here.

This week Daniel Kawczynski, the ruling Conservative party’s chair of the Commons all-party committee on Libya, said the British public would find it “totally abhorrent” to be doing business with the Libyan regime.

“We, the undersigned non-governmental, human rights, and humanitarian organizations, urge you to mobilize the United Nations and the international community and take immediate action to halt the mass atrocities now being perpetrated by the Libyan government against its own people. The inexcusable silence cannot continue. … There is no question here about intent. The government media has published open threats [against demonstrators]. … You have a clear and unambiguous responsibility to protect the people of Libya.”

- letter by 70 NGOs. Feb 21, 2011.

See the full text, and list of signatories here.

“The muted response of the US and the EU to the Libyan atrocities is not only a let-down to the many Libyans risking their lives for freedom, but a shirking of their obligations, as members of the Security Council and the Human Rights Council, to protect peace and human rights, and to prevent war crimes.”

“[EU foreign affairs head] Baroness Ashton's call for Libyan forces to exercise 'restraint' is entirely inappropriate. We're dealing with the deliberate murder and massacre of hundreds of peaceful protesters. By signaling diplomatic caution in the face of a bloodbath - instead of urgency and action - the EU is failing the victims. It's time for basic human rights to come before oil.”

- Hillel Neuer, executive director of UN Watch.

James Holmes and Toshi Yoshihara, associate professors of strategy at the US Naval War College, write on the much-quoted ‘string of pearls’ theory:

“A subset of the larger debate over Chinese sea power is Beijing’s supposed quest for a ‘string of pearls’, or network of Indian Ocean naval bases. The term originated in a classified Booz Allen study and was popularized by the Washington Times in 2005.

“Few Indian Ocean specialists still view the string of pearls as a nascent base network … They are more apt to scoff at the term. So fierce was the backlash that Booz Allen undertook a new study of the concept in 2009, in an apparent effort to distance the firm from its own past work. Scales, it seems, fell from analysts’ eyes.

“Today, the conventional wisdom seems to be that China will settle for access to ‘places, not bases’ in the Indian Ocean. If so, Beijing is negotiating agreements that grant Chinese vessels the right to call at ports like Gwadar, Hambantota, and Chittagong to rest, refuel, and perhaps refit.

“China entertains little desire for a wholly-owned base network comparable to the [US] outposts in Japan, Guam, Hawaii and elsewhere. In all likelihood, Chinese leaders are simply creating options for themselves—as prudent leaders do.

“If the Indian Ocean strategic environment remains nonthreatening ... Beijing can spare itself the expense and hassle of maintaining such [major] facilities."

See the full text of their article here. See also their 2008 critique here.

See also, our earlier posts:

‘String of Pearls’ or 'New Silk Road’? (Nov 2010)

India’s troubles in Sri Lanka (Dec 2010)

“[India’s] economic and strategic relationship with France is expanding. France is also emerging as an important supplier of our defence equipment and platform. … France is a strategic partner.”

- India’s Finance Minister Pranab Mukherjee. See PTI’s story here.

France is the ninth largest foreign investor in India. Between April 2000 and November 2010, France has invested about $2 billion in India.

Amid soaring global food prices, World Bank chief Robert Zoellick is calling on the Group of 20 leading and emerging economies to put food first on its agenda.

"Even before these latest price hikes, there were already more than 900 million people going hungry each day. Now, with an estimated 44 million more people living in extreme poverty, it shows this year is shaping up to be a very tough year for the chronically malnourished."

"If this trend continues, if we don't get a relief on the weather side, then I foresee conditions getting worse. And, mistaken policy actions such as export bans and other types of price controls will just exacerbate the problem."

See VoA’s report here

Zoellick believes high and unstable prices are likely to be a long-term trend, in part because of the rising demand for biofuels and the growing appetite for meat in developing countries.

See The Guardian's 2007 feature on biofuels and food here.

The emerging and growing global middle class - especially in China and India - is consuming more meat and other foods, driving prices. See Foreign Policy's analysis here.

However, the policies of governments are also having a huge impact on their citizens' access to food.

See earlier posts (Nov 2010) on Sri Lanka's peculiar policies on food:

Sri Lanka wages war on ‘wheat terror’

Food for thought