News24

Libya transitional government gets UN seat

2011-09-16 21:37

New York - The UN General Assembly on Friday gave Libya's UN seat to the National Transitional Council which toppled Muammar Gaddafi.

The 193-member assembly voted 114 to 17 to let representatives of the council take over Libya's UN mission in the face of opposition from left-wing Latin American governments.

Some African nations called for a decision to be postponed.

The move allows interim government leader, Mustafa Abdel Jalil, to attend next week's UN gathering of world leaders in New York. Jalil is to meet US President Barack Obama and other key leaders on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly.

A group made up of Venezuela, Nicaragua, Cuba and other left-leaning governments sought a vote to stop the NTC getting the UN seat.

Venezuela's ambassador, Jorge Valero, called Libya's rebel leadership "a group under the guidance of the United States and Nato which has no legal or moral authority".

The Southern African Development Community had called for a decision to be deferred to get more information on events in Libya.

Comments
  • Anton - 2011-09-17 00:56

    After the 1994 elections South Africa's foreign policy was based on mutual respect, decency, fairness and off course,as to what was in the best interest for SA. But in the past decade, it has turned into a shambles. It't either that of a mouse, with total inaction, ( Zimbabwe, the Ivory Coast and the Drought and starvation in East Africa come to mind ), or it is that off a bull in a china shop, and to mind comes; The ANCYL wish to overthrow a friendly democratic neighbour, Botswana, and that of the SA government's "demand" of a say in the compostion of the Interim government, of a country, that just got rid of 42 years reign of terror. By the way, a process, where SA backed the tyrant, and not the people!! It is embarrassing, it is not good for SA, AND IT IS CRAZY!!!!

      Sandy - 2011-09-17 13:03

      too true and well put --- our leaders got swiss cheese for brains - full of holes and clinging doggedly to old " allies " seems they did not cannot or dont want to hear the voice of the people of Lybia ..

  • marco - 2011-09-17 01:22

    While the revolution against Gaddafi is over,the NTC has a much more difficult political task of putting together a stable government that's experimenting with Democracy.We all hope that the leaders who emerge from all this will be seriously concerned with improving the lives of Libyans rather than just enriching themselves or their "friends". Since the(NTC)relies on NATO countries for its money,services and whatever else,it is very likely that the NTC will have to adopt any if not all policies that NATO nations approves of.Can't really see it going any other way. You see Gaddafi financed the African Bank and the continent wide telecommunications system,which allowed African Nations to bypass western-controlled networks ie the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund.And to be at their tender mercies when it came to borrowing money and paying back debt.No wonder Gaddafi said he wanted to be leader of a United States of Africa,cause he poured so many billions of Libyan funds into the African continent.Gaddafi at one time also wanted a new single currency for Africa which could be used instead of the US dollar or the Euro. Ellen Brown,an attorney and president of the Public Banking Institute,and writer of the book The Web of Debt wrote: "Gaddafi initiated a movement to refuse the dollar and the euro,and called on Arab and African nations to use a new currency instead,the GOLD DINAR. Gaddafi suggested establishing a united African continent,with its 200

  • marco - 2011-09-17 01:26

    million people using this single currency.During the past year,the idea was approved by many Arab countries and most African countries. The only opponents were the Republic of South Africa and the head of the League of Arab States.The initiative was viewed negatively by the USA and the European Union,with French president Nicolas Sarkozy calling Libya a threat to the financial security of mankind."-Sarkozy why am I not surprise!! Anyway moving on.Amengeo wrote in an article in The Citizen of Tanzania how Gaddafi had been seen by African leaders overall including the big man himself:"While under sanctions by the West, the Africans unswervingly supported Gaddafi.Nelson Mandela(the big man himself)upon his release from apartheid’s prisons defied Western sanctions and went overland to visit and thank Colonel Gaddafi for his moral and financial support during the long struggle against apartheid.Other African leaders followed and regular visits with Gaddafi which defied the West and made the sanctions totally irrelevant.” Under Gaddafi's Rule Libyans got free medical treatment,free education where better students were supported to study abroad.Gaddafi also subsidized the price of cars,the average life expectancy of a Libyan in 2009 was 77 years one less than an American.Retail and wholesale trading operations were called "people's supermarkets" where Libyans could purchase whatever they needed at low prices.In the 1980's Libyans enjoyed much improved housing and education,

  • marco - 2011-09-17 01:27

    million people using this single currency.During the past year,the idea was approved by many Arab countries and most African countries. The only opponents were the Republic of South Africa and the head of the League of Arab States.The initiative was viewed negatively by the USA and the European Union,with French president Nicolas Sarkozy calling Libya a threat to the financial security of mankind."-Sarkozy why am I not surprise!!!! Anyway moving on.Amengeo Amengeo wrote in an article in The Citizen in Tanzania how Gaddafi had been seen by African leaders overall including the big man himself:"While under sanctions by the West, the Africans unswervingly supported Gaddafi.Nelson Mandela upon his release from apartheid’s prisons defied Western sanctions and went overland to visit and thank Colonel Gaddafi for his moral and financial support during the long struggle against apartheid.Other African leaders followed and regular visits with Gaddafi which defied the West and made the sanctions totally irrelevant.” Under Gaddafi's Rule Libyans got free medical treatment,free education where better students were supported to study abroad.Gaddafi also subsidized the price of cars,the average life expectancy of a Libyan in 2009 was 77 years one less than an American.Retail and wholesale trading operations were called "people's supermarkets" where Libyans could purchase whatever they needed at low prices.In the 1980's Libyans enjoyed much improved housing and education,

  • marco - 2011-09-17 01:27

    comprehensive social welfare services, and general standards of health that were among the highest in Africa.The the most popular achievement of the Gaddafi regime is its Great Man-Made River (GMMR) project which brought water to the desert by building the largest and most expensive irrigation project in history, the $33 billion GMMR (Great Man-Made River) project.Even more than oil,water is crucial to life in Libya.The GMMR provides 70 percent of the population with water for drinking and irrigation, pumping it from Libya’s vast underground Nubian Sandstone Aquifer System in the south to populated coastal areas 4,000 kilometers to the north. NTC listen up. The West and NATO countries are committed to the “Washington consensus”,with its emphasis on privatization of public enterprises,elimination of subsidies so that prices are set by the free market, reduction of taxes and public services,sacred economic doctrines that Gaddafi did not accord with when he was in power.What about Libya's oil? Syed Rashid Husain, writing in Arab News, explains that:"Russian giant Gazprom,as well as China’s CNOOC and Sinopec were traditionally present in a dominant way before the outbreak of violence in the oil rich Libya.About 75 Chinese companies operated in Libya before the war,involving 36,000 staff in some 50 projects.”Both China and Russia abstained from voting on the UN resolution supporting military action against Gaddafi.

  • marco - 2011-09-17 01:27

    favour companies from countries which support the rebel movement over those from countries which did not.So it seems that companies from Italy,France,UK and the US will benefit from this removal of Gaddafi,while companies from China,Russia and Brazil will not.Certainly this is what it looks like from the Russian point of view. In an article from The Voice of Russia Kudashkina Edaterina wrote: “…it is now very clear that the war was for Libyan oil and in this sense we have to watch carefully because among the countries which suffered from this unprecedented use of force against the Libyan state is Russia which lost about $4 billion of possible contracts with Libya.” Removal of Gaddafi-The History between Africa and Europe: The period between 1881 and the start of World War I is described as the Scramble for Africa.During this time European imperial powers of Great Britain,France,Germany,Italy,Belgium,Spain,and Portugal, gained control of virtually all of Africa.By 1914 only 2 countries in Africa were not under European control ie Liberia and Ethiopia.In 1911,the Italians took control of Libya from the (Turkish) Ottoman Empire.Even though Libya was one of the last African regions to fall under European control,it was the first African colony to gain its independence from Europe in 1951. While the leaders of Western countries hated Gaddafi,we have seen that he was well regarded by the leaders of the newly independent African countries in much of the 20th century.

  • marco - 2011-09-17 01:28

    IS THIS A BATTLE BETWEEN ANGELS AND DEMONS?Syria being the lesser Evil than Libya? The Gulf Arabs have never been best loved by people of the other Arab countries.Which makes you wonder why French President Nicolas Sarkozy said "it's frustrating that we can't get a stronger resolution on Syria...that they weren't authorized to discuss private diplomatic talks aimed at halting the bloody violence which the United Nations estimates has seen 2200 people killed in Syria since mid-March". U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton told reporters at the Paris summit on Libya recently:"President Assad's brutality against unarmed citizens has outraged the region,the world and most importantly the Syrian people themselves...Syria must be allowed to move forward,those who have joined us in this call must now translate our rhetoric into concrete actions to escalate the pressure on Assad and those around him, including strong new sanctions targeting Syria's energy sector to deny the regime the revenues that fund its campaign of violence,". Why the reluctance among United Nations Security Council members to back a more assertive stance on Syria like they done in Libya?With Lebanon on the Security Council's Rotating Table and Qatar part of its General Assembly did anyone watching these events honestly believe that anything less than a manipulation by these countries would suit the Arab League?These two Arab League countries of Lebenon and Qatar were and still are very accommodating in

  • marco - 2011-09-17 01:28

    toppling Gaddafi's Libya,but dead silent on Assad's Syria.Many people in the West are focused only on what are obviously important and that is human rights issues in Libya,but then so should we be regarding Syria.Could NATO's intervention in Libya also be part of a new period of Western imperialism?In our previous century,major European powers fought each other twice for control of the world.WW1 and WW2.Now the world or international community are united under one and only one SUPER POWER-America,but we seem to have the same goals as before.Our Imperialism is always driven to expand into new areas.The same forces which broke Sudan in half are continuing the process of fragmenting Africa into even more manageable,weaker pieces.The idea of an Africa Unity or Union are to be repudiated as the dreams of madmen one might think.Africa is too rich in natural resources that the world needs for it to be allowed to control its own destiny.True independence and an African unity can not be tolerated. Is this removal of Gaddafi perhaps an opening salvo in a war to reclaim the continent for foreign interests?Is NATO's intervention in Libya an attempt to reverse the process of independence which has occurred since the end of WW II? Question though is why do the Gulf Arabs hate Gaddafi so much compared to Syria?First off Gaddafi criticised Arab countries for doing nothing while the United States invaded Iraq in 2003 and overthrew Saddam Hussein,the then Iraqi president.Gaddafi also

  • marco - 2011-09-17 01:29

    repeated his frequently made proposal that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict be settled by creating one democratic state where the two peoples live together,to be called Isratine.In a speech once,Gaddafi criticised Arab disunity and inaction on the region's multiple crises: "Where is the Arabs' dignity,their future,their very existence? Everything has disappeared...Our blood and our language may be one,but there is nothing that can unite us" he said. Arab leaders who were most critical of the United States’ intervention in the Middle East have united behind the military intervention in Libya.The apparent hypocrisy of repressive Arab leaders endorsing military action against a repressive Gaddafi did not escape many Arabs. "I see hypocrisy in everything the Arab leaders do,and I’m talking as a person of the Arab world," said Randa Habib,a political commentator in Jordan. "I don’t think the Arab League has any kind of legitimacy," said Muhammad al-Masry,a researcher at the Center for Strategic Studies in Amman,Jordan. In an article titled "The Lesser of Two Evils," in the Egyptian daily newspaper Shorouk,commentator Fahmy Howeidy said that the Western bombing on Libya,an Arab country,were "shocking and agonizing for us." Gaddafi denounced King Abdullah and Emir of Qatar "as a British product and American ally"...concluding by calling him a "liar", leaving a memory that surely made it easier for those leaders to endorse a full on military action.

  • Fakmore - 2011-09-17 13:40

    Zimbabwe, South Africa, Kenya, Venezuela etc Voted against. Saudi Arabia abstained.....this arrticle is heavily edited and takes away the real news...who voted against the resolution.

  • pages:
  • 1