By Matthew Russell Lee
UNITED NATIONS, January 12 -- France claims that its intervention and aerial bombardment in Mali, begun Friday, "resides in the framework of international legality." But the Security Council outcome France proposed and procured on January 10 was a mere press statement, non-binding.
(Some have mis-reported a Jan. 10 "resolution," click here.)
And so the framework that Francois Hollande and Laurent Fabius are referring to must be the Security Council resolution they procured on December 20.
But there is a problem.
As Inner City Press reported in December, Resolution 2085 contains in Operative Paragraph 11 a number of steps that are required before military action begins:
"11. Emphasizes that the military planning will need to be further refined before the commencement of the offensive operation and requests that the Secretary-General, in close coordination with Mali, ECOWAS, the African Union, the neighbouring countries of Mali, other countries in the region and all other interested bilateral partners and international organizations, continue to support the planning and the preparations for the deployment of AFISMA, regularly inform the Council of the progress of the process, and requests that the Secretary-General also confirm in advance the Council's satisfaction with the planned military offensive operation."
Well placed African diplomats highlighted this to Inner City Press as the so-called "Algerian element." And now France has acted without any of the steps and safeguards in the resolution it drafted and championed and agreed to.
Inner City Press asks: did France get Secretary General Ban Ki-moon to "confirm in advance the Council's satisfaction with the planned military offensive operation" -- the details of which it seems Ban wasn't informed of?
Was this the meaning of Ban's statement after he got letters from France and Mali's post-coup government?
Were French-drafted UNSC Resolution 2085's steps and safeguards only applicable to AFRICAN intervenors? Or is France's claim that its intervention, in which already at least 100 people have been killed, resides in the framework of international legality based only on a resolution they haven't complied with and a press statement that is not binding? Watch this site.
Footnote: Some surmise that France's timing -- beginning bombing on Friday, without coming back to the Security Council as at least one Permanent Five member's Permanent Representative said would probably happen -- is based on getting as much done "sur le terrain" as possible before having to brief parliamentarians on Monday. Ah, legality...
