Nato targeting of Qadhafi

Colonel Qadhafi's youngest son, Saif al Arab, who was killed in a Nato airstrike on Saturday evening along with three of the Libyan strongman's small grandchildren - two toddlers and a five-month old baby - was the least political of the sons. The target of course was the colonel himself although Nato denied that was the case, saying it had targeted a command and control building in the capital. Nato commander of Libya operations claimed that "we do not target individuals".
Pictures of the targeted compound though belie that claim. So do the recent statements of leaders of the big three - the US, Britain and France. In fact, since the conflict began leaders of these countries have, on several occasions, expressed the desire to eliminate Qadhafi. That desire found reflection in US Republican Senator and former presidential candidate John McCain's reaction to the deadly air strike on the Qadhafi compound in these words: "it is fine if Colonel Muammer Qadhafi is killed." But it is not fine by international law or conventions.
UNSC Resolution 1973 that authorised international intervention in Libya through enforcement of no-fly zone over the country, was aimed at only protecting civilian lives. The enforcers - US, Brittan and France - have grossly overstepped the mandate of the resolution. Declining to comment on the report of the airstrike that killed Qadhafi's children, British Prime Minster David Cameron argued that the targeting policy of the alliance is in line with resolution, "and it is about preventing loss of civilian life by targeting Qadhafi war-making machine. So that it is obviously tanks and guns, rocket launchers, but also command and control as well."
In other words, this is an all-out war against another government, which the resolution clearly did not allow. On the contrary, it said that if any of the members see a foreign occupation force of any form on any part of Libyan territory, they should immediately inform the Secretary General. Nato nations may not have boots on the ground, but for all practical purposes they are waging war in Libya, which is illegal and hence unacceptable.
Granted that the Qadhafi regime is brutal, and its hand needed to be stayed. The motives behind the intervention, however, are other than humanitarian. Which is obvious from the way the US, Britain and France have gone on to violate the UN mandate, albeit vague, and deepen their military involvement in the country. They have also been talking about arming the rebels; in fact they are already doing that. Thus instead of helping the civilians the Nato nations are prolonging the conflict.
That is a sure recipe for causing more and more deaths and destruction. The best way to resolve the situation is impartial outsiders' mediation such as the offer the respected former president of Brazil Lula de Silva and Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez made at the start of the conflict. Equally, if not more important, was last month's mediatory mission undertaken by South African President Jacob Zuma-led African Union. Unfortunately, however, neither initiative went far as the opposition rejected them. That though should not discourage the true well-wishers of the Libyan people from undertaking fresh mediatory efforts.