”) signed lucrative oil deals with the Libyan leader, who, in turn, promised to tighten controls on immigration from Africa to Europe via the Mediterranean. France, the United States, the European Union and Russia had arms deals. Canada sold Libya almost $250-million in goods in 2010 alone, while SNC-Lavalin allegedly wooed regime figures for contracts.which covers the Libyan conflict, countries – especially Western ones – tethered the popular notion in the 80s and 90s of Mr.
This narrative was partially crafted by a United Nations Security Council decision to refer Libya to the International Criminal Court but which restricted the ICC’s ability to investigate crimes committed in Libya to events after Feb 15, 2011. Typically, the ICC would have had jurisdiction stretching as far back as 2002. By confining the time period that the court could investigate, countries signalled that this was a conflict without roots in the misguided rehabilitation of Mr.
All of this matters because Libya isn’t an isolated case of countries getting rehabilitation wrong. Sri Lanka and Myanmar are two other examples of countries with narratives of alleged progress in which the international community has invested heavily, yet which continue to abuse their own people. If we are to effectively confront those who abuse human rights and commit atrocities, we must also hold to account those actors who enable such crimes. Sometimes that means looking closer to home, at companies or governments that invest in regimes, whether out of greed or because they’ve been duped by the promise of partial progress – or both.Companies profiting from war and autocracy is nothing new. But they are too rarely held to account.
By not only ensuring but also supporting the actions of our courts and prosecutors in the SNC-Lavalin case, the government has a rare opportunity to undermine that status quo.
GlobeDebate Colour SNC red for the blood spilled when aiding and abetting this regime. Let the truth emerge and let these executives squirm at the trial.