Britain introduced a draft U.N. Security Council resolution today condemning Syria's "systematic" violations of human rights as part of a bloody crackdown on anti-government demonstrations, and calling for a "credible and impartial" investigation into abuses of peaceful demonstrators, according to a confidential copy of the draft obtained by Turtle Bay.

The British draft, which was co-sponsored by France, Germany, and Portugal, aims at using the U.N. Security Council to ratchet up political pressure on Syria to restrain its forces. But it faces the prospects of a veto by China and Russia, Syria's closest allies on the 15-nation council. The United States has vowed to support the draft resolutions.

U.N. diplomats say they are confident that they have secured the minimum nine votes required for adoption of a resolution, and they were prepared to risk a veto from Russia or China. "If anyone votes against that resolution or tries to veto it, that should be on their conscience," British Prime Minister David Cameron said today.

Here is a copy of the British draft resolution:

Draft SCR on Syria

The Security Council,

Expressing grave concern at the situation in Syria and condemning the violence and use of force,

Welcoming the Secretary-General's statements articulating continued concerns about the on-going violence and humanitarian needs, and calling for an independent investigation of all killings during recent demonstrations,

Welcoming also the G8 statement of 27 May 2011, and other regional and bilateral diplomatic efforts to address the deteriorating situation in Syria,

Welcoming further Human Rights Council resolution A/HRC/RES/S-16/1 of 29 April 2011, including the decision to request the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights to dispatch a mission to Syria to investigate all alleged violations of international human rights law and to establish the facts and circumstances of such violations and of the crimes perpetrated, with a view to avoiding impunity and ensuring full accountability,

Considering that the widespread and systematic attacks currently taking place in Syria by the authorities against its people may amount to crimes against humanity,

Expressing concern at the reports of shortages of medical supplies to treat the wounded, caused partly by deliberate prevention of such supplies by the Government of Syria, and at the reports of numerous civilians trying to flee the violence,

Echoing the Secretary-General's concern at the humanitarian impact of the violence on a number of Syrian towns, and fully supporting the UN's humanitarian assessment mission to Syria,

Recalling the Syrian authorities' responsibility to protect its population, and to allow unhindered and sustained access for humanitarian aid and humanitarian organisations,

Underlining the need to respect the freedoms of peaceful assembly and of expression, including freedom of the media and access for international media,

Stressing that the only solution to the current crisis in Syria is through an inclusive and Syrian-led political process, noting the stated intention of the Government of Syria to take steps for reform, regretting the lack of progress in implementation, and stressing the need for the Syrian Government to implement reforms fully,

Stressing also the need to hold to account those responsible for attacks, including by forces under the control of the Government of Syria, on peaceful protesters and other individuals,

Reaffirming its strong commitment to the sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity of Syria,

Concerned by the continuing deterioration of the situation in Syria and the potential for further escalation of the violence,

Further concerned by the risks to regional peace and stability posed by the deteriorating situation in Syria, and mindful of its primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security under the Charter of the United Nations,

1. Condemns the systematic violation of human rights, including the killings, arbitrary detentions, disappearances, and torture of peaceful demonstrators, human rights defenders and journalists by the Syrian authorities, and violence against security forces, and expresses deep regret at the deaths of hundreds of people;

2. Demands an immediate end to the violence, and for steps to address the legitimate aspirations of the population, and calls upon all sides to act with utmost restraint, respect human rights law and international humanitarian law, and refrain from reprisals;

3. Calls upon the Syrian authorities to:

(a) immediately lift the siege of affected towns, including Jisr al-Shughour and Deraa, restore medical, fuel and electricity supplies and communications, and allow immediate, unfettered and sustained access for international human rights monitors and humanitarian agencies and workers;

(b) implement reforms aimed at allowing genuine political participation, inclusive dialogue and effective exercise of fundamental freedoms, immediately release all prisoners of conscience and arbitrarily detained persons, and immediately lift restrictions on all forms of media; and;

(c) launch a credible and impartial investigation in accordance with its international obligations and hold to account those responsible for attacks against peaceful demonstrators, including by forces under the control of the Syrian Government, and co-operate fully with the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights mission as set forth in Human Rights Council resolution A/HRC/RES/S-16/1 of 29 April 2011;

4. Calls upon all States to exercise vigilance and prevent the direct or indirect supply, sale or transfer to Syria of arms and related materiel of all types;

5. Requests the Secretary-General to report on implementation of this resolution within 14 days of its adoption, and every 30 days thereafter;

6. Decides to remain actively seized of the matter.

Follow me on Twitter @columlynch

After months of discrete campaigning, U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki moon will formally announce Monday that he will seek a second five-year term at the head of the world premier diplomatic organization, according to U.N. diplomats familiar with the plan.

Ban will outline his plans in a breakfast Monday with representatives of the Asia Group, a bloc of Asian and Middle East countries, before holding a press conference to publicly announce his intention to serve out another term when his mandate expires on December 31. Ban's team is hoping to secure support for his bid from the 15-nation U.N. Security Council and the U.N. General Assembly by June 21.

U.N. diplomats say that it's all but certain that Ban, who faces no competition for the job, will easily be approved for a second term. During the past several months, he has traveled to key capitals, including Beijing, Moscow and Washington, to shore up backing.

Throughout much of his first term Ban has faced intense criticism from political observers, top aides, and human rights advocates, who see him as too timid to confront the world's worst rights abusers, and too willing to accommodate the world's major powers.

Last summer, Foreign Policy's columnist, James Traub, counseled that "States that care about the United Nations - and above all, the United States - should prevent him from doing further harm to the institution by ensuring that he does not serve a second term."

But Ban has successfully secured support from the countries that count, the permanent five members of the council - the United States, Russia, France, China and Britain - that possess the power to block any UN chief. And Ban has received some praise in recent months for his outspoken support for pro-democracy demonstrators in the Arab world, including in Tunisia, Egypt, Syria and Yemen.

After his announcement, Ban plans to write to member states to inform them of his intention and seek their support. He will also make his case to other U.N regional groups.   Ban has long hinted that he would seek the U.N. top office for a second term, telling the Agence France Press just last month that "I am willing to make myself available."And he has scheduled much of his travel over the past six months to ensure visits to the capitals of key members.

Follow me on Twitter @columlynch

The White House today announced it would impose unilateral sanctions against Syria, signaling its desire to ratchet up pressure on President Bashar al Assad to halt his crackdown on protesters.

The U.S. action drew rare praise from foreign policy conservatives, including Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, chairwoman of the House Foreign Relations Committee, who said the move "should mark the end of the failed policy of engagement and accommodation with Damascus."

But at the United Nations, the American delegation has been hesitant to press for an equally hard-line approach, fearing an aggressive push to penalize Syria in the U.N. Security Council might provoke a Russian or Chinese veto.

In late April, Chinese, Russian, Lebanese and other diplomats effectively blocked an effort by the Europeans to push through a mild, non-binding, Security Council statement condemning Syria's violent crackdown on mostly unarmed protesters.

The United States is concerned that another failed push for Security Council action on Syria would give comfort to President Assad, exposing the deep international rift over the right approach to restraining Syria.

In the absence of an American push, Britain and France have taken the lead in seeking a tougher approach. In recent days, the two European powers have sounded out other Security Council members about the prospects for the adoption of a resolution that would condemn Syria and urge it to halt further violence.

Britain and France are confident that they can muster the minimum nine votes required to adopt a modest resolution that would condemn Syria, ask it to show restraint, and encourage political reform. Britain and France also believe it may be worth risking a Russian or Chinese veto, and exposing them as defenders of a brutal Middle East regime that is resistant to democratic change sweeping the region. "There is a real risk that the council, by failing to act, is sending the signal that what Assad is doing is within the bounds of international tolerance," said one council diplomat. "We need to change that."

The United Nations maintains that more than 850 people have been killed in Syria in recent months, most of them civilian targets of a bloody government crackdown. The U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights, Navi Pillay, has charged Assad with ignoring a recent call for restraint by the U.N. Human Rights Council, which condemned Syria's conduct

While the U.S. worries that forcing a losing vote may play to Assad's advantage, they are likely to support Britain and France if they decide to move ahead with a vote on a resolution, according to diplomats.

The deadlock over Syria contrasts starkly with the council's response to a Libyan crackdown on protesters in February.  In a remarkable show of unity, the 15-nation council voted unanimously on February 26 to impose sanctions on President Moammar Qadaffi's regime, and authorize an investigation by the International Criminal Court prosecutor into allegations that the regime committed crimes against humanity. On Monday, the court's chief prosecutor, Luis Moreno Ocampo, requested arrest warrants for President Qaddafi, his son Saif, and his intelligence chief, Abdullah Senoussi.

But the unity has frayed since the council passed a subsequent resolution authorizing military action to protect civilians by a vote of only 10-0, with five abstentions. Since, then China, India, Russia, and other council members have accused the United States, Britain and France of exceeding the authority granted by the council to protect civilians by taking sides in a civil war.

The effort to squeeze Syria has also been complicated by the role of the council's lone Arab state Lebanon, which lead previous efforts at the United Nations to condemn Libya and to address allegations of government repression in Yemen. But Lebanon is unwilling to back any measures against Syria, which exerts enormous influence over Lebanese affairs. And there is no sign that other Arab governments will challenge Lebanon's approach.

The current dispute over Syria "is the hang over from Libya," one council diplomat told Turtle Bay.  "China and Russia feel a bit betrayed because the coalition went further than what was in the resolution. It diminished the possibility of replicating the Libya model in Yemen and Syria," where Russia and China have blocked action.

"There is a negative vibe post-Libya in the council," the diplomat said. "you did this in Libya and now you're going to pay for it. It's a pity. There is this political game of power in the council while people are being hurt on the ground."

Follow me on Twitter @columlynch

Former U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan was never a fan of John Bolton, the controversial U.S. ambassador to the UN who once suggested the organization would be know worse off if you blew up the top ten floors of its headquarters. But he kept his feelings to himself...until now.

In an interview with the Financial Times' Alec Russell, Annan said that Bolton was a lousy negotiator. "It was remarkable that for someone who has spent that much time at the State Department, and as smart as he was, he wasn't a very effective diplomat or even negotiator," Annan told the interviewer.

Annan recalled one moment when he confronted the combative U.S. envoy for bullying people. Annan said he was at a luncheon with Bolton and other U.N. Security Council when Bolton sought to kill off a discussion of some disagreeable matter. "'Uncle Sam is not going to like this.'" Annan recalled Bolton saying, according to the FT interview.  " So I said, ‘Look, stop going around trying to intimidate people. Let them speak their mind, and you can put your views across, but don't try to intimidate them with Washington and Uncle Sam.' And of course, the Council members were all relieved to hear that."

The antipathy towards Bolton appeared more personal than ideological. Annan recalled George W. Bush and his wife Laura as "wonderful human beings," and said he held not grudge against another hardliner in the Bush Administration, including Donald Rumsfeld. "He made mistakes, some serious mistakes, but we all make mistakes. That doesn't make him worthless as a human being."

The remarks are hardly surprising, given Bolton's frequent criticism of Annan's stewardship of the United Nations. In his memoir, Surrender is Not an Option, Bolton mocked Annan's staff for having "floated the notion that he was a "secular pope."

"Being a Lutheran, I didn't even believe in religious popes, and I was absolutely determined there weren't going to be any more "secular popes" on the 38^th floor," Bolton wrote. The U.N. Secretary General's office is located on the U.N.'s 38^th floor, though the office is vacant until the renovation of the U.N. headquarters is completed. Bolton did not respond to phone and email requests for comment on Annan's remarks.

Follow me on Twitter @columlynch

On Wednesday, Turtle Bay posted a story, based on a previously unpublished U.S. diplomatic cable obtained through WikiLeaks, claiming that an official from the European Commission, Yves Horent, passed on information suggesting that high level U.N. and EU officials predicted that Pakistan's foreign minister was destined to become U.N. secretary-general in 2007.

According to the cable, Horent told the Americans that Antonio Guterres, the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees, and Louis Michel, the former European Commissioner for Humanitarian Aid and Civil Protection, predicted that Kurshid Mehmood Kurasi, was certain to get the job. The prediction turned out, of course, to be flat wrong. The then U.N. South Korean Foreign Minister Ban Ki-moon was already well on his way to firming up support for top U.N. job, and the Pakistani never even emerged as a candidate.

But Horent, who didn't initially respond to an email request late Tuesday for comment, since sent me an email this morning insisting that the American drafter of the cable is dead wrong, and that he couldn't even name the former Pakistan diplomat until he received my email and read the story on my blog.

"I am rather surprised by this information that is plainly wrong," said Horent. "Whoever wrote the cable you are referring to was obviously misinformed and /or confused."

"I never gave any briefing to the U.S. Embassy of this kind of political or diplomatic issues," Horent wrote. "My dialogue with the U.S. Embassy in Dar Es Salaam was sporadic and strictly limited to refugee matters in Tanzania, which was then part of my work. I do not recognize the name of the person I am supposed to have communicated with the U.S. Embassy, where my contacts were limited to the refugee coordinator."

Horent said that Guterres and Michel, who did not respond to requests for comment this week, had indeed visited Tanzania at the time, but that their visit "was entirely focused on humanitarian issues. U.N. appointment matters were not discussed. I did not even know who was Mr. Khurshid Mehmood Kasuri until a few minutes ago when I carried out a quick internet search!"

Follow me on Twitter @columlynch.

On Wednesday evening, Ban Ki-moon's office abruptly released a long-awaited report by an independent medical panel the U.N. chief had commissioned to "investigate and seek to determine the source of the 2010 cholera outbreak in Haiti." The four-member team, headed by Dr. Alejandro Cravioto, head of the International Center for Diarrhoeal Disease Research in Dhaka, Bangladesh, never really fulfills that mandate.

Instead it concluded that the forces contributing to the spread of a disease-poor sanitation and a dysfunctional health care system -- were so varied as to make it impossible to identify a specific culprit. "The independent panel concludes that the Haiti cholera outbreak was caused by the confluence of circumstances as described above, and was not the fault of, or deliberate action of, a group or individual," according to the panel's report.

But the reports' underlying findings appear unlikely to do much to allay Haitian suspicions that the deadly epidemic that killed 4,500 Haitians and sickened more than 300,000 was delivered to Haiti's doorstep by a contingent of U.N. blue helmets from Nepal. On the contrary, the report adds to the existing evidence suggesting that U.N. peacekeepers are among the most likely sources.

Cholera made its first appearance in nearly a century in Haiti last October, and even today, it continues to kill and sicken Haitians. The panel concluded that the disease was introduced into the Haitian population by human activity in the Meye Tributary, a branch of the Artibonite River, and quickly spread throughout the river delta, infecting thousands of Haitians along the way. At the time, Nepalese peacekeepers were stationed at a camp in Mierbalais, along the banks of the Meye, fueling suspicion that the waste of an infected peacekeeper had flowed into the river.

The panel dismissed an earlier study by a French epidemiologist, Renaud Piarroux, who concluded that the cholera outbreak was introduced into Haiti by an infected U.N. soldier, saying he had not provided sufficient evidence to support his case. The panel also noted that U.N. medical records show no evidence that Nepalese peacekeepers had shown signs of illness before or during the outbreak.

But the panel compiled circumstantial evidence pointing at the Nepalese peacekeepers as a possible cause. Genetic analysis reviewed by the panel indicated that the Haitian cholera strain all but certainly originated in South Asia, and possibly came from Nepal.  One set of genetic tests examining mutations in cholera gene samples indicated that "the strains isolated in Haiti and Nepal during 2009 were a perfect match."

The panel also found that the "sanitation conditions" at the U.N. camp in Mierbalais "were not sufficient to prevent contamination of the Meye Tributary System with human fecal waste." The timeline of the cholera's spread, which struck communities throughout the delta in a matter of days, "is consistent with the epidemiological evidence indicating that the outbreak began in Mirebalais and within two to three days cases were being seen throughout the Artibonite River Delta." In sum, "the evidence overwhelming supports the conclusion that the source of the Haiti cholera outbreak was due to contamination of the Meye Tributary of the Artibonite River with a pathogenic strain of current South Asian type Vibrio cholarae as a result of human activity."

Suspicion first fell on the Nepalese contingent, which arrived at Mierbalais between Oct. 8 and Oct. 24, the same period the first cholera deaths were recorded in the region. The troops had just completed three months of training in Kathmandu, Nepal, and a medical exam, though the panel does not say whether they were screened for cholera. The soldiers were then allowed to return to their homes for 10 days before traveling to Haiti. Peacekeepers from other countries, including a contingent of 60 Bangladeshi policemen posted at Mierbalais, were also deployed in the area. "The precise country from where the Haiti isolate of Vibrio cholerae arrived is debatable," the panel stated. But the "initial genetic analysis" indicates similarities with strains found in South Asia, including Nepal.

The panel acknowledges that the outbreak highlights the inherent risk of spreading cholera through the deployment of foreign aid workers and peacekeepers in a crisis zone. And it prescribes a series of measures the U.N. should undertake -- including improve sewage treatment in UN camps, cholera screening and the distribution of antibiotics -- to prevent the introduction of cholera into a vulnerable trouble spot. But the report provides no discussion of whether the U.N. or the team sought to conduct their own tests of the Nepalese peacekeepers after the outbreak to determine whether any had been infected.

The panel nonetheless decided to give the United Nations, and the Nepalese, the benefit of the doubt. "The introduction of this cholera strain as a result of environmental contamination with feces could not have been the source of such an outbreak without simultaneous water and sanitation and health care deficiencies. These deficiencies, coupled with conducive environmental and epidemiological conditions, allowed the spread of the Vibrio cholerae organism in the environment, from which a large number of people became infected."

In the end, the panel echoed the U.N.'s talking points throughout the cholera crisis: that the battle to end the scourge should take priority over determining how it got there. "The source of cholera in Haiti is no longer relevant to controlling the outbreak," he said. "What are needed at this time are measures to prevent the disease from becoming endemic," the report concluded.

Surely, no one would quibble with that sentiment. But wasn't the panel's primary mission to do just that?

Follow me on Twitter @columlynch.

There are "reasonable grounds" to charge Col. Muammar al-Qaddafi's security forces with having committed war crimes and crimes against humanity during a bloody, two-and-a-half- month long crackdown on Libyan protesters, according to the chief prosecutor for the International Criminal Court (ICC).

The prosecutor, Argentine lawyer Luis Moreno-Ocampo, claimed in a report to the U.N. Security Council that his investigators have established preliminary but "credible" estimates that at least 500 to 700 civilians have been shot to death by government forces. He said he intends "in the next weeks" to submit his first application for arrest warrants against officials "most responsible for crimes against humanity" in Libya since Feb. 15, 2001. The abuses, he noted, are ongoing.

The prosecutor's office "will select for prosecution those who bear the highest responsibility, including those who ordered, incited, financed, or otherwise planned the commission of alleged crimes," the report states. The report also raises concerns that anti-government mobs or armed opposition forces may have engaged in "the unlawful arrest mistreatment and killings of sub-Saharan Africans perceived to be mercenaries. Reportedly angry mobs of protesters assaulted Sub-Saharan African in Benghazi and other cities and killed dozens of them."

The Security Council voted unanimously on Feb. 26 to authorize the international court to conduct an investigation into alleged excesses by Qaddafi's forces since Feb. 15, when they launched a brutal crackdown on Libyan demonstrators demanding democratic reforms. It is the second time since the court's inception that the 15-nation council has voted to trigger an ICC probe. In March, 2005, the council also backed an investigation into war crimes by the Sudanese government in Darfur. The court has since issued an arrest warrant against Sudan's leader, Omar Hassan al-Bashir, for allegedly committing genocide.

Under the terms of the Rome Statute, the treaty that established the ICC, Libya should be given the first chance to investigate allegations of war crimes and crimes against humanity. But the report states that government initiatives, including the establishment of a national commission by Qaddafi's son,  Saif al-Islam al-Qaddafi, to investigate reports of abuses, have been inadequate.

The report raises the prospect that Colonel Qaddafi and members of his family and inner circle may yet be charged committing war crimes. If so, it would be the second time the court has charged a sitting head of state with such crimes.

"The shooting at peaceful protestors was systematic, following the same modus operandi in multiple locations and executed through Security Forces," the report states. "The persecution appears to be also systematic and implemented in different cities. War crimes are apparently committed as a matter of policy."

The death toll has been hard to determine in Libya because of widely divergent estimates on both sides of the country's conflict. As of March 15, Qaddafi estimated that only 150 to 200 people had died during the conflict, half of them members of the government security forces. The Libyan Interim National Council claims that up to 10,000 have died, and that more than 50,000 have been injured, according to the report.

The prosecutor's report states that it has been difficult to determine the precise number of victims because bodies have been removed from the streets and doctors have been prohibited from documenting "the number of dead and injured in the hospitals after the violent clashes began."

The prosecutor said his investigation will begin with an examination of a brutal February clampdown in Benghazi, where civilian demonstrators protested the arrest of two locals, Fatih Terbil and Farag Sharany, who were demanding justice for victims of the governments' bloody 1996 massacre of inmates at the Abu Salim prison. 

"On 17 February, 2001, thousands of demonstrators congregated in the square around the high court of Benghazi, protesting such arrests and calling for political and economic freedom," according to the report. "Security forces entered the square and reportedly fired live ammunition into the crowd, killing numerous demonstrators. This was the beginning of a series of similar incidents in different cities across Libya which appears to demonstrate a consistent pattern of Security Forces firing live ammunition at civilians."

The prosecutor's report also cited allegations that government forces committed war crimes, including through the blocking of humanitarian supplies and through the use of "imprecise weaponry such as cluster munitions, multiple rocket launchers and mortars, and other forms of heavy weaponry, in crowded urban areas."

Follow me on Twitter @columlynch.

Libyan leader Moammar Qaddafi was a foe of the International Criminal Court long before its prosecutor opened an investigation last month into possible crimes against humanity by the Libyan strongman and members of his inner circle.

For years, Col. Qaddafi has championed efforts within the African Union to undermine the Hague-based court, arguing that the tribunal unfairly targets only African countries for prosecution. During Libya's Security Council stint in 2008-2009, Qaddafi's U.N. envoy's struggled to block initiatives backing the court.

All that changed when the small Central American country, Costa Rica, led a quixotic diplomatic effort in 2008 to convince the Security Council opponents of the ICC - China, Russia and Libya - to pressure Sudan to cooperate with the tribunal, which has charged three Sudanese nationals, including Sudanese President Omar Hassan al-Bashir, with war crimes and genocide.

Rebecca Hamilton, recounts the Costa Rican effort in her new book Fighting For Darfur.  According to Hamilton, Costa Rica mounted a campaign to press for the passage of a non-binding U.N. Security Council presidential statement endorsing the ICC's investigation into Sudan's ruthless counterinsurgency campaign in Darfur, which led to the deaths of more than 300,000 Darfuris, and drove more than 2 million people from their homes.

Costa Rica's U.N. mission reasoned that the Security Council had distanced itself from the court in the years following the passage in 2005 of Resolution 1593, which authorized an ICC investigation into crimes in alleged crimes Darfur. In a June, 2008, address to the council, Costa Rica's foreign minister Bruno Ugarte scolded the council for failing to support "what, as time passes, seems to be a policy of appeasement of Khartoum and of indifference to the atrocities that are occurring in Darfur." He lined up support for the statement from 9 of the councils 15 members, enough to secure passage if none of the council's 5 permanent members cast a veto.

But Costa Rica encountered particularly stiff resistance from China, which was preparing for the upcoming Olympic Games, and Libya. Security Council statements are only adopted if each of the council's 15 members support it.

Faced with a stalemate, Costa Rica upped the ante, announcing plans to put a similarly worded, but legally-binding Security Council resolution on the matter to a vote, a maneuver that would have required China to exercise its veto to block. The United States, which had been prepared to support a presidential statement, was reluctant to support a binding resolution supporting a court it has long opposed.

"However, it was the Chinese mission that really panicked," Hamilton wrote.  "They begged Costa Rica not to present the resolution, promising to sign a president statement supporting the ICC if Costa Rica agreed not to move forward with the resolution. But, as the Costa Ricans told China, the biggest impediment to a presidential statement going through at this point was Libya. Jorge Ballestero, a diplomat at the Costa Rican mission to the United Nations, told Hamilton that China assured them: We can talk to our friends."

Shortly after, China and Libya dropped their opposition to the presidential statement which urged Sudan  "to cooperate fully with the court...in order to put an end to impunity fro the crimes committed in Darfur." Ballestero said that Costa Rica had calculated, correctly, that China could not afford to cast a veto over Darfur at a time when it was seeking to burnish its international reputation in the lead up to the Olympics.

Ironically, a top Libyan official at the time, Ibrahim Dabbashi, last month led a diplomatic revolt against Qaddafi's government, and backed efforts by the U.N. Security Council to approve an ICC investigation against Qaddafi's government.

(Disclosure: Hamilton interviewed me in connection with her book, and we once shared a byline on a story in the Washington Post  on the ICC investigation into alleged genocide in Sudan) 

Follow me on Twitter @columlynch