• The Heritage Network
    • Resize:
    • A
    • A
    • A
  • Donate
  • UN Security Council Resolution on Libya Lacks Foresight

    The United Nations has responded in several ways to the Libyan regime’s terrible acts over the past few weeks. None of those actions, including the premature referral of Libyan to the International Criminal Court, have seemingly given Muammar Qadhafi much concern. Attacks continue, people are dying, and Qadhafi remains intent to stay in power. The carnage has increased calls for the United States and other countries to intervene in Libya by imposing a no-fly zone or undertaking more robust actions. Indeed. The U.S., France and the United Kingdom are reportedly working on a new Security Council resolution that would authorize a no-fly zone over Libya.

    This raises a fair question. Why didn’t the U.S. envision this possibility when it was negotiating Security Council resolution 1970 that imposes sanctions on Libya, which passed last week? NGOs and governments raised the possibility of a no-fly zone for Libya even before the text of resolution 1970 was finalized. Yet, the text of resolution 1970 specifically does not authorize military intervention, even to protect civilians or prevent atrocities. On the contrary, the resolution reaffirms the Security Council’s “strong commitment to the sovereignty, independence, territorial integrity and national unity of the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya.”

    The actions of the Administration in seeking a new resolution confirm that, in their view, a no-fly zone would require specific authorization under an additional resolution. But, based on their long-held position of opposing external interference in sovereign territory, China and Russia (which can veto Security Council resolutions) are unlikely to approve foreign interventions in Libya, including a no-fly zone. Getting a new resolution passed will be a tough struggle that may not succeed. Would the administration be willing to act without Security Council authorization as President George W. Bush did in Iraq and President Bill Clinton did in Yugoslavia? It’s too early to say. But, aside from the U.K., the Europeans are unlikely to go along the U.S., should the administration cross that bridge.

    Moreover, resolution 1970 establishes an arms embargo for the “Libyan Arab Jamahiriya”. The resolution consistently uses “Libyan Arab Jamahiriya” to identify a physical territory and “Libyan authorities” to identify Qadhafi’s government. This distinction is important because some members of Congress are suggesting that the U.S. should offer support for the Libyan rebels. But the arms embargo adopted in resolution 1970 is comprehensive over the territory of the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya. The arms embargo does not specify the Libyan authorities as its target nor does it specifically exempt arms or military assistance to individuals or groups outside of the Libyan authorities. Moreover, there is a specific list of exempted items, so it cannot be said that the exemptions were not considered. In short, resolution 1970 appears to prohibit all military support to anyone in Libya, including Qadhafi’s forces and the rebels, unless approved by the new Sanctions Committee (comprised of the members of the Security Council, naturally) set up by resolution 1970.

    There are legitimate questions over whether the no-fly zone is possible, practical, or suitable. There are also enormous uncertainties about the motivations, composition, and coherence of Libya’s rebels that raise concerns about whether and to what extent they should be supported. However, one thing is clear. In a fluid situation, it is prudent to keep your options open. The Obama administration did exactly the opposite in supporting resolution 1970. America’s options are now more constrained and the path to their implementation more obstructed than would have been the case with better foresight.

    Posted in International [slideshow_deploy]

    4 Responses to UN Security Council Resolution on Libya Lacks Foresight

    1. Pingback: UN Security Council Resolution on Libya Lacks Foresight

    2. Leon Lundquist, Dura says:

      Brett, nice article. How about Defunding the United Nations? We could get a bunch of savings from our Federal Budget there. Besides, the UN is worthless for American Interests but it serves the Foreign Interest Oh! So very well! What bothers me most about this discussion is the Unthinkable Things we are not discussing!

      I am so used to Obama engineering Mad Man Made Disasters that the High Crimes of this President seem profoundly unthinkable, blood spilling in Libya is part of the Plan. The whole Carbon Credit thing, and BP has the Drilling Rights off Libya! Oh! So, to Hell with the Fifth Fleet, we are off to defend BP. Use the Libyan blood to justify a Budget Busting third front! It is Junk Science that "Oil is a fossel fuel!" It isn't! Hydrocarbons come from the Mantle! It is being created every cotton picking day! So, what is really happening is above the People's heads, and Obama is exploiting that!

      I think it would be Justice to Defund the duplicative Federal Agency that created the Gulf Oil Spill. Crimes against America. I see it as a High Crime, self inspection for BP (the worst safety record). I noticed BP paying off the Captive Media with ads, suddenly Green somehow but remaining dispicable! Those poor British Pensioners! Obama stole their pensions forcing BP to cancel Dividends! At the same time Obama killed the Drilling Industry in the Gulf! High Crime Damages against real people! And BP gets paid off with a stake in the Climate Exchange! And the poor British Pensioners pick up the tab!

      They get away with it over the People's heads so I'll call it Sorcery because it serves evil too. It benefits the Foreign Interest (Russia and OPEC) and kills American Industry at the same time! And big bonus for the Progressives Infiltraitors, does harm to an American Ally! Our best ally, the Brits!

    3. Tritten, Switzerland says:

      If the fly free zone is so difficile to implement what are the spy satellites, the cruise missiles and the unmanned drones for? Use of these would not require setting a single foreign boot on Libyan soil?

    4. Wes in cincy says:

      The Libya thing is one of those "damned if you do and damned if you don't"

      situations. Because Arabs are involved, we will get blamed no matter what we do.

      If we take out the dictator, the other dictators in the area may decide to sell all their oil to China. If we don't take out the dictator, then all the Libyans will blame

      us. The U.S. is always made out to be the "bad guy". So we ought to tell the U.N. that this fistfight belongs to them, we will be the cheering section.

      The lesson to learn from this ? Come on, America….Drill baby drill !!!

      We got our own resources, let's use them all.

    Comments are subject to approval and moderation. We remind everyone that The Heritage Foundation promotes a civil society where ideas and debate flourish. Please be respectful of each other and the subjects of any criticism. While we may not always agree on policy, we should all agree that being appropriately informed is everyone's intention visiting this site. Profanity, lewdness, personal attacks, and other forms of incivility will not be tolerated. Please keep your thoughts brief and avoid ALL CAPS. While we respect your first amendment rights, we are obligated to our readers to maintain these standards. Thanks for joining the conversation.

    Big Government Is NOT the Answer

    Your tax dollars are being spent on programs that we really don't need.

    I Agree I Disagree ×

    Get Heritage In Your Inbox — FREE!

    Heritage Foundation e-mails keep you updated on the ongoing policy battles in Washington and around the country.

    ×