Libyan dictator Colonel Muammar al-Gaddafi, whose forces have been closing in on the rebel capital of Benghazi, has been further isolated by the international community after the United Nations Security Council imposed a no-fly zone over the war-torn country on Thursday night.
The move was hailed by Libyan rebels, and there were wild celebrations in Benghazi, but there were also concerns in some quarters that it had come too late to prevent Gaddafi from regaining control of the country.
The resolution, proposed by Britain, France and Lebanon, was approved by ten votes to nil. China and Russia, which had been expected to use their vetoes, abstained, along with Germany, India and Brazil.
Germany's abstention came as a surprise, while another NATO member, Turkey – although not on the Security Council – was also known to be against the move.
Donate to us: support independent, intelligent, in-depth Scottish journalism from just 3p a day
Crucially, the resolution was backed by the 22 member states of the Arab League. The resolution – number 1973 (2011) – demands an immediate ceasefire: "the complete end of violence and all attacks against and abuse of civilians". Surprisingly, it goes further than imposing a no-fly zone – it also appears to authorise the use of air strikes against Gaddafi's ground forces. It stops short of authorising a UN occupation – the Libyan rebel leadership has made it clear that it does not want to see the deployment of foreign troops on Libyan soil. The resolution also tightens the arms embargo by calling on all member states to "inspect in their territory vessels and aircraft bound to or from Libya", and widens a freeze on Libyan assets. In Tunisia, the US secretary of state Hillary Clinton described Gaddafi as "a man who has no conscience and will threaten anyone in his way. It's just in his nature. There are some creatures that are like that." The United States had been reticent about taking action against Gaddafi, with the US secretary of defence, Robert Gates, warning against any "loose talk" of a no-fly zone. This was due not only to the difficulties of implementing it, but also because the Obama administration feared it could be dragged into yet another protracted conflict. Although the US decision was described by some as an "about turn", Washington was clearly swayed by support from the Arab League, which in most people's eyes gives military action over Libya the legitimacy the invasion of Iraq lacked. Arab backing for the resolution was also a major factor in the decision by Russia and China to abstain rather than cast their vetoes, which spared the US the embarrassment of defeat in the Security Council vote. There were mixed messages from the Libyan regime on what it would do next. Libyan government spokesmen said the UN move would simply serve to split the country. Gaddafi's troops are expected to set up a siege around Benghazi over the weekend. Instead of a full-scale bombardment of the town of 147,000 people, however, the regime planned to send in security forces to root out the "traitors" and "fanatics", while allowing safe passage for those who wish to surrender. It was not clear how long implementation of the no-fly zone will take, although the US, British and French military have been planning such action for some time. There are fears, however, that the move may have come too late to stop Gaddafi's forces from taking Benghazi. If the town does fall, it will be impossible for UN forces to launch any attack on Gaddafi's forces without risking the deaths of civilians. That, including the possible shooting down of any NATO aircraft, as occurred in the Kosovo war, could lead to calls for ground troops to be sent in. That must be avoided, for however strong the moral case for military action in Libya, the revolutions sweeping North Africa and the Middle East have so far been carried out without foreign intervention. The resolution also sets a precedent: with Saudi forces in Bahrain, helping the regime snuff out its own uprising, many across the Arab world will be watching to see if any action is taken against those countries.Donate to us: support independent, intelligent, in-depth Scottish journalism from just 3p a day
Related posts: