[Peace-discuss] The UN Security Council Has Not Authorized Regime Change in Libya

[Robert Naiman]

I have zero optimism about the Obama's administration's "commitment to
international law" *in general.*

I have some optimism about the Obama's administration's "commitment to
international law" *in this instance.*

That might, on the face of it, seem absurd. You might think: either
you believe in complying with international law or you don't.

But actually, there is a pattern for the U.S. to behave differently
than this. The pattern is: in this particular case, we are going to
comply or not. Once the decision to comply has been made, however,
there is some tendency to stick with the decision to comply.

This is particularly true when acting as part of an international
coalition under the authority of a UN Security Council resolution.

There is some evidence already that the US may intend to behave this
way in this case:
[...]
The purpose of the no-fly zone, the administration official said, is
to prevent Gadhafi from attacking his own people.

"It's not designed to have him go. That's not the purpose," the
official said. "The purpose of the military action is to prevent
massive humanitarian loss of life, to stop the violence. If the
violence stops, then you shouldn't leap to say then the military
action will continue until he leaves."
[...]
- No-fly zone could be canceled if Libya pulls back forces
http://edition.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/africa/03/18/us.libya.no.fly/

On Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 4:13 PM, C. G. Estabrook <galliher at illinois.edu> wrote:
>
> I'm not so optimistic as Bob seems to be about the Obama administration's "commitment to international law."
>
> The primary purpose of the USG in the context of the Arab revolts is to secure biddable governments in MENA (Mideast/North Africa).  These governments cannot be democratic because the general opinion in the region is that by far the greatest danger comes not from terrorism, jihadism, or Iran, but from the US/Israel.  (A majority in the Arab world approve of an Iranian nuclear weapons program because it's seen as a defense against US/Israeli nuclear hegemony.) Therefore democratic governments would necessarily oppose USG interests in the region.
>
> The US thus prefers a strong-man who can keep democratic tendencies under control - or, failing that, a non-democratic regime under the color of democracy, so long as it falls in with US goals and interests.
>
> Therefore the rest of this comment (excerpted below) is particularly important. "Any foreign military action outside the framework of the UN resolution ... will be prosecutable as a war crime."  And we know how anxious the USG are to avoid those.  --CGE
>
>
> On 3/18/11 1:36 PM, Robert Naiman wrote:
>
> http://my.firedoglake.com/robertnaiman/2011/03/18/the-un-security-council-has-not-authorized-regime-change-in-libya/
>
> The UN Security Council Has Not Authorized Regime Change in Libya
>
> By: Robert Naiman Friday March 18, 2011 10:30 am
>
> Tweet
>
> ...Some of the reporting on the Security Council resolution has been misleading. The Security Council has not authorized military action for any purpose. The Security Council has authorized military action necessary to protect civilians. It has not authorized military action to overthrow the Libyan government. Clearly, some people do want foreign military action to assist in the overthrow of the Libyan government, but such action has not been approved by the Security Council.
>
> The text of the UN Security Council resolution can be found here.
>
> Here is the first action item:
>
> 1. Demands the immediate establishment of a cease-fire and a complete end to violence and all attacks against, and abuses of, civilians;
>
> The Libyan government has announced a cease-fire. It is certainly true, as Western leaders have noted, that announcing a cease-fire is not at all the same thing as implementing one. But before Western military forces start bombing Libya, efforts to achieve a cease-fire must be exhausted. To do otherwise would be to make a mockery of the Security Council.
>
> It is crucial that the goal of protecting civilians, which the Security Council has endorsed, and the goal of overthrowing the Libyan government, which it has most certainly not endorsed, be kept distinct. There is a clear effort by some actors – especially the French government – to conflate these goals:
>
> Earlier François Baroin, a French government spokesman, told RTL radio that action would come “rapidly,” perhaps within hours, after the United Nations resolution authorized “all necessary measures” to protect civilians.
>
> But he insisted the military action was “not an occupation of Libyan territory.” Rather, he said, it was intended to protect the Libyan people and “allow them to go all the way in their drive, which means bringing down the Qaddafi regime.” [my emphasis].
>
> There is no doubt that some actors want a foreign military intervention to assist in the overthrow of the Libyan government. But there should also be no doubt that this goal has never been endorsed by the United Nations Security Council. Any foreign military action beyond what is necessary to protect civilians would be a military action that was not approved by the Security Council, and therefore, would be a military action that violates the United Nations Charter. Any foreign military action outside the framework of the UN resolution – in particular, any action that kills civilians – will be prosecutable as a war crime.
>
> ###
>
> _______________________________________________
> Peace-discuss mailing list
> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
> http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss
>



--
Robert Naiman
Policy Director
Just Foreign Policy
www.justforeignpolicy.org
naiman at justforeignpolicy.org