The U.S. Brings Itself to Support the U.N. Resolution

According to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Moammar Gadhafi’s brutal action against his own people has left the U.S. “no other choice” but to support the resolution. Until this point, the U.S. had been hesitating. Then, before the United Nations Security Council vote, Washington did indeed decide to indicate its support for a no-fly zone in Libya.

“President Obama was very clear: Gadhafi must go,” said Clinton. “If a head of state is recruiting mercenaries and paying them $1,000 or $2,000 per day, the opposition, regardless of its size, has a major disadvantage.”* Because Gadhafi was supposedly ready to bomb his own people, and because the opposition allegedly possessed no weapons to protect itself against this, the U.S. supported the U.N. Security Council’s aim to take “all necessary measures … including a no-fly zone.” The resolution demands an immediate end to any violence.

There was assurance from Libya’s foreign minister, Moussa Koussa, which followed promptly on Friday. He claimed that Libya, as a member of the U.N., was “forced” into accepting the resolution and would immediately stop all military operations. The Security Council seemed to confirm this.

Obama Confers with the U.S. National Security Council

Before this, France and Great Britain had announced a quick start of military action against the regime to enforce a no-fly zone. However, the Pentagon did not specify whether, and how, the U.S. would take part in this. AWACS aircraft and the USS Kearsarge and USS Ponce warships are stationed in the region. The resolution excludes the use of ground troops. After the U.N. vote, Obama consulted the NSC.

On Thursday, U.N. diplomats at the Security Council in New York spent little more than an hour discussing Resolution 1973, which was proposed by France, Great Britain and Lebanon. It demands military measures to stop air traffic over Libya and stricter sanctions in 29 points. Ultimately, 10 members of the U.N. agreed with the measures, which refer to Chapter 7 of the U.N. Charter and its plan of action in case of “threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression.” Nobody voted against this, but in the most powerful decision-making body in the global community, China and Russia, who are permanent members, and Brazil, India and Germany, who are non-permanent members, abstained.

The U.S. intends to prevent further clashes in the Muslim world.

Even the U.S. had rejected military measures at first. After Sept. 11, 2001, the U.S. often let President George W. Bush act on his own authority, who allowed allies to vote “either … with us, or … with the terrorists.” Obama strives to achieve a security policy that is voted for internationally.

The U.S. is already at war in two different Muslim countries. Officially speaking, the combat operation in Iraq is over, but in reality it is not. The contingent in Afghanistan was increased again in the past year, but the first units shall begin to withdraw as early as this year. No matter what happens, Barack Obama, who is in favor of reconciliation with the Islamic world, wants to prevent another clash.

Any impression that the U.S. has influence over voting for military measures against the Libyan government should have been avoided. Thus, in this case, the White House is presumably satisfied with the reaction from the usually hostile Tehran. Iranian government representatives welcomed the U.N.’s plan to enforce a no-fly zone and accused Gadhafi of crimes against civilians and Islam.

Two Facts Convinced the U.S.

There were two decisive factors for the U.S.’ late support of the resolution. First of all, people were distressed by the images, whose details have hardly been verified yet, and the information on the Internet and on television about the brutality of the military action against insurgents. The Gadhafi regime’s inability to compromise conflicted with the U.S.’ conception of itself as a nation which stands by the people who rebel against dictators and fight for freedom. Gadhafi “has left us with no other choice,” Clinton commented and repeated the demand that the dictator should leave.

But in terms of political realism, the Arab League’s support of establishing a no-fly zone was decisive in the U.S. administration’s change in opinion. The Arab League’s role is emphasized repeatedly in both the resolution’s preamble and text. Nawaf Salam, the U.N. ambassador of Lebanon, which is currently the only Arab state in the Security Council, had requested the meeting. Behind closed doors, he informed the members of the committee of the League’s decision on Saturday to support a no-fly zone. Yahya Mahmassani, the U.N.’s Arab League representative, indicated after the vote that the United Arab Emirates and Qatar would support necessary military measures.

Russia Finds Fault with Ambiguous Questions

The U.S.’ skepticism toward any weapons deployment in Libya from the Western world seemed to have been confirmed before the vote, for in its resolution, on the one hand, the Arab League demanded a no-fly zone; on the other hand, it did not approve of any “foreign interference.” Diplomats demanded an explanation about this contradiction, which was rhetorical, to say the least. It was not revealed how the eloquent Arabs succeeded in appeasement.

China and Russia also disagree with implementing military measures against Libya, but they nevertheless abstained, as did India, Brazil and Germany, rather than voting against the resolution. Jiang Yu, the Foreign Ministry spokesperson for the People’s Republic of China, had already made it clear midweek that, from the PRC’s point of view, they should stick to U.N. Security Council Resolution 1970. This resolution, created on Feb. 26, imposed economic sanctions; an embargo on arms exports; and a travel ban for Gadhafi, his family and high-ranking representatives of the regime.

On Monday, Vitaly Churkin, U.N. ambassador of the Russian Federation, found fault with the resolution because too many questions had been left unanswered. “In the case of a no-fly zone, who will enforce it? How will it be implemented? Unfortunately, the leading supporters of this suggestion have not answered these questions,” said Churkin.

*Editor’s Note: This quote, accurately translated, could not be verified.