Block, Siteadmin, SkipCaptcha, Upload, Automoderated users, delete, edit, move, nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW, protect, rollback, Administrators, template
293,683
edits
Changes
→Security Council Res. 1973 and NATO: Exceeding UN mandate
==Security Council Res. 1973 and NATO==
==Security Council Res. 1973 and NATO==
UN Security Council Resolution (UNSCR) 1973 of March 17, 2011 followed on the heels of Gaddafi’s public threat on March 2 to throw western oil companies out of Libya, and his invitation on March 14 to Chinese, Russian, and Indian firms to produce Libyan oil in their place.<ref>''[http://english.ahram.org.eg/NewsContent/3/12/7661/Business/Economy/Gaddafi-offers-Libyan-oil-production-to-India,-Rus.aspx Gaddafi offers Libyan oil production to India, Russia, China,] Agence France-Presse, March 14, 2011.</ref> China, Russia, India and Brazil all abstained on UNSC Resolution 1973.
UN Security Council Resolution (UNSCR) 1973 of March 17, 2011 followed on the heels of Gaddafi’s public threat on March 2 to throw western oil companies out of Libya, and his invitation on March 14 to Chinese, Russian, and Indian firms to produce Libyan oil in their place.<ref>''[http://english.ahram.org.eg/NewsContent/3/12/7661/Business/Economy/Gaddafi-offers-Libyan-oil-production-to-India,-Rus.aspx Gaddafi offers Libyan oil production to India, Russia, China,] Agence France-Presse, March 14, 2011.</ref> China, Russia, India and Brazil all abstained on UNSC Resolution 1973.
Background and Issues for Congress, ''Congressional Research Service,'' March 30, 2011, p. 20 pdf.</ref>}}
Background and Issues for Congress, ''Congressional Research Service,'' March 30, 2011, p. 20 pdf.</ref>}}
Of Nato's 28 members, 14 are said to be "actively participating," but only 6 provided military support. By June Norway announced its intention to quit the coalition<ref>http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/norway-quit-libya-operation-august</ref> and French and British leaders expressed concerns over being able to meet the costs of a war they dragged the United States into.<ref>http://hosted2.ap.org/COGRA/2e515285f07040df999bd6b670db791c/Article_2011-06-14-EU-NATO-Libya/id-f6d2287c00ba4816924c082ed9cc12fa</ref> Of the 22-country [[Arab League]], whose appeal prompted the United Nations to vote on intervention, only [[Qatar]] and the [[United Arab Emirates]] are involved. Of the 192 members of the [[UN General Assembly]], who all have a legal "responsibility to protect" civilians attacked by their own governments, only [[Sweden]] has responded.<ref>http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/apr/19/libya-mission-military-advisory-team</ref>
Of Nato's 28 members, 14 are said to be "actively participating," but only 6 provided military support. By June Norway announced its intention to quit the coalition<ref>http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/norway-quit-libya-operation-august</ref> and French and British leaders expressed concerns over being able to meet the costs of a war they dragged the United States into.<ref>http://hosted2.ap.org/COGRA/2e515285f07040df999bd6b670db791c/Article_2011-06-14-EU-NATO-Libya/id-f6d2287c00ba4816924c082ed9cc12fa</ref> Of the 22-country [[Arab League]], whose appeal prompted the United Nations to vote on intervention, only [[Qatar]] and the [[United Arab Emirates]] are involved. Of the 192 members of the [[UN General Assembly]], who all have a legal "responsibility to protect" civilians attacked by their own governments, only [[Sweden]] has responded.<ref>http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/apr/19/libya-mission-military-advisory-team</ref> After the authorization and commitment of NATO and U.S. forces, Secretary Gates announced,
{{Cquote|The mightiest military alliance in history is only 11 weeks into an operation against a poorly armed regime in a sparsely populated country, yet many allies are beginning to run short of munitions, requiring the U.S., once more, to make up the difference.}}
and warned
{{Cquote|The blunt reality is that there will be dwindling appetite and patience in the U.S. Congress—and in the American body politic writ large—to expend increasingly precious funds on behalf of nations that are apparently unwilling to devote the necessary resources or make the necessary changes to be serious and capable partners in their own defense.<ref>http://slatest.slate.com/posts/2011/06/10/robert_gates_nato_defense_secretary_questions_future_of_the_alli.html</ref>}}
===Exceeding UN mandate===
Resolution 1973 authorized strict limitations, according to international law, on NATO as the organization with responsibility for the implementation of the resolution. Particularly, it provides only for a naval blockade enforcing the arms embargo, and enforcement of a no-fly zone. On March 29, 2011, Russian envoy Dmitry Rogozin commented after a meeting with NATO officials in [[Brussels, Belgium]], that Russia expressed deep concern over the interpretation of the Security Council’s resolution, as some countries have effectively turned it into an approval for ground operations.
Resolution 1973 authorized strict limitations, according to international law, on NATO as the organization with responsibility for the implementation of the resolution. Particularly, it provides only for a naval blockade enforcing the arms embargo, and enforcement of a no-fly zone. On March 29, 2011, Russian envoy Dmitry Rogozin commented after a meeting with NATO officials in [[Brussels, Belgium]], that Russia expressed deep concern over the interpretation of the Security Council’s resolution, as some countries have effectively turned it into an approval for ground operations.
{{Cquote|[[Moscow]] has many questions about how the UN Security Council’s resolution is being carried out...First of all, there are reports that civilians have been killed in the air strikes. This is odd if you consider the message of the resolution, which says that the foreign forces’ actions should protect civilians. So it’s hard to comprehend how you can protect civilians by killing them....we demanded that the UN Security Council be fully informed about the actions of the alliance in Libya at all times... We have reports of air strikes against convoys far from the front line. This is a far cry from the UN Security Council resolution.<ref>http://rt.com/news/coalition-libya-nato-russian-envoy/</ref>}}
{{Cquote|[[Moscow]] has many questions about how the UN Security Council’s resolution is being carried out...First of all, there are reports that civilians have been killed in the air strikes. This is odd if you consider the message of the resolution, which says that the foreign forces’ actions should protect civilians. So it’s hard to comprehend how you can protect civilians by killing them....we demanded that the UN Security Council be fully informed about the actions of the alliance in Libya at all times... We have reports of air strikes against convoys far from the front line. This is a far cry from the UN Security Council resolution.<ref>http://rt.com/news/coalition-libya-nato-russian-envoy/</ref>}}