Who's rethinking support for Libya's no-fly zone – and why
After a few days of Western airstrikes on Libya, initial international support is beginning to fall apart as disputes arise about what levels of military action are authorized by Thursday's UN resolution.
The initial relief that followed Thursday's passage of United Nations Security Council Resolution 1973 – which authorizes a no-fly zone and “all necessary measures” to protect Libyan civilians – has given way to criticism of its execution.Skip to next paragraph
Israeli general hints at another Gaza campaign
Unclaimed attack on Islamic school raises tension in Nigeria
See no evil? Activists doubt credibility of Arab League mission to Syria.
Arab League observers head to Syria's war-ravaged Homs
Christmas church bombings put global spotlight on 'Nigerian Taliban' (VIDEO)
Subscribe Today to the Monitor
The resolution had broad international support when it passed 10-0 with 5 abstentions. But now, as questions arise over what a no-fly zone actually entails and what “all necessary measures” means – the dangers of which US Secretary of Defense Robert Gates tried to warn others about before the UN resolution – some of that support is falling off.
Arab League Secretary-General Amr Moussa said Sunday that the airstrikes on Libya may have gone beyond their intended scope and were possibly endangering Libyan civilians further. Mr. Moussa’s statement shook Western powers, who did not want to be perceived as intervening in the Arab world without its support. (It’s unlikely that the US or European countries would have voted in favor of the UN resolution had the Arab League not endorsed a no-fly zone the previous week.)
However, on Monday Moussa held a press conference with UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon to reiterate the Arab League’s support for the resolution. According to Moussa, Arab League support will continue as long as the UN-authorized actions do not include any plans for foreign invasion or occupation of Libya, and as long as its stated goal remains the protection of civilians.
“The protection of civilians will remain the issue that we all, the Arab League and Security Council, agree on,” he said in the press conference.
The Arab League is in a tough spot, The Guardian reported. It wants to see Qaddafi gone – having dealt with his erratic behavior firsthand for years – but does not want to be perceived as calling on Western powers to take action on its behalf, for fear of retribution at the hands of Qaddafi operatives throughout the Arab world.
President Obama's reluctance to send in his air force and navy until the Arab League had taken a diplomatic lead leaves the body in the position of having sanctioned a US-led attack on a member state – a tough stance to adopt, with the wounds of Iraq still healing.
And while Russia’s abstention in the Security Council vote on the resolution may not seem very supportive, it was a token of support that the country wouldn't have given in the past. “The former Soviet Union would have vetoed it in a heartbeat,” the Monitor noted. But even that modicum of support seems to be eroding.