US (Hillary Clinton) paves way to arm Libyan rebels

[Turborama]

Source: The Guardian

Clinton tells London conference that UN security council resolution 1973 over-rode absolute prohibition of arms to Libya

Nicholas Watt , chief political correspondent | Tuesday March 29 2011 19.26 BST

Hillary Clinton has paved the way for the United States to arm the Libyan rebels by declaring that the recent UN security council resolution relaxed an arms embargo on the country.

As Libya's opposition leaders called for the international community to arm them, the secretary of state indicated that the US was considering whether to meet their demands when she talked of a "work in progress".

The US indicated on Monday night that it had not ruled out arming the rebels, though it was assumed this would take some time because of a UN arms embargo which applies to all sides in Libya.

But Clinton made clear that UN security council resolution 1973, which allowed military strikes against Muammar Gaddafi's regime, relaxed the embargo. Speaking after the conference on Libya in London, Clinton said: "It is our interpretation that 1973 amended or overrode the absolute prohibition of arms to anyone in Libya so that there could be legitimate transfer of arms if a country were to choose to do that. We have not made that decision at this time."

Read more: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/mar/29/arms-libya-rebels

---

More details and a video report at the link.

[frylock]

1. what could possibly go wrong?

[Arctic Dave]

2. Were do the weapons go after they execute MG?

This little party isn't even two weeks old and has escalated beyond what they stated what the initial point was.

NFZ to arming militants and overthrowing the government.

[razorman]

3. They will save the weapons until they need them to use against us in a few years.

[Uncle Joe]

28. I don't believe it will come to that, I believe he will abdicate and seek asylum.

The language being promoted by the US, our allies and the rebels is conducive to that end, they're inviting members of Gaddafi's government to be part of the democratic process.

Gaddafi is a survivor and he's capable of seeing the writing on the wall, his days are numbered and he doesn't want to go down like Hussein, so he will leave, probably within a few weeks if not a few months.

I don't have a crystal ball, but that's what I believe will happen.

[Baclava]

4. Ah what the fuck, bend the rules however you want - I give up.

Better them than us, right?

NO boots on the ground.

[SemperEadem]

5. hasn't this little experiement already been done in

Afghanistan and it didn't work out too well for the US?

[Baclava]

9. It didn't work out so well for the Afghans either.

War is heck.

[dipsydoodle]

6. She 'll use a loophole which was created for another reason.

Here's the background. On Feb. 26, the U.N. Security Council unanimously adopted Resolution 1970, barring transfer or sale of arms and military equipment to Libya. Then, on March 17, the Security Council adopted Resolution 1973 providing for a no-fly zone.

While Resolution 1973 includes a section about tightening enforcement of the arms embargo, it also includes a clause -- reportedly inserted at the request of the U.S. -- that may create a loophole in the arms embargo. Here it is (emphasis added):

Authorizes Member States that have notified the Secretary-General, acting nationally or through regional organizations or arrangements, and acting in cooperation with the Secretary-General, to take all necessary measures, NOTWITHSTANDING paragraph 9 of resolution 1970 (2011), to protect civilians and civilian populated areas under threat of attack in the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, including Benghazi, while excluding a foreign occupation force of any form on any part of Libyan territory, and requests the Member States concerned to inform the Secretary-General immediately of the measures they take pursuant to the authorization conferred by this paragraph which shall be immediately reported to the Security Council;

>

A source in the room while Resolution 1973 was being negotiated said that US Permanent Representative Susan Rice explained that she needed the “notwithstanding” loophole for a situation in which the US might have to go in with weapons to save a downed pilot, and wouldn't want merely carrying weapons to violate the arms embargo.

http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2011/03/28/obama_libya_arming_rebels/

[atreides1]

7. "It is our interpretation..."

Key points
That interpretation would mean her eyes were fucking closed when she read the resolution...

The resolution, adopted under Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter:

Key points:

demands the immediate establishment of a ceasefire and a complete end to violence and all attacks against, and abuses of, civilians;
imposes a no-fly zone over Libya;

authorises all necessary means to protect civilians and civilian-populated areas, except for a "foreign occupation force";

strengthens the arms embargo and particularly action against mercenaries, by allowing for forcible inspections of ships and planes;

imposes a ban on all Libyan-designated flights;

imposes an asset freeze on assets owned by the Libyan authorities, and reaffirms that such assets should be used for the benefit of the Libyan people;

extends the travel ban and assets freeze of United Nations Security Council Resolution 1970 to a number of additional individuals and Libyan entities;

establishes a panel of experts to monitor and promote sanctions implementation.

[damntexdem]

8. Good. About time.

[skyounkin]

16. Yeah...it always turns out great for us!

[AllTooEasy]

10. I'll donate an AK47 myself, if it will kill any of Qaddafi's thugs

[Name removed]

11. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

12. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[yodermon]

13. paging Charlie Wilson n/t

[bvar22]

14. Oh GOOD!

This has always worked out so well for us in the Middle East.

[fascisthunter]

19. these people are insane

[skyounkin]

15. I think I have seen this movie before...

[Taverner]

17. ARMING LIBYANS IS NOT SUPPORTING AL QUEDA SO STOP SAYING THAT!!!

Paging Bob Beaudelang...

[Javaman]

24. History doesn't repeat itself...

it rhymes.

It wasn't al queda, it was the Mujahideen.

al queda came later.

Since this tread mill is set to full speed, I just hope that after all this mess is over, that Europe and the West don't abandon the Libyan people like we did after the soviets pulled out.

These folks have a long memory.

[Taverner]

26. "These folks have a long memory" indeed. Many are still angry at Italy

For Mussolini's invasion

[Doctor_J]

18. Hmm...

I wonder if she'll arm those who want to overthrow Walker and Scott.

[No Elephants]

20. Is Al Q'aeeda running out of weapons already?

[Hannah Bell]

21. she's a fool then,

[dipsydoodle]

22. See post #6

Pulling a stunt like that will simply encourage China or Russia to use their vetos the next time similar events occur to prevent such travesties.

:hi:

[Nihil]

23. What's that thing about "Those who do not learn from history ..."? (n/t)

:patriot:

[Javaman]

25. We never learn...

we just use more advanced weapons.

[pinboy3niner]

27. The legal basis for arming the rebels:

From The Guardian:

My colleague Paul Harris says he has just spoken to a Western diplomatic source in the United Nations who said that the key language that may be used to justify arming the Libyan rebels lies in Paragraph 4 of UN resolution 1973, which is the one that gave the go-ahead for intervention and a no-fly zone.

That paragraph authorises all necessary measures to protect civilians "...not withstanding paragraph 9 of resolution 1970".

Resolution 1970 is the one that referred Gaddafi to the international court and imposed sanctions. Paragraph 9 in that resolution specifically refers to an arms embargo. Therefore, it would appear, that the key words "not withstanding" give a legal basis to arming the rebels if you assume that such an action is protecting civilians.

"The key thing is the clause "not withstanding". We think that resolution 1973 does not preclude such an action (arming the rebels)," the source said. However, the source insists that there was as yet no timetable for any such moves. "It's something that is on the table. It's under discussion," the source said.

4.15pm:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/blog/2011/mar/30/libya-middle-east-syria-bahrain-yemen