NATO punts on the legality of arming Libya’s rebels
It’s official: France provided arms to the rebels in Libya. That NATO was enforcing the UN Security Council-imposed arms embargo selectively has long been known (see this post by Micah Zenko). And it was no secret that arms were flowing to rebel forces from an array of sources. But the revelation that France parachuted weapons ...
It's official: France provided arms to the rebels in Libya. That NATO was enforcing the UN Security Council-imposed arms embargo selectively has long been known (see this post by Micah Zenko). And it was no secret that arms were flowing to rebel forces from an array of sources. But the revelation that France parachuted weapons to rebels in western Libya compels the alliance to confront the issue much more directly than it has to this point. France, Britain and the United States--with varying degrees of enthusiasm--have argued that Security Council Resolution 1973 created a loophole to the arms embargo; other NATO members reject that interpretation.
It’s official: France provided arms to the rebels in Libya. That NATO was enforcing the UN Security Council-imposed arms embargo selectively has long been known (see this post by Micah Zenko). And it was no secret that arms were flowing to rebel forces from an array of sources. But the revelation that France parachuted weapons to rebels in western Libya compels the alliance to confront the issue much more directly than it has to this point. France, Britain and the United States–with varying degrees of enthusiasm–have argued that Security Council Resolution 1973 created a loophole to the arms embargo; other NATO members reject that interpretation.
That division leaves the alliance itself in a difficult position. NATO’s secretary-general, Anders Fogh Rasmussen, made clear today that the alliance wasn’t informed about the French action. As to its legality, he punted: "As regards compliance with the U.N. Security Council resolution, it is for the U.N. sanctions committee to determine that." As Rasmussen surely knows, UN sanctions committees are essentially subcommittees of the Security Council that operate by consensus. The committee will never be able to reach agreement, and so the legality of the French move will remain contested.
At a broader level, the revelation will likely accentuate the existing dynamic of resentment on the Security Council: the BRICS and some other Council members insist that the Western powers have abused the authority the Council provided to enforce a no-fly zone and protect civilians. Partly as a result, the BRICS have balked at any Council measures to condemn Syria.
David Bosco is a professor at Indiana University’s Hamilton Lugar School of Global and International Studies. He is the author of The Poseidon Project: The Struggle to Govern the World’s Oceans. Twitter: @multilateralist
More from Foreign Policy
Saudi-Iranian Détente Is a Wake-Up Call for America
The peace plan is a big deal—and it’s no accident that China brokered it.
The U.S.-Israel Relationship No Longer Makes Sense
If Israel and its supporters want the country to continue receiving U.S. largesse, they will need to come up with a new narrative.
Putin Is Trapped in the Sunk-Cost Fallacy of War
Moscow is grasping for meaning in a meaningless invasion.
How China’s Saudi-Iran Deal Can Serve U.S. Interests
And why there’s less to Beijing’s diplomatic breakthrough than meets the eye.
Sign up for Morning Brief
Foreign Policy’s flagship daily newsletter with what’s coming up around the world today. Delivered weekdays.
By submitting your email, you agree to the Privacy Policy and Terms of Use and to receive email correspondence from us. You may opt out at any time.
