The UN Security Council rejected the demand of Libya to hold an extraordinary meeting

Security Council resolution is sharp debate in Moscow and in Washington, DC

The UN Security Council on Monday night rejected the demand of Libya to hold an extraordinary meeting to discuss the situation in this country.

As reported by Western diplomats, journalists, participated in the consultations, held a meeting discussed a letter to Foreign Minister of Libya Musa Kusy, in which he described the military operations of the international coalition as "aggression." Kousa sent a letter to UN Secretary-General on Saturday, that is after the start of military operations of coalition forces in Libya. According to the Associated Press, in this letter the head of the Libyan Foreign Ministry said that there was a "foreign conspiracy in the Jamahiriya, its unity and territorial integrity."

Security Council members, however, decided to revisit the situation in Libya next Thursday that it was provided for the approved UN Security Council resolution on March 17, 1973, provides for the use of "all necessary measures" to protect the Libyan civilian population. On this day, Security Council should hear the report of UN Secretary-General on the situation in Libya.

At the consultations also was no decision on who will represent Libya in the UN. As previously reported, after the start of the uprising against the regime of Muammar GaddafiMuammar Gaddafi, the Libyan delegation to the UN in full force announced that it sided with the opposition and no longer subject to Tripoli. Gaddafi has appointed a new ambassador to the UN, Ali track, which at one time served as Chairman of the UN General Assembly. However, as reported by Western diplomats on condition of anonymity, the delegation of Lebanon and France officially recognized opposition Transitional Council in Benghazi, opposed recognition of tracks legal representative of Libya. Security Council decided to leave the decision on the Libyan representative to the Committee on Credentials, consisting of nine members. Currently, the Committee is composed of the United States, Russian Federation, Brazil, Ecuador, Spain, China, Tanzania, the Philippines and Jamaica.

According to the Associated Press, Musa Kusa earlier, the day before the adoption of resolution 1973, sent to the UN one more letter in which he claimed that Libya accepts counter-insurgency "legitimate measures to counter terrorism, protecting itself and Europe against" infiltration of Al Qaeda. " The head of Libya's Foreign Ministry also accused the Security Council to "double standards", asking why the international community prefers not to intervene in other conflicts between governments and armed groups, such as in Palestine, Chechnya, Uganda, Kashmir and Algeria.

Medvedev Putin reined in

Meanwhile, the Resolution 1973 and its performance is controversial. Russian Prime Minister Vladimir PutinVladimir Putin called the resolution "incomplete and flawed" and compared it to "appeal to the medieval crusades". Particular criticism of Putin, has subjected the United States, whose policy of intervention in conflicts in other countries, "he called" steady trend ", saying that" American politics has no conscience, no logic. "

In response to these words of Prime Minister Dmitry MedvedevDmitry Medvedev, President Putin reined in so doing, according to Russian observers, quite sharply. Medvedev has called "unacceptable use of language that, in fact, lead to a clash of civilizations." "This is unacceptable - has warned the Russian president. - Otherwise, all may end up far worse even than it is today. I think we should all be extremely careful in the estimates. In any case, Medvedev said that is because of the phrase "type" crusades ".

President Medvedev also said that he considered the resolution 1973 "as a whole reflects our understanding of what is happening in Libya", although "not at all". According to him, Russia was "deliberately" did not veto a UN Security Council, "and this was my statement the Ministry of Foreign Affairs."

Debate in Washington

Debate on the resolution 1973 and the use of force by the United States in its execution unfolded and Washington. President Barack Obama on Monday afternoon sent a letter to Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President of the Senate, formally notifying Congress about the decision to provide military assistance to the international coalition, conducting operations in Libya. In this document, the president gives details of the operation and said that it fully complies with UN Security Council resolution and is consistent with U.S. legal standards on the use of military force.

"Give me an order in the interest of national security and foreign policy of the United States, as well as my authority to implement foreign policy and authority of the commander in chief and head of administration" - said in a letter to President Obama.

On the eve of House Speaker John Beyner demanded Obama explain the aims and objectives of U.S. troops in Libya and said the president had formally notified Congress of its intention to engage U.S. forces in this operation. Congressman Beyner stressed that the U.S. has a moral obligation to support those who seek self-rule and freedom from oppression. " At the same time, the speaker, a Republican, for President Obama "a responsibility to determine for the U.S. population, the Congress and our troops, what is the mission in Libya." He called the president "to better explain the U.S. role in realizing this mission, to clarify how its objectives will be achieved."

Several senators also expressed frustration that Mr. Obama did not inform Congress about the planned use of American military power against Libya in advance. Republican Senator Richard Lugar of Indiana, speaking of the Libyan opposition fragmented, noted that "we still did not know who those people in Libya, we are trying to support." He also believes "a mistake" to spend significant funds on the international operations at a time when "almost every day in Congress we're talking about the budget deficit and government spending."

According to estimates of the American "National Journal» (National Journal), only the first day of military operations in Libya, when they were released more than a hundred missiles TomahawkTomahawk, taxpayers paid from 112 to 168 million dollars.

According to Scott Horton, Adjunct Professor of International Law Faculty of Law at Columbia University and a contributing editor to the journal «Harper's», «many in Washington were surprised by what happened on Thursday-Friday last week." "Because on Wednesday the U.S. presidential adviser on national security issues Tom Donilon said that" the situation in Libya does not affect U.S. national interests "- Horton recalled in an interview with the Russian service of Voice of America. - In diplomatic language, this meant that the U.S. has no reason to intervene, especially by military means. Then, the administration abruptly changed its position and in last weekend apparently had taken a leading role in the implementation of UN resolutions - though officially it is said that the U.S. only support military operations, which are run by other countries. "

President Obama and Hillary ClintonHillary Clinton, U.S. Secretary of State have repeatedly emphasized that the United States are not initiated operations against Libya, and acceded to the request of the coalition.

Scott Horton said that in the past, U.S. military operations preceded the political process - that is, public debate, the discussion in Congress that result in the adoption of a document, presidential address to the nation in which he explains the aims and objectives of the operation. "In this case, was nothing like that - stated the lawyer. - Many of today, watching on television footage, captured the American strikes "Tomogavkov, asking: how could this happen without the appropriate political and legal process"?

Horton believes that Obama is acting "more aggressive" than President GeorgeGeorge W. Bush exposed at one time a similar criticism when he started the intervention in Iraq. "Bush has aggressively used the president's authority to initiate military operations - recalled Horton. - Nevertheless, the invasion of Iraq was preceded by sharp public debate in the United States before the war began, he enlisted the support of Congress. During the campaign, Barack Obama criticized President Bush for the fact that he acted too quickly and too aggressively. But now, in my opinion, Obama acts far more aggressively than its predecessor. The situation is particularly awkward, because at the beginning of military operations, President Obama, is visiting Latin America. "

U.S. law allows the president to decide on the time-limited military operations abroad without congressional approval.

What are the objectives of resolution 1973?

Debate and disagreement is in order, proclaimed by President Obama, and designated in resolution 1973. There's no mention of regime change in Libya, while Obama said that "Gaddafi must go." Speaking on Monday in Santiago, the president reiterated that the "Moammar Gadhafi Must Go", although the overthrow of the Libyan leader, and "is not the purpose of military operations."

In a Sunday television interview, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff U.S. Armed Forces, Admiral Mike Mullen, also emphasized that the goal for the military operation is not the overthrow of the Gaddafi regime in Libya. But this, Admiral Mullen went a step further, recognizing that the outcome of the operation is not obvious, and that he admits that after its completion, "Muammar Qaddafi will control a part of the country." According to Scott Horton, Admiral Mullen, "read the resolution carefully and understand its purpose, at the time, as Western political leaders, including President Obama and President Sarkozy of France formulate the problem more aggressively than allowed by resolution 1973."

Horton notes that resolution 1973 is fundamentally different from other UN Security Council resolutions authorizing the creation of no-fly zones over Iraq and Bosnia. "The previous resolution is really confined to the creation of zones, where they were not allowed any flights, except those that brought humanitarian aid - said an expert on international law. - Resolution 1973, in addition, also includes attacks on naval forces and Collon military equipment. Thus, the resolution is much wider, and it authorizes virtually all measures that would stop the attacks on Benghazi and other strongholds of the opposition. On Sunday, for example, near Benghazi, Libya's convoy was destroyed by the army, which included about 40 tanks and heavy trucks. "

According to former U.S. representative to NATO, Robert Hunter, to protect "the civilian population of Libya, to anything, and encourages resolution 1973 ... we must not only suppress all enemy air defenses, but also to try to prevent any military action by the current regime to the civilian population, fighting in the east of the country. "

Horton, however, indicates that the UN Security Council resolution says that "the objective of military intervention - to achieve a cease-fire." "The item was introduced into the text at the insistence of (Russian foreign minister - MG), Sergei Lavrov, - the expert adds. - In my opinion, this is a very important issue. "

Robert Hunter said the Russian service of Voice of America "that" up until Gaddafi is at war with these people, the use of force by the international community to fully fit into the above-mentioned UN resolution. " Scott Horton, on the other hand, wondered what would happen if the rebels will go on the offensive and begin to attack the town, controlled by Gadhafi?

"Now everyone is happy with that through military intervention failed to stop the siege of Benghazi - says Horton. - But will the international coalition to strike at rebel forces when they pass in a counter-offensive? While this one does not say, but a careful reading of Resolution 1973 allows for such actions. The resolution aimed to "freeze the situation and create conditions for a peaceful transition.

It is obvious that the UN Security Council aimed to achieve peace and stability in Libya, but it is not clear that to achieve this goal it is necessary that the rebels defeated the forces of Muammar Gaddafi.

It is possible that this goal will be achieved through a plebiscite under UN auspices, which resulted in new government is formed. Perhaps this goal will be achieved by the arrest Gaddafi and his sons and bring them to the International Court in The Hague, as stipulated by resolution 1970 UN Security Council. There are various options, but a military solution should not be one of them. "

In other words, the expert said, the purpose of military intervention should be to stop violence, not military aid to the rebels in their fight against al-Gaddafi.

Robert Hunter did not rule out that resolution 1973 was a hidden political subtext. "In its decision the international community has shown that every dictator is a limit to how many people from his own people he can kill. The international community showed that Gaddafi has long exceeded its limit, and other countries simply had to intervene in this situation "- he stressed.

Scott Horton believes that Resolution 1973 and its implementation - is a serious precedent for the UN Security Council. "I think that many are now closely monitoring the implementation of the resolution - said the lawyer. - We are talking not only about Libya. If as a result of the Western powers will have carte blanche, it is unlikely that such resolutions will be accepted Security Council of the future, and this can have extremely negative consequences for humanitarian operations in the future. Now there are demonstrations in Syria, exacerbated the situation in Yemen, not to mention the Côte d'Ivoire - and humanitarian intervention may be required in any of these countries. That's why the way marks are Resolution 1973, is alarming. "