UN Security Council votes to end Libya operations

Party Rooster

Unleash The Beast
Apr 27, 2005
40,284
7,454
438
The Inland Empire State
#1
27 October 2011 Last updated at 12:05 ET

UN Security Council votes to end Libya operations


The United Nations Security Council has voted to end international military operations in Libya next Monday.

In March the council voted to authorise "all necessary measures" to protect civilians, after then-leader Muammar Gaddafi launched a deadly assault on protesters against his rule.

Last week Nato and its partners, which had been conducting air strikes, said the campaign would end on 31 October.

Libya's new government declared the country liberated on Sunday.

On Thursday the council unanimously approved a resolution ending the mandate for foreign military action at 23:59 Libyan time on 31 October.

UK Foreign Minister William Hague said the vote was a "milestone towards a peaceful, democratic future for Libya".

Ostensibly the mission was all about protecting civilians. But without Nato air power the rebels would have been swept from the battlefield.

Some countries like Russia and China, while not standing in the way of the Nato mission, believe that the alliance exceeded its mandate.

That is a debate that will impact on efforts to secure similar mandates in the future. Libya's interim authorities still have their security concerns. There are fears Gaddafi loyalists could still cause trouble.

That is why Libyan officials wanted the mission extended. But in reality that is a job for Libyans themselves. Nato was never going to be in the business of securing the country's long borders.

The resolution came despite a call by Libya's National Transitional Council (NTC) for Nato to continue its military action.

The Libyan envoy to the UN had said the NTC needed more time to assess its security needs.

But Security Council diplomats told reporters that the mandate to protect civilians had been accomplished, and any further security assistance would have to be negotiated separately.

During its seven-month Libyan campaign, the alliance has carried out some 26,000 sorties and almost 10,000 strike missions.

Correspondents say the operations have played a crucial role in helping remove Col Muammar Gaddafi, who was toppled in August and killed last week.

Russia, China, South Africa, India and Brazil had strongly opposed the strikes, accusing Nato of going beyond the UN mandate.

But on Thursday the US envoy to the UN, Susan Rice, said history would regard the intervention as "a proud chapter in the Security Council's experience".

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-15481143
 

THRILLHO

Registered User
Apr 5, 2009
886
1,123
348
Bothell, Wa.
#2
So I guess in another 20-30 years we're gonna have to go through this all over again?
 

Party Rooster

Unleash The Beast
Apr 27, 2005
40,284
7,454
438
The Inland Empire State
#5
This was posted yesterday. An Arabic Coalition of the Willing?

New alliance to back Libya, replacing NATO--Qatar

Wed Oct 26, 2011 8:28pm GMT

DOHA Oct 26 (Reuters) - Qatar's top general said on Wednesday that Western countries had proposed setting up a new alliance headed by Qatar to support Libya after NATO ends its mission in the North African country.

He was speaking after NATO postponed until later this week a meeting that had been expected to formalise a decision to end its Libya mission at the end of the month after Libyan officials called for it to be kept going longer.

"After it became clear that NATO has a vision to withdraw at a certain point, Libya's friends from the Western countries have proposed this idea of setting up a new alliance to continue supporting Libya," Qatar's Chief of Staff, Major-General Hamad bin Ali al-Attiyah, said in remarks carried by Al Jazeera television.

"And they have asked that it be headed by Qatar because Qatar is a friend of theirs and a close friend of Libya," he added without giving further details.

Attiyah also said that hundreds of Qatari troops were on the ground in Libya helping the fighters who overthrew Gaddafi.

In Paris, the French Foreign Ministry said a proposed extension of NATO's mission would be studied.

"We will take this request into consideration with our partners. France continues to support and help the National Transitional Council. We welcome the liberation of Libya and the fact that the operation, militarily speaking, is at its end," a Foreign Ministry spokesman said.

Asked about a possible Qatari-led mission, the spokesman said: "We have taken note of this report but it is far too early to comment on it and we would not do so unilaterally."

Qatar played a key role in securing an Arab League resolution calling for international protection for Libyan civilians at the start of the uprising in March that culminated in the overthrow of Muammar Gaddafi.

It also sent warplanes to help the NATO-led operation enforcing the U.N. mandate to protect civilians,

Libya's interim leader Mustafa Abdel Jalil said on Wednesday in the Qatari capital that NATO should remain involved in Libya until the end of the year to help prevent Gaddafi loyalists from fleeing the country and escaping justice.

NATO has said it does not intend to keep forces in the Libyan region after ending its mission and has repeatedly stated that its U.N. mandate is to protect civilians, not to pursue individuals -- though Gaddafi himself was captured after his convoy was hit in a NATO air strike.

NATO ambassadors had been expected to meet on Wednesday to formalise a preliminary decision taken last week to end the mission on Oct. 31. NATO spokeswoman Carmen Romero said this meeting had now been postponed. (Reporting by Ahmed Tolba in Cairo and Nicholas Vinocur in Paris; Writing by Sami Aboudi; Editing by Tim Pearce)

http://af.reuters.com/article/libyaNews/idAFL5E7LQ4V620111026?sp=true
 

BIV

I'm Biv Dick Black, the Over Poster.
Apr 22, 2002
78,996
27,583
898
Seattle
#6
Ayup.

It happens every generation. The cycle swings back and forth between isolationism and intervention.
The pendulum keeps swinging back the other way.
 

whiskeyguy

PR representative for Drunk Whiskeyguy.
Donator
Jan 12, 2010
36,495
22,147
398
Northern California
#11
United Nations disagrees.
THEY WOULD!!!


We have no idea who is going to take power, no idea what the stability of the region will be, etc etc. Which is fine, if our job is to now help overthrow every government in the world we disagree with. If that is in fact our job, then Iraq was a just war. Personally I would rather we didn't waste valuable resources doing so. Also, I love how our government automatically claims to support the rising of the people, but if that ever happened here they would try to squash a revolution with everything they had.
 

Von Maestro

Registered User
Mar 12, 2010
1,642
1,577
323
#12
Is anyone else uncomfortable with the idea that the UN seems to be the new Commander in Chief of our military?
 

MayrMeninoCrash

Liberal Psycopath
Dec 9, 2004
24,554
8,725
693
Loveland, CO
#13
THEY WOULD!!!


We have no idea who is going to take power, no idea what the stability of the region will be, etc etc. Which is fine, if our job is to now help overthrow every government in the world we disagree with. If that is in fact our job, then Iraq was a just war. Personally I would rather we didn't waste valuable resources doing so. Also, I love how our government automatically claims to support the rising of the people, but if that ever happened here they would try to squash a revolution with everything they had.
It's hilarious that people automatically have to take the side polar opposite of the President. Assume Obama said "Despite objections of the UN, The United States will continue to maintain a security presence in Libya until a democratically elected government is in place and transitioned into full authority of the country". How do you think that statement would fly with the GOP?
 

Party Rooster

Unleash The Beast
Apr 27, 2005
40,284
7,454
438
The Inland Empire State
#14
We have no idea who is going to take power, no idea what the stability of the region will be, etc etc. Which is fine, if our job is to now help overthrow every government in the world we disagree with. If that is in fact our job, then Iraq was a just war.
No, but we're in a much better position to having a good relationship with whoever assumes power than if we had jammed it down their throat.

It's hilarious that people automatically have to take the side polar opposite of the President. Assume Obama said "Despite objections of the UN, The United States will continue to maintain a security presence in Libya until a democratically elected government is in place and transitioned into full authority of the country". How do you think that statement would fly with the GOP?
Bill Maher made a joke about that on his show last week. Nice clitoris reference:

It’s like there’s some kind of hidden Republican clitoris, that they won’t let Obama find, and whenever he tries, they’re like ‘that’s not it!’”
FF to 2:10...
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/bill-mah...-like-the-banks-wont-give-a-black-man-credit/
 

whiskeyguy

PR representative for Drunk Whiskeyguy.
Donator
Jan 12, 2010
36,495
22,147
398
Northern California
#15
It's hilarious that people automatically have to take the side polar opposite of the President. Assume Obama said "Despite objections of the UN, The United States will continue to maintain a security presence in Libya until a democratically elected government is in place and transitioned into full authority of the country". How do you think that statement would fly with the GOP?
I'm not automatically contradicting this specific President. I don't think we should have gotten involved at all. I think the Iraq war (admittedly in hindsight) was a terrible idea, but even in 2006/2007 I wanted Bush to get us out of there (or at the very least fight a real war). I hate the stimulus packages by both Bush and Obama, and I hated the bailouts by both presidents also. There may be people (cough you cough) that blindly defend either the Republicans or Democrats, but I'm certainly not one of them. I've grown to despise most things about the federal government, regardless of which party is running it.