Five years ago, on March 17, 2011, the United Nations Security Council adopted Resolution 1973 (2011) authorizing ‘regional organizations or arrangements…to take all necessary measures…to protect civilians and civilian populated areas under threat of attack’ in Libya. The resolution was adopted with ten votes for, none against, and five abstentions.
In explaining the reason for its abstention, India implicitly questioned the narrative propagated by the U. S., France, and the UK, which depicted Qaddafi as bordering on genocidal. India noted that Resolution 1973 authorized ‘far-reaching measures under Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter, with relatively little credible information on the situation on the ground in Libya.’
India was right to question the credibility of the narrative that was employed to ensure the adoption of Resolution 1973. For starters, the protests were not as peaceful as the pro-intervention narrative suggests. Some protesters in Libya had taken up arms from the first day of the uprising on February 15, 2011, and many more began using violent means soon after. Further, based on the events prior to the adoption of Resolution 1973, there was no indication that Qaddafi’s threats were aimed at anyone other than those who took up arms against his regime.
This post was published at David Stockmans Contra Corner on March 17, 2016.
Recent Comments