MPs back Libya action but confusion reigns over Resolution 1973

PROPOSED MOTION
That this House welcomes United Nations Security Council (UNSC) Resolution 1973; deplores the ongoing use of violence by the Libyan regime; acknowledges the demonstrable need, regional support and clear legal basis for urgent action to protect the people of Libya; accordingly supports Her Majesty's Government, working with others, in the taking of all necessary measures to protect civilians and civilian-populated areas under threat of attack in Libya and to enforce the No Fly Zone, including the use of UK armed forces and military assets in accordance with UNSC Resolution 1973; and offers its wholehearted support to the men and women of Her Majesty's armed forces.
Result: Ayes (for) 557 Noes (against) 13 Majority 544

557 Ayes: See Hansard
13 Noes:
Con John Baron (Basildon & Billericay)
Lab Graham Allen (Nottingham North), Ronnie Campbell (Blyth Valley), Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North), Barry Gardiner (Brent North), Roger Godsiff (Birmingham Hall Green), John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington), Linda Riordan (Halifax), Dennis Skinner (Bolsover), Mike Wood (Batley and Spen), Katy Clark (North Ayrshire and Arran), Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South-East),
Green Caroline Lucas (Brighton Pavilion),
SDLP Mark Durkan (Foyle), Margaret Ritchie (Down South)


MPs voted overwhelmingly in favour of military action in Libya but confusion reigned during yesterday's six-hour debate over the extent of UN Security Council Resolution 1973.

Resolution 1973, passed in an emergency meeting of the Security Council on Thursday, was backed by 557 members and opposed by just 13 for a thumping 544 majority.

But, as bombs fall over the Libyan capital Tripoli for a third night, the ultimate aim of Operation Odyssey Dawn depends upon to whom you are speaking.

Today's front page of the Independent newspaper had it just about right with a series of flags and statements above the headline "The disunited nations".

Unsurprisingly, the biggest international criticism has come from Russia and China who both abstained during Thursday's vote, passing up their right as permanent members to use a veto.

Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin has compared the air strikes on Libya to the Crusades while Chinese state media condemned "armed actions against a sovereign country". Both have called for an immediate ceasefire.

However, a more worrying concern has come form the head of the Arab League, which requested Western involvement in the first place.

Amr Moussa has called for civilians to be "protected, not bombarded" while Turkey PM Recep Tayyip Erdogan has warned that the operation must not turn into an occupation.

In a move also supported by the French and Germans, Mr Erdogan has also called on the UN to lead the mission rather than the exercise turn into a NATO-led military one.

But, conversely, Italian foreign minister Franco Frattini has threatened to withdraw authorisation for the use of its military bases if the airstrikes do not come under NATO command.

And yesterday President Barack Obama confirmed the US would reduce its role "within days" in favour of a NATO-led campaign.

Undeniably, the shadow of Iraq and lack of international support for that campaign casts itself long over this new episode.

American nerves will not have been helped by this morning's pictures of a crashed US warplane although both airmen are confirmed as having been rescued.

Mr Obama had already appeared reluctant to take any action until calls by Britain and France were supplemented by the Arab League.

And, back in Britain, concerns were also raised in a six-hour House of Commons debate that this operation does not become another Iraq.

Prime Minister David Cameron denied that this would be the case, and said: "A successful outcome [of this campaign] is the enforcement of the will of the UN, which is a cease of attacks on civilians.

"In Iraq, we had been prepared to go into a country, to knock over its government and put something else in place. That is not the approach we are taking here."

He was supported by Labour leader Ed Miliband who said: "Where there is just cause, where there is reasonable action that can be taken, where there is international consent - are we really saying we should be a country that stands by and does nothing?"

But Scottish and Welsh nationalist party leaders also raised concerns over the open-ended statement in the Resolution which refers to "all necessary measures short of an occupation force".

SNP's Westminster leader Angus Robertson told the government to "address concerns about an open-ended commitment and the potential for mission creep."

And Elfyn Llwyd, leader of Plaid Cymru, said: "We are concerned the clear wording of resolution 1973 might become clouded and this whole matter could be a smokescreen or shorthand for regime change."

However, the biggest criticism of the day came from Green Party leader Caroline Lucas.

Ms Lucas suggested that while the action may have at least gone through the UN this time, the UK itself lacks the moral high ground to intervene.

She said: "We cannot ignore our own complicity in arriving at this point.

"We cannot continue to arm regimes that abuse their own citizens, and try to claim the moral high ground when addressing the conflicts that those same arms have helped to perpetuate."

Ms Lucas is correct in what she says about the UK's role in the grubby world of arms dealing in which Mr Cameron was recently implicated after details of a six-figure party donation.

But, surely the greater crime at this stage last week, would have been to allow the unhinged Colonal Gaddafi to massacre his own people in Benghazi.

For that reason, I agree that the Resolution had to be passed and a no-fly zone over Libya established.

However, like the Scottish and Welsh nationalists, I remain worried about the open-ended nature of the statement in the UN Security Resolution 1973.

The US has repeatedly said so far that Col Gaddafi himself is not a target and that it has no desire to enact regime change.

That does not appear consistent, though, with the bombing of an administrative building in central Tripoli.

It is no surprise that some nations who supported the action originally are already becoming slightly nervous.

Of course, the most vital of these parties is undoubtedly the Arab League. Lose the support of them and this operation will effectively become the Western Crusade which Col Gaddafi claims that it already is.

Surely the way forward from this point is to continue to extend the no fly-zone but tone down the aerial attacks. Certainly, there can be no good reason to bomb central Tripoli again.

After that has been established and enforced, it would be then up to Col Gaddafi and the rebels to sort out their differences - and hopefully through mediation and not a continuation of this bloody civil war.