Operation Oil Theft: Day 7.

On March 24th the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) met again to discuss it's decision to impose resolution 1973(2011) on Libya. This meeting was held behind closed doors. That meant that no cameras or members of the public were allowed into the meeting, there were no press briefings or even briefings for UN member states who are not members of the UNSC. In fact you'd struggle to get the UN to even acknowledge that the meeting took place.

This level of secrecy normally indicates that there are deep divisions between the members of the UNSC and the meeting would be a forum for what is diplomatically termed a frank exchange of views. Also on this occasion I think it was quite embarrassing for the UNSC to admit that this time when the British asked it for permission to attack another oil rich nation and claimed that the world was just 45 minutes for disaster the UNSC fell for the pressure sell trick.

Obviously the level of secrecy makes it impossible to tell what was discussed at the meeting let alone what was decided. However we do know that in the hours prior to the meeting the UN Secretary General made a speech in which he announced that 1973(2011) was having little impact of protecting civilians because neither side was respecting a the ceasefire. He went on to separately state that Qaddafi was not meeting the conditions imposed on him by the resolution. This is important because one of the implied conditions in 1973(2011) which was made explicit by President Obama's speech of March 19th is that Qaddafi will have to withdraw his troops and supporters a distance of around 300km back from Benghazi to positions close to Sirte. Apart from possibly representing ethnic cleansing this is a problem because unless the foreign force intervene to prevent it this will allow the rebel tribesmen to advance into a separate tribal area*. If that happens and the different tribes start killing each other it brings into play complex tribal honour systems that involve things like blood feuds and honour killings. Also you'll never guess what's beneath those 300km of Libyan sand.

We also know that NATO has not taken command of the operation due to deep splits in the alliance over 1973(2011). In the hours before the UNSC meeting Turkey, who had been strongly opposed to NATO involvement, indicated that they could possibly be persuaded to support NATO involvement. This prompted the NATO Secretary General to prematurely announce that NATO will be taking command of operations against Libya. Therefore it looks as though the UNSC meeting was to change the objectives of 1973(2011) and the conditions it imposes to make it lawful and allow NATO to support the operation. The presumptive nature of the NATO Secretary General's announcement was either a sign of confidence that an agreement would be reached or an attempt to rail road Turkey into compliance without an agreement being reached using the old diplomatic trick of; "If we say it loudly enough and often enough we will make it true."

Today (25/3/11) the UN Secretary General appears to have had his tune changed and now thinks that 1973(2011) is being effective in reducing civilian deaths. This indicates that Britain, France and possible the USA have been throwing their weight around. So while accepting that I, possibly, don't have a right to know what happened at the UNSC meeting the UN should at least brief Turkey and the other non-represented NATO members because surely no-one actually trusts Britain and France to be honest with them.








*I know that there has been fighting in multiple areas of Libya. This is because after taking power Qaddafi has actually worked very hard trying to break down tribal barriers. As a result, 40 years on, there is a level of integration amongst Libya's tribes especially in the cities. It's a shame Qaddafi didn't realise that trying to make the world a better place is normally what gets the Brits reaching for their guns.