The Libyan No Fly Zone – Is Abstinence The Best Policy? Russia and China Say “Yes”

Silence. Not Golden.  On March 17th, the Libyan No Fly Zone resolution, UN Security Council Resolution 1973 passed the UN Security Council 10-0 with five abstentions. Abstaining were all four of the so-called BRIC countries: Brazil, the Russian Federation, India, and China, with Germany as the fifth abstainer, in all, they represent 3.3 billion people, 48% of the world’s population. And they all chose to remain officially abstinent when it came to a vote, neither approving, nor disapproving UNSC Resolution 1973. However, when the UN ambassadors of countries representing nearly 50% of the masses goes silent, and when two of them, Russia and China are permanent members, something needs explaining. And explain they did.

UNSC Resolution 1973 authorized, under Chapter VII of the UN Charter, “all necessary measures to enforce compliance with the ban on flights.”  In addition, 1973 allows:

. . . all necessary measures, notwithstanding paragraph 9 of resolution 1970 (2011), to protect civilians and civilian populated areas under threat of attack in the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, including Benghazi, while excluding a foreign occupation force of any form on any part of Libyan territory. . .

China’s Shout Across The Bow.  Following the vote, China’s UN Ambassador Li Baodong, explained his abstention to the People’s Daily.

“The continuing worsening of the situation in Libya has the great concern of China. We support the Security Council’s adoption of appropriate and necessary action to stabilize as soon as possible the situation in Libya and to halt acts of violence against civilians.

China & Russia Question UN Res. 1973:

how will the NFZ be maintained?

how would it be enforced and by whom?

what are the terms of engagement?

In the Security Council’s consultations on Resolution 1973, we and some other council members asked some specific questions. However, regrettably, many of those questions failed to be clarified or answered. China has serious difficulty with part of the resolution.

Meanwhile, China attaches great importance to the relevant decision by the 22-member Arab league on the establishment of a no-fly zone over Libya. We also attach great importance to the position of African countries and the African Union.

In view of this and considering the special circumstance surrounding the situation in Libya, China abstained during the vote on the resolution, Resolution 1973. We support the secretary-general’s special envoy for Libya and the African Union and the Arab League in their continuing efforts to address by peaceful means the current crisis in Libya.” [Italics added]

Russia’s Shout Across The Bow.  To Pravda.org, the UN envoy of the Russian Federation, Vitaly Churkin, explained Russia’s position on the No Fly Zone resolution:

“We strongly support the consistent and unconditional protection of civilians. According to this principle and essential humanitarian values Russia shares with co-authors of the project and other members of the Security Council, Russia has not stopped its adoption.”  Citing the failure of the Security Council to answer Russia’s questions about the resolution, Churkin mentioned that the “absolutely logical and specific questions regarding maintenance of the exclusion zone area had no response.” [Italics added] 

Pravda’s reporter, Timothy Bancroft-Hinchey, wrote:

[Churkin] stated that work on the resolution was not in tune with the practice of the Security Council, with many questions remaining unanswered, including how it would be enforced and by whom, and what are the terms of engagement. His country did not prevent the adoption of the resolution, but he was convinced that an immediate ceasefire would be the best way to prevent loss of life. Russia, in fact, had pressed for an earlier resolution calling for a cease-fire that could have saved many more lives. Cautioning against unforeseen consequences, he stressed that there was a need to avoid destabilizing the region.

Russia thus did not veto the draft resolution because she wanted to act according to the basic principles of the UN including the protection of civilians, said Vitaly Churkin. However, he also said that another resolution, proposed by the Russian Federation on March 16, on the need to appeal for a ceasefire in Libya (which happened today) has not, unfortunately, “received support from other partners more interested in measures of force.”

[Churkin went on,] “The final document has nothing to do with the original that was proposed, which contained references to a large-scale military intervention, which the Russian Federation and its partners (Germany, Brazil, China PR, India) avoided.” [Italics added] 

UN Report.  The United Nations Security Council released an unofficial record summary of the session that approved the resolution.  The report included a one paragraph item featuring China and Russia. It tracks well the comments to the People’s Daily and Pravda cited above:

The representatives of China and the Russian Federation, explaining their abstentions, prioritized peaceful means of resolving the conflict and said that many questions had not been answered in regard to provisions of the resolution, including, as the Russian representative put it, how and by whom the measures would be enforced and what the limits of the engagement would be. He said the resolution included a sorely needed ceasefire, which he had called for earlier. China had not blocked the action with a negative vote in consideration of the wishes of the Arab League and the African Union, its representative said.

There’s a hard place in Yemen.



 The forces that may be brought to bear on a post-Qadaffi Libya potentially include the big players, including the Russian Federation, China, and an Arab League that may feel it has again been betrayed by the European and American powers. This is no Bay of Pigs, it’s no Vietnam, it’s certainly no Grenada or Panama. Let’s hope Operation Odyssey Dawn doesn’t slip into another Afghanistan, or worse, doesn’t encourage more violent reactions throughout the region, not merely within indiginous countries in the region, but in Europe, the U.S., and against those who are like us or our allies, and perceived as enemies by many in the Middle East.  In effect, today, we’ve already crossed the threshold to this God knows what . . .

Please follow and like us: