Legality of Libyan Intervention: Varadarajan's Half-Truths

I wish to draw attention to Siddharth Varadarajan's op-ed today titled "Odyssey Dawn, a Homeric Tragedy". As I pointed out in an earlier post, the Iraq invasion is not quite analogous to the Libyan situation today. Nor for that matter is the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The Israeli attack on Gaza was a response to the rocket attacks from Hamas-controlled Gaza. Much has been written about the Goldstone report and its findings and I will not go into that here. It suffices that the point is being made here in a purely rhetorical sense and has no direct bearing on the Libyan question.

With regard to the UN Security Council resolution 1973, this is what he says:

The problem with UNSCR 1973 is not the in-built ‘mission creep' but the fact that it is ultra vires. No resolution can violate the principles and purpose of the U.N. Charter. Article 2(7) is quite explicit: “Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state.”

This is a very selective reading of the relevant provision of the UN Charter. Article 2(7) states:

Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require the Members to submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter; but this principle shall not prejudice the application of enforcement measures under Chapter Vll.

The last part of the provision has been conveniently left out of his quotation. As the text of UNSC Resolution 1973 clearly states, it is precisely under this Chapter VII that the Security Council has acted. Article 39 empowers the Security Council to determine "any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or acts of aggression" and decide upon measures to maintain or restore international peace and security. These words guarantee broad powers to the Security Council and there are past resolutions which have been triggered by internal disturbances in various countries. Particularly since the end of the Cold War, a broad definition of threat to the peace as a positive concept (as opposed to a negative absence-of-war notion) is fairly apparent in resolutions and Presidential statements. It is therefore eminently debatable whether this is indeed a violation of the UN Charter as claimed.

Varadarajan is nostalgic for the Saddam Hussein regime:

Like the Iraqis who foolishly welcomed the American invasion of their country in 2003, the Libyans who wanted Operation Odyssey Dawn may well end up taking part in a tragedy of Homeric proportions.

He should tell that to the Iraqi Shia who have just been empowered, the Kurds and the Iranians who fought against the Baathist dispensation. If Gaddafi is overthrown, I doubt likewise that there would be many who would miss him.