The InterDependent

It takes only a cursory glance at the voting in the Security Council for a resolution that threatens Libya with immediate military action to understand how groundbreaking Thursday night’s session was.

If proof of the impact of the council vote were needed, consider that within hours the government of Col. Muammar Qaddafi had ordered a cease-fire, railed against countries that voted to stop his ruthless military campaign against relatively lightly armed political protestors trying to overthrow him and thanked the “friends” who stood by his regime and abstained in the vote. Apart from Russia and China, always wary of inviting outside intervention anywhere but whose abstentions nonetheless removed the threat of a veto, those friends included Brazil, Germany and India. There weren't any no votes.

In the 10-0 tally, with 5 abstentions, Bosnia, Colombia, France, Gabon, Lebanon, Nigeria, Portugal, South Africa, Britain and the United States all voted for the resolution, which the British and French has been advocating strenuously in recent days, as Libyan forces threatened the protestors’ stronghold of Benghazi.

The representative of India, which is seeking a permanent seat on the Security Council, gave the lame excuse that there wasn’t enough credible information about events on the ground or on the plans about how to enforce the resolution. Germany shies away from military intervention, as does Brazil, though the Brazilians play a large role in United Nations peacekeeping.

Paulo Filgueiras/UN Photo

Ibrahim O. A. Dabbashi, deputy permanent representative of Libya to the UN, briefed reporters on March 17 after the Security Council’s adoption of a resolution authorizing the use of military force—including a no-fly zone—in his country, where civilians remain under attack by Col. Muammar Qaddafi's forces. Adopted with 10 yes votes and 5 abstentions (Brazil, China, Germany, India and Russia), the resolution also calls for an immediate cease-fire, widens the assets freeze against senior Libyan officials and creates a panel of experts to monitor whether the sanctions are carried out. Dabbashi broke with the Qaddafi regime last month.

Especially noteworthy was the lineup of African nations that backed military intervention in Libya, a reflection of the continent’s longstanding annoyance and disgust with the antics of Qaddafi, who once declared himself king of all Africans. South Africa joined fellow Africans, a significant change in its position on the council, where some expected it to join the Brazilians and Indians in refusing to back the action.

Arab nations had demanded the Security Council action, another stark break with tradition. But, again, Arab governments, like many in Africa, had no love or even respect for the Qaddafi regime. Whatever the reason, Arab calls for action opened the way for the council to move without adding to already high tensions in the Middle East.

In working the council membership like the crack politicians and effective diplomats they are, US Ambassador Susan Rice and her British and French counterparts (buttressed by the French foreign minister, Alain Juppé) demonstrated that the core of a North Atlantic partnership remains strong.

The moment may have been unique and may not last. But the Obama administration, working within a truly global environment at the UN, was able to demonstrate in the case of Libya its frequently articulated belief that these are the times when international agreement and action is essential in meeting a crisis where many lives are at stake. The Security Council has not only referred the Libyan regime to the International Criminal Court for possible prosecution but has also made it possible to take drastic action in the near term to stop the colonel from annihilating his opposition.