Security Council considers situation in southern Mediterranean, adjourns in March without taking action.

Security Council considers situation in southern Mediterranean, adjourns in March without taking action

The Security Council met four times in March to discuss the situation between the United States and the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya in the southern Mediterranean.

Bulgaria and the USSR on 31 March submitted a draft resolution to the Council by which it would express deep concern regarding "the threat to peace and security in the southern Mediterranean' that had arisen as a result of the "attack by United States armed forces against the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya'. The Council also would firmly condemn "the act of armed aggression' against Libya as a "blatant violation' of the Charter and the norms of international law.

Under that text (S/17954), on which no action was taken by 31 March, the Council would also demand an immediate halt to "any hostile actions' against Libya's territorial integrity, sovereignty and political independence', and demand that the United States immediately withdraw its armed forces from the area. The Council would consider that Libya was entitled to appropriate compensation for loss of life and damage to property resulting from the "act of aggression'.

Council President Ole Bierring (Denmark) said the next Council meeting on the subject would take place in consultation with the Council President for the month of April, Claude de Kemoularia of France.

The Council began its consideration of the situation on 26 March, at the individual requests of Malta, the USSR and Iraq, in its capacity as Chairman of the Arab Group.

Malta asked that the Council discuss "the grave situation which has arisen in the Central Mediterranean' and consider appropriate action "to reduce tension and restore peace and stability in the region'. The USSR request called for consideration of "the question entitled the situation in the southern Mediterranean''. The Arab Group request referred to "the question of the United States aggression against the Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya'.

On 24 March, Libya, in a letter to the Secretary-General (A/41/231), cited "provocative military manoeuvres conducted by the United States off the Libyan coast'. The resumption of those manoeuvres and "the threat of aggression' against Libya's sovereignty confirmed the "hostile intentions' of the United States towards Libya, the letter stated. That "dangerous undertaking' jeopardized "peace in the region, if not throughout the world', Libya said.

Libya said it felt obliged to "prepare to apply the provisions of Article 51 of the Charter', with "full responsibility in this matter resting on the United States'. (Article 51 asserts the right of self-defence for every Member State.)

Libya also said that because of the United States veto, the Security Council was no longer able to assume its responsibilities or to play its role in maintaining international peace and security. It therefore had "no other choice in protecting its security and integrity than to resort to its own strength'.

On 25 March, the United States, in a letter to the Council President (S/17938), said that, in accordance with Article 51, its forces had exercised their right of self-defence by responding to "hostile Libyan military attacks in international waters in the Gulf of Sidra'. United States forces had exercised "great restraint'. Only after several missiles had been launched by Libya had the United States reacted. In the ensuing action, two Libyan naval vessels had been disabled in an area where the United States fleet was operating. Key components of the missile complex at Sirte from which SA-5 missiles had been fired had also been damaged, the United States stated.

The United States protested the "unjustified attacks' against American naval units operating in and/or above international waters "in the exercise of the freedom of navigation under international law and in accordance with a standard "notification of intent' filed with the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO)'. Those operations in no way had threatened Libya's security. Similar operations had been conducted many times over the last few years. Any further attacks against United States forces operating in and over international waters off Libya would also be "resisted with force if necessary', the United States stated.

On 25 March, Secretary-General Javier Perez de Cuellar expressed great concern that the military action had occurred in the Gulf of Sidra area.

Debate

Vernon A. Walters (United States) said Libya had flouted international law and the Charter by using "lethal force' to assert its claim in the Gulf of Sidra. United States forces, engaged in a peaceful freedom-of-navigation exercise in international waters, had been subjected to "unprovoked and unjustified' attack by Libyan forces, which had launched six surface-to-air missiles against United States vessels and aircraft. The United States had responded to that unjustified attack by a proportionate exercise of its right of self-defence.

The Libyan claim to control navigation through international waters, as well as flights through international airspace, had no basis in customary practice or international law. As a matter of long-standing policy, the United States conducted naval and air exercises in waters and airspace in every part of the globe. It had been in the Gulf of Sidra 16 times since 1981, and below the line claimed as a boundard by Libya seven times before the current operation. Libya's "indefensible claim' in the Gulf of Sidra and its "flagrant attacks' on those exercising their rights to navigate in and fly over the Gulf's international waters had caused "this conflict'. By entering the Gulf of Sidra, the United States was defending freedom of navigation for all nations.

Rajob A. Azzarouk (Libyan Arab Jamahiriya) said the United States had brought the situation in the eastern Mediterranean to "the brink of explosion'. The United States Sixth Fleet had engaged in manoeuvres which violated Libya's sovereignty; it had entered Libya's territorial waters and had bombarded parts of Libyan territory. Since the beginning of 1986, the United States Fleet had carried out four sets of manoeuvres adjacent to the Libyan coast. Since 1981, more than 18 exercises had been carried out in the area. More than 30 warships had engaged in shows of force or at least a threat to use force. Since the beginning of "this series of terroristic acts', the United States has not concealed its intention to undermine Libyans' legitimate rights or its desire to violate Libya's sovereignty through force. The United States position was not one of self-defence, for Libya was thousands of kilometres from it.

With its "policy of aggression', the United States had seen fit to establish almost permanently alongside the coasts of Libya and other small Mediterranean States fleets of warships targeted on those coasts. Libya had opposed the United States' "hegemonistic policies' and the subjugation of small States through the threat or use of force. The United States had used that fact to seek, wrongly, to justify its actions as self-defence. United States aggression against Libya was "a grave precedent' which other States might use in the future.

The Mediterranean Sea should become a zone of peace and co-operation and all military fleets should be withdrawn from that area. Libya called on all coastal States of the Mediterranean to continue to oppose the presence of the United States fleet in the Mediterranean. The United States activities were contrary to the rule of law and peaceful co-operation.

Council members: Yuri V. Dubinin (USSR) said an "extremely dangerous situation' had arisen as a result of the United States' "provocative, aggressive actions' against Libya. The "premeditated nature of this bandit-like attack' could not be doubted. Libya for a long time had been the target of "undisguised American military, political and economic blackmail'. American officials had discussed publicly ways of "physically eliminating the Libyan leadership'. Washington was displeased at Libya's "independent, anti-imperialist policy' and its opposition to attempts by the United States and Israel to impose "separate capitulationist deals' on the Arabs. The "imperialist offensive' had as its targets all developing countries and the NonAligned Movement.

Ivan Garvalov (Bulgaria) said the United States had made no secret of its intention to provoke Libya and to show the world "its might and impunity'. The military conflict in the Gulf of Sidra, "planned and engineered from start to finish by the Pentagon', was evidence of the irresponsibility of the United States Administration, "driven by a dangerous and morbid ambition to play the role of the world's policeman and to "punish' inconvenient sovereign States'. The United States had adopted an "imperial and militaristic approach' in its policy towards independent States whose foreign policy was not to Washington's liking.

Sir John Thomson (United Kingdom) said the main principle at stake was the right to freedom of navigation in international waters. There was scarcely a country in the world that supported Libya's "illegal restrictions'--its "line of death'--in the Gulf of Sirte, or Sidra. The United States was exercising its right to the freedom of navigation in international waters and air space in accordance with international law. Libya's attack on the United States aircraft was unjustified, and the United States response was proportionate and legitimate.

Claude de Kemoularia (France) said Libya's claims to sovereignty over the Gulf of Sidra were without foundation in history and were unjustified under the 1958 and 1982 Conventions on the Law of the Sea. Any threat of armed intervention, and a fortiori any direct intervention, designed to enforce territorial claims of that kind must be ruled out. France hoped that the principles of international law, especially those relating to freedom of navigation in international space, would be safeguarded in a peaceful fashion to avoid military confrontations, the consequences of which were difficult to control.

Li Luye (China) was deeply concerned that the United States Navy had conducted frequent military manoeuvres in the waters near Libya, subjecting that country to military threat and aggravating the tension in the Mediterranean area. The United States attack against Libya violated norms governing international relations. The United States should cease forthwith its military threat against Libya, so as to alleviate tension and restore peace and stability to the region. Both sides should resolve their differences peacefully, in accordance with the United Nations Charter.

Martin Adouki (Congo) said the United States attacks against Libyan ships and territory were part of "the disquieting logic of military confrontation and political destabilization'. Appropriate machinery and procedures to settle peacefully justified complaints of one State against another were available. The status of maritime spaces subject to non-exclusive rights should be determined within the framework of the 1958 and 1982 Conventions on the Law of the Sea and other relevant international law.

Mohammad Hussain Al-Shaali (United Arab Emirates) said plans for the premeditated attack against Libya had been hatched many years ago. The American authorities were publicly discussing how best to end the Libyan regime. The assertion of freedom of navigation was not the United States' top priority. No individual State could arrogate to itself responsibility for imposing respect for international law. The American manoeuvres in the Gulf of Sidra were designed to provoke, the attack against Libya was premeditated, the entire action was unlawful, illegal and unjustifiable, and the use of force was totally out of proportion to the situation. The problem was one of arbitrary use of force by a major Power against a small State.

Other views: George Agius (Malta) appealed to the parties to seek a solution through negotiation, inquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, resort to regional agencies or arrangements, or other peaceful means of their own choice. The use of force or threats to enforce claims in disputed waters could not be condoned, particularly in the case of an attempt by a United Nations Member to exercise what it considered to be its rights in international waters thousands of miles away from its territory. Malta, like other States, could not accept or recognize the contention that the Gulf of Sidra south of a line drawn along latitude 32.30 North 0 was part of Libyan territory or fell under Libyan sovereignty but regarded the recourse to a military solution as unacceptable.

Natarajan Krishnan (India), speaking also on behalf of the Movement of Non-Aligned Countries, said the United States manoeuvres in the Gulf of Sidra and its attack on Libya was unfortunate, since it had a primary responsibility to maintain international peace and security and abide by Charter principles. Non-aligned countries on 26 March in New York had expressed their grave concern over provocations and use of force against Libya, had condemned those acts of aggression, and demanded an urgent cessation of military operations. Enduring peace in the region must be based on an acceptance of the principles of political and socio-economic pluralism by States, not only for themselves but also for the region as a whole, and a strict adherence to the principles of non-use of force, non-intervention and non-interference.

Clovis Maksoud of the League of Arab States strongly condemned the deployment of the American warships in the Gulf of Sidra, which violated conditions of international security in that region. Libya's complaint was shared by the entire Arab world because a threat to one Arab State threatened the national security of the entire Arab world.

Photo: Mr. Walters

Photo: Mr. Azzarouk