Why did India Brazil Germany abstain in UNSC resolution on no fly zone on Libya?

Answer 1

I have taken the summary of comments from the UN website. There are some similarities to the three absentions. India stresses lack of information. Brazil, India and Germany also include unintended consequences from the action. On the issue of unintended consequences, the statement by Germany is the strongest.

Related link is attached.

(1) MANJEEV SINGH PURI ( India), explaining his abstention, expressed great concern over the welfare of the population of Libya and supported the appointment of the Secretary-General's Envoy. The report of that Envoy and that of others had not yet been received. As a consequence, today's resolution was based on very little clear information, including a lack of certainty regarding who was going to enforce the measures. There must be certainty that negative outcomes were not likely before such wide-ranging measures were adopted. Political efforts must be the priority in resolving the situation.

(2) MARIA LUIZA RIBERIO VIOTTI (Brazil) said her delegation was deeply concerned about the situation in Libya and regretted that the "strong message" sent by resolution 1970 (2011) had note yet been heeded. The Brazilian Government had earlier condemned the violence being carried out by Libyan authorities and had called on them to uphold and protect the right of free expression of the protesters and to seek a solution to the crisis through meaningful dialogue. Her delegation's vote today should in no way be interpreted as condoning the behaviour of the Libyan authorities or as disregard for the need to protect civilians and respect for their rights.

She said that while Brazil stood in solidarity with all movements in the region expressing their legitimate demands for better governance, and had taken into account the Arab League's call for strong measures to stop the violence through a no-fly zone, it believed that the resolution contemplated measures that went beyond that call. "We are not convinced that the use of force as provided for in operative paragraph 4 of the present resolution will lead to the realization of our common objective - the immediate end of violence and the protection of civilians," she said, adding that Brazil was also concerned that the measures approved today might have the unintended effect of exacerbating the current tensions on the ground and "causing more harm than good to the very same civilians we are committed to protecting". No military action alone would succeed in ending the conflict. Protecting civilians, ensuring lasting settlement and addressing the legitimate demands of Libyan citizens demanded a political process.

(3) PETER WITTIG (Germany) said the Security Council's intention was to stop the violence in Libya and send a message to Colonel Qadhafi and his associates "that their time is over [and] they must relinquish power immediately". While the Council acted on Libya, North Africa was undergoing major political changes, meriting the international community's full support. The aim should be to promote political transition in Libya, stop the violence and begin a true political process. "The people of Libya who have so clearly expressed their aspirations for democracy should be supported," he said, adding that the Interim National Council was an important interlocutor in that regard.

He said his country was particularly concerned by the plight of the Libyan people and believed it was crucial to tighten existing sanctions to "cut [the Libyan regime] off" from the funds that had propped it up for so long. Decisions regarding the use of military force were always extremely difficult to take. Indeed, in the implementation of the resolution just adopted, Germany saw great risks, and the likelihood of large-scale loss of life should not be underestimated. Those that participated in its implementation could be drawn into a protracted military conflict that could draw in the wider region. If the resolution failed, it would be wrong to assume that any military intervention would be quickly and efficiently carried out. Germany had decided not to support the resolution and would not contribute its own forces to any military effort that arose from its implementation. Germany had abstained from the vote.