Ashleigh Pisani for THE GUARDIAN
In the second session of today’s Security Council, conversation turned to whether or not intervening in Libya was legal and in the best interests of Libya and the world as a whole.
There was a clear split in opinion with delegates from the United States, the United Kingdom and Australia unequivocal in their support for humanitarian intervention.
They disputed claims it would breach Libya’s sovereignty, arguing that it had been rendered void by their inability to manage the situation on the ground.
In their view, the situation was akin to a civil war.
Australia personally pledged millions of dollars in humanitarian aid however expressed their discomfort in sending aid workers given the previous reports of kidnappings and beheadings.
While those from Chad, Nigeria and Chile had serious reservations about the undertaking of any intervention.
Chad claimed that there was no evidence that Libya was unable to manage the situation and was hesitant in offering a “blank cheque.”
Nigeria interjected that the United States’ concern for the Benghazi oil fields was purely self-interest, rather than the humanitarian implications of their capture by ISIS.
However, the delegate from the United Kingdom questioned how the Security Council could stand by while the people of Libya are raped and murdered.
He said it is urgent that the Security Council pass a resolution in order to save those who are being affected by this new terrorist threat.