Is it legal to send arms to Libyan rebels under the current UN resolution (#1973)?

The international community is divided over the issue. The US, Britain and France say the resolution could allow for arming rebels. NATO, Russia, China and Belgium disagree, fearing that providing weapons could fule a civil war.   

French Foreign Minister Alain Juppe set the tone at the London conference when he said on Tuesday that France was prepared to hold discussions on delivering arms to the rebels. 

US Secretary General Hilary Clinton said the resolution, which allows the use of force to protect Libyan civilians, is broad enough to allow for the delivery of arms to Gaddafi's opponents.

Clinton said that although UN sanctions prohibit the delivery of arms to Libya, the ban no longer applies. "It is our interpretation that (UN Security Council resolution) 1973 amended or overrode the absolute prohibition on arms to anyone in Libya, so that there could be a legitimate transfer of arms if a country should choose to do that," she said.  

British Prime Minister David Cameron also said in London that the option of arming the rebellion had not been ruled out. Asked in parliament what Britain's policy was on arming the rebels, given the UN arms embargo on Libya, Cameron replied: "We do not rule it out but we have not taken the decision to do so."

Rebels want arms

Libyan rebel forces are increasingly locked into a pattern of advancing and retreating with government troops loyal to Muammar Gaddafi. Coalition air strikes have paved the way for many of those counter-offensives.

Now the rebels want help in the form of arms. "We want (the West) to give us weapons so we can fight," rebel fighter Yunes Abdelghaim said.

Russia and NATO have now both clearly stated their position - that the operation in Libya is being staged to protect the population, not to arm it. Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said Moscow believed that foreign powers did not have the right to do so under the mandate approved  by the UN Security Council.

Belgium, too, voiced its opposition to sending arms to Libya, warning that the move could alienate Arab nations. And in Beijing, China's President Hu Jintao warned French President Nicolas Sarkozy that air strikes on Libya could violate the "original  intention" of the UN resolution if civilians suffer.

Illegal arms

So would it be legitimate for individual member states like the US, Britain or France to take the initiative in sending weapons to the rebels unilaterally?

Defence expert Cees Homan from the Dutch Clingendael Institute says No. "In my opinion that is illegal.
When you want to deliver arms to rebels you need a new resolution from the UN Security Council which mandates the delivery of arms to the rebels", he said.   

A spokesman for the rebel Transitional National Council, Mustafa Ghuriani, declined to confirm or deny that France and the United  States were offering to supply arms, saying only that unspecified "friendly  nations" were backing the rebels.

US President Barack Obama, who has laid out a moral imperative for protecting Libyan civilians caught in the battle, also said he did not rule out arming the rebels. "I'm not ruling it out. But I'm also not ruling it in. We're still making an assessment partly about what Gaddafi's forces are going to be doing," Obama said.

Meanwhile – the question of whether or not resolution #1973 provides for arming the population as well as protecting it, is one which divides world leaders.