By Matthew Russell Lee
WASHINGTON DC, April 14 -- While at its April 14 briefing the US State Department on Libya was primarily asked why it is not arming or funding the rebels, giving more planes or even “whacking” Gaddafi, described as “fist pumping” in a convertible in Tripoli, Inner City Press ask State Department spokesman Mark Toner if allowing funds to the rebels might not result in violations of the arms embargo in UN Security Council resolution 1970.
While the idea is that arming the rebels would require another resolution, beyond 1973, Toner replied that arming the rebels is legal. See transcript:
MR. TONER: We believe that – our understanding of the sanctions and what was prohibited, that this was – this action was legal, that it was lawful.
Inner City Press: How about the arms embargo? How does – I mean, if this – both revenue streams, do you feel that the arms embargo under Resolution 1970, which is a total arms embargo on the country, is this something that you would be discussing with (inaudible)? Do you think – you keep saying that the revenue stream is only for the operation of the government.
MR. TONER: We’ve talked about this before, and what we’ve said is that 1970 – taken in totality, 1970 and 1973 – that it is permissible to get arms to the opposition, and that’s something that remains on the table, certainly. We’ve never taken that option away.
Inner City Press: And could I ask you about visas, too? So also on Libya, there – I’ve tried to ask this to the mission in New York --
MR. TONER: Yeah.
Inner City Press: -- but there was – there were stories saying that Ali Treki, who is the former foreign minister of Libya, was denied a U.S. visa, more recent stories saying that D’Escoto Brockmann, who was named to represent Libya, couldn’t get a visa. Is that true? And what’s the visa status of the two diplomats who left?
MR. TONER: D’Escoto Brockmann is the Nicaraguan?
Inner City Press: Nicaraguan. Absolutely.
MR. TONER: Okay. Yeah. I’m trying to remember, but this is a couple weeks ago, I believe, when this was in the news. But we had very real concerns about his status, and I believe we were looking into it, but at the same time, obviously, complying with our obligations as a host nation for the UN. But we felt that he had – we had concerns – there were concerns about his status here that needed to be addressed. I don’t know what the exact status is today of that, though. I’d have to check.
Inner City Press: (Inaudible) the Nicaraguan? His --
MR. TONER: Yes, the Nicaraguan. As far as the Libyan --
Inner City Press: The representatives – yeah, Shalgam and Dabbashi.
MR. TONER: -- representative – I’m not sure what the status of that is. I’ll have to check for you.
Inner City Press: : Okay. Yeah, thanks.
Seven hours later there still was no answered. And while an official of the US Mission to the UN, which has rebuffed Press questions about visas for some time, told Inner City Press that on Libya the legality of UN envoy al Khatib also being paid by Jordan would be publicly addressed this week, it hasn't been. We'll see -- watch this site.
