President Barack Obama last night boasted about American leadership in toppling Libyan leader Muammar al-Qaddafi, reopening the debate about whether it was the United States or France and Britain that deserved credit for overthrowing Africa's longest ruling dictator.

"I and Americans took leadership in organizing an international coalition that made sure that we were able to -- without putting troops on the ground, at the cost of less than what we spent in two weeks in Iraq -- liberate a country that had been under the yoke of dictatorship for 40 years, got rid of a despot who had killed Americans," Obama said in the final presidential debate. "And as a consequence, despite this tragedy, you had tens of thousands of Libyans after the events in Benghazi marching and saying, ‘America's our friend.'"

"This is an example of -- of how we make choices, you know, when we went into Libya and we were able to immediately stop the massacre there because of the unique circumstances and the coalition that we had helped to organize, we also had to make sure that Muammar Qaddafi didn't stay there," he said. "Muammar Qaddafi had more American blood on his hands than any individual other than Osama bin Laden. And so we were going to make sure that we finished the job."

The American claim to having led the effort has always irritated the French and British, who first mounted a diplomatic campaign at the U.N. Security Council to impose a no-fly zone over Libya to prevent Qaddafi from using his aircraft to attack civilians. The United States initially refused to participate in that effort and the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, Susan Rice, repeatedly criticized the European initiative as feckless.

One top European diplomat denounced Washington's claims of leadership over the Libya campaign as "revisionist history." This morning, Washington Post columnist Richard Cohen weighed in, arguing that Obama's claims of having led the coalition in Libya was among the most dishonest claims of the entire foreign policy debate.

President Obama "strongly suggested that he had America take the lead in Libya, organizing the air campaign that brought down Moammar Gaddafi. In fact, the French took the lead and the United States followed, which gave rise the phrase "leading from behind" -- an indictable offense, if you ask me. Obama also suggested that Gaddafi was some sort of American enemy when actually Washington had cut a deal with the Libyan strongman and then-secretary of state Condoleezza Rice had met with him in 2008."

So what actually happened? I covered the diplomatic deliberations over the war against Libya. And while the United States initially provided little diplomatic support to their European allies' push for a no-fly zone ( and largely kept them in the dark about internal U.S. deliberations on the use of force), it ultimately took charge of the diplomatic effort at the U.N., and pursued a far more aggressive military approach than that advocated by the Europeans.

In March, 2011, pro-Qaddafi forces advanced on the rebel stronghold of Benghazi, preparing to deliver a decisive blow that could have crushed the nascent armed resistance and led to the slaughter of large numbers of civilians. 

Britain and France, with the backing of Lebanon, labored in solitude behind the scenes in New York to rally support for a resolution that would have imposed a no-fly zone over Libya, but received virtually no support from the United States.

"The Americans haven't yet defined their position on Libya," the frustrated then French Foreign Minister Alain Juppe told a French parliamentary foreign affairs committee on March 15, 2011, two daysbefore the council acted. "Never mind that there's European impotence, but what about American power? What about Russian power? What's China's power over Libya?"

France's irritation stemmed from a perception that President Obama's national security team was hesitant to participate in an air operation to protect civilians. Even as the White House labored in internal discussions toward considering a military approach, Rice peppered her colleagues in the Security Council with so many questions and conditions -- we won't go in without the Arabs, for instance -- that some suspected she was trying to kill off the initiative.

Two days before the air campaign was ultimately authorized, France's U.N. ambassador, Gerard Araud, informed Rice that European governments would push for a vote on a resolution creating a no-fly zone, with or without America's support.

Rice, who lacked instructions from Washington to rally support for a military response, was not prepared to support her European allies, according to council diplomats. "You're not going to drag us into your shitty war," Rice snapped, according to an account by a senior council diplomat. Araud shot back: "We are not a subsidiary of the United States."

But the winds shifted after the Arab League threw its support behind the no-fly zone and the prospects of a mass killing in eastern Libya grew, placing the United States in the position of having to choose whether to back a military response, or step aside.

Following the conversation between Rice and Araud, the United States held a high-level teleconference with Obama's top national security team, including Rice and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who had just met with Arab leaders, agreed to intervene. Rice, who had a deep skepticism about the European approach, mounted a far more aggressive campaign for a resolution authorizing air strikes against Libyan forces to prevent the slaughter of civilians. Within two days, Rice had secured narrow 10-5 vote in favor of military force, underscoring the tenuous international support, but sufficient to launch the air war, which ultimately helped the rebels over throw Qaddafi.

A senior administration official said that the off-color encounter with Araud didn't "ring a bell" with Rice. But the official defended Rice's handling of the Libya file. The British and French were unaware that at the time she was questioning the wisdom of their approach -- which she called a "naked no-fly zone" -- that she was arguing for far tougher action in the White House, and that she had discretely advised her staff weeks earlier to draft a resolution authorizing sweeping military powers, according to the senior U.S. diplomat. (The contents of the draft have never been published.)

"There were some colleagues who were supportive of action who quite frankly thought we were trying to poison this, that we were trying to up the ante so far that we blew it up," Rice told me last year. "But we were dead serious and we believed this couldn't be half hearted. It had to be for real if it was worth doing."

Fair enough. But the notion that the United States led the U.N. effort in Libya continues to grate on the nerves of some European diplomats who felt the Americans left their closest allies in the dark until the final decision to act.

Follow me on Twitter @columlynch

Libya's president Mohammed Magarief today contradicted American claims that the deadly attack on the U.S. consulate was a spontaneous reaction to an anti-Islamic film, telling NBC's Anne Curry in an interview broadcast this morning.

"It has nothing to do with this attack," said Magarief, noting that the assailants used rocket propelled grenades and mortar fire in the attack. "It's a preplanned act of terrorism against American citizens."

The remarks came more than one week after Susan Rice, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, argued that the attack, which killed four American nationals, including U.S. ambassador J. Christopher Stevens, had been triggered by popular anger from Libyan Muslims offended by the film.

"Our current best assessment, based on the information that we have at present, is that, in fact, what this began as, it was a spontaneous -- not a premeditated -- response to what had transpired in Cairo," Rice told ABC's "This Week." "We believe that folks in Benghazi, a small number of people came to the...consulate...to replicate that sort of challenge that was posed in Cairo. And then as that unfolded, it seems to have been hijacked, let us say, by some individual clusters of extremists who came with heavier weapons."

Rice's account has come under scrutiny in the following days as the administration's explanation for the attack evolved.

Republicans have criticized the account of the attack, suggesting that the Obama administration is seeking to mask the facts. They have seized on the fact that President Barack Obama has not characterized the attack as an act of terror, even though other senior administration officials have, including Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Matthew Olsen, the director of the National Counterterrorism Center.

"It is troubling that President Obama refuses to call the Libya attacks on the anniversary of 9/11 an act of terror," said Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus. "For weeks President Obama and his administration have failed to acknowledge the facts behind the Libya attack."

Asked to explain the discrepancy, Rice's office referred Turtle Bay to White House spokesman Jay Carney's reaction to the Libyan president claim that the U,S. consulate had been targeted in a pre-planned terror attack. "Over the course of the past two weeks, this administration has provided as much information as it has been able to."

"It continues to be the case that we provided information based on what we know -- not based on speculation but based on what we know -- acknowledging that we are continuing an investigation that will undoubtedly uncover more facts, and as more facts and more details emerge we will, when appropriate, provide them to you."

Follow me on Twitter @columlynch

The United Nations marked the death of U.S. Ambassador John Christopher Stevens, Sean Smith, and two other American nationals in Benghazi, Libya, with the customary expressions of condolence invoked when a U.N. member state endures a national tragedy.

The U.N. Security Council duly condemned the "heinous" murder of the American diplomatic delegation. A "saddened" U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon offered his condolences to the United States government and the "bereaved Libyan and American families." And other council diplomats expressed their somber regrets at the untimely murder of colleagues.

But this time, the killing struck closer to home. U.N. Undersecretary General for Political Affairs Jeffrey Feltman, who served until recently as the U.S. assistant secretary of state for Near Eastern Affairs, was a close personal friend and colleague of Stevens at the U.S. State Department.

The U.N. Security Council had played a vital role in shielding Benghazi's residents from certain slaughter at the hands of Muammar al-Qaddafi's forces. In a rare, brief show of unity, the Security Council authorized NATO to use air power against Libyan forces, a move that until led to Qaddafi's overthrow.

The U.S. consulate in Benghazi and the U.S. embassy in Cairo both came under attack from mobs that had allegedly become enraged over the circulation on the Internet of an inflammatory film produced by a man in California who claimed in an interview with the Associated Press that he was an Israeli filmmaker. (The AP has raised questions about his true nationality) But U.S. officials said that the attack in Benghazi may have been planned by extremists inspired by al Qaeda, according to a report in the Washington Post.

After the attack, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton asked the question that was on the minds of many of the U.N.'s Western diplomats. "How could this happen in a country we helped liberate, in a city we helped save from destruction?" she said. "This question reflects just how complicated and, at times, how confounding the world can be."

Speaking outside the U.N. Security Council, Libya's U.N. ambassador Ibrahim Dabbashi conveyed his own government's condolences to the United States and the families of the dead, saying that Stevens had "been a real friend for the Libyan people."

Stevens, he added, "was with us during our fighting against the dictator Qaddafi and his forces. He was very brave in staying in Benghazi."

Dabbashi was at a lost to explain how the ambassador of a government that had supported Libya's liberation could become a target. "As you know, we have to state the reality: the authority of the government is still not covering the whole territory of Libya."

Dabbashi said his government would take "the necessary measures to contain those people ... and bring them to justice." He said that as many as 10 Libyan security forces were either injured or killed during the attack.

Inside the council, the mood was somber as Rosemary di Carlo, the U.S. deputy permanent representative, read out an account of the attack and requested support for a U.S.-drafted Security Council statement condemning the attack. Russia and other delegations that have frequently criticized U.S. backed initiatives on Libya were silent, according to a council diplomat. "Even the hardliners were subdued," the diplomat said. "I think nobody wanted to be in Rosemary's shoes, talking about the death of a colleague."

"The senselessness of if was striking," the official said. "This was not a war; these were people who had committed themselves to the well being of the Libyan people."

But the attack also raised concern among other diplomats about the future of their efforts in Libya, and the persistent diplomatic risks. In April, unidentified attackers targeted a convoy transporting the U.N.'s special representative, Ian Martin, with a roadside bomb. In June, armed groups attacked a British convoy carrying Britain's ambassador to Libya, Dominic Asquith. The British envoy was not armed, but two British bodyguards were injured. 

For now, it remains unclear what impact, if any, Stevens' death will have on the future of the U.N. mission in Libya. "It is too soon to assess the implications for our future posture -- our policy has been to keep a low profile," said one senior U.N. official. Restoring stability in Libya, the official said, will depend on the effectiveness of the country's new prime minister, Mustafa Abu Shagour, who won by a slim margin in a vote today. "The events in Benghazi showed everybody that there are still a lot of challenges out there," said the council diplomat.

Follow me on Twitter @columlynch

As the late Col. Muammar al-Qaddafi's forces prepared to crush the Libyan uprising last summer in Benghazi, Britain, France, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, the United States, and other allies moved quickly to reinforce the beleaguered rebel forces.

With military supplies, training, advice -- and of course the backing of NATO war planes -- this coalition of governments provided critical support to change the course of the conflict, ultimately leading to Qaddafi's downfall.

The U.N. Security Council's arms embargo was primarily intended to constrain Qaddafi's capacity to use its massive oil wealth to import new stocks of weapons and foreign mercenaries to help put down the rebellion. But it also placed restraints on the supply of weapons to the rebels, prompting the Security Council to later introduce an exemption -- providing significant cover for governments seeking to arm the rebels.

A new report by a U.N. panel of experts responsible for monitoring the arms embargo in Libya sought to itemize a list of military supplies -- everything from sandbags to shouldered propelled rockets -- that flowed into Libya after the U.N. Security Council imposed an arms embargo on Libya in February 2011. The list, however, is incomplete because NATO and some of the insurgents' chief military backers, including Qatar and the United Arab Emirates, have refused to provide a full account of their contributions.

The report identified numerous attempts by the Qaddafi regime "to secure arms deals and use mercenaries from neighboring countries," citing reports in the Globe and Mail about a July 2011 visit to Beijing by Libyan officials seeking to purchase military supplies from three Chinese arms manufacturers. (China denied that the talks led to any deals.) The panel also cited reports that much of Libya's military capacity had been reconstituted after 2004, following years of Western and U.N. sanctions, with the aid of Western European countries and ex-Soviet states (The panel also noted that is conducting an ongoing investigation into Qaddafi's use of mercenaries, adding that so far it had found "no conclusive evidence.")

But the 78-page report provides insights into how the international community combined diplomatic pressure, military airpower, and clandestine arms deliveries, to topple a regime. It would not be surprising if some of those countries considering backing the Syrian campaign to overthrow President Bashar al-Assad in Syria are drawing from the same playbook.

The United States

Though U.S. airpower proved decisive in crippling Qaddafi's defenses, the United States maintains that it provided only non-lethal military support to the rebels. The report notes that on February 6, the United States provided the panel with a list of its contributions, including 8,000 uniforms, 8,000 boots, 5,825 load-bearing vests, 2,850 bullet proof vests, 1,975 military helmets, and "items for defensive positions (sandbags, Hescos...)."

Italy

The Italian government notified the panel on February 14 that it supplied 10 military trainers, 10,000 uniforms, 5,400 helmets and 2,800 leather boots.

United Kingdom.

On February 9, the United Kingdom informed the panel that it supplies the rebels with 6,000 sets of body armor and no more than 20 military personnel. The British action, according to the report, was intended to "provide a military assistance team to the Libyan authorities for the purpose of providing operational assistance, training and mentoring on security issues, including reform of the armed services, counter-terrorism and counterinsurgency."

France

In April 2011, the French government notified the United Nations that it had sent a small team of military advisors to Libya to provide the National Transitional Council with "support and advice on ways to organize its internal structure, manage its resources and improve its communications." In June, it went further, notifying the UN that it had "airdropped self-defence weapons for the civilian populations that had been victims of attacks by Libyan armed forces." The panel's report contains no detailed list of these contributions as the French asked it to keep the details confidential.

Albania

The panel said that it has obtained information that several flights operating from Tirana, Albania, transported military materiel to Benghazi over a three day period in September, 2011. The case remains under investigation.

Sudan

One of the more tantalizing revelations in the panel report is the suggestion that Darfuri rebel groups, including members of the Zaghawa tribe and fighters from the Justice and Equality Movement, may have backed Qaddafi's counterinsurgency campaign. The panel said that while it was not able to "definitely corroborate" numerous reports of the military role in the conflict, ‘the accumulative strength of intelligence gives substantial credibility to these findings." No to be outdone, Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir, extended overflight rights over Sudanese territory to NATO, according to senior U.N. diplomats, and allegedly supplied arms to the insurgents, according to the panel. The panel cited claims by the Benghazi rebel defense ministry that Sudan provided "small arms and light weapons such as rocket-propelled grenades," and transported other supplies to Bengazhi on two Ilyushin-76 aircraft. "According to media reports, on 26 October, the President of the Sudan, Omar Al-Bashir, gave a speech in Kasala in which he acknowledged weapons deliveries from the Sudan to Libya and that the weapons had reached revolutionaries in Misratah, Al-Jabal Al-Gharabi and Zawiya." The Sudanese government did not reply to the panel's request for information.

Qatar

In March 2011, Qatar notified the United Nations that it would participate in NATO enforcement of the U.N.-authorized no-fly zone over Libya, contributing "a number of military aircraft, military transport aircraft and helicopters." Qatar categorically denied media reports that "it had supplied the revolutionaries with arms and ammunition," saying only that it had "sent a limited number of military personnel to provide military consultations to the revolutionaries, defend Libyan civilians and protect aid convoys." The only weapons and ammunition it had furnished was for the use of Qatari military advisors in self-defense.

But the Qatari contention had one big hole in it. In July, 2011, a Swiss television station discovered spent Swiss ammunition used by the Libyan revolutionaries. The Swiss ammo had been exported to the Qatar armed forces in 2009 by a Swiss arms company, FGS Frex, and made its way to Libya. Confronted by Swiss authorities, who noted that Qatar was prohibited from re-exporting the ammunition, the Qatari ambassador appeared to have confirmed its role in the supply of ammunition. "The ambassador of Qatar explained to the Swiss representatives that the ‘transfer of the aforementioned ammunition to the Libyan opposition was a misadventure in the course of his country's support of the NATO operation in Libya.' He reassured the State Secretariat for Economic Affairs that ‘Qatar took the appropriate measures to prevent similar errors in the future.'"

The United Arab Emirates

The panel provided few details about alleged arms transfers by the United Arab Emirates, partly because it is conducting an ongoing investigation into the matter, and partly because the Gulf state refused to provide the panel with a list of its contributions. On March 25, "the United Arab Emirates notified the [UN] Secretary General that it would participate, within the framework of the international coalition, by providing military aircraft. No notification was given regarding transfers of weapons or ammunition or provision of military personnel." The panel visited the UAE to inquire about its role in arming and advising the Libyan insurgents. The government insisted that it had acted in conformity with UN resolutions and under the umbrella of the NATO operation" to protect civilians. "They did not provide more precise information and said that NATO would be in a better position to answer those questions."

NATO

The North Atlantic Treaty Organization's role in Libya was decisive in crippling Qaddafi's military defenses and providing support for insurgent offensive operations. While its air campaign is not the subject of the panel's inquiry, the report notes that it wrote to NATO "asking it to provide a detailed list of military materiel, including weapons and ammunition, sent by Qatar and the United Arab Emirates or any other country that participated in the NATO operation and information regarding the number and roles of military personnel sent by those countries to Libya since the imposition of the embargo. While NATO acknowledged the receipt of the panel's request for information on 25 January 2012, no answer has been provided to date."

Follow me on Twitter @columlynch

The Arab League's decision to suspend Syria's membership in the group and to threaten possible sanctions against one of its own has not only altered the political landscape in the Middle East.

It has shaken up the Security Council and placed Syria's most important ally, Russia, under increasing pressure to reconsider its implacable opposition to pressure in the U.N. Security Council.

Early last month, a European resolution condemning Syria for a bloody crackdown on protesters that has led to the killing of more than 3,500 people was quickly quashed.

China and Russia vetoed the resolution, citing concern that the West was using the Security Council to press for regime change in Syria.

Brazil, India, South Africa, and Lebanon also abstained, expressing bitterness over the West's use of a resolution mandating the use of force to protect civilians to topple the government of Muammar al-Qaddafi.

But it's one thing to stand up to the world's big Western power, whose periodic resort to the use of military force to solve problems is resented by the broader U.N. membership, and quite another to go up against a regional political group like the Arab League.

The Arab League took the unusual step of suspending Syria from the organization over the weekend as punishment for its repression of anti-government protesters, and said that it would take the matter up with the United Nations if Syria fails to restrain its security forces. Political and economic sanctions, the League threatened, could be imposed.

China -- which has traditionally been reluctant to clash with regional groups -- called on Syria to take heed of the Arab's League statement.

"What is pressing now is to implement the Arab League's initiative appropriately and earnestly," Chinese foreign ministry spokesman Liu Weimin said, according to AFP. "China once again urges the Syrian government and all relevant parties to cease violence, launch an inclusive and balanced political process and make unremitting efforts to realize the Arab League's initiative."

The chief obstacle to a Security Council condemnation of Syria is Russia, which maintains close military ties with Bashar al-Assad's government. Indeed, Russia still maintains a naval base in the Syrian port of Tartus.

Russia's Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov today sharply criticized the Arab League decision, and blamed the West for seeking to incite government opposition groups to press for the overthrow of President Bashar Al Assad.

"We believe it is wrong to suspend Syria's membership of the Arab League," Reuters quoted Lavrov telling the state-run RIA news agency while en route to the Pacific Rim Summit in Hawaii. "Those who made this decision have lost a very important opportunity to shift the situation into a more transparent channel."

"There continues to be incitement of radical opponents [of Assad's government] to take a firm course for regime change and rejected any invitations to dialogue," Interfax news agency reported Lavrov saying, according to Reuters.

Until now, Russia's U.N. envoy Vitaly Churkin has insisted that Moscow is not "siding with the Assad regime" but that it fears the confrontational approach being pursued by the United States and its European partners will drive the country into civil war.

"To claim ... that our veto was against the Arab Spring -- well, that's a cute phrase -- but not a very serious one because ... we do not see the Arab Spring as something that should lead to civil war and this is in our view where this is going," Churkin said last month.

U.S. and Europeans diplomats have dismissed Russia's claim that they intend to use the Security Council to pursue the overthrow of the Assad regime. They say that no one is calling for a resolution that would authorize the use of force against Damascus.

But they believe that the Arab League's tough stance now raises new prospects of passing a resolution that would condemn Syria and possibly impose sanctions on the regime if it fails to halt its crackdown.

A Western diplomat whose government supported the U.N. resolution condemning Syria] said that Arab League action "exceeded" anyone's expectation but that it was not very clear on specifics.

"It's not quite clear what they meant yet," the diplomat said.

European members of the Security Council are awaiting a second meeting by the Arab League on Wednesday in hopes that it will provide a clear call for action by the U.N. Security Council.

The Arab League, diplomats said, must take the lead in the council if it is to have any chance of overcoming Russian opposition.

"This has to come from the Arabs," said a Western diplomat. "The last thing we want to do is to contaminate this with Western hands."

"But the Arabs will have to be nimble," the official added, "This must be making the Russians feel uncomfortable, but they are pretty thick skinned and un-embarrassable."

Another potential obstacle is that the Security Council's lone Arab government, Lebanon, includes a faction in the government, Hezbollah, that is a close political and military ally of Syria. And Damascus wields enormous influence in Beirut, making it highly unlikely that Lebanon will press a tough line in the council.

But Lebanon loses its seat on the Security Council on Dec. 31, to be replaced by Morocco, a North African government which maintains close ties with France and the United States. While diplomats believe Morocco will be far more amenable to a tougher approach, they are keen to begin pressing sooner for action, possibly later this week. "Nobody is in the mood for waiting around for the Moroccans to get here."

Follow me on Twitter @columlynch

So, what does Susan Rice, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, really think of the so-called doctrine "leading from behind."

"That's just a whacked out phrase," Rice told Turtle Bay after the Security Council voted on Oct. 27 to end the U.N.-sanctioned military mission in Libya.

In a lengthy exclusive interview, Rice joined a chorus of U.S. officials, from President Barack Obama on down, who have sought to distance the administration from the slogan, which has been used by supporters and critics alike to credit or discredit the U.S. role in toppling Col. Muammar al-Qaddafi's government. White House officials and Rice's own aides have recoiled at its very utterance.

Seven months after the U.N. Security Council voted to authorize the use of military force, a decision that in hindsight appears to have been decisive in toppling Qaddafi, Rice is making the case that the former Libyan's leader downfall was the product of U.S. diplomatic leadership, Libyan resistance, and United Nations legitimacy. "We led this thing," she said. "We put teeth in this mandate."

But it didn't always seem that way.

Back in March, as pro-Qaddafi forces advanced on Benghazi, preparing to deliver a decisive blow that could have crushed the nascent armed resistance, Britain and France, with the backing of Lebanon, labored in solitude behind the scenes in New York to rally support for a resolution that would have imposed a no-fly zone over Libya.

"The Americans haven't yet defined their position on Libya," the frustrated French Foreign Minister, Alain Juppe, told a French parliamentary foreign affairs committee days before the council acted. "Never mind that there's European impotence, but what about American power? What about Russian power? What's China's power over Libya?"

In Washington, the United States appeared divided over the wisdom of committing American military assets to the anti-Qaddafi campaign.

Rice, who lacked instructions from Washington to rally support for a military response, was not prepared to support her European allies, according to council diplomats.

But the winds shifted after the Arab League threw its support behind the no-fly zone and the prospects of a mass killing in eastern Libya grew, placing the United States in the position of having to chose whether to back a military response, or step aside.

Read on

The U.N. Security Council voted unanimously yesterday to end the NATO-led no-fly zone over Libya, marking the conclusion of a controversial military conflict that deeply divided the 15-nation security body, but ended with the collapse of one of the world's most reviled dictatorships.

Yesterday's action came one week after Africa's longest ruling leader, Col. Muammar al-Qaddafi, was killed in the custody of militia fighting under the banner of the National Transitional Council. The Security Council decided to terminate by Oct. 31 a U.N. mandate which has permitted foreign forces to enforce a no-fly zone and to use military force to protect civilians during the past seven months.

Following the vote, U.S. ambassador Susan Rice hailed the council's role in halting Qaddafi's crackdown on civilians and unmitigated success.

"For the United Nations Security Council, this closes what I think history will judge to be a proud chapter in the Security Council's history," she told reporters. The council, she added, "acted promptly and effectively to prevent mass slaughter in Benghazi and other parts of the east, and to effectively protect civilians over the course of the last many months."

The council's decision ended months of acrimonious debate. China, Brazil, Russia, and India -- who joined Germany in abstaining on the vote authorizing the use of force -- had sharply criticized the NATO-led military coalition, saying its role in aiding the rebel campaign exceeded the Security Council mandate to use force only for the protection of civilians.

In the end, however, those governments gave their approval to a resolution that welcomed the "positive developments in Libya which will improve the prospects for a democratic, peaceful and prosperous future" for the North African country.

Follow me on Twitter @columlynch

The U.N.'s chief human rights agency today said there is a need for an investigation into the death of Col. Muammar al-Qaddafi, citing the broadcast of "disturbing" video of the bloodied late Libyan leader alive during what appears to be his final hours of life.

The videos, which were reportedly captured on cell phones from anti-Qaddafi forces, challenges the official claim by the National Transitional Council (NTC) that Qaddafi was killed in crossfire. They show the former Libyan leader, drenched in blood but clearly alive, being abused by armed men.

"On the issue of Qaddafi's death yesterday, the circumstances are unclear -- there seem to be four or five different versions of how he died," Rupert Colville, the spokesman for the U.N. High Commission for Human Rights, told reporters in Geneva today. "As you are aware, there are at least two cell-phone videos, one showing him alive and one showing him dead. Taken together, these videos are very disturbing. We believe there is a need for an investigation and more details are needed to ascertain whether he was killed in the fighting or after his capture."

Colville said that an existing independent commission of inquiry for Libya, established earlier this year by the U.N. Human Rights Council, "is very likely to look into this. Other forms of investigation might also be considered."

"A key aspect enabling closure on the legacy of Qaddafi's 42-year despotic rule, and on the bloody conflict this year, will be to ensure that justice is done," Colville said. "The thousands of victims who suffered loss of life, disappearance, torture, and other serious human rights violations since the conflict broke out in February 2011, as well as those who suffered human rights violations throughout Qaddafi's long rule, have the right to know the truth, to see the culture of impunity brought to an end, and to receive reparations."

"In order to turn the page on the legacy of decades of systematic violations of human rights, it will be essential for alleged perpetrators to be brought before trials, which adhere to international standards for fair trial, and for victims to see that accountability has been achieved," he added.

The announcement came one day after the U.N.'s special representative for Libya, Ian Martin, told reporters in a tele-press conference from Tripoli that the U.N. mission in Libya would not look into the case. Martin said that his mission will concentrate its efforts on helping to manage the country's delicate political transition, and that and "investigative responsibilities" for serious crimes would rest with the International Criminal Court (ICC) or the Human Rights Council commission of inquiry. There are "not issues for my mission," he said.

Follow me on Twitter @columlynch

The British government has introduced a proposal before the U.N. Security Council to lift economic sanctions on Libya's main oil companies and to permit Libyan banks and financial institutions to use frozen assets to restart the country's oil industry and banking sector, to fund humanitarian programs, and to pay for fuel and electricity.

A confidential British draft resolution, which is backed by the United States and the council's other European powers, would end an asset freeze and other financial sanctions imposed on the Libyan National Oil Corporation and Zueitina Oil Company when they were under the control of Muammar al-Qaddafi. It would permit the Central Bank of Libya, the Libyan Foreign Bank, the Libyan Investment Authority, and the Libya Africa Investment Portfolio to release billions of dollars in funds, subject to U.N. approval.

The draft would also establish a new U.N. mission in Libya to help a post-Qaddafi government restore law and order in the country, reboot its economy, aid Libya's new leaders in forming an interim government, draft a new constitution, and prepare for free and fair elections at some unspecified date. The mission, which would include hundreds of personnel, would be protected by a combination of Libyan security forces and private contractors, according to diplomats.

The draft would place the Security Council squarely behind a new transitional government, saying the U.N. security body "looks forward to the establishment of an interim government of Libya." But it would also put Libya's National Transitional Council on notice that it needs to ensure the protection of Libyan human rights, reconcile with supporters of the regime, restore government services, and allocate Libya's billions of dollars in oil wealth in a transparent and accountable manner.

The British initiative, which is still subject to negotiations in the 15-nation council, would also modify a Security Council arms embargo, allowing for the import of arms, training, and financial assistance "intended solely for security or disarmament assistance to the Libyan authorities." It would also allow the supply of "small arms, light weapons and related material for the purpose of protecting United Nations, humanitarian and diplomatic personnel," subject to approval by the U.N. Security Council.

The draft puts off any decision on NATO's military role, saying that the council will keep the coalition military role, including its enforcement of a no-fly zone, "under continuous review and underlines its readiness, as appropriate and when circumstances permit, to lift those measures."

Follow me on Twitter @columlynch

U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Susan E. Rice told CNN's Wolf Blitzer today that the Libyan people will have to decide whether to try Muammar al-Qaddafi themselves for crimes against his people, or surrender him to face justice before the International Criminal Court (ICC).

"This is something that must be decided not by the United States or any other government, but by the people of Libya and by the interim transitional government that we expect will soon be constituted," Rice said. "These are all choices that the Libyan people will ultimately have to make for them."

Not so fast. A statement issued today by ICC prosecutor Luis Moreno-Ocampo said that any decision on where Qaddafi and two of his associates will be tried must be made by the Hague-based court's judges, not the Libyan people.

The U.N. Security Council adopted a resolution in late February granting the ICC authority to prosecute top Libyan officials for their role in a bloody government crackdown on protesters. The court's judges issued an arrest warrant in June for Qaddafi, his son Saif al-Islam, and his intelligence chief Abdullah Senussi on charges of committing crimes against humanity.

The ICC prosecutor's performance with regards to the Libya conflict has so far been bumpy. On Monday, Moreno-Ocampo announced that he had been informed that rebel forces had arrested Saif al-Islam. Today, his spokesman acknowledged that the prosecutor had only heard this information from a secondhand source, which turned out to be wrong.

With the prospects of Qaddafi's capture growing by the hour, the country's rebel leaders have expressed an interest in prosecuting the three Libyan leaders themselves. Ibrahim Dabbashi, Libya's former deputy U.N. ambassador and a representative for the opposition, told reporters in New York that the Libyan opposition would like to try Qaddafi for war crimes inside Libya, but that they are in talks with the ICC on how to proceed. 

But legal scholars and court advocates say the decision is not up to the Libyan people.

Richard Dicker, a court advocate at Human Rights Watch, said that the U.N. Security Council "took the matter out of the hands of the Libyan people." That decision, he said, reflected a judgment that the Libyan judicial system, undermined by four decades of autocratic rule, did not have the capacity to conduct a fair trial of the three accused men.

Dicker recalled that Libya's Transitional National Council (TNC) pledged in a letter to the ICC prosecutor to cooperate with his investigation, and surrender Qaddafi and the two others to the court.

Read on

As the U.N. Security Council huddled behind closed doors last week to consider a statement condemning Syria for the violent repression of protesters, India's U.N. ambassador, Hardeep Singh Puri, offered up an unexpected argument: The Syrian government had also been a victim, he said, citing the deaths of Syrian security forces.

For months, India, Brazil and South Africa -- collectively known as IBSA -- had helped stall a push by the council's European governments to use the full force of the Security Council to pressure Syrian President Bashar al-Assad to end the crackdown that has led to more than 2,000 deaths. They have joined China and Russia in making the case that a sharp increase in international pressure on Syria will only exacerbate the violence.

Brazil's U.N. envoy, Maria Luiza Ribeiro Viotti, has led the group's diplomatic efforts on the council, putting forward a series of amendments aimed at softening a tougher European-backed resolution censoring Syria. At one stage, she pressed her British negotiating partner to drop a provision calling on Syria to permit press freedom. South Africa's U.N. ambassador, Baso Sanqu, joined ranks with Brazil and India to argue that the West had squandered the council's trust by overreaching in Libya.

The reluctance of IBSA's members to confront Syria's comes as other key players in the region, including Turkey, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia, have begun to take a harder line on Damascus. Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu traveled to Damascus on Tuesday to deliver a tough message to the Syrian leader to stop the killing immediately. Turkey is at "the end of its patience," Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan said.

In the end, Brazil, India, and South Africa agreed on August 3 to support a substantially weaker council statement condemning Syria's conduct, but only after Damascus ordered tanks into the town of Hama, killing more than 100 civilians. The IBSA governments   sent three top level envoys on a joint mission to Damascus, where they held meetings today with President Assad. They issued a statement noting Syria's pledge to implement political reforms, called on government forces and protesters to show restraint, and urged the Syrian leadership to comply with last week's Security Council statement.

But in New York, IBSA's diplomatic strategy has been marked by efforts to shield Syria and restrain the United States and its European partners. They argue that the council's Western powers have been too ready to impose sanctions or use force to resolve crises, and have devoted too little to diplomacy. One frustrated Western diplomat quipped that the group's acronym, scrambled, spells BIAS, a reflection of the group's pro-Syrian slant during talks.

Read on

During a visit to Washington last week, French Foreign Minister Alain Juppé sounded determined to force a divided U.N. Security Council to vote on a resolution condemning Syria's crackdown on anti-government protesters, saying the need to show resolve in the face of Syrian repression was worth the risk of provoking a likely Russian veto.

Following a meeting with U.S. Secretary of State Hillary R. Clinton, Juppé told reporters in Washington that he believed that Russia might back down if the allies could muster a significant majority -- say, 11 yes votes in the 15-nation council -- raising the political costs of obstruction.

On Tuesday morning, Juppé offered his strongest hint that France and its Western allies, including the United States, may be preparing to back down and withdraw the text. In response to questions from the French National Assembly, Juppé acknowledged that Western powers have been unable to overcome misgivings about a resolution on Syria from key council members, including the BRICS members Brazil, Russia, India and China, and South Africa. Lebanon, the council's lone Arab country, is expected to vote against the resolution.

The United States had initially cautioned its European partners against forcing a showdown in the council that would simply highly its deep divisions over Syria, providing a political boost to President Bashar al-Assad's government. But Britain, France, and other European governments argued it would be unconscionable for the council to remain silent in the face of mounting atrocities in Syria.

The BRICS have countered that the United States and its European allies overstepped the Security Council's mandate, contained in resolution 1973, authorizing the use of force to protect civilians in Libya. They say that the Western coalition has effectively entered a civil war on behalf of the rebels and that their true aim is the overthrow of Moammar al-Qaddafi's regime.

"We strongly believe that the resolution is being abused for regime change, political assassinations and foreign military occupation," South African President Jacob Zuma told the South African parliament this week.

The Europeans believe they have secured nine votes, the bare minimum required for adoptioin of the Syria resolution in the Security Council. But they have held out hope that they could convince the Russians to back down if they could only secure another couple of votes, thereby isolating Moscow and Beijing, which is expected to back the Russian position. But a week of diplomatic outreach has failed to turn a single vote.

"At the Security Council -- despite all the efforts that we're making, in particular with the British and the Americans -- we still haven't achieved our goal," Juppé said. "Indeed, China and Russia are threatening -- on the grounds of principle -- to exercise their right of veto. We will take the risk of putting a draft resolution condemning the Syrian regime to a vote if we reach a sufficient majority. Currently, we probably have nine votes at the Security Council. We still need to persuade South Africa, India and Brazil; we're working on this every day. I think that if we were able to achieve 11 votes, we would put this draft resolution to a vote and everyone would have to assume their responsibilities; we'd then see if China and Russia would go so far as to veto the resolution."

European governments have directed their lobbying efforts at Brazil and South Africa in the hopes that they could somehow peel them away from the Russian camp. French ambassador Gerard Araud pressed Brazil this week to reconsider its stance in a newspaper interview in the Brazilian paper O Estado De Sao Paolo. "The Security Council's credibility and that of its members is at stake, as it is their mandate is to protect international peace and security," Araud said. "We've been discsuing this text for two weeks. In that time 400 people, including women and children, have died, sometimes under torture. Let's be clear: Inaction on the part of the Security Council is not an option. We must all rally together and we're counting on Brazil."

Follow me on Twitter @columlynch.

France and Britain will press for the passage of a U.N. Security Council vote on a mild, but legally-binding, resolution condemning Syria for its bloody repression of anti-government protesters, and demanding Damascus show restraint and provide access to U.N. humanitarian aid workers, according to U.N. diplomats.

The decision sets the council's Western powers on possible collision course with China and especially Russia. Moscow has signaled it may be prepared to veto a Security Council resolution on Syria, diplomats say. The standoff is coming to a head as Syrian President Bashar al-Assad's crackdown on demonstrators entered its ninth week with little sign of an end to the violence. The Syrian uprising represents the greatest threat to the Assad dynasty's control over the country since it came to power in a 1963 military coup.

French President Nicolas Sarkozy and British Prime Minister David Cameron will make one last effort at a G-8 Summit in Deauville, France, Thursday and Friday, to persuade Russian President Dmitry Medvedev not to veto the resolution, according to council diplomats. Diplomats are confident that China will not veto the resolution if Russia doesn't.

After weeks of behind the scenes lobbying, Britain and France say they are confident that they have secured the minimum nine votes required for passage of the resolution in the 15-nation council. They are hoping to increase that number. But they said they intend to press for a vote later this week even if Russia threatens to block the vote.

On Twitter, Britain's Foreign Minister William Hague wrote today that the "rising death toll in Syria is worrying and unacceptable." He said Britain "is calling for more international pressure on Syrian authorities, including at [the] UN."

France's Foreign Minister Alain Juppe said recently that the "threat of a Russian veto" looms over the council deliberations on Syria but that prospects for a majority of supporters for council action is improving.

The United States had been initially reluctant to support the European initiative on the grounds that a blocked resolution would strengthen the Syrian government's hand by showing the council is politically divided.

But American diplomats have assured their European counterparts that they will support the push for a resolution. Bosnia, Colombia, Gabon, Germany, Nigeria, and Portugal have also assured the Europeans they will vote in favor of the resolution.

The Security Council's Western powers have already encountered stiff resistance from China, Russia and Lebanon to criticizing Syria in the Security Council. Last month, the three countries helped block a French and British initiative to adopt a non-binding council statement condemning Syria's conduct.

Russia is concerned that once the council weighs in on the Syrian crisis it will be only a matter of time before the council's Western powers begin to demand tougher action, including sanctions and possibly even the use of force. Moscow has already expressed concern that the West exceeded its mandate to protect civilians in Libya by taking sides in the country's civil war.  The United States and its coalition allies maintain that they are faithfully implementing their mandate to protection civilians. And none of the Western powers have threatened the use of force against Damascus.

Brazil, India, and South Africa have also voiced concern about a new resolution, though New Dehli has indicated to some colleagues that it would be prepared to support a modest resolution that criticizes Syria's conduct. Human Rights Watch, meanwhile, appealed to South Africa to rally behind the resolution.

"South Africa has said behind closed doors in the Security Council that they would not support Security Council action  on Syria because they feel NATO abused the mandate the council gave it on libya," said Philippe Bolopion, Human Rights Watch's U.N. representative, who is visiting South Africa. "Wwhat we are teling them is do not punish Syrian civialins for what NATO is doing in Libya."

He also challenged the U.S. rationale for not pressing more aggressively for action on Syria. "The argument that a Russian veto would somehow expose the divisions of the Security Council cuts both ways," he said. "You could also argue that the complete silence is emboldening the Syrian regime."

As the Europeans sought to build greater support for the resolution the International Atomic Energy Agency issued a statement today saying that it was "very likely" that a Syrian facility bombed by Israeli war planes in 2007 was "very likely" a nuclear reactor.

U.N. diplomats said the Europeans were unlikely to immediately raise concerns about the development in the Security Council, saying they fear  it might complicate ongoing efforts to secure adoption of its resolution condemning Syria for its bloody crackdown. 

Follow me on Twitter @columlynch

There are "reasonable grounds" to charge Col. Muammar al-Qaddafi's security forces with having committed war crimes and crimes against humanity during a bloody, two-and-a-half- month long crackdown on Libyan protesters, according to the chief prosecutor for the International Criminal Court (ICC).

The prosecutor, Argentine lawyer Luis Moreno-Ocampo, claimed in a report to the U.N. Security Council that his investigators have established preliminary but "credible" estimates that at least 500 to 700 civilians have been shot to death by government forces. He said he intends "in the next weeks" to submit his first application for arrest warrants against officials "most responsible for crimes against humanity" in Libya since Feb. 15, 2001. The abuses, he noted, are ongoing.

The prosecutor's office "will select for prosecution those who bear the highest responsibility, including those who ordered, incited, financed, or otherwise planned the commission of alleged crimes," the report states. The report also raises concerns that anti-government mobs or armed opposition forces may have engaged in "the unlawful arrest mistreatment and killings of sub-Saharan Africans perceived to be mercenaries. Reportedly angry mobs of protesters assaulted Sub-Saharan African in Benghazi and other cities and killed dozens of them."

The Security Council voted unanimously on Feb. 26 to authorize the international court to conduct an investigation into alleged excesses by Qaddafi's forces since Feb. 15, when they launched a brutal crackdown on Libyan demonstrators demanding democratic reforms. It is the second time since the court's inception that the 15-nation council has voted to trigger an ICC probe. In March, 2005, the council also backed an investigation into war crimes by the Sudanese government in Darfur. The court has since issued an arrest warrant against Sudan's leader, Omar Hassan al-Bashir, for allegedly committing genocide.

Under the terms of the Rome Statute, the treaty that established the ICC, Libya should be given the first chance to investigate allegations of war crimes and crimes against humanity. But the report states that government initiatives, including the establishment of a national commission by Qaddafi's son,  Saif al-Islam al-Qaddafi, to investigate reports of abuses, have been inadequate.

The report raises the prospect that Colonel Qaddafi and members of his family and inner circle may yet be charged committing war crimes. If so, it would be the second time the court has charged a sitting head of state with such crimes.

"The shooting at peaceful protestors was systematic, following the same modus operandi in multiple locations and executed through Security Forces," the report states. "The persecution appears to be also systematic and implemented in different cities. War crimes are apparently committed as a matter of policy."

The death toll has been hard to determine in Libya because of widely divergent estimates on both sides of the country's conflict. As of March 15, Qaddafi estimated that only 150 to 200 people had died during the conflict, half of them members of the government security forces. The Libyan Interim National Council claims that up to 10,000 have died, and that more than 50,000 have been injured, according to the report.

The prosecutor's report states that it has been difficult to determine the precise number of victims because bodies have been removed from the streets and doctors have been prohibited from documenting "the number of dead and injured in the hospitals after the violent clashes began."

The prosecutor said his investigation will begin with an examination of a brutal February clampdown in Benghazi, where civilian demonstrators protested the arrest of two locals, Fatih Terbil and Farag Sharany, who were demanding justice for victims of the governments' bloody 1996 massacre of inmates at the Abu Salim prison. 

"On 17 February, 2001, thousands of demonstrators congregated in the square around the high court of Benghazi, protesting such arrests and calling for political and economic freedom," according to the report. "Security forces entered the square and reportedly fired live ammunition into the crowd, killing numerous demonstrators. This was the beginning of a series of similar incidents in different cities across Libya which appears to demonstrate a consistent pattern of Security Forces firing live ammunition at civilians."

The prosecutor's report also cited allegations that government forces committed war crimes, including through the blocking of humanitarian supplies and through the use of "imprecise weaponry such as cluster munitions, multiple rocket launchers and mortars, and other forms of heavy weaponry, in crowded urban areas."

Follow me on Twitter @columlynch.