The State Department believes that supplying any arms to the Libyan opposition to support its struggle against Col. Muammar al-Qaddafi would be illegal at the current time.

"It's very simple. In the U.N. Security Council resolution passed on Libya, there is an arms embargo that affects Libya, which means it's a violation for any country to provide arms to anyone in Libya," State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley said on Monday.

Crowley denied reports that the United States had asked Saudi Arabia to provide weapons to the Libyan opposition, and also denied that the United States would arm opposition groups absent explicit international authorization.

Pressed by reporters to clarify whether the Obama administration had any plans to give arms to any of the rebel groups in Libya, Crowley said no.

"It would be illegal for the United States to do that," he said. "It's not a legal option."

Crowley's blanket statement seemed to go further than comments on Monday by White House spokesman Jay Carney, who said, "On the issue of … arming, providing weapons, it is one of the range of options that is being considered."

Crowley maintained that U.N. Security Council Resolution 1970, which imposed international sanctions on Libya that included an arms embargo, applied to both the Qaddafi regime and the rebel groups.

"It's not on the government of Libya: It's on Libya," he said.

Britain and France are drafting a new Security Council resolution that would authorize a no-fly zone over Libya. The United States still might support such a resolution, but U.S. Ambassador to NATO Ivo Daalder argued on Monday that a no-fly zone wouldn't likely do much to protect Libyan civilians anyway.

The United States and its international partners have been reaching out to the Libyan opposition, with some mixed results, but the State Department still has not officially withdrawn its recognition of the Qaddafi regime despite President Barack Obama's public call for him to step down.

"As we've said, we think that the Qaddafi regime, having turned its weapons on its people, has lost its legitimacy," Crowley noted. "But as I said last week, there are also legal issues involved in recognizing or de-recognizing governments."

UPDATE: Sens. John McCain (R-AZ) and Joe Lieberman (I-CT) issued a statement Tuesday evening refuting Crowley's claim that arming the Libyan opposition is "illegal" under U.N.  Security Council Resolution 1970:

Earlier today, the spokesperson of the U.S. Department of State said that, because of the arms embargo imposed by UN Security Council Resolution 1970, it would be ‘illegal' for the United States or any other country to provide military assistance to the opposition forces fighting for their survival against a brutal dictatorship in Libya. In fact, the text of the UN resolution does not impose an arms embargo on ‘Libya,' but rather on the ‘Libyan Arab Jamahiriya,' which is the self-proclaimed name of Qaddafi's regime. We believe this language should be construed narrowly in order to hold open the possibility of providing military aid to the opposition, which presumably does not consider itself part of the ‘Libyan Arab Jamahiriya.'

The President has consistently and correctly said that ‘all options are on the table' in Libya. If the State Department's statement today is correct, however, it means one of the most effective options to help the Libyan people has been taken off the table. We urge the Administration to clarify its position on this important issue.

.

 

J DORY

3:00 AM ET

March 13, 2011

Legality. Interesting concept.

If it is illegal to support the arming of non-governmental factions without a UN mandate, does this then mean that George Bush's last throw of the dice, the reactionary and fascist coup attempt against the democratically elected government of Bolivia a couple of years back was also illegal?
It does rather look like it was, doesn't it?

I would say, personally, given a choice between a popular, elected social-democratic government and a murderous dictatorship, that the latter would ideally be the one to try to topple.

But hey, I'm no expert.

 

COWBOY

12:15 AM ET

March 19, 2011

Hugo?

That you for your opinion again, Mr Chavez.

 

RON SIZELY

12:14 PM ET

March 18, 2011

McCain and Lieberman? Oh dear!

The name Libyan Arab Jamahirya is equivalent to the name United States of America. Lieberman and McCain are playing silly games with UN Resolutions. Hardly surprising - two of the most childish and dishonest people to plague the Hill.

 

ANYA KHAN

3:34 AM ET

March 19, 2011

Whiny

Congressmen are pimping themselves on Craigslist. Get over yourself. If you don't like them... don't like them, but a comment like this is wrong.

 

RON SIZELY

6:01 AM ET

March 19, 2011

Check your priorities, AK!

Anya Khan

I'm afraid I don't really share your priorities. Two Senators are distorting the meaning of a UNSC Resolution in order to change its effect 180 degrees, from de-escalation of conflict to escalation of conflict, and you're talking about a Congressman looking for a sexual partner on Craigslist?

 

JIMZ

3:47 PM ET

March 19, 2011

How short are our memories

Flash back to the fall of 1956. Egypt takes over the canal.
England and France land soldiers in Egypt. A glance is made over to their friend? (the United States) and Russia had already said 'get off that beach and now) so good Old IKE turned his head and more or less said "don't ask me for help if you guys get in trouble" So why is it that my country is not more involved in this. Hello I think both China and Russsia have said 'no no don't do that" and our president has already served notice to the world. This is not a Yes vote nor a No vote and I am casting my usual I am Present (but right now taking a little vacation with my family - good luck Ya'll - now please be good.

 

John Hudson reports on national security and foreign policy from the Pentagon to Foggy Bottom, the White House to Embassy Row, for The Cable.

Enter your email address to get The Cable delivered to your inbox each night:

Delivered by FeedBurner