AFP reports that Libyan UN Ambassador Ibrahim Dabbashi (representing the internationally recognised Tobruk government) will refuse to consent to a UNSC Resolution authorizing the EU to use military force against smugglers in Libya “as long as European governments were discussing the plan with Libyan militias that control coastal territory.” Dabbashi said that “[t]he position of Libya is clear: as long as the European Union and some other countries are not dealing with the legitimate government as the sole representative of the Libyan people, they will not get any consent on our part.” According to the AFP report, “Security Council diplomats privately said the European effort to present a resolution on the migrant crisis had hit a wall over Libya’s refusal to give its approval. European governments had instructed their diplomats mostly based in Tunis to reach out to various Libyan factions to try to get them onboard the plan before formally presenting the draft resolution at the Security Council.” According to the Security Council Report, “[f]or at least one permanent [Security Council] member the consent of the Tobruk/al-Bayda-based government seems to be indispensable for the adoption of the resolution.”
Libyan UN Ambassador to Oppose Security Council Resolution on EU Migrant Plan
Filed under European Union, Libya, Mediterranean, United Nations
MIGRANTS AT SEA 
Pingback: Harvard National Security Journal – The Mediterranean Migrant Crisis: Key Considerations for the UN Security Council
It is sad to see the European Union enforcing military action as a last resort responding to mass migration to Europe. I am not surprise Libya rejecting the proposed plan. How can you liberate a country and on the other hand using its militia for a partnership to adhere to your calls without working with the recognised authority. This do not add up to serve the aim intended to draw a line in mass migration from the region that attract millions waiting for the opportunity.This suggest that the two trend applied such as detention centres (where migrants spend half of their adult life awaiting decision for recognition as a refugee) and policy restrictions (that exception migrant from accessing any meaningful service or support for development and progress) are not working.
To deal with migration first we must begin with research to pinpoint reasons
1-foreign policy o immigration 2- challenges for good governance that serve the interest of the people not just few. 3 Trade policy that restrict agricultural product to EU from developing countries 4 Treaty agreements equal economic interest.
In light of the above a formidable immigration system can be applied that will enable people for shorter stay and travel to and fro without fear of being rejected for visas. However, a distinction should be made to differentiate economic migrants from genuine asylum seekers and refugees, which complicate the process of application taking long than six months in some cases up to ten years as in the case of Mid-West Region asylum seekers and Refugees who often do not have voice plight in Ireland.God Bless Niel Frenzen for his committed endeavour to research and enlighten us on immigration policy developments that shape world. To my dismay not a single African Union leaders add their voice to condemn the propose plan. Which makes me wonder on whose interest are those bunch serving. When twelve people lost their lives in an unacceptable attack on civilians and a civil servant, we saw the respond from European leaders in their condemnation yet you have more one thousand lives lost yet it seems nothing happens not even more two hours coverage from the international media power horns. This suggest how African lives are valued in modern globalised Europe, which should be no surprise to the leaders of the African Continent. Foreign policy for equal economic interest is the way forward to provided opportunities that made them leave, create an environment that they can hope and strive for the better than oppress for you economic advantage to secure resources.