'Politically negotiated solution' needed in Libya: Envoy

As the month-long conflict continues in Libya, a top Indian diplomat has said that a "politically negotiated solution" was needed in the country where forces of Muammar Gaddafi are battling rebel forces and there is a ongoing military intervention authorised by the UN.

"Now there is inconvertible evidence that civilians are dying both due to the efforts of Gaddafi and the forces opposing him," Hardeep Singh Puri, India's envoy to the UN said.

"All we need to do now is get a ceasefire and a politically negotiated solution", he said.

On February 26, the UN Security Council slapped sanctions on the Libyan regime including an arms embargo, an asset freeze and travel ban on Gaddafi and his loyalists, and a referral to the Hague-based International Criminal Court.

In March, the Security Council called for an immediate ceasefire, establishing a no-fly zone and authorised "all necessary measures" for protecting civilians in Libya.

India, China, Russia, Brazil and Germany abstained from voting on the resolution that paved the way for strikes in Libya.

Yesterday, Libyan rebels reportedly came under heavy bombardment from Gaddafi's forces in the oil-town of Brega. Khaled Kaim, the country’s deputy foreign minister, has said that the rebels have no legitimacy.

Military intervention efforts are being led by NATO. Reports from the ground said that the rebel leadership had blasted NATO forces for not doing enough to weaken Gaddafi.

NATO action has also led to the death of at least forty civilians.

US President Barack Obama recently made a strong case for collective action and intervention to protect human rights and stop atrocities.

"We believe that force should not be the first option," he said, last week in New York.

Puri noted that the "entire philosophy" behind the resolutions –that people have turned against Gaddafi and it requires a little push – "had not happened."

Reflecting on the current situation, Puri noted that if India would vote the same way again. "If we had to revisit the scenario. We would have to do same thing," he said.

After the vote, Puri had said that India wasn’t happy with the hurried fashion the resolution had been put to vote and several key questions had not be answered by Britain and France – the countries that drafted the resolution.

The envoy added that India abstained instead of voting against the resolution, at the time, because it did not want to been seen as opposing the protection of civilians

"That is fundamental," he said, today. "We did not want to be seen supporting the violence by one party against their own civilians."