Some people here on the blog have asked who is asking the United States to intervene in Libya. Let’s start with the fact that CNN reports that the Pentagon is drawing up contingency plans and that White House press secretary Jay Carney says the following:
At the White House, Press Secretary Jay Carney said U.S. officials were assessing a range of options on how to protect American citizens in Libya and compel the Libyan government to stop attacking its own people.
“What we have said is we’re not going to specify which options are on or off the table. We’re discussing a full range of options,” Carney told reporters, adding that it was likely any action would be in concert with the international community.“We’re interested in outcomes,” Carney said. “We’re interested in taking measures that will actually have the desired effect, which is getting the Libyan government to stop” killing its own people.
Left unsaid is that much of the world is extremely concerned about prolonged instability in Libya leading to a major shortfall of light sweet crude oil. Robert Baer needs to be taken with a degree of caution, but he reports that Qaddafi is threatening to blow up pipelines to the Mediterranean, turn Libya into Somalia flooding Europe with unwanted refugees, and that he has already released Islamic militants from prison in the hope that they will sow chaos and attack rival tribes.
The Daily Mail says Obama is better late than never in trying to coordinate a response with David Cameron and Nicholas Sarkozy, and criticizes him for celebrating Motown while Westerners are struggling to escape Libya.
Civil society groups all around the world have also started calling on the UN, European Union, African Union and other world leaders to meet their R2P [responsibility to protect] obligation to the Libyan people. NGO recommendations include imposing sanctions on key regime members and an arms embargo; establishing a no fly zone over the entire country and establishing a commission of enquiry; and if necessary referral to the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court.
Former foreign ministers like Solomon Passy of Bulgaria and the UK’s David Owen have called for NATO to act even in the absence of a UN resolution. They are joined by Sarkozy:
The French Prime Minister Nicolas Sarkozy has called for sanctions to be imposed and is leading the calls for a NATO-imposed no-fly zone to be enforced over Libya to “prevent the use of that country’s warplanes against [its] population”.
Support for action is coming from the UN Human Rights Council:
The United Nation’s top human rights official says reports of mass killings in Libya should spur world leaders to “step in vigorously” to end the violent crackdown in Libya, and that the 47-nation body should use “all means possible”.
Friday’s session is the first time that the UN Human Rights Council has held a special session to discuss actions against one of its members, with Navi Pillay, the UN High Commissioner on Human Rights, giving support for an independent panel to investigate the alleged abuses by Libyan security forces.
Domestically, there is no mercy:
As much as people criticize the United States for acting like a colonial or imperial power, the world calls for our leadership and capabilities when things turn ugly. We’re criticized just as quickly for inaction as for action. And then there is Hugo Chavez who accuses Obama of fomenting revolution in Libya so that he could have a pretext to invade and take over their oil fields.
Yet, when we express reservations about intervening and say others are more capable, we’re called disingenuous:
An Israeli news service today reported that NATO may attack Libya if the violence continues. Citing an interview in the London-based pan-Arab daily newspaper al-Quds al-Arabi with an unnamed European official, it was suggested that NATO and US warplanes stationed in Italy might be ordered to take down Libyan planes. However, US Defense secretary Robert Gates said (in an interview on 22 February) the United States had not discussed the unfolding crisis in Libya with its NATO partners, and he believed that the United States could not quickly enforce a no-fly zone. He suggested that others rather than the United States might be in a better position to establish a no fly zone: “The French – I don’t know what the British have in the area – but the French and the Italians potentially, I suppose, could have some assets they could put in there quicker”. These comments are somewhat disingenuous given that US fighter jets are based in Sicily and on Mediterranean aircraft carriers.
While Russia joined in the condemnation of violence, they also warned the West:
…asked for further comment at a press conference, Mr Putin repeatedly urged the West to refrain from meddling in the internal affairs of other nations.
”People should have the right to determine their future and their destiny … without any interference from outside,” he said.
”We should respect processes” unravelling in other regions of the world.
”Of course we should carefully support the phenomenon which takes place there but we should not interfere.”
Here is all I am saying. Europe needs oil. The international community has a collective responsibility to protect Libyan civilians. So, if the international community wants to set up no-fly zones or take other actions to protect human life and the supply of oil, then let them pay for it and supply the planes and troops. We won’t veto it, but we won’t take the lead role and lead responsibility either. You want America to do everything and then you hate us for it. When we don’t act, you hate us for that, too. But at least we’re not spending the money. John Boehner told me we’re broke. So, let’s take that money we would have spent in Libya and give it to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. And then maybe they can tell us what happened in Libya, and we can believe it.
Is the world ready for a re-armed Europe?
I’m ready. Shit, how hard is it to maintain a no-fly zone on Libya from Europe? At what point do we get a break?
You want a break? Here it is:
Russia ratifies military deal with US – The Irish Times – Fri, Feb 25, 2011
Presumably if Russia were to invade Panama or Guatamala the USA would allow it to transport its troops and personnel through New York and San Diego? Just how much more cooperation do you want? Russia to fight US wars of choice for it?
I bet that is costing us a pretty penny.
Russia ratifies military deal with US – The Irish Times – Fri, Feb 25, 2011
Perhaps the US promised to stem the opium trade? Again.
So what would the US charge for transit rights for Russian troops across the USA? (I would suggest rather a lot).
The only Red Army soldiers coming on our soil are here to inspect our nuclear facilities, or engage in some bilateral exercises.
So the Russians are giving you transit rights you don’t give them and still you whinge…
btw
Red Army (Soviet history) — Britannica Online Encyclopedia
All I did was point out that Putin does not want us to get involved. I mentioned it because I was detailing the ways in which we will be criticized no matter what we do. I also mentioned Chavez. My complaint was general, and aimed also at people who are saying we’re doing too little.
As for the “Russian Army,” they will not be transiting our country for any amount of money. We still operate with the Monroe Doctrine. If they want to blame us for the opium trade, I just have to laugh, since they are in competition with Turkey for the trade route revenues and their organized crime problem dwarfs that of any other part of the world.
I don’t support our mission in Afghanistan, so I obviously an unhappy about having to pay Russia through the nose to have our troops supplied through Uzbekistan and Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan.
I am also making a general point: Other countries give you transit rights, they give you bases, they buy your weapons, they fight (half heartedly) in your wars: You don’t reciprocate in any of these ways claiming some absolute right (Monroe Doctrine) you never cede to others. Indeed you claim the right to invade anywhere you want if YOU deem it to be in your interests and then have the gall to claim it is for humanitarian reasons.
(Does anybody seriously think your media would even be covering the Libyan situation so prominently if it didn’t feed the arabs/islamofascists don’t have our democracy narrative (and they have our oil). Meanwhile the US blithely ignores similar abuses in former Soviet republics where you have military bases and could actually intervene if you had an ounce of humanitarianism in your foreign policy veins… (I say this as someone who regards the US intervention in ww2 and the Marshall Plan as one of the great humanitarian acts of history).
I’m not buying your US exceptionalism because in that regard I believe you are little different from the neocons and I think that is what is really getting under our skin…
PS Thanks for the offering to pay 50% for Ireland to invade Libya. We don’t do invasions because we have ample experience of being on the receiving end. You will recall the British army was originally welcomed into Northern Ireland as a protective shield for nationalists against Loyalist dominated security forces. That didn’t work out too well either. Paratroopers can’t do policing especially when they don’t know the local terrain/people/language/customs and don’t share a national identity and close relationships with those they are supposed to be protecting..
There are some problems which bringing in even more weapons and violence just can’t solve. Sorry. It’s complicated. There are no black and white solutions. The bad guys don’t always wear black hats. Life’s a bitch.
I didn’t say that Ireland is part of NATO. But that is all the more reason for you to take care of this. Let me know what your UN rep says. If they oppose intervention I’ll be surprised.
Is this an answer to a different comment?
Is this an answer to a different comment?
“the US blithely ignores similar abuses in former Soviet republics where you have military bases and could actually intervene if you had an ounce of humanitarianism in your foreign policy veins… “
The US cheers on, aids, and abets far, far worse abuses by Israel against the Palestinians, and the Lebanese when they could easily put a stop to it simply by following U.S. laws against selling military equipment to countries that use it against civilians, and, of course, stopping the flow of billions of dollars that are used to buy the U.S.-made military equipment that is used against civilians.
And then, of course, their are the U.S. own horrific offenses against civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan (and Viet Nam, and Korea, and………).
I don’t get American exceptionalism in this particular piece. Rather, I think it’s noted, but not approved. Certainly, the US gov’t acts as if it is exceptional, but only because it can afford to for the time being and not because it believes it to be so.
EU to impose sanctions on Libya – The Irish Times – Fri, Feb 25, 2011
Gadafy is rumoured to have many Billions in assets stashed in the UK in particular, so this could hurt.
Why must it be a unilateral Europe, any more than a unilateral US? Particularly given that it’s Europe, not the US, that has a history of colonial exploitation of North Africa.
Oh, wait, I know why – because for decades the US has been underfunding and undermining the budgets and authority of UN peacekeepers. So now they probably don’t have the capacity or training to act quickly in a volatile situation like this.
I do think Gates’ statement is disingenuous. What else are our Mediterranean forces there for? At least France and Italy’s militaries are nearby because they have the responsibilities of actually defending their own countries.
I share your frustration about the US being the military force of first resort. But that’s a long-term problem, and this is a very short-term crisis. If there is to be an intervention (which I’m not sold on), a better solution would be to get European countries to agree to foot most of the bill. (Not all; we benefit from an oil market not in crisis, too.) And then work to reform the UN (on which, to his credit, Obama has already been better on than his predecessor).
Recognize also that this is a domestic political crisis. If there is massive bloodshed or disruption to the oil economy, the right will pillory Obama for not intervening. And they’re very, very anxious right now to take public attention away from Wisconsin. The fact that these are the same people who’ve already broken our military and bankrupted our country will matter not at all.
It doesn’t have to be a unilateral Europe. But it can be French or Italian planes. They can pay for that, they can take the risk, and they can enjoy any blowback. Leave us out of it. It’s not our responsibility.
From the halls of Monte-zoo-ooma
To the shores of Tripo-li …
Well you did so a good job in Iraq and Afghanistan it’s no wonder the world turns to the US every time. You are the dominant player in the market for violence.
With estimates of deaths in Iraq since the liberation from Saddam varying from 100,000 to 1 Million, I’m sure Libyans are anxiously awaiting liberation by Uncle Sam
You seem so sure of yourself. Are you confident that there aren’t Libyans on teevee asking for our protection, asking why Obama hasn’t acted?
It seems like there is a one-way narrative of criticism towards us, and it not only annoys me, it makes me want to tell everyone else to go fuck themselves when they find themselves in need. In practice, I support a lot of what the US does and I accept our role, but Libya? I think the Irish should take care of it. You’ve convinced me. We’ll send you a check for half the costs.
We don’t belong in Libya.
A few days ago, Turkey had 23,000 people there that there were trying to get out.
The airport isn’t safe now.
Ah so some Libyans on TV looking for help constitutes a an official invitation and justification to invade the country…shouldn’t be too hard for the CIA to organise… and if it’s on CNN it must be true…I seem to recall there were a few Iraqis claiming Saddam had WMD.
Can you please acknowledge that political problems don’t always have military solutions?
Oh, yeah, BooMan. I am sure Libyans are simply clamboring and begging for the U.S. to come and bomb, torture, and shoot them them to “liberation” the way they did the Iraqis, then of course help them choose the “right” people to govern them so as to serve the interests of the U.S., and send their corporations in to “rebuild” their country.
Oh, stop whinging. You want to be the “greatest country in the world”, you give yourselves the right to impose yourselves in any way you want on any and every country on earth, you destroy entire countries and societies claiming “humanitarian” goals, and then you cry when people expect you to fulfill the role to which you appointed yourselves.
.
Do Recall World Begging Uncle Sam …
No need to point fingers, European nations and the US are allied through NATO and are all individually responsible for the world’s woes since WWI and decolonization of Africa and the Middle-East in the 20th century. The First Gulf War was nice, paid for by Kuwaiti oil and Saudi revenues. Squeezing a profit from the wreckage in Iraq. Analyzing the Hidden Costs of War.
"But I will not let myself be reduced to silence."
Ireland isn’t a member of Nato, but I agree with you – no one has entirely clean hands on this. That is why I fight against the militarists both here and in the US who seem to think that sending in the troops is the solution to every problem. That is why I am disappointed with Booman’s US exceptionalism. I wouldn’t even be bothered to argue with a neocon. I know they are on the side of the imperialists/rich against the colonised and poor. What bothers me is that they have set the frame for so many people I would have hoped would have known better.
I’m not even sure that Booman sees just how much of an American exceptionalist he is.
He needs to get out of the US bubble. Yes, it is a big bubble, but it is still a bubble.
Before the Gulf War, there was a lot of Kwaiti investment in Britian and a lot of British invesment in the US. Had to have something to so with it.
Quick question for the irritable handwashers of the world: what of Iraq?
Because Iraqi military just killed some of their protesters, and already the southern governor in the country has quit in the face of protests. Does the US get to avoid culpability or responsibility for the clusterfuck on that one too, or do our tens of thousands of troops still stationed there actually make that a cognitive dissonance too far?
Because while this is all 95% the Bush administration’s fault in the first place, I do also look forward to Obama apologists swearing up and down that our withdrawal has been handled “with the utmost of competence and care” and that the future Iraqi governance is hardly a US parochial concern anymore. Self-determination and all that, obviously.
HMMMMMMMM
I wonder why the possible damage to the oil supply has equal footing with unknown massacres perpetrated by the failing regime? The outrageous decades long complacency about the security of the oil supply had nothing to do with the fact that we are subject to ungovernable events in other continents, did it?
It would be nice to drop a JDAM on his ass sure. And a no-fly zone might provide a temporary benefit. But 2 things: The revolution in Libya seems tangential to Qaddafi’s international role. It is a matter of internal collapse in legitimacy. So external input is just as likely to destabilize the dynamic and make it worse as it is to improve it, as Iraq demonstrated.
Point 2: How many “decapitation” strikes did Rumsfeld order in his moronic attempt to colonize Iraq as if by imperial fiat? How many smoking ruins were left in Baghdad while Saddamn was ducking in a hole somewhere? I mean, given his history and despite his seeming insanity, I would wager that Qaddafi has quite a network of bunkers and basements and fast cars and walkie talkies and such to avoid aerial bombardment.
So yeah, it’s kind of complicated. Some of the diplomatic actions are good ideas. Perhaps a better strategy would be to recognize an authority on the revolutionary side, rising from the people, in rejection of the Qaddafi regime. Provide them with uninterrupted access to media and internet.This authority could be given international standing, and thus assistance in its fight. Assist them in setting up local wi-fi and such.
US to impose sanctions on Libya:
http://english.aljazeera.net//news/europe/2011/02/201122519474363971.html
Intervention always sounds good when it is to stop some massacre, but when the outsider comes they come with an agenda which isnt ever the agenda of the people or country concerned.
The countries selected for a little bit of no-fly zone action or (not so) temporary occupation always seem to be ones carefully chosen by those about to intervene to save too.
The concept of Amercican exceptionalsim is a ludicrous one but any notion that the EU or any member of it will not come with some agenda of betterment that pays little attention to the needs of the locals is also ludicrous.
The Libyan regime has been armed, trained and funded and active member of oil above all else and a useful ally against “terror” and mass immigration for a long time, and it isnt even a darling regime of the western powers. Just imagine if Saudi or Yemen or Bahrain tried this or dare I say it Israel spent years slaughtering surrounding civilians in muderous air launched bombing camapigns and ignoring any UN resolution it didnt like. What could each of them get away with?
Your first paragraph is right on the money, of course, as is your third.
And of course, as we all know, throughout the entire six-plus decades of its existence Israel has gotten away with, and continues to get away with lots and lots and lots of murder, not to mention massive theft, and destruction.
The Monthly Review has had a number of great articles on recent “humanitarian interventions.” This one was particularly good:
http://www.monthlyreview.org/1007herman-peterson1.php
The only Red Army soldiers coming on our soil are here to inspect our nuclear facilities, or engage in some bilateral exercises.