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.
