Posts Tagged ‘Gaddafi’

The Human Cost: Obama’s Debacle in Libya — Update #3 (April 26)

Tuesday, April 26th, 2011

While the international coaltion hesitates to take decisive action to remove Qaddafi from power, the human cost rises.

Qaddafi’s forces unleased artillery attacks on Misrata’s civilian population Tuesday, with devastating effect. The following dispatch gives you a sense of what these words mean, in human terms. See

Charles Livingston (Misrata) and Richard Boudreaux (Tripoli), “Rebel Gains Fail to End Siege of Libyan City–Opposition Triumph Is Followed by Shelling of Civilians in Misrata; NATO Strikes Gadhafi Compound, Escalating Campaign,” Wall Street Journal, April 26, 2011.

For a critique of Obama’s foreign-policy decision making style, which has led to the current debacle in Libya, see

Michael Gerson, “Obama’s serial indecision on the Middle East,”
Washington Post, April 26, 2011.

In an op-ed in the New York Times this morning, James M. Dubik draws attention to the very obvious need for U.S. leadership in the Libyan campaign, as follows:

In war, leadership is not exercised from the rear by those who seek to risk as little as possible. Washington must stop pretending that we’ve passed the leadership for the Libyan operation on to NATO. We did so in Bosnia, claiming Europe would take the lead, only to have the 1995 Srebrenica genocide jolt us back to reality. Like it or not, America’s leadership has been crucial to most of NATO’s successes. The same will be true in Libya (emphasis added).

–James M. Dubik, “Finish the Job,” New York Times, April 25, 2011 (op-ed).

You almost have to pinch yourself in the arm to realize that the coalition acting against Qaddafi is comprised of the strongest military alliance in the world, plus other countries from the region.

Could U.S. leadership make a difference in the results, and the time and lost lives required to achieve them?

We may never know.

What is certain, however, is that the Republicans will use Obama’s “leadership…from the rear by (one) who seek(s) to risk as little as possible” against him in the 2012 presidential campaign.

The Trenchant Observer

Obama’s Debacle in Libya — Update #2 (April 23)

Saturday, April 23rd, 2011

Qaddafi’s troops are reported to have withdrawn from the siege of Misurata. See

Charles Levinson (Misrata), “Libyan Rebels Drive Army Out of Misrata,” Wall Street Journal, April 23, 2011.

Juan Miguel Muñoz (Bangasí / Enviado Especial) / agencias, “Las tropas de Gadafi se retiran de Misrata tras casi dos meses de ofensiva: Un portavoz rebelde confirma el giro en la estrategia de guerra del régimen libio, acuciado por los bombardeos de la OTAN,” 23 de abril de 2011.

Xan Rice (Misrata) “Libya: ‘If people in Misrata put down their guns, Gaddafi will kill all of us’: More than 1,000 people have died in Misrata since protests began in February, but its volunteer fighters remain defiant,” The Guardian (guardian.co.uk), April 23, 2011.

The breaking of the siege of Misurata is a very significant victory for the insurgents in Libya.

Possibly, it could be a turning point. But the need for foreign troops on the ground to end the assault on civilians by Qaddafi and his forces can not be excluded.

It is clear that the civilian population of Libya will not be secure from the bombardment of civilian populations, assassinations by snipers, extrajudicial killings throughout Libya, and being tracked down one-by-one by Qaddafi’s state security forces, often in the still of the night, until he is prevented from committing further war crimes and crimes against humanity by being removed from power.

The Trenchant Observer

Obama’s Debacle in Libya — Update #1 (April 22)

Friday, April 22nd, 2011

For vivid accounts of what is happening right now in Misurata, see

Andrew Malone, “The moment a Libyan sniper targeted two Mailmen, firing a bullet that tore into rebel guide’s side,” The Daily Mail, April 22, 2011.

Xan Rice, “Misrata rebels strike back against Gaddafi snipers: Libya rebels seize tallest buildings, favoured by pro-Gaddafi snipers,” The Guardian, April 22, 2011.

For an overview of the current situation, by the reporter providing perhaps the best day-to-day coverage of the war, see

Juan Miguel Muñoz, “La guerra de Libia se eterniza: Occidente descarta el desplome inmediato del régimen de Muamar el Gadafi — Los rebeldes resisten, pero no logran victorias para cambiar el curso bélico,” El País, April 22, 2011.

(The article can be translated by Google translate, at the bottom of this page.)

The U.S. has decided to send two drone aircraft to be used over Libya, but it is highly doubtful they they alone can turn the tide.

Security Council Resolution 1973 authorizes the use of “all necessary measures” to protect the civilian population of Libya. That includes the use of ground troops if necessary. It is the text of the Seurity Council resolution that has binding force. Consequently, any country is legally authorized to send ground troops into Libya to protect the civilian population, if it so decides.

Too little attention has been given by the nations of the world to the risks of failing to halt the attacks on civilians in Libya.

Coaltion governments agonize over the risk of inflicting civilian damage and hesitate to act, while hundreds of civilians die.

That is the collateral damage to the civilian population that the failure to act decisively has caused.

Senator McCain is in Libya urging stronger action, and also laying the foundation for a Republican campaign argument in 2012 that Obama is a weak leader on the international stage. In Libya, he stated,

“It is still incredibly puzzling to me that the two most accurate close air support weapons systems, the A-10 and the AC-130, have been taken out of the fight,” he said.

“I just came from a hospital where I saw the dead and dying, and it argues for us to help them and to get this thing over with and Gaddafi out.”

–Michael Brissenden, “McCain visits Libya to support rebels,” ABC News, April 22, 2011

So far, Obama’s debacle in Libia continues, unabated.

The Trenchant Observer

While Carthage Burns, Obama Dithers

Monday, March 14th, 2011

If we think of Carthage not as Tripoli, but as Libya, our title makes sense.

Supremely calculating, President Obama doesn’t seem motivated to do anything to prevent large numbers of Libyans, caught up in the fever of peaceful revolution that swept through Tunisia and then Egypt, from either being massacred or being slowly picked off, one by one.

Given the playbook telegraphed to the world, bets are Moammar Qaddafi will avoid the large-scale masacres that might be picked up by NATO surveillance planes and other capabilities, in favor of a slower though no less ruthless policy of picking off his opponents one by one. We know the routine: men with guns arrive at a residence in the dark of the night, and drag someone away.

Nonetheless, massacres remain a possibility, particularly when Qaddafi seeks to retake Benghazi.

Whatever the means, the use of state terror may enable Qaddafi to rule by fear, for a while longer.

Meanwhile, Obama demonstrates once again his lack of sense of the historical moment, and his apparent inability to act quickly to avert disaster.

It is now apparent, if it wasn’t earlier, that we need a president who comes to the office with a lifetime of thinking about and participating in international affairs. The world is far too complicated to figure out what to do in a certain situation through purely analytical means, by asking those around you for their views.

What a president needs, it turns out, is a large repertory of foreign policy issues considered and worked through, before he or she becomes president. He or she needs to have taken stands on fundamental moral issues, and worked through crises involving great consequences either way, before entering the Oval Office.

However brilliant you think you are, you can’t do this by grinding out an analysis of what other people tell you. Indeed, the foreign policy experience alluded to above should have informed your very selection of those who surround you and offer their advice.

Tom Ricks writes:

The more I study President Johnson’s handling of the Vietnam War, the more nervous I get about the Obama Administration.

I don’t think President Obama is excessively congressional in his outlook. But I fear Vice President Biden is. What’s more, they’ve compounded the error by stocking the White House staff with like-minded people, such as a national security advisor who was a lobbyist and a deputy national security advisor who was a Hill staffer. That comes on top of a president, a vice president and a secretary of State who all came directly from the Senate. That is a very narrow, very peculiar range of experience to bring to the task of dealing with the world out there…


Most of all, the congressional mentality sees little danger in inaction. On Capitol Hill, there’s always the next term. That’s not the case in foreign policy, where opportunities slip away never to return. Lost time is not found again. I think Obama handled Egypt well, but he didn’t have to do much there except speak well, which he does consistently. On Libya, though, dithering is dangerous. If you wait for an international consensus to emerge, it probably won’t…

If we have a foreign policy disaster on Obama’s watch, I think historians will zero in on the dangerous lack of diversity in the backgrounds and viewpoints of his key national security advisors….

The policy is set. Obama is scheduled to travel to Brazil, Chile and El Salvador this weekend. There he will find ample balm to soothe his mind from the critic’s sting.

Meanwhile, those poor souls who listened to what he said about the Egyptian revolution, and who assumed that some actions would follow his repeated declarations that “Qaddafi must go,” will have to face the war machines of a modern state, or the stealthy visits of its state security apparatus in the pit of the night, on their own.

The impact of Obama’s actions on the minds of the Arab masses in the Middle East and North Africa who live under dictatorial regimes, should not be dismissed or underestimated.

Here, Obama had a chance to get out in front of history. But to get out in front, you have to lead, not bring up the rear.

The Observer

www.trenchantobserver.com
Twitter: www.twitter.com/trenchantobserv
E-mail: observer@trenchantobserver.com

Comments are invited

The Struggle for Democracy in Bolivia, Spain, Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, Lebanon, Ivory Coast, and Iran

Thursday, March 3rd, 2011

Egypt, Tunisia, Libya, Ivory Coast, Iran

2011 is beginning to look like a year of contagious revolution–something like 1848 in Europe.

Egypt and Tunisia have overthrown dictatorial regimes in the last two months, and now the battle is joined in Libya–with the outcome hanging in the balance.

The U.N. Security Council has passed a resolution referring the matter of crimes against humanity and war crimes allegedly committed by Moammar Qaddafi and other Libyan government officials to the International Criminal Court in the Netherlands. The ICC announced on March 3, 2010 that it had opened an investigation.

The ICC should also investigate new allegations by the former Minister of the Interor of Libya that Col. Moammar Quddafi personally ordered the Lockerbie bombing in 1988.

In Ivory Coast, drawn out mediation by regional leaders has done little to remove Laurent Gbagbo from power, despite universal conclusions by outside observers and international organizations that he lost the recent elections to his opponent, Assanne Ouattara.

In Iran, opposition leaders Mir Hossein Mousavi and Mehdi Karroubi have reportedly been arrested, as “the Green Movement” shows renewed signs of life, in streeet demonstrations in the face of strong repression by state security officials.

The Universal Struggle for Democracy

The struggle for democracy is universal, based on universal ideals and principles of the United Nations Charter and international human rights law, including treaties to which the overwhelming majority of nations, of “states” as they are known in international law, are parties. Governments are bound under international law by treaties to which they are parties, including the United Nations Charter and the authority invested in the Security Council by the Charter. They are also bound by norms of customary international law, which increasingly includes guarantees of basic human rights including the rights to participate government and in free elections.

But the tide of freedom, while rising, also ebbs and flows. In any specific country, there is no guarantee that democratic government, once achieved, will never be lost. There is nothing inevitable about democratic government. That is why the struggle for democracy is a continuing struggle, not only to advance the cause of freedom where it does not exist but also to resist its reversal where it is eroding. Events in the last few months, offer illuminating examples of these precepts.

Tunisia

“Freedom” is in the air in Tunisia, after the first popular revolution in an Arab state in decades toppled the government of Ben Ami in Tunis, following 23 years of authoritarian rule and widespread corruption at the highest levels.

Lebanon

In Lebanon, Hezbollah withdrew in January from the unity government of Sa’ad Hariri, among thinly-veiled threats of civil war, if the government of Lebanon does not break ties with the U.N. International Tribunal for Lebanon, established by the Security Council to investigate and try those responsible for the assassination of Hariri’s father, Rafiq Hariri, in 2005. Hezbollah is militating against the United Nations Security Council, international law, and the tribunal established by the Security Council because, according to reports, it fears the Tribunal will issue indictments against Hezbollah members in the coming days or weeks.

The Tribunal itself has a statute which establishes due process of law for the hearing of the charges which may be brought by the Prosecutor of the Court. Hezbollah is arguing, if effect, that the Court is biased before any judicial proceedings against its members are initiated, and without regard to the fact that they will have a chance for a fair hearing, the questioning of evidence and of witnesses, in any proceedings that might be brought. With black shirts menacing and threatening to take physical control of West Beirut and large parts of the country, Hezbollah has positioned itself as an anti-democratic force opposed to the struggle for the rule of law within Lebanon, and one opposed to the United Nations, the Security Council and international law.

Outside parties have rushed to mediate. A Saudi-Syrian initiative has now been replaced by a Qatari-Turkish mediation effort. Democracy is in the balance.

What is at stake is the authority of the U.N. Security Council, the United Nations Charter, and international law. If Hezbollah can halt the cooperation of the government of Lebanon with of the STL by threats of civil war and dividing the country in two, its success would not bode well for the future of the International Criminal Court or other international tribunals that might be established in the future to deal with issues such as the Hariri assassination or issues of transitional justice.

Ivory Coast

In Ivory Coast, following democratic elections in which the opposition candidate, Alassanne Ouattara was clearly the winner, the incumbent Laurent Gbagbo refuses to leave power. The United Nations, the Organization of West African States, and many countries have taken the position that the true results of the elections must be honored, and Gbagbo must step down.

Neighboring states have undertaken mediation efforts, but matters stand at a stalemate as of today, with the potential for renewed violence and civil war very great. Democracy is in the balance.

The situation is becoming more explosive. Six women demonstrators were reportedly killed by Gbagbo forces on March 3, 2011. A return to civil war looms.

Bolivia

In Bolivia, Evo Morales, the first indigenous president whose MAS movement has a two-thirds majority in the congress, has moved systematically to dismantle the independence of the courts and to neutralize his political opponents, including four ex-presidents and numerous officials in their governments, by threatening or bringing legal action against them for acts carried out while they were in power. Through a law passed by his two-thirds majority in Congress, and a new Constitution which is now interpreted by judges he has appointed without any checks and balances, he now appears to use the legal system and the threat or bringing criminal and other charges against his opponents to muzzle the democratic opposition in Bolivia.

While seemingly leading this assault on the rule of law within Bolivia, nonetheless, he has sought to position Bolivia and his government as champions of the international Green Movement. That movement, whose members tend to be strong supporters of fundamental human rights, including the rights to participate in government, freedom from ex post facto laws (nulla poena sine lege), and the right to a fair trial before an independent judiciary, have been extremely slow to turn their spotlight on the systematic violations of human rights in which the government has engaged.

Here, there are strong echoes of the silence of the French Communist Party in the face of the Soviet and Warsaw Pact invasion of Czechoslovakia in 1968, and human rights abuses of communist governments in Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union more generally. This silence was brilliantly illuminated by Costa-Gavras in his 1970 film, ´The Confession” (“L’aveu”).

Spain

Spain is a very special case because the country is a member of the European Union and also a party to the European Convention on Human Rights. The decisions of the European Court of Justice applying EU law are binding on the members of the Union. Part of this law is contained in “ the general principles of law” which the European Court of Justice and inferior courts apply. Increasingly, these have been held been held to include basic human rights. More directly, the European Court of Human Rights applies the provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights in cases which come before it. Its decisions have binding effect in individual cases and enormous authority as case law or jurisprudence within countries that have ratified the Convention, including European nations and, in particular, Spain.

Consequently, Spain is less at risk of deviating in a fundamental and lasting way, from the fundamental precepts of democracy and the rule of law. Nonetheless, the Supreme Court of Spain has allowed the instruments of justice to be employed to violate the rights of a crusading investigating magistrate, Baltasar Garzón, forcing suspension from his position and threatening him with a penalty that would end his career.

What is particularly interesting about the Garzón case is that the Spanish Supreme Court has allowed the threat of removal from office to hang over Garzón, while both delaying his trial and rejecting motions by his lawyers to throw out the case—despite the fact that it is manifestly unfounded. Garzón’s position is supported by the Public Prosecutor’s Office (Office of the Attorney General).

Even more remarkable is that the charge against Garzón, prevaricación” (willful decision against justice) is, acccording to reports, precisely one of the key instruments the government of Evo Morales has used—the offense known in Bolivia as “prevaricato”–to remove judges and other officials or to threaten them in order to force them to resign.

So there is a connection between the Garzón case in Spain and the dismantling of an independent judiciary and the judicial attack on its opponents apparently being carried out by the Morales government. in Bolivia. That connection is the abuse of judicial authority in order to stifle opponents, whether judges or former presidents.

In Spain, as in Bolivia though not to the same extent, democracy and the rule of law are in the balance.

The Trenchant Observer

www.trenchantobserver.com
Twitter: www.twitter.com/trenchantobserv
E-mail: observer@trenchantobserver.com

Comments are invited.

For related and more recent articles on the struggle for democracy in Libya and elsewhere, see:

Repression in Syria, and the spread of universal ideals throughout the world
May 11, 2011

Negotiating with War Criminals? Obama’s Debacle in Libya — Update #7 (May 4)
May 4, 2011

If Misrata falls…: Obama’s debacle in Libya– Update #6 (May 2)
May 2, 2011

Fierce Artillery Attacks on Misurata: Obama’s Debacle in Libya — Update #5 (May 1)
May 1, 2011

NATO Impotent: Obama’s Debacle in Libya — Update #4 (April 28)
April 29, 2011

The Human Cost: Obama’s Debacle in Libya — Update #3 (April 26)
April 26, 2011

Obama’s Debacle in Libya — Update #2 (April 23)
April 23, 2011

Obama’s Debacle in Libya — Update #1 (April 22)
April 22, 2011

Obama’s Debacle in Libya
April 21, 2011

Libya — “All necessary measures”
March 29, 2011

Current military actions in Libya
March 26, 2011

“Analyst-in-Chief” muddies waters; “Commander-in-Chief” cannot be found
March 22, 2011

Shooting Straight About Military Operations in Libya
March 21, 2011

While Carthage Burns, Obama Dithers
March 14, 2011

Zawiyah–Qaddafi’s victory, but stories will be told
March 10th, 2011

Libya—America Abdicates Global Leadership in Struggle for Democracy
March 10th, 2011

Zawiyah 2011 = Srebrenice 2005
March 8th, 2011

Libya and “The Audacity to Act”
March 6, 2011