Kerry: Libya and the Just Use of American Force

[ProSense]

Libya and the Just Use of American Force

What is happening in the Middle East could be the most important geostrategic shift since the fall of the Berlin Wall.

By JOHN KERRY

The seas of people who thronged Cairo's Tahrir Square are gone now. But walking across its now-celebrated ground this week, I couldn't help but remember the inspiring scenes of Egyptians from all walks of life peacefully demanding freedom and dignity. The world watched in awe as the protesters and their young leaders changed the direction of a country and, together with Tunisians, perhaps the whole Arab world.

On Monday I shook hands with young Egyptians and listened to them speak of their hopes for their country. At a town-hall meeting I could sense some questioning whether the United States would really be there when it counted. I was proud that our answer came this week in Libya.

Everything I believe about the proper use of American force and the ability of the community of nations to speak with one voice was reaffirmed when the world refused to stand by and accept a bloody final chapter of the uprisings sweeping across North Africa and the Middle East. With a mandate from the Arab League and the Gulf states, the United Nations Security Council approved a limited military intervention to avoid a massacre. Multilateralism may be messy, but it's powerful when diplomacy pays off.

Make no mistake, neither the U.N. nor any nation should be drawn into military intervention lightly. But there were legitimate reasons for establishing a no-fly zone over Libya and forcing Gadhafi to keep his most potent weapons out of the fight. If you slice through the fog of misinformation and weigh the risks and benefits alongside our values and interests, the justification is clear and compelling.

more

[karynnj]

1. I can only read what is here, because my browser settings or firewall and the WSJ

don't seem compatible - but from what is here, this is an excellent op-ed.

This paragraph reminds me of Kerry's 2004 comes of how and when he would go to war. This did pass the "global test" and the US helped the world avert a massacre that by all accounts was imminent in days - if not hours. This is following our values.

[YvonneCa]

8. I'm in the same boat with the...

...browser. Funny, though, WSJ allows me access to the hateful comments. :(


I think Kerry is very consistent with his views on this. Problem is, his views ARE nuanced...and require VERY complicated explanations. I remember a talk he gave to the Council on Foreign Relations where he went into detail about how our energy policy funded both sides of wars in the Middle East and made the case...longterm...for what we are doing and why.

That case has not, IMO, been made to the American people yet. We talk energy. We talk climate change. We talk war. We talk Iran/Iraq, Pakistan/Afghanistan, Israel/Palestine...on and on...but rarely are the connections made.

And what little debate that actually happens...gets overshadowed by events(Japan, Egypt, nuclear power). I see the Obama Administration really trying to do this right...to educate the people at the same time and promote debate. All good. I just think most people aren't there yet. All these events are viewed in isolation...not as one problem that is multi-faceted that needs us to supply a consistent policy to solve it. Does that make any sense? :)

I just keep remembering the book talks for TMOE where JK said fixing energy is a 2-fer...then a 3-fer, then a 4/5-fer. :7
So much of this is linked together when you look at the big picture. But we keep getting caught up in the minutia(sp?).

[Rosa Luxemburg]

2. Protecting the oil supply!

[ProSense]

3. Which side

would have gotten the support of BushCo: Gaddafi or the rebels?

Oil companies from around the world are already in Libya.

ExxonMobil signs PSA with Libya National Oil

Why Gaddafi's Now a Good Guy

<...>

At the time, it may have sounded like the typical ramblings of the Libyan leader. But now, a year later, Gaddafi and Bush do apparently see eye to eye. On Monday, Gaddafi accomplished one of history's great diplomatic turnarounds when Secretary of State Condeleezza Rice announced that the U.S. was restoring full diplomatic relations with Libya and held up the Great Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya as "a model" for others to follow. Rice attributed the ending of the U.S.'s long break in diplomatic relations to Gaddafi's historic decision in 2003 to dismantle weapons of mass destruction and renounce terrorism as well as Libya's "excellent cooperation in response to common global threats faced by the civilized world since September 11, 2001."

<...>

Human Rights Watch.

Update: The Security Council voted on March 17 to impose a no-fly zone over Libya and authorized the use of “all necessary measures” to protect civilians, with the exception of foreign occupation. In response, Human Rights Watch Executive Director Kenneth Roth said: “For the second time in a month, the Security Council has defied expectations and risen to the occasion by making clear that all options are on the table to prevent mass atrocities in Libya. We hope that from now on, the Security Council will consistently live up to its duty to protect civilians in Libya and beyond.”

(New York) - The Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi's violent crackdown on protests and his long record of serious abuses raise grave concerns for the safety of the civilian population in Benghazi and other eastern cities as the fighting in Libya shifts eastward, Human Rights Watch said today.

The international community, and especially the UN Security Council meeting on March 17, 2011, has a responsibility to use necessary and appropriate measures to protect civilians from large-scale atrocities, Human Rights Watch said.
"Libyan security forces' possible capture of Benghazi heightens concerns of more abuses as we've seen elsewhere in Libya, including killings and disappearances," said Sarah Leah Whitson, Middle East and North Africa director at Human Rights Watch. "The world should not ignore the serious abuses by Libyan security forces over the past month, as well as Gaddafi's demonstrated disregard for human rights over four decades."

<...>

Amnesty International

<...>

Have Libyan forces been respecting international humanitarian law?
Amnesty International is troubled by reports that Libyan government forces have been bombarding rebel-held cities and towns, including through the use of artillery. In a densely populated urban environment, artillery cannot be used in a way that properly distinguishes between civilians and fighters. Its persistent use in these circumstances violates the prohibition on indiscriminate attack.

There have also been unconfirmed reports that Libyan airstrikes directly targeted civilians or were indiscriminate. Amnesty International is still working to verify these reports. We have received worrying reports of ongoing shelling or air strikes in several towns and villages where civilians are likely to have been at risk, and which are effectively cut off from the rest of the world because telephone networks have been disconnected. There are serious concerns for the fate of the population trapped in these areas.

While the use of aircraft to attack military targets may be legitimate, attacking forces must adhere strictly to the rules that safeguard civilians. Under no circumstances can they carry out attacks which directly target civilians or are indiscriminate or disproportionate.

<...>

What is Amnesty International calling for from al-Gaddafi's Government?
Colonel al-Gaddafi must immediately rein in his security forces and end killings, enforced disappearances and other human rights violations.

He should disclose the names of all those whom his forces are holding and where they are held and allow international access to ensure their safety and well-being.

<...>

[karynnj]

9. Kerry is among the very few to say that oil should NOT be the cause of our foreign policy

This is not a new position - it is why he voted against the first Gulf war, which was about oil - and even Senator Lugar was willing to say that in an open SFRC hearing with Jimmy Carter - where he brought up the Carter doctrine.

Kerry gave a speech at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace a week ago last Wednesday that explicitly spoke of how a US foreign policy based on oil and fear of terrorism was wrong and said that with the changes in the region, we need to readjust our policy.

Of course, America‟s relationship with the region requires a broader readjustment to reflect the new realities. For decades, our Middle East policy has been driven by our addiction to foreign oil—a dependency we have still been unable to break. And democracy and human rights have been overshadowed. Too often over the past decade we have seen regimes in the region chiefly as bulwarks in the fight against terrorism, while looking away from abuses we find unconscionable. The result has been relationships focused on leaders rather than people. But we Carnegie Endowment for International Peace

As the people of the region demand reform, our approach to the region must embody our core values. At the most basic level, that means that we must be consistent in encouraging governments everywhere to respond to the hopes, and needs, and rights of their citizens. We must also emphasize programs that will strengthen our engagement with the people. What that means in practice will vary from country to country. Egypt is not Jordan, and Jordan is not Libya.

But throughout we must push back against the consolidation of power that has bred economic stagnation, corruption, and popular dissatisfaction. We should encourage the establishment of institutions that translate the will of the people into action, that promote transparency and accountability from leaders, and that safeguard freedom and justice for all.

For this to happen, the citizenry—the entire citizenry—must have a greater voice in the affairs of their government. Just as women made their voices heard on the streets of Cairo and Tunis, so their voices must be heard in the halls of government.

transcript: http://carnegieendowment.org/files/Kerry_Middle_East_speech_20110316.pdf

Video: http://carnegieendowment.org/events/?fa=eventDetail&id=3161


It is silly to say that Kerry's oped is "protecting the oil supply" when Gadafi was selling the oil - and it is not clear we will get more under alternative leadership.

[Ramulux]

4. A lot of nonsensical flowery language

used to justify a military invasion. Keep spewing that pro-militaristic bullshit Mr. Kerry.

[ProSense]

5. Which part was

"nonsensical flowery language"? Here, more "pro-militaristic bullshit"

Markey Statement on Libya

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Representative Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.) issued the following statement on the situation in Libya.

“President Obama is right to work as part of a broad coalition in an effort to stop the violence against the Libyan people and enforce U.N. Resolution 1973.

“The current government of Libya has lost all legitimacy. Left unchecked, Gaddafi will commit unspeakable brutalities against his own people. We will need to continuously monitor Gaddafi’s responses to the pressure brought by the international coalition and adjust the strategy accordingly. The more nations involved in this multilateral effort, the more the people of Libya will know that the movement for democracy that is spreading throughout the Middle East has global support.

“We are watching a watershed moment not only in Libya but throughout the Middle East. History is on the side of these 21st century young, educated people who are calling for the end to this 20th century oil-fueled dictatorship. Seventy percent of Libya is young people, but they represent 100 percent of the future of the country. The message to Colonel Gaddafi is clear: the entire world community is united in protecting the Libyan people. Libyans must be able to chart their own future, free from violence and intimidation.”

[politicasista]

7. What did the Senator do the poster?

He is just being hopeful, but it must not be angry enough. :shrug:

Guess Kerry, Boxer, etc aren't favorite liberals anymore just because they defend this President. Unfortunate.

[politicasista]

6. Sounds like it is a tough time to be a pol based on this thread

You are danged if you do, danged if you don't. Not surprising the haters come out in force. Nothing he or Obama say/do is never good enough for some.

[jenmito]

10. K&R. Maddow, Schultz, O'Donnell, and Uygur all think Obama is doing the right thing.

That doesn't happen very often.

[robcon]

11. But I think candidate Obama would have disagreed with President Obama.

In 2007 Obama said:

"The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.

As Commander-in-Chief, the President does have a duty to protect and defend the United States. In instances of self-defense, the President would be within his constitutional authority to act before advising Congress or seeking its consent."


Since the president does not in his wildest imagination justify the Libyan adventure as an "actual or imminent threat" or "self-defense" of the U.S., I think the president has exposed a problem with his Libyan adventure - or at least with what candidate Obama said.

[PurityOfEssence]

12. It still doesn't make it legal, nor does it necessarily make it wise

Obama is in violation of the UN Participation Act of 1945, and the War Powers Act of 1973, both of which are current U.S. laws.

Quoted from the War Powers Act, with my emphases:

(c) The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to (1) a declaration of war, (2) specific statutory authorization, or (3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.

We have not been attacked. Period.

Here's an article from the American Journal of International Law, with the language from the law in bold:

� Under the UN Charter, in the event of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression, the UN Security Council may decide in accordance with Article 41 to recommend "measures not involving the use of armed force." If those measures prove inadequate, Article 43 provides that all UN members shall make available to the Security Council‑‑in accordance with special agreements‑‑armed forces and other assistance. These agreements would spell out the numbers and types of forces, their degree of readiness and general location, and the nature of the facilities and assistance to be provided. As noted above, it was anticipated that the member states would ratify these agreements "in accordance with their respective constitutional processes."

� "Constitutional processes" is defined in section 6 of the UN Participation Act of 1945. Without the slightest ambiguity, this statute requires that the agreements "shall be subject to the approval of the Congress by appropriate Act or joint resolution." Statutory language could not be clearer. The President must seek congressional approval in advance. Two qualifications are included in section 6:

��� The President shall not be deemed to require the authorization of the Congress to make available to the Security Council on its call in order to take action under article 42 of said Charter and pursuant to such special agreement or agreements the armed forces, facilities, or assistance provided for therein: Provided, That . . . nothing herein contained shall be construed as an authorization to the President by the Congress to make available to the Security Council for such purpose armed forces, facilities, or assistance in addition to the forces, facilities, and assistance provided for in such special agreement or agreements.

� The first qualification states that, once the President receives the approval of Congress for a special agreement, he does not need its subsequent approval to provide military assistance under Article 42 (pursuant to which the Security Council determines that peaceful means are inadequate and military action is necessary). Congressional approval is needed for the special agreement, not for the subsequent implementation of that agreement. The second qualification clarifies that nothing in the UN Participation Act is to be construed as congressional approval of other agreements entered into by the President.

� Thus, the qualifications do not eliminate the need for congressional approval. Presidents may commit armed forces to the United Nations only after Congress gives its explicit consent. That point is crucial. The League of Nations Covenant foundered precisely on whether congressional approval was needed before using *30 armed force. The framers of the UN Charter knew that history and consciously included protections of congressional prerogatives.

http://www.law.berkeley.edu/faculty/yooj/courses/forrel/reserve/fisher.htm

Just because we "like" something doesn't make it legal, and the assertion to do it anyway belies recklessness and selfishness. There's plenty to justify stepping in to help the civilians and even the rebels, but its Congress' right to decide, NOT the President's. It's not the least bit clear that permission would have been granted, and certainly not for such a blank-check of action. Talk of a "no-fly zone" were bandied about and the Senate even passed a non-binding resolution saying that it thought the United Nations, with no mention of our participation should implement such a zone, but that doesn't encompass destroying military vehicles or providing close-air support to land operations. That's entirely different.