|
Q Switching gears, just one follow-up question. What message is the U.S. trying to send to Qaddafi by moving warships closer to Libya?
MR. CARNEY: We are, the United States, preparing for contingencies by moving some assets into the region, primarily focused on the potential humanitarian contingencies that are out there. But as I have said and others have said, our U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations said yesterday, we obviously aren’t taking any options off the table. But this is contingency planning, essentially.
Q Just following up on Libya, Qaddafi -- there's no indication that -- unlike the previous version of this film that we saw in Egypt, there's no indication that he’s moving towards bowing out. If anything, he was walking around Tripoli. There are support -- he does have support in Tripoli. Moving warships to the Red Sea and the Mediterranean -- or humanitarian ships is not going to be enough. What else can the U.S. do? What else does the White House intend to do?
MR. CARNEY: Jake, I think we have done already quite a lot unilaterally and working with our international partners through the United Nations and the EU and other places. The unilateral sanctions that we imposed on Friday have already led the Treasury to block access to $30 billion of assets held by the Libyan regime, by members of the regime. That's a pretty strong message about the consequences of this continued behavior.
The United Nations has, with incredible speed, made clear that it will refer to the International Criminal Court the abuses of human rights that are being proven to have happened in Libya and continue to happen, and that that will -- that demonstrates the international community’s commitment to hold accountable those who would perpetrate the kind of violations that we've been seeing and hearing about. That produces, we believe, pressure on the regime. And as I said yesterday, those who are around Colonel Qaddafi who are wondering which way they should go and whether or not they should continue to support this leader who no longer has credibility at home or anywhere in the world, they ought to think twice about it, because the consequences of continuing to support Colonel Qaddafi are quite severe. They will be held accountable.
Q Last week we saw a rash of Libyan ambassadors and some ministers and others separating themselves, removing themselves from the Libyan regime. We have not seen that in recent days, even as the U.S. has upped the pressure. You're talking about those around Qaddafi needing to think about what side they want to be on. Right now, hypothetically, stepping into one of their shoes, I don't really know how it’s going to go. It doesn’t really seem like the momentum for him to actually have to be forced from office is there right now --
MR. CARNEY: Well, Jake, I would --
Q -- just based on activities last week compared to this week.
MR. CARNEY: I would say, first of all, I understand that -- and that's a fair question. I understand that as we all watch the events in the Middle East and Libya and other countries that the drama we are witnessing creates in us a sense of urgency. But when you say you don't see a sense of momentum, my goodness, would anyone have predicted two weeks ago or three weeks ago that Colonel Qaddafi would be in this position that he is in now where great swaths --
Q I just mean based on those around him.
MR. CARNEY: -- great swaths of the country are no longer in the control of his regime; where the entire international community, including Arab nations, have arrayed against him and called him illegitimate and not credible as a leader --
Q I only meant, in terms of momentum, I was just talking about those in the regime leaving the regime.
MR. CARNEY: Again, you're talking about a matter of days since -- or if that -- hours maybe since high-level officials around him have separated themselves from him, so I don't -- I’m not sure I can accept the premise that there is a lack of momentum.
Q When is the last one who left the regime -- who is the last one to do it?
MR. CARNEY: Jake, what I’m saying is that the rapidity of events in the last 10 days is rather remarkable, so the idea that things are moving slowly I just don't think is credible.
Yes, Dan.
Q Is the administration surprised at all that Qaddafi doesn’t appear to be getting the message? I mean despite the sanctions -- and I know it’s only been last Friday, but still, as Jake was pointing out, no sign that he’s backing down. So is there surprise that these sanctions or whatever -- these other options they have on the table so far are not making him budge?
MR. CARNEY: I would -- I won’t bore you by repeating exactly what I said to Jake.
Q -- change a bit. (Laughter.)
MR. CARNEY: But the point -- I could mix it up, use some new verbs. But the point is the same, that events have moved with remarkable speed and we have reacted -- both the United States, President Obama, the international community -- with remarkable speed.
And not everything we do comes in the form of a speech or an announcement. One of the reasons why we had so much success -- we and our partners -- in moving the international process forward so quickly is because of the intense diplomacy, the quiet diplomacy that that entailed. And you can be sure, as I said yesterday, that the President and all senior members of the national security team are focused on this intensely and continue to be.
So I just think you cannot reasonably measure momentum in this situation and in terms of hours and days when the speed -- the momentum has been almost blinding in terms of what we’ve seen in the region and in Libya specifically.
Q On the phone conversation with Mr. Boehner, did the President -- I know you don't want to talk about specifics, but was there a commitment at all from Mr. Boehner about a long-term solution, making sure that there is a long-term solution quickly so that you're not going two weeks by two weeks?
MR. CARNEY: Without addressing the specifics or the content of that conversation, I will go back to what I said before, which is our general concern -- without going to whether two weeks was acceptable or 16 days or 21 days -- is that there is a focus by all parties on the need to resolve this in a way that -- where we get the spending cuts that we call can agree on, that funds the government with those spending cuts for the end of the year, fiscal year, and then allows us to move on and address the other important issues facing us.
Q So there was no commitment? You won’t say if there was a commitment?
MR. CARNEY: I’m not going to go into the content of the conversation beyond what I’ve already said.
Yes.
Q Did you say who called whom?
MR. CARNEY: The President called Speaker Boehner.
Q Okay, he got directly to him? This wasn’t one of those -- (laughter.)
MR. CARNEY: It was quite quick, yes.
Q Okay, glad to hear it. Question: Boehner himself said today in a little press -- not a press conference, but a Q&A a little while ago when he was asked did the President come late to the game on this one-month extension, and Boehner said if there had been a conversation about this 10 days or two days ago, you know we might have had something to talk about. But the fact is that we were forced to move on our own. He’s suggesting that if the President hadn’t been slow to the game on this, that maybe they would have been able to do a one-month extension. Comment?
MR. CARNEY: I would simply say that, again, the President and the Speaker had a productive and useful conversation today --
Q He said if they had had it two days ago things might be different.
MR. CARNEY: I see no reason, and I don’t believe we see any reason why we cannot engage -- as we have been, by the way, at the staff level prior to this -- but as have Democrats on the Hill, Democrats and Republicans together in this process going forward. We -- the American people expect us to come together.
The President has made very clear in his -- that he is also committed to cutting spending. There’s no longer -- there’s no debate here about the need to cut spending. The question is where do you cut in a way that doesn’t harm the economy, doesn’t throw it in reverse, doesn’t reduce job growth, job creation, and it protects the investments that are so key to longer-term economic growth in this country. And the President thinks there’s common ground there.
We have made clear that we could accept, even over a relatively short period of time, $8 billion in cuts that we can agree on. I think that’s a substantial number and demonstrates our -- his commitment to the need to tighten our belts, as long as we protect essential functions of government, national security, and don’t do anything that would hurt our ability to grow and create jobs.
Q Was this a pleasant call or was it as they say, “frank and direct”?
MR. CARNEY: It was a good call. I’m not going to use the diplomatic-ese. It was a good call and, from what I understand, very productive.
Q Could you update us on what the President’s latest thinking is on whether he’s going to give a speech on the Middle East overall? And secondly, have you heard him talk recently about what he believes is the common element in all of these different uprisings all through Northern Africa and the Middle East? What makes them all similar? What do they all have in common?
MR. CARNEY: Well, I don’t even -- I have heard him discuss this recently, and I would simply say that -- I’ve spoken to this quite a bit from this podium, because the elements of his perspective on this are contained within the speech he gave in Cairo early in his presidency that talked about the need for the countries in the region to be -- to hear the voices of their peoples, to be responsive to their aspirations, and to reform their political systems in a way that meets those aspirations -- and precisely for the reason that more democracy, more pluralism, more participation by the peoples in these countries, in that region, is a way to prevent the kind of instability and unrest that inevitably comes when entire populations feel that they’re not being heard or respected and that their aspirations aren’t being met and their grievances not being legitimately considered.
So his principles in dealing with all of these situations in these countries again go back to non-violent response to peaceful demonstrations; to respect for the universal rights of the peoples in the region who -- the right to free speech, the right to free assembly, the right to access to information; and then the need to engage in a political process, a reform process, that brings in the people of the region in these countries to participate in their government and in a way that gives them a greater voice.
Q A speech on that is --
MR. CARNEY: There are many ways that the President can, has and will address what's been happening in the Middle East. He has spoken now, I believe, four times on this issue, and will speak again on this issue. In fact, I expect he’ll speak on it -- is it Thursday that the President of Mexico will be here? You may hear from him on that day about this. As for other plans, we’re always looking at different options.
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
