Libya: FCNL Statements and Information

As Qaddafi appears to be finally lose his grip on Libya, many policymakers and pundits are celebrating the US/NATO military intervention as a great success. Yesterday the White House released a statement lauding how the US led the international community in responding to the crisis, noting that in the early days the US provided "the bulk of the firepower" in the UN-authorized mission to enforce a no-fly zone and beat back Qaddafi's forces. The President claims that "the future of Libya is in the hands of its people."

But I still have my doubts. And I still believe war is not the answer.

Congress is in the midst of an intense debate on U.S. military intervention in Libya that illustrates why prevention really is the best protection.

Yesterday the Senate Foreign Relations Committee [link to committee page so people can see members] approved (14-5) S J Res 20 [link to resolution] authorizing U.S. military action in Libya in support of the NATO intervention. The resolution is sponsored by a powerful bipartisan group including Sens. Kerry (MA), McCain (AZ), Levin (MI), Feinstein (CA), and will likely come to the floor for a vote later in July. The committee mark up followed an earlier hearing on the War Powers Resolution which showed senators divided over whether the Obama Administration needs congressional authorization to continue current U.S. military operations in support of the now NATO-led mission. Sen. Lugar (IN) succeeded in adding an amendment during mark up of the authorizing resolution stating that congressional approval is required. The war resolution is expected to come to the floor later in July.

In the last week, the House has passed five different pieces of legislation on Libya. Last week, Congress appeared united in sentiment about U.S. operations in Libya, easily passing three amendments—ranging from expressing Congress didn’t authorize the mission to no ground troops—to the NDAA last week almost unanimously.

This week, the issue got political. Rep. Dennis Kucinich (OH) introduced H. Con. Res 51 to challenge the President’s authority under section 5(c) of the War Powers Resolution. The resolution was scheduled for the House floor on Wednesday 01 June, but House leadership pulled the bill. Speaker of the House Boehner (OH) told Republican colleagues he didn’t “want to turn the floor over to Dennis Kucinich.” The Kucinich resolution, which failed 148-265, would have required the President to withdraw all U.S. assets from the Libyan civil war within 15 days of passage.

Today, the House will consider two resolutions on Libya. One, offered by Rep. Dennis Kucinich (OH), calls into question the legality of the Libya operation under War Powers Resolution, requiring the U.S. to pull out troops and assets within 15 days. The other, offered by Speaker of the House Rep. John Boehner (OH), would prohibit ground troops from being deployed to Libya.

The effort comes only one week after the House overwhelmingly passed an amendment offered by Rep. John Conyers (MI) to prevent the deployment of troops to Libya on the NDAA by a vote of 416-5. Initially, Mr. Kucinich’s resolution, H Con. Res. 51, was supposed to be considered by the House on Wednesday this week. House leadership pulled the bill from the schedule because, as one Hill staffer said when asked if it could pass, “we have no idea.”

The Obama administration may unfreeze some $30 billion in Libyan assets to assist Libyan rebels in driving Muammar Gaddafi from power and end the military stalemate. President Obama met with Mahmoud Jibril this morning at the White House to discuss the prospects for such a deal. If the U.S. decides to free up assets frozen by economic sanctions, it would represent a significant policy shift for the Obama administration and an escalation of the Libyan civil war.

The policy shift would come after nearly two months of a sustained bombings campaign in which over 3,000 bombs have been dropped since March 19th, when the U.S. begin enforcing the United Nations and Arab League sanctioned no-fly zone over Libya. A policy change like this would represent a significant escalation to the civil war in Libya. This, of course, will not bring peace or stability to Libya. (Read what could here). The no-fly zone, originally established under the auspices of protecting civilians, has failed to drive Muammar Gaddafi from power; in addition, it has also failed to adequately protect civilians or mitigate a large humanitarian crisis.

A resolution to the conflict in Libya does not seem immanent. The humanitarian crisis is worsening; the Obama administration has authorized the use of armed drones; and the U.S. is being pushed toward greater involvement by NATO allies. Are U.S. boots on the ground in Libya in the future? The Administration has been adamant that no U.S. troops will be deployed to Libya, but the future is a fickle thing to predict. FCNL has been clear: there’s no military solution to the conflict in Libya.

The humanitarian crisis has in fact worsened as a result of military intervention, as I predicted in early March. The rebels forces are reporting that 10,000 people are dead and 55,000 have been wounded in just the last two months. The United Nations High Commission on Refugees (UNHCR) is reporting an increased number of people are fleeing toward Tunisia and Egypt. The humanitarian crisis is likely to get much worse in the coming months; well over 300,000 people have already fled.

Yesterday, South African President Jacob Zuma announced that President Gaddafi accepted a “roadmap to peace” outlined by the African Union. Less than 24 hours later, Libyan rebel forces rejected the peace deal. Mustafa Abdel Jalil, the rebel’s leader, told reporters the deal was rejected because it failed to push Gaddafi and his sons out of the country—a precondition echoed by the Obama administration.

FCNL supports the initiative, despite the imperfect first attempt. The peace plan, which calls for a cease fire, dialog between conflicted groups and the suspension of air strikes, is a good start.

Over the last several weeks, conversations about the US led and NATO backed military operation in Libya have largely focused on two things: the perceived need for intervention to stop mass killings of civilians in Libya; and the rate at which the U.S. can disengage from its military assault on Libya. Aside from being narrowly short sighted, these conversations ignore something very important: the U.S., after decades of undermining the structures of prevention, cannot destroy Libya from the air and expect to have a long term positive impact on the humanitarian crisis.

The U.S. led war in Libya has been hailed by some as the embodiment of the “Responsibility to Protect” (R2P) doctrine. In 2005, the US joined the majority of the world’s government’s by agreeing to a new global norm for the protection of civilians. When a state is unable or unwilling to protect its own citizens, the international community has agreed to act. The intervention in Libya is seen by many as the inauguration of R2P.

President Obama delivered a primetime speech on March 28 to justify military intervention in Libya. The President evoked “a looming humanitarian crisis” to justify military action. In the eyes of some commentators, the president failed to obtain the appropriate authorizations for starting this new war. The multilateral approach to the Libyan no-fly zone—commenced through United Nations Resolution 1973 and backed by the Arab League—does not exonerate the President from seeing Congressional approval for war, especially since the United States is doing nearly all of the heavy lifting on the Libyan no-fly zone.

Addressing questions and dispelling myths:

Did the establishment of a no-fly zone (NFZ) prevent genocide in Libya? In the short term, the president argues the NFZ has prevented civilian deaths. Of course, one cannot decisively prove or disprove the U.S. led NFZ did, in fact, prevent civilian deaths that didn’t happen. Moreover, the intervention has gone well beyond the NFZ authorized by the UN Security Council. In the long term, assuming military intervention will cause fewer deaths than an active civil war is simply wrong. War exacerbates humanitarian crisis and civilian deaths; Libya will be no exception. Escalating civil war in Libya does not undermine the conditions for genocide; rather, it creates them.

The deteriorating situation in Libya over the past month has ignited a great deal of passionate debate about the role of the United States in the world. As a result, many people across the United States and around the world were eager to hear what President Obama would say last night in his address to the nation about U.S. foreign policy objectives in Libya. I am one of those folks.

There are myriad issues raised in the President’s speech – too many to address in one blog post. This morning I feel compelled to write about both the failure and the promise of diplomacy as a crucial element in our foreign policy toolkit.

Several excerpts from the speech may help to define part of the core problem that we face in Libya and elsewhere in the world.

The Friends Committee on National Legislation supports and is inspired by the aspirations of people across the Arab world who are employing nonviolent means to demand more open, responsive government and an end to authoritarian rule. At the same time, we are gravely concerned by the escalating fighting in Libya and the anticipated military engagement by the international community. We believe the means that are used to seek change in society either create or obstruct the desirable ends.

We are appalled at the violence, and we grieve over the lives lost during the ongoing struggle for freedom, democracy and human rights. We lift up our concern for those who have been injured. We urge our government to use its diplomatic influence and its resources to support nonviolent, locally-led democratic change in the interest of promoting equality, justice, and a lasting peace throughout North Africa and the Middle East. We oppose the use of violence and military intervention as a means to achieve regime change.

Libya's humanitarian crisis is of great concern. However, as with Afghanistan and so many other conflicts in the world, there is no military solution. The humanitarian crisis should be handled through aid and relief by expert humanitarian organizations, not with bullets and bombs by military intervention.

Moreover, a no-fly zone in Libya—whether by the U.N. or U.S.—would not improve the growing humanitarian crisis in the country, nor would it ensure the removal of President Muamar Qaddafi from power.

The non-violent protests that ousted authoritarian governments in Tunisia and Egypt have inspired people across the world demand political change. As readers of this blog will note, many people in the FCNL community were particular delighted by the reaffirmation of the power of nonviolence.

Yet the power of nonviolence seems lost to some policymakers here in Washington. I suppose we shouldn’t be surprised that as soon as the protests in Libya turned violent there were calls for military intervention. What amazed me is that even before some of the groups (and certainly not all) in Libya began calling for international military intervention, some individuals in Congress, in the administration, and in the policy making community began arguing for a no-fly zone over Libya. Has the United States really learned that little?