WATCH: President Obama in Afghanistan at 7:30 p.m. EDT (4:30 Pacific)

President Obama is in Afghanistan and tonight, at 7:30 p.m. EDT, he'll address the nation on the future of the NATO mission in the region after a decade of war.

What: President Obama addresses the nation

    

When: Tonight at 7:30 p.m. EDT, 4:30 Pacific Time

    

Where: WhiteHouse.gov/Live

Be sure to watch!

Libya for the Libyans: Stop the intervention!

After the killing of former Libyan leader Muammar Gadaffi, some in  the corporate controlled media are extolling the overall operation as  the right way for the United States to project force overseas.

 

We beg to differ.

 

We find the whole episode, starting  with the beginning of NATO intervention in March, to be very troubling.  Rather than a model to be emulated, the operation sets very bad  precedents.

The United Nations was crudely superseded by the North Atlantic  Treaty Organization (NATO), whose leaders took a mandate to prevent a  possible massacre of civilians and transformed it into a gung ho mission  of "regime change".  NATO is now posing as an international  organization. It is nothing of the kind; it is a military alliance in  which there is no representation of African, Latin American or, with the  exception of Turkey, Asian nations. The key role in the NATO  intervention in Libya is being played by the former colonial powers  (France and the UK, and, to a lesser extent, Libya's former colonial  master, Italy as well as the United States) who have a vested interest  in trade policy with the African continent, and control of that  continent's natural resources. Window dressing was provided by some of  the Arab states, which themselves are hardly paragons of democracy and  good government.

Efforts by many nations and groupings, including the African Union,  the BRICS countries and the ALBA grouping, to obtain a cease fire and  get negotiations for a peaceful solution underway were cynically brushed  aside. This led to a far bloodier conflict than might otherwise have  been the case.

 

Although Gadaffi was correctly denounced for his repressive  policies, little or nothing was said or done by the NATO powers about  the well-documented persecution and reprisals against Black Libyans and  immigrants from other African countries residing in Libya. Unless some  action is taken, these and other reprisals are likely to continue.

 

There is a real danger that the NATO powers, and especially the  former colonial powers, will use the elimination of Gadaffi to increase  their control of the economies and trade of the African states, in the  process imposing even harsher neo-liberal policies of "free" trade,  privatization and austerity on some of the poorest countries in the  world.

 

The Communist Party of the USA calls for a halt to this kind of  interventionist policy. We call for the strengthening of real  international organizations in which all nations and regions of the  world have a vote. Rather than NATO military intervention, conflicts  within and between nations in Africa and everywhere else should be  settled peacefully by negotiations.  There is, in fact, no reason for  the existence of NATO, let alone its transformation into a worldwide  imperialist intervention force that has ranged as far afield as the  Balkans, Iraq, Afghanistan and now Libya.

 

The danger now is that the NATO powers, and international monopoly  capital, take advantage of the Libya situation to maximize their profits  from Libyan oil, natural gas and water resources, as well as  strengthening their control over the economies of the impoverished  African countries which depended on Libyan aid to survive.  The  Communist Party of the USA pledges to oppose all policies which plunge  Libya and its African neighbors into deeper poverty and dependency.

 

Libya for the Libyans!  Africa for the Africans!

 

International Department

Communist Party

Source: E-letter from CPUSA. Photo by Amar Abd Rabbo.

Ron Paul Issues Statement on Libya

Yet another unconstitutional and costly adventure

LAKE JACKSON, Texas– Today, 2012 Republican Presidential candidate Ron Paul issued a statement on the situation in Libya. See comments below.

“The current situation in Libya may be a short term victory for Empire, but it is a loss for our American Republic. And, I fear it may be devastating to the Libyan people.

“There is no doubt that Moammar Gadhafi is a bad guy, and that he has brought harm and misery to his country. However, our involvement in another country’s civil war is costly and unconstitutional.

“We have spent over $1 billion on a war that this administration has fought not with the consent of Congress but under a NATO flag and authorization from the United Nations.

“It is a serious thing for a President to engage us in a war. He is bound by our Constitution to seek authority from the People, through our Congress, prior to engaging in any military action unless that action is to address an imminent threat to our safety and security. The situation in Libya is a civil war contained within that country’s sovereign borders, and it presented no imminent threat to the United States.

“And so, our government continues to spend trillions of dollars in overseas foreign wars while we face unsustainable debt, a looming dollar crisis, and our Constitution seems to lose any meaning. These actions will sink our country if we do not reverse course.

“Meanwhile, we must beware of any ‘Mission Accomplished’ euphoria. The conflict in Libya is far from over, and there could very well be war in Libya for a long time to come.

“While I hope and pray that the hostility draws to a close and the people there find peace, I fear this is only wishful thinking. We face a situation where a rebel element we have been assisting may very well be radical jihadists, bent on our destruction, and placed in positions of power in a new government.

“Worse still, Gadhafi’s successor is likely to be just as bad, or worse, than Gadhafi himself.   Alternately, Libya may descend into anarchy like Somalia after the overthrow of dictator Siad Barre.  Much like when we removed Saddam Hussein, another thug in Iraq, the likelihood of either a new brutal dictatorship or tribal violence and a protracted insurgency are much more likely than the peaceful transition to democracy we are all hoping for.

“With all these problems and the predictable chaos that will likely ensue, we must ask why this administration was so eager to embark on this Libyan operation in the name of ‘humanitarianism.’ Governments in Bahrain and Yemen have this year used military force to put down democratic protestors. The Saudi regime, which practices Sharia Law, has also been repressive, yet we have not intervened there. These countries continue to sell us oil, while Libya had begun to turn their exports toward Russia, China, India, and Brazil. Could this war largely be about protecting our oil interests at the expense of our Constitution?

“This episode is all too familiar. We were already involved in two wars that have dragged on years longer than the people who led us into them initially predicted.  We can no longer afford to police the world, in terms of both dollars and American lives. We will destroy ourselves if we do not stop, build a strong national defense at home, and focus on trade and commerce with the world instead of Empire.”

The Green Party urges US/NATO to withdraw from Libya and support African Union efforts to broker a resolution

WASHINGTON, DC -- Green Party leaders urged an immediate US/NATO withdrawal from Libya after the advance of rebel forces into Tripoli, and called on President Obama to support a political solution to the crisis in Libya through diplomacy, with the involvement of the African Union, Arab League, and United Nations.

"The African Union's mediation committee offered a positive outline for an immediate ceasefire, followed by negotiation without preconditions and democratic elections in Libya. This is the perfect moment for President Obama, NATO, and the UN to support the efforts of the African Union to broker a resolution. All elements of Libyan society must be invited to the table to determine the country's new direction. The Libyan people must be allowed to decide their own future," said Romi Elnagar, member of the Green Party of Louisiana and the Green Party's International Committee (http://www.gp.org/committees/intl).

"If US and NATO forces prolong military action and attempt an occupation to stabilize Libya, the result will be more civilian lives lost and a disaster similar to the occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan, and the evaporation of hopes for freedom and democratic self-determination for the Libyan people," Ms. Elnagar added.

See "African Union Statement on the NATO Invasion of Libya: It's Time to End the Bombing and Find a Political Solution in Libya" by Dr Ruhakana Rugunda, Uganda's Permanent Representative to the UN, New Vision (Uganda), June 17, 2011 (http://www.newvision.co.ug/D/8/12/757904). According to the statement, "Gadaffi accepted dialogue when the AU mediation Committee visited Tripoli on April 10, 2011. Any war activities after that have been provocation for Africa. It is an unnecessary war."

The Green Party opposed the US/NATO assault on Libya from the beginning (http://www.gp.org/press/pr-national.php?ID=399) and Greens have strongly criticized President Obama for public statements, after the beginning of the attack, in which he changed the goal from "humanitarian intervention" for the protection of Libyan civilians to ousting Gaddafi. Attacking a country to remove its leadership is a violation of international law. The Libyan war was also conducted without congressional approval, even after the US House in June voted against authorizing continued military operations in Libya for one year.

The Green Party supports nonviolent resistance to oppression, as most Palestinians have practiced for decades and Egyptians more recently, and deplores the killing of unarmed civilians.

"The severity of bombing raids over the past few months suggests that Gaddafi himself has been and may still be the target. The bombing inevitably turned indiscriminate and led to widespread civilian death and injury. NATO's claim of protecting civilian lives has become increasingly implausible. Unfortunately, Secretary of State Clinton's refusal to grant the Libyan UN ambassador a visa has censored Libya's own collected statistics on civilian casualties resulting from the raids," said Farheen Hakeem, co-chair of the Green Party of the United States.

Cynthia McKinney, the Green Party's 2008 presidential nominee, recently conducted a fact-finding tour of Libya and reported on NATO's bombing of civilians at Al Fateh University, Campus B, in Tripoli on June 9 in her blog at Black Agenda Report (http://www.blackagendareport.com/content/more-nato-humanitarian-interventionthe-bombing-al-fateh-university-campus-b).

Green Party leaders noted that, while attacking Libya in the name of democracy and liberation, the US has withheld criticism of violent repression of popular movements for democracy in Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and the Palestinian territories occupied by Israel, which are US allies.

Greens have agreed with the call by the United National Antiwar Committee "for an immediate halt to US intervention in regions and countries where mass mobilizations are challenging oppressive regimes" (Statement on Libya, http://nepajac.org/libya.htm) and warned against US efforts to co-opt movements for democracy in African countries and force them to accept Africom (United States Africa Command), a program to impose US military presence and strategic objectives in African countries.

"The unprovoked assault on Libya has constituted a third war, with US troops still occupying Iraq and Afghanistan/Pakistan, against the government of a majority Muslim nation. It has opened a dangerous new front in a wider unending US war that is at least in part motivated by a desire to control the planet's largest oil reserves in the coming decades. These policies, unless reversed, may eventually ignite a global conflict in this century of dwindling oil resources and advancing climate change. Already, the US has spent $3.7 trillion on wars during the past decade, draining sorely needed funds from public services and other domestic necessities and aggravating the current fiscal crisis. It's time to retire the Bush-Cheney-Obama policy of military aggression," said Muhammed Malik, co-chair of the Miami-Dade Green Party (http://www.miamidadegreenparty.org) and a member of the Green Party's International Committee.

Democratic Transition in Libya

Hillary Rodham Clinton

Secretary of State

Instead of issuing threats, Qadhafi should put the well-being and the interests of his own people first, and he should step down from power and help facilitate a democratic transition that will meet the aspirations of the Libyan people.

***

Qadhafi needs to stop the assault on the Libyan people and leave power. We appreciate Spain's contributions to enforcing the no-fly zone and the arms embargo. The NATO-lead mission is on track. The pressure on Qadhafi is mounting. And the rebels have been gaining strength and momentum. We need to see this through, and we are in complete agreement that we will.

Qadafi Is Ready For a Truce… NOT!

By Zach Foster

Breaking news from last night: the President of South Africa and Libyan despot-in-chief Muammar Qadafi have announced in a joint press conference that the great leader of the Libyan Socialist People’s Republic (the abbreviated name of the republic) is ready for a truce to bring an end to the civil war that has killed thousands (most of them unarmed civilian casualties inflicted by his loyalists).

South African President Jacob Zuma arrived in Tripoli to meet with Qadafi, and emerged from this meeting trying to assure the international community that the Libyan head of state—still unrepentant about slaughtering thousands of his own people for such insolence as speaking their minds—is “ready to implement the road map” [to peace].  According to an MSNBC report that was published to the web last night, “Zuma said Gadhafi insists that ‘all Libyans be given a chance to talk among themselves’ to determine the country's future.  He did not say Gadhafi is ready to step down, which is the central demand of the rebels.”

The same report said “In April... Gadhafi said he would accept the truce but quickly ignored it and resumed his attacks, while the rebels rejected the cease-fire out of hand because it did not include Gadhafi's exit from power. Since then many cease-fire efforts have failed for similar reasons.”

The rebel government and rebel forces are not at fault for the lack of a truce in Libya.  They have made it clear that they want Qadafi to step down.  They will most likely allow him to live in exile abroad without bringing him back to be tried for crimes against humanity, as long as it brings an end to the war.  Furthermore, every time Qadafi has announced ceasefires on his own, without attempting to reach the rebel leadership, he has promptly violated them, simply having lied in order to buy time to rearm, regroup, and move men and supplies in his fight to hold onto power.

The author never thought he’d write this, but Qadafi’s aggressive violations of ceasefires make the North Vietnamese look like rookies and pacifists.  Not only has Qadafi denied his citizens their most basic human rights, but he has delivered one lie after another to his people and the world.  Such lies include: 1) February, when he claimed that he was not the one ordering troops, police, and mercenaries to fire on the civilians, since he is only a figurehead leader; 2) February, when he said the riots that were turning into gun battles were being provoked by Al Qaeda; 3) March, when he threatened to join Al Qaeda if NATO got involved in the new civil war; 4) when he claimed that rebel forces were slaughtering civilians, not his loyalist troops.  The list goes on.

The rebel forces must continue to fight on.  Even though the initial NATO intervention was a necessary evil, simply for the sake of keeping the rebellion from being erased from existence by Qadafi’s loyalists, neither the U.S., the U.K., nor NATO can continue to hold the rebellion’s hand from a distance.  NATO either needs to get involved and commit combat troops, the way the United Nations intervened on behalf of South Korea in 1950, or NATO needs to allow the rebels to fight it out on their own.  It is one thing to make an advisory commitment by sending a handful of Special Forces troops to train their allies—the rebel forces, governed by the Interim National Council—but making this halfway no-fly-zone commitment that seems to have no end can only rob the rebel government of its sovereignty.

Furthermore, the rebel government needs to provide stability and rule of law in the areas it controls.  This means swearing the local police in allegiance to the new government, having the local police patrol peaceful areas while rebel soldiers patrol hazardous areas, and letting the citizenry rebuild their infrastructure and resume life as usual.  Furthermore, the old Constitution—dissolved by the “great leader” himself after the 1969 coup—needs to be re-evaluated and adapted to modern situations, and a new Constitution and Bill of Rights need to be brought into existence and enforced.  The current law of the land in Libya is the Green Book, Qadafi’s attempt at imitating Mao’s Little Red Book by drafting a pocket-sized guide that dictates public policy based on Arab nationalist socialism and his own personality cult.  This obviously no longer applies to the rebel-controlled areas.

The rebel government will be best off if it models its Constitution and Bill of Rights after the American counterparts.  Whatever the new law of the land will be in rebel territory, it must be all-inclusive, protective of civil rights and individual rights, and it must be put into effect quickly so that Libyans in territory held by Qadafi loyalists can draw hope from the freedom and prosperity the rebels have erected in spite of tyranny and death.

West Wing Week: "Under the Big Blue Whale"

This week, President Obama focused on the situation in Libya, monitoring conditions on the ground and keeping Congress and the American people informed as the mission transitions from U.S. to NATO command. Education month also continued, with the President making stops at a multicultural high school in Washington, D.C., and dropping in on a science fair in New York City. In the latest installment of Advise the Advisor, Secretary of Energy Steven Chu asks for your feedback on meeting President Obama’s goal of reducing our oil imports by one-third in a little over a decade.

Watch the video at WhiteHouse.gov.

Libya: Defining U.S. National Security Interests

James B. Steinberg

Deputy Secretary of StateStatement before the House Foreign Affairs Committee

Washington, DC

March 31, 2011

Good afternoon. I want to thank Chairman Ros-Lehtinen and Ranking Member Berman for inviting me today. I am grateful for this opportunity to update you and answer your questions.

In his speech on Monday night, President Obama laid out our goals and our strategy in Libya and the wider Middle East. On Tuesday, Secretary Clinton met with our allies and partners in London, as well as with representatives of the Libyan Transitional National Council, and yesterday she and Secretary Gates briefed members of the both the House and Senate. I am pleased to be here to underline their comments and to continue the valuable and important exchange between the Administration and the Congress that has been ongoing since shortly after Colonel Qadhafi’s regime began to resort to violence against its own people.

Let me begin by reviewing why we are a part of this broad international effort. As the President said, “the United States has played a unique role as an anchor of global security and advocate for human freedom. When our interests and values are at stake, we have a responsibility to act.”

This crisis began when the Libyan people took to the streets in peaceful protest to demand their universal human rights. Colonel Qadhafi’s security forces responded with extreme violence. Military jets and helicopter gunships attacked people who had no means to defend themselves against assaults from the air. There were reports of government agents raiding homes and even hospitals to round up or kill wounded protestors, of indiscriminate killings, arbitrary arrests, and torture as Qadhafi’s forces began a full-scale assault on cities that were standing up against his dictatorial rule.

The UN Security Council responded by unanimously approving Resolution 1970 on February 26, which demands an end to the violence and refers the situation to the International Criminal Court while imposing a travel ban and assets freeze on the family of Muammar Al-Qadhafi, and certain Government officials. Rather than respond to the international community’s demand for an end to the violence, Qadhafi’s forces continued their brutal assault.

With this imminent threat bearing down on them, the people of Libya appealed to the world for help. The GCC and the Arab League called for the establishment of a No-Fly Zone. Acting with partners in NATO, the Arab World and the African members of the Security Council, we passed Resolution 1973 on March 17. It demanded an immediate ceasefire in Libya, including an end to the current attacks against civilians, which it said might constitute “crimes against humanity,” imposed a ban on all flights in the country’s airspace, authorized the use of all necessary measures to protect civilians, and tightened sanctions on the Qadhafi regime and entities it owns or controls, including the National Oil Corporation and its subsidiaries. As his troops pushed toward Benghazi, a city of nearly 700,000 people, Qadhafi again defied the international community, declaring, “We will have no mercy and no pity.” Based on his decades-long history of brutality, we had little choice but to take him at his word. Stopping a potential humanitarian disaster of massive proportions became a question of hours, not days.

And so we acted decisively to prevent a potential massacre. We established a no-fly zone, stopped Qadhafi’s army from their advance on Benghazi, expanded the coalition, responded to the humanitarian crisis in Libya and in its neighboring countries, and now have transferred command of the military effort to NATO.

All this has been accomplished consistent with President Obama’s pledge to the American people that our military role would be limited, that we would not put ground troops into Libya, that we would focus our unique capabilities on the front end of the operation and then transfer responsibility to our allies and partners. The President defined the military mission succinctly at the outset, “The international community made clear that all attacks against civilians had to stop; Qadhafi had to stop his forces from advancing on Benghazi; pull them back from Ajdabiya, Misrata, and Zawiya; and establish water, electricity, and gas supplies to all areas. Finally, humanitarian assistance had to be allowed to reach the people of Libya.”

As we meet, the North Atlantic Council with coalition partners fully at the table, has taken on full responsibility for all United Nations-mandated action against Libya, that includes enforcing a no-fly zone, policing an arms embargo in the Mediterranean, and carrying out targeted airstrikes, as part of the UN mandate to 'take all necessary action' to protect civilians.

As NATO assumes command and control of military operations, we are confident this coalition will keep the pressure on Qadhafi’s remaining forces until he fully complies with the terms of Resolution 1973. The United States will continue supporting our allies and partners in this effort.

We became involved in this effort because America has an important strategic interest in achieving this objective. A massacre could drive tens of thousands of additional refugees across Libya’s borders, putting enormous strains on the peaceful –- yet fragile -– transitions in Egypt and Tunisia. It would undercut democratic aspirations across the region and embolden repressive leaders to believe that violence is the best strategy to cling to power. It would undermine the credibility of the United Nations Security Council and its ability to uphold global peace and security. That is why this administration concluded that failure to act in Libya would have carried too great a price for America and why we will remain vigilant and focused on the mission at hand.

I would like to focus on three non-military tracks that are crucial to the President’s strategy: delivering desperately needed humanitarian assistance; pressuring and isolating the Qadhafi regime through robust sanctions and other measures; and supporting the Libyan people as they work to achieve their legitimate democratic aspirations.

First, on the humanitarian front, we are working with NATO, the EU, the UN, and other international organizations and regional partners – especially Egypt, Tunisia, Turkey and the Gulf states – to ensure aid gets to the people who need it, including victims of Qadhafi’s violence and the many refugees who have fled from their homes and jobs. The U.S. Government is providing $47 million to meet humanitarian needs and support the work of NGOs on the ground. We’re supporting relief centers on the borders, repatriating third country nations back to their homes, and providing food, non-food and medical items to those in need. The coalition military campaign is making it possible for more help to get through to people in Libya itself. For example, a convoy organized by the World Food Program was able to reach Benghazi this weekend with 18 tons of supplies, including food and blankets.

The second track is to continue ratcheting up pressure and further isolating Colonel Qadhafi and his associates. The Contact Group sent a strong, international message that we must move forward with a representative, democratic transition and that Qadhafi has lost the legitimacy to lead, and must go.

But President Obama has been equally firm that our military operation has a narrowly-defined mission that does not include regime change. If we tried to overthrow Qadhafi by force, our coalition could splinter. It might require deploying U.S. troops on the ground and could significantly increase the chances of civilian casualties. As the President said, we have been down this road before and we know the potential for unexpected costs and unforeseen dangers.

The approach we are pursuing has succeeded before, in the Balkans. Our military intervention in Kosovo was also carefully focused on civilian protection and not regime change. The military operation ended with Milosevic withdrawing his forces from Kosovo. But an effort to support democracy and human rights in Serbia did not end there. We kept up the political and economic pressure and one year after the military operation ended, the people of Serbia ousted Milosevic and then turned him over to The Hague.

So we are moving ahead aggressively with non-military measures aimed at isolating Qadhafi and those who continue to enable him, such as escalating financial pressure through the vigorous enforcement of an international sanctions regime authorized under Security Council Resolutions 1970 and 1973. At the same time, we are continuing to implement our own domestic sanctions and are working with our international counterparts on sanctions implementation, monitoring, and enforcement. In London, we saw growing international consensus and political and diplomatic pressure toward this end.

And that brings me to the third track: supporting the legitimate aspirations of the Libyan people. As in Egypt and Tunisia, we hope to see a democratic transition in Libya through a broadly inclusive process that reflects the will and protects the rights of the Libyan people. This won’t be easy. Four decades of Qadhafi’s rule have left Libya fractured and without strong institutions or civil society – crucial building blocks of successful democracy. The Qadhafi regime has exploited assets that rightfully belong the Libyan people, diminishing their opportunities for economic opportunity and growth. In London, Secretary Clinton met with a senior representative of the Transitional National Council to discuss how we can support this process. The Secretary also stressed that the United States will join the international community in our commitment to the sovereignty, territorial integrity, and national unity of Libya. For its part, the Council has publicly stated its commitment to democratic ideals and its rejection of terrorism and extremist organizations, including Al-Qaeda.

Now we are moving forward on all three of these tracks with a growing coalition of allies and partners. In London, the international community agreed to establish a Contact Group that will coordinate activity and provide broad political guidance on the full range of efforts under Resolutions 1970 and 1973. We are pleased that Qatar will host the first meeting.

So there is considerable progress to report. But we are under no illusions about the dangers and challenges that remain. Qadhafi is unlikely to give up power quickly or easily. The regime still has substantial military capacity and continues offensive operations in Misrata and elsewhere.

This is a critical moment – for Libya, the international community and the United States. We are eager to continue our close consultations with you about the way forward and hope to have your support. I look forward to your questions.