EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Libya: Obama Says US Considering "Full Range of Options"
WASHINGTON - As more Libyan towns and cities fell to anti-government forces Wednesday, U.S. President Barack Obama said Washington is preparing "the full range of options" to respond to the ongoing violence in the oil-rich North African state.
MARCH ON TRIPOLI? Libyan protesters shout anti-Kadhafi slogans in the eastern Libyan town of Derna on Wednesday. Residents of Libya's dissident-held east, frenzied by a deadly crackdown by Moamer Kadhafi's crumbling regime, vowed on Thursday to march on the capital Tripoli as a string of towns famous as World War II battlegrounds fell under their control. In a five-minute televised statement from the White House, Obama stressed that Washington preferred to act in concert with other nations and international institutions.
"This is not simply a concern of the United States," he said as Secretary of State Hillary Clinton stood by his side. "The entire world is watching, and we will coordinate our assistance and accountability measures with the international community."
But he also hinted that Washington may consider taking unspecified unilateral action against the regime of Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi.
"I've …asked my administration to prepare the full range of options that we have to respond to this crisis," he said. "This includes those actions we may take and those we will coordinate with our allies and partners, or those that we'll carry out through multilateral institutions."
Obama's statement, which came amid reports that Gaddafi's control over the country had receded to little more than the capital, Tripoli, was his first since the weekend when Libyan security forces and, according to a number of reports, foreign mercenaries unleashed a wave of violence, including strafing by Libyan warplanes and helicopters, against anti-government demonstrators in Benghazi and other cities.
Franco Frattini, the foreign minister of Italy, the European country with perhaps the closest ties to its former colony, said Wednesday that reports that "some 1,000" people have died as a result of the repression were "credible", while the Paris-based International Federation for Human Rights estimated that least 700 people had died since late last week.
And while Gaddafi's son and heir apparent, Saif al-Islam Gaddafi, insisted in a televised broadcast late Wednesday that the situation had returned to "normal", Tripoli residents told foreign media by telephone that the capital's population was staying in their homes for fear of being attacked in the streets by security forces and pro-Gaddafi militias.
Meanwhile, foreign reporters in Benghazi, Libya's second largest city, reported that residents there had established a provisional governing authority, while Misurata, the third largest city located just east of Tripoli, fell to anti- Gaddafi forces Wednesday. The government has also abandoned positions along the country's western border with Tunisia, and hundreds of people have fled across the frontier, according to eyewitness accounts.
Despite a number of statements by lesser officials condemning the violence, Obama has faced a rising tide of criticism – mainly from neo-conservatives and other hawks, but also from human rights activists – this week over what they have called his "silence" on the situation and his failure to date to impose sanctions against the regime.
His remarks late in the afternoon appeared intended in part to answer that criticism.
By way of introduction, he stressed that his "highest priority" was to do "everything we can to protect American citizens", of whom there are believed to be about 6,000 residing in Libya.
U.S. officials told reporters on background this week that one reason Obama has been reluctant to personally denounce Gaddafi during the crisis was fear that U.S. nationals could be taken hostage by the regime. Analysts noted Wednesday that Obama did not mention Gaddafi by name in his remarks. At the same time, Obama's statement was the harshest by Washington to date. "The suffering and bloodshed is outrageous and it is unacceptable," Obama said.
"So are threats and orders to shoot peaceful protesters and further punish the people of Libya. These actions violate international norms and every standard of common decency. This violence must stop," he declared.
Obama also suggested for the first time that Washington is actively considering imposing sanctions against the regime. "Like all governments, the Libyan government has a responsibility to refrain from violence, to allow humanitarian assistance to reach those in need, and to respect the rights of its people," he said.
"It must be held accountable for its failure to meet those responsibilities, and face the cost of continued violations of human rights," he added.
On Tuesday, John Kerry, the Democratic chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee who often acts as a stalking horse for the administration, called for the imposition of targeted sanctions against the regime.
Both German Chancellor Angela Merkel and French President Nicolas Sarkozy have also urged the European Union (EU) to immediately take similar action.
Obama made clear that he preferred to coordinate U.S. action with other countries and specifically praised the U.N. Security Council statement issued Tuesday that condemned the violence and called for accountability for its perpetrators.
"This same message, by the way, has been delivered by the European Union, the Arab League, the African Union, the Organisation of the Islamic Conference, and many individual nations," he emphasised. "North and south, east and west, voices are being raised together to oppose suppression and support the rights of the Libyan people."
He also implicitly rejected charges by Gaddafi and other autocratic regimes in the region that the United States was behind the uprising.
"The change that is taking place across the region is being driven by the people of the region," he said in a reference as well to the ouster over the last six weeks of the presidents of Tunisia and Egypt and the continued popular unrest in Bahrain and Yemen.
"This change doesn't represent the work of the United States or any foreign power," he insisted. "It represents the aspirations of people who are seeking a better life."
He announced that he is sending Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs William Burns, who has been in Cairo this week, to Europe and elsewhere in the middle East to "intensify our consultations" about possible measures regarding Libya. He also announced that Clinton herself will travel to Geneva Monday for a foreign ministers' meeting of the U.N.'s Human Rights Council, of which Libya is a member.
A number of critics here have called on the administration to include among any sanctions it takes against Libya the country's expulsion from the Council.
They have also called for Washington and NATO to impose a "no-fly" zone over parts of Libya to prevent the regime's aircraft from attacking anti-government forces. Some critics, mainly from the right, have urged the administration to provide arms to the rebels, as well.
Whether Obama's latest remarks will quiet the criticism remains to be seen.
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...

44 Comments so far
Show AllPro-Democracy or Revolutionaries, much better terms than ati-Government.
Lets hope OilyBomber does not invade and steal these peoples freedom.
Gaddafi is about to lose, freeze his money and stop the inflow of insane Mercenaries.
If Gaddafi was using Drones everything would be Kosher. Not!
But do not enter the Peoples Territory.
Noon Saturday 26, all State and World Capitals, Solidarity with the overthrow of the Global Oliarchy.
This is the Domino Effect that the Bloated 2% have always feared.
Spring 2011, the Feminine cleans house!
the last thing these poor buggers in libya or anywhere else needs at this time is some amerikan freedom and democracy
that's what got them in a bind to begin with
as for corvo posting below: a short terse and exactly right on post corvo - well done
Ah, yes, the "full range of options" -- from armed support of Gaddafi's regime to identifying and bankrolling the next pliant dictator. Just like in Egypt and Tunisia.
Yes, that phrase "full range of options" - it's chilling.
What happened to "The Table" as in "everything is on the table"?
"Ah, yes, the "full range of options" -- from armed support of Gaddafi's regime ... "
I don't think so, corvo, quite the contrary.
Libya's uprising began in Benghazi, historically the seat of opposition to Gaddafi and probably inspired by agents of foreign interests.
We have seen the downfall of oppressive dictators in Tunisia and Egypt, but the case of Libya is different.
Yes, Gaddafi is a dictator (he must be to maintain the revolution against western subversion, but local democracy flourishes). He is not an oppressive dictator as are the western puppets that still rule many Middle East states. He works to better the lives of his people and has no desire to please the west.
I think his negative reaction to the demonstrations is an attempt to save the revolution, which he sees threatened.
Libya is a socialist state. It has the highest UN Human Development Index rating in Africa. This drives the US crazy, so Gaddafi is painted as an extraordinarily bloodthirsty fiend by the western media which we should expect to soon tell us that Gaddafi is personally throwing newborn babies under trucks.
The western 'international community' would very much like to see Gaddafi replaced by a compliant puppet of the Mubarak stripe, installed by 'free elections' which they are so adept at manipulating.
Gaddafi tells us he will go down in flames before he will let that happen, so we should not be surprised if the west finds it necessary to intervene militarily, or by some other means, to insure that Gaddafi does exactly that.
"I don't know if he is a freak and a dictator because "
The guy's been in power for 49 years and when his people don't want him no more he sens out the air force to kill them. You tell me how to call him then.
I can understand your populist views, but in this case he is killing the exact people you are supporting.
"Gaddafi is a dictator (he must be to maintain the revolution against western subversion, but local democracy flourishes)"
truth is exactly opposite. if someone really wants to maintain the revolution, he MUST not be a dictator. maintaining the revolution is only possible by giving the highest level of freedom to people and organizing them for mass struggle.
Naxalites are maintaining the revolution (in reality, not just in words) but they are not holding a dictatorship against people.
gaddafi is not a revolutionary. he seized power with a coup and has been holding it by using force against people. He didnt tried to work "to better the lives of his people" during all these years, because if he had did so, people wouldnt gave up their lives to struggle against him.
when dictators like gaddafi or ahmadinejad claim they are struggling against "West" it means they are struggling against the democratic rights which woker movement, women movement and all democratic movements have gained in western countries during years of hard struggle. but those dictators have no problem with capitalism and imperialism. they dont even allow the workers in their countries to organize.
Definition of UNILATERAL
1a : done or undertaken by one person or party
"..But he also hinted that Washington may consider taking unspecified unilateral action against the regime of Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi."
"I've …asked my administration to prepare the full range of options that we have to respond to this crisis,"
American style.
"The suffering and bloodshed is outrageous and it is unacceptable," Obama said. "So are threats and orders to shoot peaceful protesters and further punish the people of Libya. These actions violate international norms and every standard of common decency. This violence must stop," he declared'
This is too insane. Obama slamming the Libyan state for killing civilians, as he should, and ignoring the Jewish state as they do the same thing, as he shouldn't. Too crazy to comprehend.
Obama is also choosing to ignore the fact that the United States is the very worst of all...the USA continues to kill innocent people abroad all the time while admonishing other governments not to do so. What a load of hypocrisy!
Oil. It is not too crazy if we observe Libya's modern history. Qaddafi overthrew Idris without a single shot fired. Libya had a tin pot US puppet and the oil profit went to benefit not the Libyan public but the shareholders of US oil corporations.
I strongly suspect that the USA will not pass on any chance to regain control of Libya's oil. Libya may well just fall back into US control with the USA being perceived as liberators, and Libya's golden age come to a close.
If Arabs don't want another future oligarchy, they need to set up direct democracy.
12 countries from the official axis of evil, now only 5? China having achieved capitalism without a shred of democracy, and no longer condemned in the corporate media?
Chameleon, I understand your post, and don't really disagree, but when you count obviously subjective things with objective numbers, it makes me wonder if the underlying basis for your post originates from some prescriptive ideology rather than any attempt at reasoning. Somebody somewhere has made criteria and classifications. I wonder who?
"And yeah, I have been around now for nearly 67 years--a"
I guess you missed out on 1945-1989.
BTW, I wasn't always a gringo. Just like you i moved around until in found a place that suits me. My ancestors built a huge empire and they had a saying: "Ubi bene ibi patria". I've been following that and it keeps me happy.
Obama is considering sanctions? Against who, the Libyan people or Gadaffi and his regime? My guess sanctions will not hurt Gadaffi, but if imposed, will hurt the citizens and the upcoming new government, if the pro-democracy forces succeed.
The Tunsians and Egyptians realize that the Libyans need food and medicine - peace keepers could not hurt.
Romeo Dallaire, who tried to stop the Rwandan Genocide (and blames himself for not succeeding) weighs in on Libya - first person in North America to mention that Libyans need food:
http://www.cbc.ca/video/#/News/TV_Shows/Connect_with_Mark_Kelley/1305591601/ID=1818736961
(capability=equiptment)
again, a crisis is a terrible thing to waste
especially when so much has been invested to create it.
Curious,
You are the first person to say this. Now I'm very curious. I am open to such suggestions, but there needs to be more. If you know something, then I would appreciate some sort of statement of what you believe and a link or two to back it up.
chavez will drop his leftist mask sooner or later, just like gaddafi did.
libya is not an exception in venezuelas foreign policy. chavez has also supported a mad dictator like ahmadinejad in iran.
about libya, all leftists should defend peoples movement. imperialists will try to misdirect the movement, not just in libya but everywhere in the world. the way to prevent misdirection is not sitting aside the movement or supporting the reactionary side (gaddafi) but to direct the popular movement to a correct path.
The fundamental difference between Libya, Tunisia, and Egypt is that the "peaceful protest" in Libya has swiftly become an armed uprising.