Why the U.N. vote on Libya means almost as much for Obama as for Qaddafi

Posted By David Rothkopf Friday, March 18, 2011 - 3:47 PM Share

Late Thursday the U.N. Security Council voted on how the world would ultimately view Barack Obama.  Yes, the vote came in the guise of a decision about whether or not to impose a no-fly zone over Libya. But every aspect of the decision from the process leading up to the vote to the eventual effectiveness of the actions it triggers will weigh heavily on how the American president is ultimately viewed.

This is not because Libya is such a vital issue.  It's significant to be sure and certainly the plight of the rebels combating Muammar Qaddafi warranted strong action.  But the Libya vote may someday be seen as especially important to perceptions of Obama and his effectiveness as an international leader because it is so emblematic of how he would like to handle world affairs.  This was Obama the multilateralist, willing to trade fast, decisive action for the support and legitimacy of working within the U.N. system.  This was Obama the president of a nation fighting too many wars and with limited means seeking to let others lead, take risks and share in the burdens of keeping the world safe.  This was Obama, the un-Bush, out from under the complications of inherited wars that frankly have made him sometimes look like W 2.0, showing in effect, how he personally would like to handle the use of force going forward.

If the intervention is seen as timely, the rebels are effectively supported and Qaddafi's gains of the past few days are reversed, it will be hailed as successfully demonstrating that there is an alternative to unilateralism and that there may be an alternative to America playing the role the Council on Foreign Relations' Richard Haass described as being that of "the reluctant sheriff."  If it works, the fact that the U.S. and its allies managed to turn five likely "no" votes into abstentions thus clearing the way for action will be seen as masterful diplomacy and a feather in the cap of Hillary Clinton who faced down considerable head-winds not just overseas but within in the Administration to make it happen.  

However, if the action is seen as too little too late and Qaddafi is able to consolidate his victories and remain in power, then Obama strategy and tactics will certainly be questioned and characterized as too deferential, hesitant and a signal to brutal governments that getting tough on opponents pays off.  The American declinists will have a field day as will both international bad guys and Obama's political opponents back home.  

In either case, with America and its president less inclined to act alone and ever seeking ways to shift the job of keeping the peace globally to others, this Libya case should be viewed both in terms of what it means to the situation on the ground in that warn torn country and as a possible test-case of a new approach to world affairs, one that Barack Obama would ultimately like to be able to take credit for leading.

EXPLORE:MIDDLE EAST, DIPLOMACY
 

ARTFUL AID WORKER

7:07 AM ET

March 19, 2011

Alchemy at the Council - thanks to US Tactical Brillance

I am pleased to see Colum Lynch having a go at US vacillation, dilation, and agnosticism in the aftermath of the Turtle Awakening at the Council.

A related piece in the NYT entitled, "Obama Takes Hard Line With Libya After Shift by Clinton" offers a blurred picture of what just happened in the Council.

"Only the day before, Mrs. Clinton - along with her boss, President Obama - was a skeptic on whether the United States should take military action in Libya. But that night, with Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi's forces turning back the rebellion that threatened his rule, Mrs. Clinton changed course, forming an unlikely alliance with a handful of top administration aides who had been arguing for intervention.

"Within hours, Mrs. Clinton and the aides had convinced Mr. Obama that the United States had to act, and the president ordered up military plans, which Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, hand-delivered to the White House the next day. On Thursday, during an hour-and-a -half meeting, Mr. Obama signed off on allowing American pilots to join Europeans and Arabs in military strikes against the Libyan government."

And so it seems that after her "creature" comment, Clinton took the initiative. Obama, on the other hand, still appears unwilling or unable to learn from his Afghanistan drawdown gaff:

"The president had a caveat, though. The American involvement in military action in Libya should be limited - no ground troops - and finite. "Days, not weeks"

Now why would you say that? If you've decided to take action, just do it! Mealy-mouthed concessions that temper the strength of US will are not just unnecessary in this case, but they empower Qaddafi.

By this time, after finding some remnants of bone left in their backs, a coalition was forming with Samantha Power and Susan Rice slipping into her steel stilettos:

"The change became possible, though, only after Mrs. Clinton joined Samantha Power, a senior aide at the National Security Council, and Susan Rice, Mr. Obama's ambassador to the United Nations, who had been pressing the case for military action, according to senior administration officials speaking only on condition of anonymity. Ms. Power is a former journalist and human rights advocate; Ms. Rice was an Africa adviser to President Clinton when the United States failed to intervene to stop the Rwanda genocide, which Mr. Clinton has called his biggest regret."

(Pointedly, Rice comes off less gallant than Hillary or Power through her association with UN's and the US's worst example of vacillation and indecision.)

This is where the article plunges into shameless polishing of the proverbial turd that has been US foreign policy on the Cedar Awakening:

""Hillary and Susan Rice were key parts of this story because Hillary got the Arab buy-in and Susan worked the U.N. to get a 10-to-5 vote, which is no easy thing," said Brian Katulis, a national security expert with the Center for American Progress, a liberal group with close ties to the administration. This "puts the United States in a much stronger position because they've got the international support that makes this more like the 1991 gulf war than the 2003 Iraq war."

""Susan basically said that it was possible to get a tougher resolution" that would authorize a fuller range of options, including the ability to bomb Libyan government tanks on the road to Benghazi, the rebel stronghold in the east, administration official said.

""That was the turning point" for Mr. Obama, the official said. The president was scheduled to go to a dinner with military veterans that night; he told his aides to draw up military plans. And he instructed Ms. Rice to move forward with a broader resolution at the Security Council.

"She already had one ready - drawn up the week before, just in case, officials said. Besides asking for an expanded military campaign, Ms. Rice loaded up the resolution with other items on the American wish list, including the authorization to use force to back an arms embargo against Libya. "We knew it would be a heavy lift to get any resolution through; our view was we might as well get as much as we could," Ms. Rice said in a telephone interview.

"On Wednesday at the Security Council, Russia put forward a competing resolution, calling for a cease-fire - well short of what the United States wanted. But the French, who had been trying to get a straight no-fly resolution through, switched to back the tougher American wording. And they "put it in blue" ink - U.N. code for calling for a vote.

""It was a brilliant tactical move," an American official said. "They hijacked the text, which means it could be called to a vote at any time.""

So, by way of recap, here's what apparently happened:

- Russia wanted a tepid cease-fire resolution;
- The French wanted a sickly "straight no-fly resolution";
- All the while, the US was using its tactical brilliance to get a tougher resolution through the Council;
- Hillary worked the Arab buy-in, from what I can tell, singlehandedly;
- Rice knew "it would be a heavy lift to get any resolution through" but overcame this by advising Obama that "it was possible to get a tougher resolution" that would authorize a fuller range of options" (?!);
- Power drew deeply from her coercive powers, the wellspring of which being her halcyon days as a Human Rights Advocate; and
- Obama picked up the cheque, insisting (rather impotently) it would be days, not weeks.

That turd has so much burnish on it now, it looks more like a Faberge egg!

 

MAIGARI

9:35 AM ET

March 20, 2011

The world watches and wait

The world watches and wait for the "action" of the Free Countries to the killing going on in Manama, Sanaa, Riyahd, all in the name of "stability". Ghaddafi has had this coming for a long time but the issue basically is that all the auhtoritarians in the Middle East, hhter than Iran- which is far more democrati anyway- are freinds of the U.S. and her allies. Why the double standard?
The "Forum"s' request for a UN resolution is clearly a oush from American pressure to provide the required cover for the West to carry out "live exercise with a live firing range. All this double talk of protecting civilians is just that talk. Afterall, how many civilians has the U.S. and her allies killed in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq but turned sround to term the killings as "collateral damage"?!
Toay, the Saudis are definitely in chains with a ruthless aythorutarian heriditary ruling family just like Bahrain and there is condemnation of the suppression. The UN is unfortunately hoplelessly lopsided by membership of the "Big Five- that veto any rrsolutiin not to their taste with absolutely no explanation. No something has to giveand at the end of it all, we will the wane of American undue influence inthe region. Then and only then, will there be real freedom to choose and associate.

 

JAYDEE001

6:11 PM ET

March 21, 2011

So if Libya turns out to be

So if Libya turns out to be another patch of quicksand, what does Obama do?

For starters, he would have to sack Madame Secretary of State, Samantha Power and anyone else who sold him this pig in the proverbial poke.

The Yemeni, the Saudis, Dubai, and even Syria are feeling pressure for greater human rights and broader sharing of economic wealth from their restive populaces and looking on nervously as the unrest spreads across North Africa towards Arabia. The US may see more of its 'allies' in the region either fall to popular revolutions, or become the same type of international pariahs as our former buddies Qaddafi and Mubarrak. What are we gonna do then?

 

ITONLYSTANDSTOREASON

10:43 PM ET

March 21, 2011

You say you want a revolution

Unlike Rothkopf, I'm not looking for a success here to change our whole approach to foreign action. There's too much inertia in the system for any one event to change it; the world is too messy for a pure approach to often prevail. We'll only know the effects after it enters the mixer of history with other actions, and we look back to see if it was the beginning of a trend. Nevertheless it is a victory for pragmatism and principle in that the action fits the goal, the means serve the end - SELF DETERMINATION.

Obama might also have noted that when the US takes the lead in a military intervention, it also has to follow through on the nation-building side, which is much more tricky.

Unilateralism has limits to its useful applications. Yes, we could take down Gaddafi, but what then? He wants to get the US onto the right side of history with the peoples of the regions after years of alliance with dictators and autocrats. Unilateralism just continues the old approach and costs the support of the existing regimes while doing nothing to build credibility with the people for the message that we are committed to a new, cooperative, and respectful approach.

 

David Rothkopf is the CEO and Editor-at-Large of Foreign Policy. His new book, "Power, Inc.: The Epic Rivalry Between Big Business and Government and the Reckoning that Lies Ahead" is due out from Farrar, Straus & Giroux on March 1.

Read More