Obama's speech seeks to keep allies united on Libya

AP Photo/Manuel Balce Ceneta

Making his case for the U.S. involvement in Libya, President Obama sounded a cautious tone, in a speech needed to explain to an American public that is supportive of the no-fly zone but divided about the goals of the mission -- that the U.S. should not be afraid to act but that the burden of action should not be America's alone. The mission, he said, was to avert a humanitarian disaster.

On the same day, the U.N. Secretary General, Ban Ki-moon, who is at the London summit on Libya Tuesday, said the United Nations - which imposed the no fly zone mandate and authorized the use of force - has seen no evidence of a ceasefire in Libya or of any steps by the country's authorities to fulfill their obligations under Security Council Resolutions aimed at protecting civilians.

"We have serious concerns about the protection of civilians and respect for human rights and international humanitarian law," he said.

The secretary general's report on Libya, given to the U.N. Security Council late last week, asserted that Libyan authorities have repeatedly claimed that they have instituted a ceasefire, including in a call to him by the prime minister but, he said, "We see no evidence that is the case. To the contrary, fierce battles continue in or around the cities of Ajdabiya, Misratah and Zitan, among others. In short, there is no evidence that Libyan authorities have taken steps to carry out their obligations under Resolutions 1970 or 1973."

An Obama doctrine takes shape
The central message in Obama's Libya speech: Prudence
CBSNews.com Special Report: Anger in the Arab world

The secretary general expressed deep concern about a possible humanitarian crisis in Libya, despite Security Council steps to isolate and sanction Qaddafi's inner circle, who have been ignoring warnings to stop a military campaign attack their own people. He said that up to 250,000 refugees and migrants could be displaced by the fighting in Libya and he was worried "about the protection of civilians, abuses of human rights and violations of international humanitarian law and the access of civilian populations to basic commodities and services in areas currently under siege."

And, although Mr. Obama spoke of American values, strategic interests and the limits of the mission, it is, nonetheless, a rare moment in time that the U.N. Secretary General sounds a more impassioned and urgent note than an American president on an issue involving U.S. military action.

But overall, the president received support at the U.N. for the message that conveyed the purposes of American involvement with some skepticism by analysts about what happens next. He made a point of differentiating Libya from American involvement in Iraq: there would be no U.S. involvement in regime change. That would be up to the Libyan people.

The president's expression of limits may have as much to do with maintaining a united international community as it did with sending a message to Congress. This vote was, after all, unusual for the U.N., in a post-Iraq war context. (watch the speech at left)

Unlike the second U.N. vote on Iraq, under the Bush Administration, which sought support for military action, and failed, Mr. Obama was able to garner a U.N. Security Council Resolution that imposed tough sanctions and authorized the use of force to protect a civilian population. The two U.N. Security Council Resolutions (1970 and 1973) referred the case of Libya to the International Criminal Court and imposed the no-fly zone. All three of the Council's African members, South Africa, Nigeria and Gabon, voted in favor of the Resolution.

Unlike the Saddam Hussein period, when the oil-for-food scandal undermined economic sanctions, Mr. Obama was able to make economic sanctions stick. In a record period of time, billions of dollars of Qaddafi's funds have been frozen.

He said, "We then took a series of swift steps in a matter of days to answer Gaddafi's aggression. We froze more than $33 billion of the Gaddafi regime's assets. Joining with other nations at the United Nations Security Council, we broadened our sanctions, imposed an arms embargo, and enabled Gaddafi and those around him to be held accountable for their crimes."

Full transcript of Obama's speech on Libya
VIDEO: Obama's full speech
Are you a believer in cautious intervention? (POLL)

What the president did not do in his speech, which may have dismayed some critics, was address the percolating crises in Syria, Yemen, Iran and Bahrain. Mr. Obama appeared constrained to describe what the action means for the future. Does the United States find a way to support regime change in Iran or Syria?

Yet, a discussion of the "Obama Doctrine," as some are calling it, did not appear to be the purpose of the speech. It was intended to point out what an unusual point in time that the U.S. found itself in.

Although there has been some wavering, the decision to impose a no-fly zone was supported by the Gulf Cooperation Council, the Arab league and European allies, including France and Britain, which appeared even more eager than the U.S. to begin the military campaign.

A joint statement by French President Nicolas Sarkozy and British Prime Minister David Cameron on Monday said, "Tomorrow in London, the international community will come together to support a new beginning for Libya. A new beginning in which the people of Libya are free from violence and oppression, free to choose their own future."

They said, "Following an appeal by the Arab League to take action to protect the people of Libya...the United Nations Security Council passed an historic resolution to protect civilians from the violence unleashed by Qadhafi's war machine."

The president's words reflected the caution of the events at hand and appealed to the American public and NATO allies' view of the post-war responsibility to protect civilians. What happens next will depend on events on the ground.

Obama offers forceful defense of Libya action
McCain pushes Qaddafi ouster by "any means"
Susan Rice: U.S. to push long-term goal of Qaddafi exit

Pamela Falk is CBS News Foreign Affairs Analyst and an international lawyer, based at the United Nations.

[meboard]

by infantryman1968 March 30, 2011 9:09 AM EDT

LOL!

Another bad movie. The only way he is leaving is by Ground Invasion and a follow on International Peacekeeping Force for the next 10 years.

My money is on Qaddafi
------------
Just for the record folks, Infant supports the terrorist and dictator Qaddafi.

[fanofthetruth]

I am just wondering is there really any Obama supporters left out there? Really? Or are some just trying not to lose a Liberal president even if he has proven to be the worst president ever? Is there anyone really supporting Obama or just trying to shore up the Liberals? Trying to save their party is almost believable supporting Obama in truth though is clearly just insane. All Americans should stop worrying about parties and start thinking about what is really good for America.

[Valhallab]

He just launched his campaign; they announced a HQ in Chicago the same day as this speech. So he is both the President and a declared candidate at the same time. Every speech is also a campaign speech now.

[NEV3RMORE]

Americans do not support going into Lybia! Another unconstitutional War. Congress had nothing to do with this one. THe UN gave the order to invade Lybia - which means we are under global governance now. Its not comming its here now. Egypt BANNED protests why don't we invade there? IF we protest and the FEDS send in their operatives dressed as anarchists to create violence - giving them authorization to engage the american people, WILL THE UN INVADE THE US? Why didnt we help the people of Rahwanda? NO OIL! Obama Heads the UN security council which is illegal - since he is a sitting president. Article 1 Section 9 prohibits him from serving two seats of power. They have been planning to move into africa - and Lybia for well over a year. They are planning to go into Syria, Yeman, Iran, till we conquer all those who oppose the New World Order. WE are bankrupt - especially because the bankers issued trillions in worthless derivitives and suckered us into a blackhole of debt that can never be repaid. This is the NWO. Lybian rebels are AL-CIA-DUH - look it up. 4 words "Lybian Rebels al qaeda". Al-CIA-DUH was created by the CIA in 1979 to fight against the russians in afganistan. They have been on our payroll ever since. Sibel Edmonds an FBI translator who broke her federal gag order - saying bin laden worked for the US up until of the day of 911. and most likely still does, if hes alive. The media force feeds propaganda telling us what we want or what to think. I THINK FOR MY SELF!

THink it ain't illegal yet!

[Dave_micro]

The President of the United States made and speech about foreign affairs, and all the users commented about was his Polity Party affiliation.

When will we stop bickering amongst ourselves and see the problem for what it is. We have a tyrant that ruthlessly ruled a country for 42 years. His people want him gone. The UN wants him gone.. The United States should help in this process when and where we can.

2012 will come soon enough. If he loses the election, then so be it. But he is currently the elected President of the United States. And this article is about Lybia and our role. The article is not about "birth certificates", Democrats or Republican.

Anyway, just my 2cents.

[NEV3RMORE]

WE put him in power, and are going to put another dictator in power. Hell the globalists had two dictators lined up for here - Obama / Mcain. This is a scientific dictatorship that is highly sophisticated. If you want the exective order to see for yourself, look up PDD51. Make sure you end up on whitehouse.gov because knowing the willfully ignorant they will attach me for being a rightwing extremists, a liberal, or a conspiracy theorist. See the executive order. Lookup the john warner defense authorization act, military commisions act, and look up REX84 (Which rex84 has a plan in it to round up 21 million negros [text of legislation] and put them in camps. Make sure you end up on the library of congress and government websites for the legislations. What are governemnt websites now conspiracy theory - or rightwing leftwing extremism or paranoia on my part? Go ahead dont do the research, just attack me, that will prove nothing

[Valhallab]

Great speech as usual, but meaningless as usual. It made me think of the poor North Koreans learning that our freeing them is not inexpensive enough for him, or his crystal ball doesn't show enough "violence and oppression" through their starvation and forced labor. I'm also embarrassed he implies that "civilians" are never armed or firing first (he doesn't even mention the armed resistance). American voters will probably have a choice in 2012 whether they want to be "citizens of the world" first or American citizens first. If we're lucky, we'll get a chance to toss those "educated" in "liberal arts" entirely (they overlap parties as "centrists").

[djaymick]

My comment on this is - fair enough. The media and Democrats will tell Americans how great they are, even though they voiced dissent when Bush was in office. The question that I have is, "When a Republican President does the same thing, will the media applaud it or reject it?" Of course, Republicans know it will be the latter. That's why people see hypocracy in the media nowadays.