Will Libya be Obama's Rwanda?

Obama needs to get on the horn with Bill Clinton - there are lessons of history we can't afford to ignore.



Rwanda 1994 - Ethnic Hutus slaughter 800,000 Tutsis while the Clinton administration stands by:

"There were no U.S. troops officially in Rwanda at the onset of the genocide. A National Security Archive report points out five ways in which decisions made by the U.S. government contributed to the slow U.S. and worldwide response to the genocide:

1. The U.S. lobbied the U.N. for a total withdrawal of U.N. (UNAMIR) forces in Rwanda in April 1994;
2. Secretary of State Warren Christopher did not authorize officials to use the term "genocide" until May 21, and even then, U.S. officials waited another three weeks before using the term in public;
3. Bureaucratic infighting slowed the U.S. response to the genocide in general;
4. The U.S. refused to jam extremist radio broadcasts inciting the killing, citing costs and concern with international law;
5. U.S. officials knew exactly who was leading the genocide, and actually spoke with those leaders to urge an end to the violence but did not follow up with concrete action."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rwandan_Genocide



Libya 2011 - 'Silly speeches' won't stop Libyan massacre

"A former Libyan ambassador says the international community must act now to stop the massacre in his country and world leaders need to deliver more than 'silly speeches'. Ali Aujali, a former ambassador to the US, called on president Barack Obama to save Libya, saying that he must act quickly.

<>

Libya's embattled leader Moamar Gaddafi yesterday threatened to search every house 'inch by inch' to weed out those who opposed him."

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/02/24/3148115.htm

The U.S. President shouldn't (and can't) 'rule' every country in the world.
Put the blame on Gaddafi for what is happening in Libya and NOT President Obama.

How many deaths do you feel would warrant an intervention by the US/UN?

Any number? No number?

Such a situation was happening in the USA. Would they say "Tell, it's our business, keep the international community away!"?

What is YOUR threshold for requiring US intervention? Are you saying that if a specified fraction of the population has been killed in some or another manner, the US military should swoop in and take over?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=583411&mesg_id=584177

That said, the US can obviously take steps within the UN framework to make sure these policies are implemented and aren't just "words on paper".

It would of course require a majority, plus a consensus among the veto-holders. I don't see Russia and China both abstaining, nor do I see the US taking this position. The UK, with a right-wing government, is pushing for intervention, but they will keep out without their senior partner.

Kind of like Rwanda - not that I consider the two otherwise comparable - where the US government was saying in as many words that their only resource was people and there were too many of those anyway.

Why is nobody asking if Libya will be Sarkozy's Rwanda? Or, Cameron's Rwanda? Or, Merkle's Rwanda? Or, Hu's Rwanda? Or, Medvedev's Rwanda? Why do some people insist that President Obama have to fix the World's problems by himself? It always amazes me that the very people who bitched about Dumbya being a dictator now want our President to be one.

Unless you can show me where the Obama administration has lobbied the U.N. for a withdrawal of troops then the answer is defiantly no.

so their withdrawal had little to do with the genocide. They were outnumbered and overpowered.

Do you think the US should have intervened in Rwanda?

The US and France blocked anyone from intervening in Rwanda. The Tunisians did more to help there than most of the western powers, and even they had to go right up against the edges of what were allowed in the parody of a Chapter VII operation.

... President Obama has not done anything that might add to the death toll in Lybia. President Clinton did take actions that might have added to the death toll in Rwanda.


Presenting the two as if they are equal is unfair.

and he's doing a journyman job of things I figure. Sticky situation I bet, all players considered.

Five and a half months elapsed between the start of the conflict and the start of the intervention. Though obviously a different case, Libya is only in week 3.

but seems to me we should have the be in a position to intervene in a hurry if this rebellion is "put down" and things get really ugly.

It took only three months for Hutus to kill nearly one million people, and that was with machetes.

anyone who makes this comparison knows nothing about Rwanda

Sid

It is war. It is murder. And it's beginning to look a lot like massacre, but it is not one group of people trying to erase another group of people from the earth. Rwanda was genocide. Libya is not.

Is massacre not good enough for you? Please don't reduce genocide to some common event. It isn't. Soon we'll have to say super-genocide, the term itself will be so weakened by misuse and overuse.

and I don't think the people who are being massacred give a fuck what name you put on it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Congo_War

I'm sure we'll feel really bad once it's over, though.

Than what happened in Rwanda. A significant portion of the Rwandan population were exterminated, in the streets, within the course of a few weeks to months.

What's happening in Libya is political oppression. There is actually legitimate fighting between the state and rebel forces. The same was not true in Rwanda until the very end of the genocide.

n/t

And the Baathist government there certainly killed many, many more people than were ever killed in Libya. I suppose if a Republican were president, we'd have a better anti-war faction.

If the Tripoli-based government is so incredibly unpopular, riven by constant defection, and the opposition is so strong, overwhelmingly popular, winning new support constantly, then cannot the Libyan certainly determine there own destiny without US interference, which would certainly come to good given the track record elsewhere?

The roots of conflict in Libya is regional and tribal. The east was historically a distinct region/country that was put together by various colonial powers. Ghadaffi's rule has tended to suppress opposition in the East but the new season of protest in the Arab world provided an impetus for this powerful and violent revolt.

But, it is clear that much of the Libyan population does not support the eastern revolt. If fact, educational and social welfare policy in Libya has been among the best in the Arab world -- check out the actual statisics vs anti-Ghadaffi propaganda.

Consistently gets terrible rankings among various NGOs for Ghaddafi's repression of his own people.

Mercedes isn't the same thing in the Middle East as it is in the US. Mercedes is much more common over there, and much cheaper.

Libya is a dictatorship. So is Saudi Arabia, Yemen etc that are supported heavily by the U.S.

I think you're the one who should be providing sources.

But for me, we'll start with Freedom House, which consistently ranks Libya as a 7 (it's worst ranking) in terms of civil and political freedom. And yes, I know Libya's a dictatorship, and I know Saudi Arabia and Yemen are too, but tell me where exactly I said I support either of those countries.

(Oh, and welcome to DU :hi: )

assessments by US analysts. No one suggests that Libya is a liberal democracy. It seems more a dictatorial socialist regime. That was not the point.

http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/5425.htm

From our STATE DEPARTMENT:

Languages: Arabic is the primary language. English and Italian are understood in major cities.
Education: Years compulsory--9. Attendance--90%. Literacy (age 15 and over who can read and write)--total population 82.6%; male 92.4%; female 72% (2003 est.).
Health (2010 est.): Infant mortality rate--20.87 deaths/1,000 live births. Life expectancy--total population 77.47 yrs.; male 75.18 yrs.; female 79.88 yrs.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_life_expectancy

Comparative Life expectancy 77 vs 78 for US, vs the neighbors (71 for Egypt, 73 for Tunisia) vs oil giant Saudi Arabia, 73

In FACT, all data on health and welfare in Libya compares favorably with rest of Africa and Arab World.

http://www.wikileaks.la/us-embassy-cables-gaddafis-modest-lifestyle/

And the high literacy rate doesn't mean a thing if the Libyan people can't do anything with it, such as participate in government. Ghaddafi controls the press and can cut off internet access at will.

The life expectancy is dropping slightly now, considering Ghaddafi is bombing his own people.

If Obama intervenes with military force (even as part of a coalition), we'll scream "warmonger" at him.

It's lose-lose.

It really does seem that regardless of what President Obama does on any issue he will be wrong in the eyes of most here on DU! Everyday it seems there is multiple complaints on the greatest threads page & when he does do something that is nearly impossible to not applaud then it is either silence or it should have been done sooner.

However, if Nancy Pelosi allows a vote on the tax cut compromise or a HCR bill with no public option no one complains when she alone held enormous power to prevent those things from passing! Double standard?

DISCLAIMER: I love Nancy Pelosi but the comparison had to made.

I think it's about time we all realize that Obama is doing the best he can with this situation. Gates knows that military action in Libya, even if it's just enforcing a no-fly zone, is going to be costly and difficult, and Obama seems to be listening to him.

Everything is logically couched in qualifiers and contingencies, but sometimes you just have to get in people's face.

They do not want to be seen as being manipulated in any way by the USA, EU, or other Arab countries. It isn't just a simple case that outside forces obviously have to send in their military to prevent genocide, as Rwanda was; there are arguments both for and against a military intervention.

"Following the genocide in Rwanda and the international community’s failure to intervene, former UN Secretary General Kofi Annan asked the question, when does the international community intervene for the sake of protecting populations?

RtoP in the United Nations

At the 2005 World Summit, Member States included RtoP in the Outcome Document agreeing to Paragraphs 138 and 139. These paragraphs gave final language to the scope of RtoP (i.e. it applies to the four crimes only) and to whom the responsibility actually falls (i.e. nations first, regional and international communities second).

Paragraphs 138 and 139 state:

138. Each individual State has the responsibility to protect its populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity. This responsibility entails the prevention of such crimes, including their incitement, through appropriate and necessary means. We accept that responsibility and will act in accordance with it. The international community should, as appropriate, encourage and help States to exercise this responsibility and support the United Nations in establishing an early warning capability.

139. The international community, through the United Nations, also has the responsibility to use appropriate diplomatic, humanitarian and other peaceful means, in accordance with Chapters VI and VIII of the Charter, to help protect populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity. In this context, we are prepared to take collective action, in a timely and decisive manner, through the Security Council, in accordance with the Charter, including Chapter VII, on a case-by-case basis and in cooperation with relevant regional organizations as appropriate, should peaceful means be inadequate and national authorities manifestly fail to protect their populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity. We stress the need for the General Assembly to continue consideration of the responsibility to protect populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity and its implications, bearing in mind the principles of the Charter and international law. We also intend to commit ourselves, as necessary and appropriate, to helping States build capacity to protect their populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity and to assisting those which are under stress before crises and conflicts break out.

– 2005 World Summit Outcome Document.

Threshold for military interventions

According to the International Commission for Intervention and State Sovereignty (ICISS) Report in 2001, any form of a military intervention initiated under the premise of responsibility to protect must fulfill the following six criteria in order to be justified as an extraordinary measure of intervention:

1. Just Cause
2. Right Intention
3. Final Resort
4. Legitimate Authority
5. Proportional Means
6. Reasonable Prospect"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Responsibility_to_protect
--------------------------------------------------------------
The US has not such formal responsibility to protect civilians. The UN's responsibility (Canada was the force behind the UN's adoption of R2P) goes through the Security Council so if Russia or China want to block UN action to protect Libyans they can.

While the level of civilian deaths in Libya, in one way Gaddafi's willingness to use the full power of the military to hold on to power could well set a precedent that will be used in Saudi Arabia and other dictatorships to do the same. If Gaddafi's tactics are successful and condoned by the international community, the Saudi royal family will breathe much easier than they were after Tunisia and Egypt. The Rwandan genocide, while horrible, was not a precedent for violence against civilians in other countries. (Unless one assumes that Kosovo and Darfur were somehow enabled by the precedent of nonintervention in Rwanda which I have not seen contended.)

The UN has established an international responsibility to protect civilians when national governments initiate or can't stop "genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity". It remains to be seen whether R2P goes beyond nice words on a piece of paper.

forces who are revolting in the name of political freedom. In Rwanda, aggitation and the provocation of slaughter came from pro-government forces who stoked popular tribal hatred into a genocide.

Ghadaffi is "opposing" tribally based aggitation and revolt. Many pro-Ghadaffi forces were routed by the opposition who built up a well armed force before the Government forces took any serious military action.

This is a civil war, with relatively mild confrontations, when compared to those in the Congo, Sri Lanka, or the United States, for that matter.

Then again, nobody in the international community believed Hutus could kill one million Tutsis in three months. But it happened.

It's certainly possible that a ruthless despot like Ghadafi could start a systematically executing his opponents. What course do we take (doing nothing is a course too)?

Welcome to DU :bounce: :toast: :bounce:

just outside the UN compound. More people were being killed within sight of the compound within a day
that all the deaths in Libya to date. The French soldiers were giving live reports of the slaughter.

The diff is just that Libya has OIL and is part of a current media interest topic -- the protests in the Arab world.

I would take the OP much more seriously if he had been a tireless advocate for all those civilians that our troops are killing in Afghanistan and Iraq. :hi:

Posted in the wrong place...

Like Afghanistan and Iraq, it just wouldn't be worth it.

If Ghadafi began systematically executing hundreds of thousands of his citizens, we should stand idly by and cluck our tongues?

The "wouldn't be worth it" argument was used (privately) against intervention in Rwanda too - tiny African country, limited natural resources, not much in it for us. Iraq had so much in it for us we couldn't even wait.

let's intervene where there's an actual genocide going on rather than a relative skirmish that's taking place on an oil patch.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Congo_War