Category: Libya

  • 168 people brought from Libya to Turkey

    168 people brought from Libya to Turkey

    plane thy168 people, who left Libya due to upheaval in the country and proceeded to Tunisia, were brought to Turkey on Friday.

    168 people, who left Libya due to upheaval in the country and proceeded to Tunisia, were brought to Turkey on Friday.

    168 people most of whom are Turks arrived at Ataturk Airport in Istanbul by a plane of Turkish Airlines (THY) within the scope of evacuation conducted by Turkish Embassy in Tunisia.

    Turkey has so far evacuated at least 21,000 people including foreign nationals from Libya, since the beginning of the protests against Muammar Gaddafi’s 42-year reign.

    AA

     

  • Revealed: Gaddafi envoy in Britain for secret talks

    Revealed: Gaddafi envoy in Britain for secret talks

    Exclusive: Contact with senior aide believed to be one of a number between Libyan officials and west amid signs regime may be looking for exit strategy

    Peter Beaumont Nicholas Watt and Severin Carrell

    Gaddafi supporters stage a rally
    Supporters of the Libyan leader Colonel Muammar Gaddafi stage a rally in Tripoli. Photograph: Zohra Bensemra/Reuters

    Colonel Gaddafi’s regime has sent one of its most trusted envoys to London for confidential talks with British officials, the Guardian can reveal.

    Mohammed Ismail, a senior aide to Gaddafi’s son Saif al-Islam, visited London in recent days, British government sources familiar with the meeting have confirmed. The contacts with Ismail are believed to have been one of a number between Libyan officials and the west in the last fortnight, amid signs that the regime may be looking for an exit strategy.

    Disclosure of Ismail’s visit comes in the immediate aftermath of the defection to Britain of Moussa Koussa, Libya‘s foreign minister and its former external intelligence head, who has been Britain’s main conduit to the Gaddafi regime since the early 1990s.

    A team led by the British ambassador to Libya, Richard Northern, and MI6 officers embarked on a lengthy debriefing of Koussa at a safe house after he flew into Farnborough airport on Wednesday night from Tunisia. Government sources said the questioning would take time because Koussa’s state of mind was “delicate” after he left his family in Libya.

    The Foreign Office has declined “to provide a running commentary” on contacts with Ismail or other regime officials. But news of the meeting comes amid mounting speculation that Gaddafi’s sons, foremost among them Saif al-Islam, Saadi and Mutassim, are anxious to talk. “There has been increasing evidence recently that the sons want a way out,” said a western diplomatic source.

    Although he has little public profile in Libya or internationally, Ismail is recognised by diplomats as being a key fixer and representative for Saif al-Islam. According to cables published by WikiLeaks, Ismail represented Libya’s government in arms purchase negotiations and as an interlocutor on military and political issues.

    “The message that was delivered to him is that Gaddafi has to go, and that there will be accountability for crimes committed at the international criminal court,” a Foreign Office spokesman told the Guardian , declining to elaborate on what else may have been discussed.

    Some aides working for Gaddafi’s sons, however, have made it clear that it may be necessary to sideline their father and explore exit strategies to prevent the country descending into anarchy.

    One idea the sons have reportedly suggested – which the Guardian has been unable to corroborate – is that Gaddafi give up real power. Mutassim, presently the country’s national security adviser, would become president of an interim national unity government which would include the opposition. It is an idea, however, unlikely to find support among the rebels or the international community who are demanding Gaddafi’s removal.

    The revelation that contacts between Britain and a key Gaddafi loyalist had taken place came as David Cameron hailed the defection of Koussa as a sign the regime was crumbling. “It tells a compelling story of the desperation and the fear right at the very top of the crumbling and rotten Gaddafi regime,” he said.

    Ministers regard Koussa’s move to abandon his family as a sign of the magnitude of his decision. “Moussa Koussa is very worried about his family,” one source said. “But he did this because he felt it was the best way of bringing down Gaddafi.”

    Britain learned that Koussa wanted to defect when he made contact from Tunisia. He had made his way out of Libya in a convoy of cars after announcing he was going on a diplomatic mission to visit the new government in Tunis.

    It was also reported that Ali Abdussalam Treki, a senior Libyan diplomat, declined to take up his appointment by Gaddafi as UN ambassador, condemning the “spilling of blood”. Officials were checking reports that Tarek Khalid Ibrahim, the deputy head of mission in London, is also defecting.

    The prime minister insisted that no deal had been struck with Koussa and that he would not be offered immunity from prosecution. “Let me be clear, Moussa Koussa is not being granted immunity. There is no deal of that kind,” Cameron said. Within hours of his arrival in Britain, Scottish prosecutors asked to interview Koussa about the 1988 Lockerbie bombing. The Crown Office in Edinburgh has said that it is formally asking for its prosecutors and police detectives to question him.

    But government sources indicated that Britain does not believe Koussa was involved. He was at the heart of Britain’s rapprochement with Libya, which started when Tripoli abandoned its support for the IRA in the early 1990s.

    He was instrumental in persuading Gaddafi to abandon his weapons of mass destruction programme in 2003. One source said: “Nobody is saying this guy was a saint, because he was a key Gaddafi lieutenant who was kicked out of Britain in 1980 for making threats to kill Libyan dissidents. But this is the guy who persuaded Gaddafi to abandon his WMD programme. He no doubt has useful and interesting things to say about Lockerbie, but it doesn’t seem he said ‘go and do it’.”

    However there is unease among Tories about Britain’s involvement in Libya. Underlining those concerns, Boris Johnson, the London mayor, told BBC Question Time that a continued stalemate in Libya could “have terrible consequences”. Johnson said; “I do worry that if we get into a stalemate; and if, frankly, the rebels don’t seem to be making the progress that we would like, we have to be brave, to say to ourselves that our policy is not working, and encourage the Arabs themselves to take leadership in all of this.”

    William Hague, the foreign secretary, said he had a sense that Koussa was deeply unhappy with Gaddafi when they spoke last Friday. “One of the things I gathered between the lines in my telephone calls with him, although he of course had to read out the scripts of the regime, was that he was very distressed and dissatisfied by the situation there,” Hague said.

    www.guardian.co.uk, 1 April 2011

  • Turkey: The growing power

    Turkey: The growing power

    Gavin Hewitt

    In the era of awakenings, upheavals and revolutions: watch Turkey.

    It has become a hugely ambitious country, bristling with self-belief. In a turbulent Middle East it believes it is the democratic role model. It eyes the role as spokesman for the region as a whole. When disputes need to be settled, it offers itself as the mediator. The State Minister and Deputy Prime Minister Cemil Cicek summed it up: “Everybody has to see Turkey’s power.”

    TR PM ErdoganOver Libya it is the country that the West watches more carefully than any other. For the moment, Turkey is supporting Nato’s campaign whilst refraining from joining in any attacks on Gaddafi’s ground forces. It is holding itself back, ready to step forward as the indispensable locator when the hour of negotiation approaches.

    On the Libyan conflict it has flipped and flopped however. Early on, the Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan denounced any Western intervention as “absurd”. He raised fears of a “second Iraq”. Turkish officials seemed to lash out at what they portrayed as an oil grab by the West. They picked a fight with the French interior minister Claude Gueant who unwisely said the French President was leading a “crusade” to stop Gaddafi’s barbarism. He didn’t mean it of course in the historical sense but Turkish officials pounced on the tongue-slip.

    That was then. Now Turkey is committing five or six vessels to police the arms embargo and is running Benghazi airport to co-ordinate humanitarian assistance.

    Turkey wanted to disguise its hand, to see which way the battle flowed. Twenty thousand of its citizens work in Libya and it has lucrative contracts there. Commercial self-interest made it cautious.

    The u-turn was driven by the realisation that the international community, including the Arab League, was determined that the killing of civilians had to stop.

    Turkey had two positions. Firstly, it would not attack Gaddafi’s forces directly. Secondly, it was fiercely opposed to a coalition, led by France, setting the agenda.

    Its problem with France is simple. President Sarkozy is against Turkey joining the EU as a full member. Ankara feels insulted and it is easy to meet Turkish officials with a mouthful of rage against the French president.

    So Turkey wanted the operation run under Nato, where it has a role in decision-making and drafting the rules of engagement. Its position is hard-headed. “We are one of the very few countries that is speaking to both sides,” said one official. It waits for that moment when the mediator is summoned on to the field of play.

    On the turmoil in the Arab world, Turkey has sold itself as the role-model. Early on it urged Hosni Mubarak to stand down. Many of the Egyptian demonstrators wanted Egypt to be like Turkey; secular yet certain of its Muslim identity but with free elections.

    When the killings started in Syria, Prime Minister Erdogan was immediately on the phone. “I have made two calls to President Assad in the last three days and I have sent top intelligence official to Syria. I have called for a reformist approach.”

    It is all skilfully balanced; on the side of reform but keeping a hand in with the man in power.

    Sometimes it seems Turkish officials are everywhere. Such as when the prime minister shows up in Baghdad. It is Turkish goods and companies that so far have conquered Iraq’s markets. With the prime minister were 200 businessmen.

    President Ahmadinejad of Iran may be isolated, but not with Turkey. Ankara has again positioned itself as the deal-maker. There is also the not-so-small matter of $10 billion in trade with Tehran.

    Turkey has also helped shine its credentials in the Middle East with a major row with Israel over the interception of a boat heading for Gaza. Turkish citizens died in the incident.

    So Turkey’s sphere of influence widens but, even so, there are the problems.

    Since 2005 it has been engaged in accession talks with the EU. For the moment they are going nowhere. President Sarkozy and Chancellor Merkel favour instead of membership “a privileged partnership”. Turkey wants none of it and seethes with resentment.

    Some – but not all – in the EU are wary. There are 24 million without work in Europe and the appetite for enlargement has dimmed. Not everyone is convinced that a Muslim country should be in the EU. It would be difficult to have Turkey join without its people being consulted.

    Turkey knows this and asks the searching question: “Is the EU a Christian Club or is it the address of a community of civilisations? The current picture shows the EU is a Christian Club. This must be overcome.” It touches a raw nerve. But plenty in Europe ask whether Turkey would accept becoming a community of civilisations.

    You could sense the strains and tensions when recently Prime Minister Erdogan went to Germany, where two million people of Turkish origin live. He caused huge offence when he told an audience in Dusseldorf: “Our children must learn German but they must learn Turkish first.” It was an open challenge to the German government which had been insisting that those who live in Germany must speak the language and integrate. The German chancellor opined that multiculturalism had failed because it led to separation.

    There is, too, friction over Cyprus, and the disturbing detentions of reporters and writers. It forced the European Commission to warn Turkey over its democratic credibility.

    And then there are the doubts as to how committed the ruling party is to secularism. Recently Ayse Sucu, who headed a woman’s group, was squeezed out after suggesting women themselves should decide whether to cover their hair.

    There is an ongoing struggle within Turkey which will demonstrate its commitment to tolerance. That, more than anything, will determine whether it is indeed a role model.

    But Turkey is on a roll. Sometimes – irritated at being rebuffed – it contemplates abandoning its pursuit of EU membership. It survived the economic downturn and its growth is an enviable 5%. It may prefer to go it alone and, like the Ottomans, revel in newfound influence.

    But when it comes to Libya, Turkey demands to be listened to. And the West needs Turkey on side.

    Gavin HewittI’m Gavin Hewitt, the BBC’s Europe editor and this blog is where you and I can talk about the stories I’m covering in Europe.

     

     

    bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/gavinhewitt/2011/03/turkey_the_growing_power.html, 30 March 2011

  • Libya foreign minister ‘defects’

    Libya foreign minister ‘defects’


    Moussa Koussa
    Britain says Moussa Koussa is quitting Colonel Gaddafi's regime

    Libyan Foreign Minister Moussa Koussa is in Britain and “no longer willing” to work for Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi’s regime, the Foreign Office says.

    He flew into an airport near the capital earlier on Wednesday.

    He has subsequently spent hours talking to British officials.

    His apparent defection comes as rebels in Libya are retreating from former strongholds along the eastern coast as Colonel Gaddafi’s forces advance.

    The rebels have now lost the key oil port of Ras Lanuf and the nearby town of Bin Jawad, and are also in full retreat from Brega. In the west, the rebel-held town of Misrata is still reportedly coming under attack from pro-Gaddafi troops, reports say.

    ‘Own free will’

    A British Foreign Office spokesperson said: “We can confirm that Moussa Koussa arrived at Farnborough Airport on 30 March from Tunisia. He travelled here under his own free will.

    “He has told us that he is resigning his post. We are discussing this with him and we will release further detail in due course.

    “Moussa Koussa is one of the most senior figures in Gaddafi’s government and his role was to represent the regime internationally – something that he is no longer willing to do.

    “We encourage those around Gaddafi to abandon him and embrace a better future for Libya that allows political transition and real reform that meets the aspirations of the Libyan people.”

    A senior US administration official, speaking to AFP News agency on condition of anonymity, said: “This is a very significant defection and an indication that people around Gaddafi think the writing’s on the wall.”

    Earlier, British Foreign Secretary William Hague announced that five Libyan diplomats were being expelled from the country.

    He told MPs that the five, who include the military attache, “could pose a threat” to Britain’s security.

    About-turn

    The BBC’s Ben Brown in the eastern coastal town of Ajdabiya says the rebels simply cannot compete with the discipline and firepower of Col Gaddafi’s forces.

    He says the current situation is a dramatic about-turn for the rebels who, over the weekend, had seized a string of towns along the coast and seemed to be making good progress with the help of coalition air strikes.

    Most reports suggested the rebels had fled back to Ajdabiya, and some witnesses said civilians had begun to flee further east towards the rebel-held city of Benghazi.

    Maj Gen Suleiman Mahmoud, the second-in-command for the rebels, told the BBC that rebels forces needed time, patience and help to organise themselves.

    “Our problem we need help – communication, radios, we need weapons,” he said, adding that the rebels had a strategy but fighters did not always obey orders.

    He also said allied liaison officers were working with the rebels to organise raids.

    Human Rights Watch has accused Col Gaddafi’s forces of laying both anti-personnel and anti-vehicle mines during the current conflict after a discovery of what it said were dozens of mines on the eastern outskirts of Ajdabiya.

    Covert action

    France and the US say they are sending envoys to Benghazi to meet the interim administration.

    And an international conference on Libya in London has agreed to set up a contact group involving Arab governments to co-ordinate help for a post-Gaddafi Libya.

    The US and Britain have suggested the UN resolution authorising international action in Libya could also permit the supply of weapons.

    This message was reinforced by British Prime Minister David Cameron in Parliament on Wednesday.

    “UN [Security Council Resolution] 1973 allows all necessary measures to protect civilians and civilian-populated areas, and our view is this would not necessarily rule out the provision of assistance to those protecting civilians in certain circumstances,” he said. “We do not rule it out, but we have not taken the decision to do so.”

    Meanwhile, US media reports say President Barack Obama has authorised covert support for the Libyan rebels. The CIA and White House have both declined to comment on the reports.

    Several thousand people have been killed and thousands wounded since the uprising against Col Gaddafi’s rule began more than six weeks ago.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12915959, 31 March 2011

  • Libya: Turkey’s FM Ahmet Davutoglu outlines policy

    Libya: Turkey’s FM Ahmet Davutoglu outlines policy

    As our aircraft rose steeply from the lightless gloom of Baghdad Airport, Ahmet Davutoglu looked down, and reflected.

    “The people of Iraq suffered a lot,” he said. “We need to take lessons from that.”

    Despite protests at home, Mr Davutoglu says Turkey is now fully on board the Nato-led operation
    Despite protests at home, Mr Davutoglu says Turkey is now fully on board the Nato-led operation

    Turkey has been a member of Nato since 1952, a loyal US ally that sent soldiers to fight and die to the Korean War, and was the eastern frontier of the alliance during the Cold War.

    The sense of being an isolated outpost of Western military power anchored its foreign policy for decades. But for the past 10 years, Mr Davutoglu, an academic and passionate student of geopolitics, has turned Turkey’s foreign policy on its head.

    Old allies like Israel, the US and the EU were downgraded. New relationships were forged with eastern and southern neighbours, relationships built on trade and business. He called it “zero problems with neighbours”.

    So the past two months, when the entire neighbourhood has been in turmoil, have been very tough for Turkey. Suddenly it is unclear who it should be doing business with in the Arab world.

    Which helps to explain the twisting policy shifts. At one point Turkey seemed fervently opposed to international intervention in Libya. Today, it is a strong advocate of a Nato-led mission.

    Nato sensitivities

    But it has not reached that point without some tough bargaining with other members of the alliance.

    Continue reading the main story

    “Start Quote

    As the only Muslim country [in Nato] for many decades, we have certain sensitivities regarding Nato operations in neighbouring countries’ Muslim societies”

    End Quote Ahmet Davutoglu Turkish Foreign Minister

    “Our reservations were about unilateralism”, said Mr Davutoglu. “As the only Muslim country [in Nato] for many decades, we have certain sensitivities regarding Nato operations in neighbouring countries’ Muslim societies.

    “We said that Nato can participate if there are two principles fulfilled: One is a UN Security Council resolution; second is regional ownership, especially participation of the Arab League and individual Arab countries.”

    He cited Iraq and Afghanistan as places where perceived Western indifference to civilian casualties had badly damaged the credibility of international military operations there.

    Turkey would only sign up to an operation in Libya with a clear command structure, he said, that did not allow for unilateral actions by individual countries – a reference to the early attacks by French aircraft on Col Muammar Gaddafi’s forces, which Turkey strongly condemned.

    Mr Davutoglu says Turkey is now fully on board the Nato-led operation. Its support is vital.

    Unlike in the past, today Turkey is admired in the Middle East, for its economic success, its robust democracy and its ambitious foreign policy.

    Its endorsement gives the intervention in Libya much-needed credibility among a sceptical Arab public. But any significant civilian casualties from air attacks would damage that credibility, something Turkey is especially keen to avoid.

    Embargo enforcer

    Turkey’s foreign minister is also urging other participants at the London summit on Libya to move their attention on from military action to what kind of political settlement might be possible after the fighting stops.

    Turkey has been in regular contact with Col Gaddafi since the start of the crisis there, trying to persuade him to step down.

    It had no success, but Mr Davutoglu believes a ceasefire and some kind of agreement between the two sides is preferable to continued armed conflict.

    Members of pro-Islamic groups with a poster of Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi, attend a protest against foreign intervention in Libya outside the US embassy in Ankara, Turkey, 27 March 27 2011 Despite protests at home, Mr Davutoglu says Turkey is now fully on board the Nato-led operation

    He argues that Turkey’s long-standing trade links with Libya, its relations with both the Gaddafi side and the opposition, and its experience in evacuating around 30,000 of its own citizens and those of other countries, give it unique advantages to lead operations like setting up humanitarian aid corridors.

    Turkey has sent five navy ships and a submarine to enforce the arms embargo, and the parliament has authorised the despatch of Turkish troops for possible peace-keeping roles.

    Travelling to London with Mr Davutoglu it was clear the extraordinary events of the past two months have not dented his bubbling confidence in his country’s ability to ride the wave, and benefit.

    He has been more hyperactive than ever, constantly on the move, continually talking to political leaders in all the countries affected by the Arab Spring.

    Turkey, he says, is backing the process of peaceful democratic transformation, and is telling Arab leaders that.

    Still, the new landscape is a worrying one for a country that has profited so well from the close ties it built with the very regimes now under threat. Syria, which shares a long border with Turkey, is a particular concern.

    Mr Davutoglu assured me his government was giving the same message to President Bashar al-Assad that it has given to every other autocratic leader in the region – that he must embrace reform, or risk being swept away by it.

    But privately Turkish officials fear a sectarian war, or a wider Middle East conflict, if Mr Assad is forced out.

    Ahmet Davutoglu may go down as one of the most important foreign ministers of modern times, with many successes to his credit.

    But the so-called “zero problems with neighbours” policy needs a new name.

    via BBC News – Libya: Turkey’s FM Ahmet Davutoglu outlines policy.

  • Obama: History Is Not on Gadhafi’s Side; Libyans Will Determine Own Destiny

    Obama: History Is Not on Gadhafi’s Side; Libyans Will Determine Own Destiny

    Transcript

    obama

    PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: Good evening. Tonight, I’d like to update the American people on the international effort that we have led in Libya – what we have done, what we plan to do, and why this matters to us.

    I want to begin by paying tribute to our men and women in uniform who, once again, have acted with courage, professionalism and patriotism. They have moved with incredible speed and strength. Because of them and our dedicated diplomats, a coalition has been forged and countless lives have been saved. Meanwhile, as we speak, our troops are supporting our ally Japan, leaving Iraq to its people, stopping the Taliban’s momentum in Afghanistan, and going after al-Qaida around the globe. As commander-in-chief, I am grateful to our soldiers, sailors, airmen, Marines, Coast Guardsmen and their families, and I know all Americans share in that sentiment.

    For generations, the United States of America has played a unique role as an anchor of global security and as an advocate for human freedom. Mindful of the risks and costs of military action, we are naturally reluctant to use force to solve the world’s many challenges. But when our interests and values are at stake, we have a responsibility to act. That’s what’s happened in Libya over the course of these last six weeks.Libya sits directly between Tunisia and Egypt, two nations that inspired the world when their people rose up to take control of their own destiny. For more than four decades, the Libyan people have been ruled by a tyrant – Moammar Gadhafi. He has denied his people freedom, exploited their wealth, murdered opponents at home and abroad and terrorized innocent people around the world – including Americans who were killed by Libyan agents.

    Last month, Gadhafi’s grip of fear appeared to give way to the promise of freedom. In cities and towns across the country, Libyans took to the streets to claim their basic human rights. As one Libyan said, “For the first time we finally have hope that our nightmare of 40 years will soon be over.”

    Faced with this opposition, Gadhafi began attacking his people.  As president, my immediate concern was the safety of our citizens, so we evacuated our embassy and all Americans who sought our assistance. We then took a series of swift steps in a matter of days to answer Gadhafi’s aggression. We froze more than $33 billion of Gadhafi’s regime’s assets. Joining with other nations at the United Nations Security Council, we broadened our sanctions, imposed an arms embargo, and enabled Gadhafi and those around him to be held accountable for their crimes. I made it clear that Gadhafi had lost the confidence of his people and the legitimacy to lead, and I said that he needed to step down from power.

    In the face of the world’s condemnation, Gadhafi chose to escalate his attacks, launching a military campaign against the Libyan people. Innocent people were targeted for killing. Hospitals and ambulances were attacked. Journalists were arrested, sexually assaulted and killed. Supplies of food and fuel were choked off. Water for hundreds of thousands of people in Misrata was shut off. Cities and towns were shelled, mosques were destroyed and apartment buildings were reduced to rubble. Military jets and helicopter gunships were unleashed upon people who had no means to defend themselves against assaults from the air.

    Confronted by this brutal repression and a looming humanitarian crisis, I ordered warships into the Mediterranean. European allies declared their willingness to commit resources to stop the killing. The Libyan opposition and the Arab League appealed to the world to save lives in Libya. And so at my direction, America led an effort with our allies at the United Nations Security Council to pass a historic resolution that authorized a no-fly zone to stop the regime’s attacks from the air and further authorized all necessary measures to protect the Libyan people.

    Ten days ago, having tried to end the violence without using force, the international community offered Gadhafi a final chance to stop his campaign of killing or face the consequences. Rather than stand down, his forces continued their advance, bearing down on the city of Benghazi, home to nearly 700,000 men, women and children who sought their freedom from fear.

    At this point, the United States and the world faced a choice. Gadhafi declared that he would show “no mercy” to his own people. He compared them to rats, and threatened to go door to door to inflict punishment. In the past, we had seen him hang civilians in the streets and kill over a thousand people in a single day. Now, we saw regime forces on the outskirts of the city. We knew that if we wanted – if we waited one more day, Benghazi – a city nearly the size of Charlotte – could suffer a massacre that would have reverberated across the region and stained the conscience of the world.

    It was not in our national interest to let that happen. I refused to let that happen. And so nine days ago, after consulting the bipartisan leadership of Congress, I authorized military action to stop the killing and enforce UN Security Council resolution 1973. We struck regime forces approaching Benghazi to save that city and the people within it. We hit Gadhafi’s troops in neighboring Ajdabiya, allowing the opposition to drive them out. We hit Gadhafi’s air defenses, which paved the way for a no-fly zone. We targeted tanks and military assets that had been choking off towns and cities, and we cut off much of their source of supply. And tonight, I can report that we have stopped Gadhafi’s deadly advance.

    In this effort, the United States has not acted alone. Instead, we have been joined by a strong and growing coalition. This includes our closest allies – nations like the United Kingdom, France, Canada, Denmark, Norway, Italy, Spain, Greece and Turkey – all of whom have fought by our side for decades. And it includes Arab partners like Qatar and the United Arab Emirates, who have chosen to meet their responsibility to defend the Libyan people.

    To summarize, then: In just one month, the United States has worked with our international partners to mobilize a broad coalition, secure an international mandate to protect civilians, stop an advancing army, prevent a massacre, and establish a no-fly zone with our allies and partners. To lend some perspective on how rapidly this military and diplomatic response came together, when people were being brutalized in Bosnia in the 1990s, it took the international community more than a year to intervene with air power to protect civilians.

    Moreover, we have accomplished these objectives consistent with the pledge that I made to the American people at the outset of our military operations. I said that America’s 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 that we would transfer responsibility to our allies and partners. Tonight, we are fulfilling that pledge.

    Our most effective alliance, NATO, has taken command of the enforcement of the arms embargo and the no-fly zone. Last night, NATO decided to take on the additional responsibility of protecting Libyan civilians. This transfer from the United States to NATO will take place on Wednesday. Going forward, the lead in enforcing the no-fly zone and protecting civilians on the ground will transition to our allies and partners, and I am fully confident that our coalition will keep the pressure on Gadhafi’s remaining forces. In that effort, the United States will play a supporting role – including intelligence, logistical support, search and rescue assistance, and capabilities to jam regime communications. Because of this transition to a broader, NATO-based coalition, the risk and cost of this operation – to our military and to American taxpayers – will be reduced significantly.

    So for those who doubted our capacity to carry out this operation, I want to be clear: The United States of America has done what we said we would do.

    That’s not to say that our work is complete. In addition to our NATO responsibilities, we will work with the international community to provide assistance to the people of Libya, who need food for the hungry and medical care for the wounded. We will safeguard the more than $33 billion that was frozen from the Gadhafi regime so that it’s available to rebuild Libya. After all, this money does not belong to Gaddafi or to us – it belongs to the Libyan people, and we’ll make sure they receive it.

    Tomorrow, Secretary Clinton will go to London, where she will meet with the Libyan opposition and consult with more than 30 nations. These discussions will focus on what kind of political effort is necessary to pressure Gadhafi while also supporting a transition to the future that the Libyan people deserve. Because while our military mission is narrowly focused on saving lives, we continue to pursue the broader goal of a Libya that belongs not to a dictator but to its people.

    Now, despite the success of our efforts over the past week, I know that some Americans continue to have questions about our efforts in Libya. Gadhafi has not yet stepped down from power, and until he does, Libya will remain dangerous. Moreover, even after Gadhafi does leave power, 40 years of tyranny has left Libya fractured and without strong civil institutions. The transition to a legitimate government that is responsive to the Libyan people will be a difficult task. And while the United States will do our part to help, it will be a task for the international community, and more importantly a task for the Libyan people themselves.

    In fact, much of the debate in Washington has put forward a false choice when it comes to Libya. On the one hand, some question why America should intervene at all, even in limited ways, in this distant land. They argue that there are many places in the world where innocent civilians face brutal violence at the hands of their government, and America should not be expected to police the world, particularly when we have so many pressing needs here at home.

    It’s true that America cannot use our military wherever repression occurs. And given the costs and risks of intervention, we must always measure our interests against the need for action. But that cannot be an argument for never acting on behalf of what’s right. In this particular country, Libya, at this particular moment, we were faced with the prospect of violence on a horrific scale. We had a unique ability to stop that violence: an international mandate for action, a broad coalition prepared to join us, the support of Arab countries, and a plea for help from the Libyan people themselves. We also had the ability to stop Gadhafi’s forces in their tracks without putting American troops on the ground.

    To brush aside America’s responsibility as a leader and, more profoundly, our responsibilities to our fellow human beings under such circumstances would have been a betrayal of who we are. Some nations may be able to turn a blind eye to atrocities in other countries. The United States of America is different. And as president, I refused to wait for the images of slaughter and mass graves before taking action.

    Moreover, America has an important strategic interest in preventing Gadhafi from overrunning those who oppose him. A massacre would have driven thousands of additional refugees across Libya’s borders, putting enormous strains on the peaceful yet fragile transitions in Egypt and Tunisia. The democratic impulses that are dawning across the region would be eclipsed by the darkest form of dictatorship, as repressive leaders concluded that violence is the best strategy to cling to power. The writ of the United Nations Security Council would have been shown to be little more than empty words, crippling that institution’s future credibility to uphold global peace and security. So while I will never minimize the costs involved in military action, I am convinced that a failure to act in Libya would have carried a far greater price for America.

    Now, just as there are those who have argued against intervention in Libya, there are others who have suggested that we broaden our military mission beyond the task of protecting the Libyan people and do whatever it takes to bring down Gadhafi and usher in a new government.

    Of course, there is no question that Libya and the world will be better off with Gadhafi out of power. I, along with many other world leaders, have embraced that goal, and will actively pursue it through nonmilitary means. But broadening our military mission to include regime change would be a mistake.

    The task that I assigned our forces – to protect the Libyan people from immediate danger and to establish a no-fly zone – carries with it a U.N. mandate and international support. It is also what the Libyan opposition asked us to do.  If we tried to overthrow Gadhafi by force, our coalition would splinter. We would likely have to put U.S. troops on the ground to accomplish that mission or risk killing many civilians from the air. The dangers faced by our men and women in uniform would be far greater. So would the costs and our share of the responsibility for what comes next.

    To be blunt, we went down that road in Iraq. Thanks to the extraordinary sacrifices of our troops and the determination of our diplomats, we are hopeful about Iraq’s future. But regime change there took eight years, thousands of American and Iraqi lives, and nearly a trillion dollars. That is not something we can afford to repeat in Libya.

    As the bulk of our military effort ratchets down, what we can do and will do is support the aspirations of the Libyan people. We have intervened to stop a massacre, and we will work with our allies and partners as they’re in the lead to maintain the safety of civilians. We will deny the regime arms, cut off its supply of cash, assist the opposition and work with other nations to hasten the day when Gadhafi leaves power. It may not happen overnight, as a badly weakened Gadhafi tries desperately to hang on to power. But it should be clear to those around Gadhafi and to every Libyan, that history is not on Gadhafi’s side. With the time and space that we have provided for the Libyan people, they will be able to determine their own destiny, and that is how it should be.

    Let me close by addressing what this action says about the use of America’s military power and America’s broader leadership in the world under my presidency.

    As commander-in-chief, I have no greater responsibility than keeping this country safe. And no decision weighs on me more than when to deploy our men and women in uniform. I have made it clear that I will never hesitate to use our military swiftly, decisively and unilaterally when necessary to defend our people, our homeland, our allies and our core interests. That’s why we are going after al-Qaida wherever they seek a foothold. That is why we continue to fight in Afghanistan, even as we have ended our combat mission in Iraq and removed more than 100,000 troops from that country.

    There will be times, though, when our safety is not directly threatened, but our interests and values are. Sometimes, the course of history poses challenges that threaten our common humanity and our common security – responding to natural disasters, for example; or preventing genocide and keeping the peace; ensuring regional security; and maintaining the flow of commerce. These may not be America’s problems alone, but they are important to us, and they are problems worth solving. And in these circumstances, we know that the United States, as the world’s most powerful nation, will often be called upon to help.

    In such cases, we should not be afraid to act, but the burden of action should not be America’s alone. As we have in Libya, our task is instead to mobilize the international community for collective action. Because contrary to the claims of some, American leadership is not simply a matter of going it alone and bearing all of the burden ourselves. Real leadership creates the conditions and coalitions for others to step up as well; to work with allies and partners so that they bear their share of the burden and pay their share of the costs; and to see that the principles of justice and human dignity are upheld by all.

    That’s the kind of leadership we have shown in Libya. Of course, even when we act as part of a coalition, the risks of any military action will be high. Those risks were realized when one of our planes malfunctioned over Libya. Yet when one of our airmen parachuted to the ground, in a country whose leader has so often demonized the United States in a region that has such a difficult history with our country, this American did not find enemies. Instead, he was met by people who embraced him. One young Libyan who came to his aid said, “We are your friends. We are so grateful to these men who are protecting the skies.”

    This voice is just one of many in a region where a new generation is refusing to be denied their rights and opportunities any longer. Yes, this change will make the world more complicated for a time. Progress will be uneven, and change will come differently to different countries. There are places, like Egypt, where this change will inspire us and raise our hopes. And there will be places like Iran, where change is fiercely suppressed. The dark forces of civil conflict and sectarian war will have to be averted, and difficult political and economic concerns addressed.

    The United States will not be able to dictate the pace and scope of this change. Only the people of the region can do that. But we can make a difference. I believe that this movement of change cannot be turned back and that we must stand alongside those who believe in the same core principles that have guided us through many storms: our opposition to violence directed against one’s own people; our support for a set of universal rights, including the freedom for people to express themselves and choose their leaders; our support for governments that are ultimately responsive to the aspirations of the people.

    Born as we are, out of a revolution by those who longed to be free, we welcome the fact that history is on the move in the Middle East and North Africa, and that young people are leading the way. Because wherever people long to be free, they will find a friend in the United States. Ultimately, it is that faith, those ideals that are the true measure of American leadership.

    My fellow Americans, I know that at a time of upheaval overseas, when the news is filled with conflict and change, it can be tempting to turn away from the world. And as I have said before, our strength abroad is anchored in our strength at home. That must always be our North Star – the ability of our people to reach their potential, to make wise choices with our resources, to enlarge the prosperity that serves as a wellspring for our power, and to live the values that we hold so dear.

    But let us also remember that for generations, we have done the hard work of protecting our own people, as well as millions around the globe. We have done so because we know that our own future is safer, our own future is brighter if more of mankind can live with the bright light of freedom and dignity. Tonight, let us give thanks for the Americans who are serving through these trying times and the coalition that is carrying our effort forward. And let us look to the future with confidence and hope not only for our own country, but for all those yearning for freedom around the world.

    Thank you, God bless you, and may God bless the United States of America. Thank you.

     

    Watch the full episode. See more PBS NewsHour.