OBAMA ELNÖK: LÍBIA JÖVŐJE A LÍBIAIAK KEZÉBEN VAN | PRESIDENT OBAMA ON LIBYA: THE FUTURE IS IN THE HANDS OF ITS PEOPLE

President Barack Obama remarks on the situation in Libya during a statement on Martha's Vineyard, Mass., Aug. 22, 2011. (Official White House Photo by Chuck Kennedy)

Az elmúlt félév során az Egyesült Államok és szövetségesei Kadhafi brutalitásától védték a líbiaiakat, és támogatták őket abban, hogy saját kezükbe vegyék sorsuk intézését. Obama elnök most így fogalmazott: “Kadhafi rendszere a végét járja és Líbia jövője a líbiaiak kezében van”.

 

President Obama on Libya: The future is in the Hands of its People, from the White House

This afternoon, following a call with the National Security Council, President Obama spoke about the evolving situation in Libya. Over the past six months, the United States has worked with allies to protect the people of Libya from Muammar Qaddafi’s brutality and support them as they seek the opportunity for the citizens of Libya to determine their own destiny. Today, President Obama said, ”The Qaddafi regime is coming to an end, and the future of Libya is in the hands of its people,” making it clear that the courage of the Libyan people has brought freedom within reach.

NATO Secretary General: “The future of Libya belongs to the Libyan people”, from by Jorge Benitez. NATO source

From Anders Fogh Rasmussen, NATO:  The Qadhafi regime is clearly crumbling. The sooner Qadhafi realises that he cannot win the battle against his own people, the better — so that the Libyan people can be spared further bloodshed and suffering.


Lessons of the Libya Intervention, from Brookings

After months of fighting Qaddafi’s regime in Libya, rebels seized control of most of Tripoli. As fighting continues, Shadi Hamid argues that the situation in Libya confirms that external actors, such as the United States and Europe, can still be decisive in the Arab struggle for freedom.

Why is NATO bombing Libya but not Syria? from Nato source

From Fred Kaplan, Slate:  If NATO is dropping bombs on Libya, why not on Syria? Aren’t the two regimes equally murderous? Where do we draw the lines on these things, and why?

These are some of the questions bandied about in the latest round of the great debate over what some call “humanitarian intervention.”

Post-Qaddafi Instability in Libya , by Council on Foreign Relations

Public disorder and instability in Libya could emerge if the Qaddafi regime falls. The United States should support a stabilization effort to prevent the potential consequences of regime failure.

What Happens After Qaddafi? by Cato Institute

Recent military developments in Libya underscore that U.S. and NATO officials need to consider what strategy they intend to pursue if Muammar Qaddafi’s more than four-decade hold on power finally comes to an end. Given the financial woes of Italy, France and other key European members of NATO, and given the habitual desire of the Europeans to off-load security problems onto the United States, it is all too likely that we will see a concerted campaign to get Washington’s participation in a post-Qaddafi peacekeeping mission. Argues Cato scholar Ted Galen Carpenter, “President Obama should resist any temptation to involve the United States further in Libya’s domestic quarrels.”

Displacement in Libya: Humanitarian Priorities, Khalid Koser, Nonresident Senior Fellow. The Brookings Institution, August 15, 2011

UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon expressed concern over civilian casualties in Libya. His remarks came in response to a NATO air strike on Libyan State Television transmitters last month, and other more recent strikes that have allegedly killed civilians, an especially poignant mistake given that the principal rationale for UN Security Council Resolution 1973 was to protect civilians from Colonel Gaddafi. But there is another civilian population equally in need of protection from whom attention seems to have fallen away in recent weeks, and that is the displaced within and from Libya.

NYT: Amid a Berber Reawakening in Libya, Fears of Revenge.

C. J. Chivers of the New York Times discusses how the Amazigh are re-emerging as a political force after decades of oppression. But some question whether the swift social reorganization could lead to internecine war.

NON-GOVERNMENT SOURCES ● SEE DISCLAIMER
This entry was posted in Foreign Policy and tagged , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.