Obama on Libya: Little, Late and Wrong

Six days of indiscriminate attacks against the civilian population — which could have claimed the lives of up to 10,000 — had to pass before President Obama would open his mouth and condemn the cruel repression by Gadhafi and his henchmen by calling it “unacceptable” and “appalling”.

It was Thursday, the same day that he spoke on the phone with Cameron, Sarkozy and Berlusconi to discuss sanctions against the Libyan regime. Furthermore, he announced that he sent Hillary Clinton to Geneva on Monday to negotiate the possible adoption of certain measures with the international community.

Seeing how quickly events are unfolding in Libya and the slow pace of diplomacy, one wonders if when the international community finally acts the crisis will have already finished and Gadhafi will be damned.

It’s true that the difference between Egypt and Tunisia is the limited extent of the United States’s influence on the Libyan regime, because Libya receives hardly any aid of any kind from Washington, nor is it an important commercial partner. As such, it is probable that a more decisive reaction from the White House would not have deterred a determined Gadhafi from leading his country to civil war with the intentions of sparing his kleptocracy.

However, that is no excuse for the inaction that we have seen during these days. Maybe it was difficult logistically, or politically impossible (there are the vetoes of China and Russia) to establish a no-fly zone above Libya to avoid aerial attacks on protesters.

But Washington and the EU, whose role turns out to be even more pathetic, could have at least taken some unilateral action during the first few days, like imposing economic sanctions directed at the leaders of the regime, or prohibiting them entry to their respective countries. Even neutral Switzerland has acted promptly by freezing Gadhafi’s assets.

You have to realize that it’s justifiable for Obama to move with a certain caution in relation to Libya: He knew when the conflict started that there were still hundreds of American citizens in the country, including various diplomats, and that it was his obligation to ensure their safety. Given that Gadhafi is not a scrupulous man, it isn’t out of the question to worry that he could capture said American citizens and use them as hostages.

However, that doesn’t justify the fact that Mr. Nobel Peace Prize would not even send a public message to the tyrant during the beginning phases of the crisis, advising Gadhafi that he would never be accepted in the international community after a bloodbath. And if not Obama himself, then perhaps Hillary or his attorney general should have reminded Gadhafi of the possibility that he would ending up rotting in jail after condemnation by an international criminal tribunal.

Critics of Obama argue that the president has not been able to deal with such circumstances from the start of the Arabic revolts that now shake one country after another in the region. On this I disagree, because I think that in broad terms the White House was able to find equilibrium between its interests and responsibilities.

In that instance, there was warning from day one of the dire consequences that would arise between Egypt and the U.S. should the army open fire on protesters, thereby terminating such a possibility. Furthermore, the White House not only gave legitimacy to the demands of the demonstrators, but also called for a transition to democracy. Some would have wanted Obama to have publicly demanded Mubarak’s resignation. However, this task of liberating Egypt from Mubarak did not belong to the superpower that is always accused of excessive imperial interventionism; rather, it belonged to the Egyptian people. And in fact, they liberated themselves in an admirable display of tenacity, determination and wisdom.