[轉錄][轉錄] obama doctrine
※ [本文轉錄自 nfsong 信箱]
作者: memnhmai (memnhmai) 看板: IA
標題: [轉錄]obama doctrine
時間: Wed Mar 30 16:28:53 2011
Into Libya
The birth of an Obama doctrine
Mar 28th 2011, 23:37 by Lexington
http://www.economist.com/blogs/lexington/2011/03/libya_4
"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."
THUS President Barack Obama tonight, speaking to the American people directly
for the first time since launching Operation Odyssey Dawn and unleashing
American missiles in Libya. He had received a great deal of criticism—for “
dithering”, for failing to consult Congress, for going too far and doing too
little. Now he has answered back—and provided, at the same time, the
clearest explanation so far of an “Obama doctrine” of humanitarian military
intervention.
Far from “dithering”, goes the White House line, pushed subtly in the
speech and explicitly in briefings by senior officials, Mr Obama’s handling
of the Libyan crisis has been “relatively extraordinary”. He has in a mere
31 days since the protests started imposed powerful sanctions, frozen Colonel
Qaddafi’s assets, secured a robust Security Council resolution, organised an
international coalition, executed a near-flawless military campaign, rolled
Colonel Qaddafi’s forces back to the west, taken out the colonel’s air
defences and knocked out a good deal of his ground forces. All this has been
done without having to put American boots on the ground, without American
military casualties and with precious few Libyan civilian casualties. Better
still, with all this now done, America’s own contribution can decline, NATO
can assume command (under an American general but with a Canadian deputy) and
the European allies will take on more of the burden. Compare that, say senior
administration officials, to the years it took to intervene in Bosnia in the
1990s.
To those hyper-realists who ask why it was necessary for America to entangle
itself in Libya at all, the president’s answer appears to run as follows.
First, he will never hesitate to use military power, unilaterally if
necessary, in defence of the nation’s core interests. No such core interests
were at risk in Libya, but some interests were. For example, the unrest in
Libya might have disrupted the far more consequential democratic revolutions
in Tunisia and especially Egypt, where America has a good deal more at stake.
Moreover, it would not have been right to turn a blind eye to the possibility
of Colonel Qaddafi carrying out his blood-curdling threats to show “no mercy
” to the inhabitants of Benghazi. In such cases, however, it makes powerful
sense, when possible, for America to share the burden with allies under the
authority of the United Nations. This is how he put it in his speech:
It is 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 Qaddafi’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.
To critics on the opposite side of the argument, who ask why Mr Obama does
not just finish the job by killing the colonel himself, the White House’s
answer is that this would not only exceed the mandate of UN Resolution 1973,
which calls only for protecting the civilian population, but risk
splintering an artfully assembled alliance. That would leave America “owning
” the resulting mess. The administration acknowledges that the denouement in
Libya is likely to be messy anyway, but would prefer an internationalised
mess to one for which America alone is held responsible. Might this American
restraint enable Colonel Qaddafi to hang on for months, even longer, in spite
of all the other efforts to squeeze and isolate him? Perhaps: but even if he
holds out in some bunker in Tripoli, surrounded by human shields, the White
House does not see how he could continue to govern Libya in any practical
sense.
Another criticism of Mr Obama is that his policy is inconsistent. Why batter
Colonel Qaddafi and not intervene on the side of the opposition in Yemen,
Bahrain, perhaps even Syria? Mr Obama is thought to be preparing another
speech, some time in the next month or two, that will set out his broader
thinking on what the Arab awakening means to Arabs and the wider world, and
spell out how America might be able to help nudge it in a favourable
direction. Yet the president plainly believes that there are so many
variables in the present fast-moving circumstances that it is not possible to
adopt a single doctrine that fits each case. Bahrain has cracked down
forcibly on the opposition but not in the manner of a Qaddafi—and both
America, with its naval base, and Saudi Arabia have a powerful strategic
interest in the country. Ditto Yemen, a hodge-podge of tribes and factions
with a dangerous al-Qaeda presence.
Until Mr Obama gives his larger speech on the significance of the Arab
awakening, much of the White House’s focus will continue to be on
developments on the ground in Libya. The next tactical steps are supposedly
to be decided by the wider alliance talks taking place this week in London.
But senior White House officials say that they will continue to push for
military action against the colonel’s military forces whenever they can be
construed to be posing a threat to the civilian population. The United States
is already in direct contact with the opposition forces, who will also be
represented in London. Though not yet ready to recognise them as the Libyans’
legitimate government (as the French already have), it is edging in this
direction. Crucially, the administration does not think that Resolution 1973
prevents outsiders from arming the opposition. Mr Obama described the next
steps like this:
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 Qaddafi leaves power. It may not happen
overnight, as a badly weakened Qaddafi tries desperately to hang on to power.
But it should be clear to those around Qaddafi, and to every Libyan, that
history is not on his 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.
It is a good case—and it was a good speech. If Colonel Qaddafi is swept
quickly from power, or reduced to impotence in some bunker, nobody will care
very much about the manner in which Mr Obama put together his alliance and
campaign. It might indeed be remembered as an extraordinary foreign-policy
success. After the rescue of Kuwait in 1991, however, the first President
George Bush also expected Saddam Hussein's regime to collapse in short order.
Mr Obama's team says the circumstances this time are entirely different. They
had better be right.
--
※ 發信站: 批踢踢實業坊(ptt.cc)
◆ From: 114.47.71.128
→
03/30 18:04,
03/30 18:04
推
03/30 19:12,
03/30 19:12
推
03/30 19:33,
03/30 19:33
→
03/30 19:34,
03/30 19:34
--
※ 發信站: 批踢踢實業坊(ptt.cc)
◆ From: 218.161.49.125