United States Military Academy (West Point, NY)
http://www.defense.gov/speeches/speech.aspx?speechid=1539
United States Air Force Academy
http://www.defense.gov/speeches/speech.aspx?speechid=1543
Remarks by Secretary Gates at the United States Air Force Academy
http://www.defense.gov/transcripts/transcript.aspx?transcriptid=4779
Opening Summary -- House Appropriations Committee - Defense (Budget Request)
http://www.defense.gov/speeches/speech.aspx?speechid=1541
Friday, March 4, 2011
Wednesday, March 2, 2011
No-Fly Zone Eyed in Libya
By MARGARET COKER in Tripoli and CHARLES LEVINSON in Benghazi, Libya
Col. Moammar Gadhafi went on a broad offensive Monday in a bid to shift momentum against Libya's uprising, as the White House imposed record sanctions against the embattled strongman and international leaders discussed clipping his wings by imposing a no-fly zone.Forces loyal to Col. Gadhafi attacked two opposition-held cities east of the capital of Tripoli on Monday, said witnesses and rebel army commanders. A rebel commander said Monday that government forces regained control of a seafront oil-terminal town east of Tripoli, extending eastward the government's front line against the rebels.
The government's efforts to regain recently lost territory indicates the regime is digging in for a long stand-off. Col. Gadhafi's opponents, including mutinous army units, hold nearly the entire eastern half of the country, much of the oil infrastructure and some cities in the west. In Tripoli, Col. Gadhafi's forces are reinforcing defenses as the city on Monday exuded an uneasy calm.
The international community redoubled its efforts to pressure Col. Gadhafi to surrender power in Tripoli. The U.S. Treasury Department on Monday froze $30 billion in assets controlled by Col. Gadhafi and his family, in what the Obama administration said was the single-largest seizure of foreign funds in U.S. history.
The Treasury's action comes on top of sanctions passed unanimously by the United Nations Security Council on Saturday and the European Union's own sanctions against the Gadhafi family.
On Monday, France promised to send two planes with humanitarian aid to Benghazi, an eastern opposition stronghold and Libya's second-largest city, French Prime Minister François Fillon told RTL radio. The aid, including medicine and doctors, would be the first direct Western help for the uprising, he said, adding it was the start of a "massive operation of humanitarian support" for the east and that Paris was studying "all solutions"—including military options.
Also Monday, the U.S. and European allies said they were entertaining a full range of options to press Col. Gadhafi to stop a bloody crackdown on antiregime protesters. In Geneva, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Europeans discussed setting up a no-fly zone over Libyan airspace, and the Pentagon repositioned warships and planes in the waters off Libya to be ready to enforce such a zone or to deliver humanitarian aid.
Regional Upheaval
Libya's Undersecretary for Foreign Affairs, Khalid Kiam, said recent international penalties were part of a concerted campaign to weaken Libya and take control of its vast oil resources. He said allegations of government forces' indiscriminate firing on demonstrators and widespread killing of civilians were false.
"The conspiracy is big," he said. "We don't understand how the international community is taking sides when their reports are based on false media reports."
Mr. Kiam said the Libyan government intends to restart a national process with tribal leaders and prominent intellectuals around the country to bring about a peaceful solution to the unrest. It was unclear who the government has invited to such negotiations.
Witnesses said troops, tanks and artillery from the two elite brigades that defend Tripoli have been moved in recent days to ring the southeast outskirts of town. Air traffic has also increased over the past two nights near the Mitiga military airport on Tripoli's east side, said neighbors.
Forces loyal to Col. Gadhafi on Monday attempted to bomb Benghazi, said Col. Tareq Saad Hussein, one of the opposition colonels on the committee in charge of running defense matters in the city.
The attacking airplanes were repulsed by rebel antiaircraft weapons and forced to retreat, said Col. Hussein. He said the aircraft proceeded to drop their payloads on a munitions-storage facility in Ajdabiya, a rebel-controlled city about 120 miles west of Benghazi.
AP Photo
Residents of Al-Zawiya, a city to the west of Tripoli, display their weapons in the main square on Sunday.
Mr. Kiam in Tripoli said the government wouldn't consider a large-scale military offensive to regain lost territory until negotiations with tribal leaders failed. He said there was no deadline for these negotiations.
Col. Hussein said Monday that Ras Lanoof, a small seafront town just east of Tripoli that had been under rebel control, fell to about 150 government troops late Sunday. He said pro-Gadhafi forces are consolidating along the de facto front line between the rebel-controlled eastern half and pro-Gadhafi western half of the country.
Rebel forces appear to be stepping up training of new soldiers and preparations for their deployment. Col. Hussein said he was concerned that the fall of Ras Lanoof, the site of a large oil refinery, puts pro-Gadhafi forces within striking distance of a key power station that provides electricity to Benghazi and other towns in eastern Libya.
Misrata, the nation's third-largest city, has been held by rebel forces for more than a week. There, defense patrols claimed to have shot down an attack helicopter that came from the direction of Tripoli.
Residents said that in the previous two days, they repelled attacks from government forces on the city's radio antenna, an installation that rebel city commanders are using to muster defensive patrols and organize basic services. Two civilians were shot and killed by presumed government snipers who were hiding in a building near the airport, says a medical worker who saw the bodies.
Pockets of Tripoli, and towns to the west of the capital, also appear to remain under rebel control. In Zawiya, an oil-industry center west of Tripoli, residents said the government has moved some heavy armor to help ring the town but that rebels appear to control the center.
Most neighborhoods in Tripoli—home to two million of the country's estimated six million people—were calm. The city remained firmly within the government's control and residents were divided about their loyalties.
Many stores downtown reopened, and traffic in the streets increased. Long lines were formed outside banks by Libyans wanting to receive the equivalent of $400 per family that Col. Gadhafi pledged in a bid to shore up public loyalty.
At a bank located on the main commercial street in Fashloom, a neighborhood that has seen multiple antigovernment protests in the last two weeks, people lining up for the newly announced cash subsidy said they believed foreign agitators were behind the rebellion in the east.
"They aren't real Libyans in Benghazi," said Ahmad, 17, whose father was in line for money. "They are radicals trying to destroy us and our beautiful nation."
In the eastern suburb of Tajura, several hundred angry protesters took to the streets in the early afternoon to denounce Col. Gadhafi and his regime after burying a man, Abdel Fattah Al-Misrati, that residents and neighbors said had been shot in the head during Friday's antigovernment street protests.
Standing on a hilltop cemetery overlooking the Mediterranean Sea, men from Tajoura shouted "Gadhafi, Tajoura will be your grave."
Residents described their district, an industrial suburb of the capital, as a war zone each evening since the start of the rebellion in mid-February. Security police and paramilitary forces patrol Tajura overnight, arresting men and firing weapons in what residents believe is a tactic to scare them into ending their demonstrations.
Sipa Press
A protester killed by pro-regime forces last week is buried in Tripoli.
While the funeral progressed, blue pickups belonging to the Ministry of Interior forces and white unmarked Toyota Tundra sport utility vehicles carrying paramilitary forces armed with AK-47s amassed on the traffic circle on the other side of the hill from the cemetery. When the men dispersed from the place and started speaking to foreign journalists, two of the SUVs sped down the street past the journalists, opening fire in a brief blast of bullets into the air. The Tajura residents scattered but quickly regrouped about half a mile away from the cemetery at one of the city's main squares in an impromptu antiregime protest.
Two men who described themselves as rebel sub-commanders of the area urged foreign journalists to leave before government security forces tried to forcibly break up the protest.
When the government-sponsored minibus and driver drove away with the journalists, a phalanx of 17 security vehicles could be seen speeding toward the Tajura square where the protest had been taking place. A witness later said the protesters scattered again, and the security vehicles remained patrolling the neighborhood as darkness fell.
A no-fly zone over Libya would be a complex operation
latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/middleeast/la-fg-libya-no-fly-20110301,0,1283071.story
5:57 PM PST, February 28, 2011
Reporting from Washington
Although White House and European leaders have repeatedly threatened to establish a no-fly zone over Libya, such a complex operation could require hundreds of aircraft and a bombing campaign to neutralize the country's air defense system, current and retired U.S. military officers say.
Libya's military is considered no match for those of the U.S. and its allies, but it would take a large-scale Western effort to establish round-the-clock patrols over Libyan airspace to deter further attacks on rebels, the U.S. officers said.
"This is all doable," retired Air Force Lt. Gen. Michael M. Dunn, former vice director for strategic plans and policy for the Pentagon's Joint Staff, said of creating a no-fly zone.
But "the simple fact of the matter is that it's not simple," he said.
There is little evidence that consideration of a no-fly zone has moved beyond the conceptual stage in Washington or in European capitals, where officials seem to be hoping, at least for now, that the threat alone will deter the Libyan air force from attacking protesters.
British Prime Minister David Cameron said Monday that he had ordered his military to begin planning for such an operation. The White House said a no-fly zone was under "active consideration."
But a senior administration official said the option would be chosen only in a narrow circumstance: if Moammar Kadafi ordered large-scale air attacks against fellow Libyans.
"If Kadafi begins an all-out assault on the opposition, creates a humanitarian crisis, and it includes significant use of air power, then that would be the kind of compelling situation that spurs the international community to take that step," said the official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitive nature of the discussions.
If a no-fly zone is implemented, one of the biggest worries for U.S. planners will be Libya's surface-to-air missile batteries along its coastline, especially its so-called SA-6 missiles, which, though designed years ago by the Soviet Union, remain able to shoot down U.S. and European fighters, several analysts said.
Libya is believed to have about 50 SA-6 missiles, which are easy to move to avoid detection. Pentagon planners probably would seek to neutralize the SA-6s by warning Libya's military not to target NATO aircraft but also with airstrikes against batteries that took threatening actions, such as activating their radar, the officers said.
The possibility of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization engaging in combat has been little mentioned amid the discussion of a no-fly zone, but U.S. officers said that suppressing an opponent's air defense system is a basic tenet of American Air Force doctrine.
When the U.S. instituted a no-fly zone over southern Iraq in the 1990s, the Air Force attacked the Iraqi air defense system so relentlessly that its radars rarely were turned on, allowing U.S. and allied fighters to patrol without suffering any combat losses for more than a decade.
In the initial stages of a no-fly zone over Libya, air defense batteries might test NATO pilots. With Kadafi and his supporters desperately clinging to power, there is also the possibility that at least some Libyan fighters would attempt to engage NATO aircraft, several officers said. The Libyan air force flies Vietnam-era, Soviet-designed MIG fighters that are not considered much of a threat to U.S. aircraft.
Even so, retired Air Force Lt. Gen. David A. Deptula said, "If you are going to do this, you have to be prepared for the possibility that aircraft are going to be engaged in combat."
To carry out patrols over Libyan airspace 24 hours a day, the U.S and its allies would need hundreds of aircraft, including fighters and refueling tankers, Dunn said. The U.S. could reduce the number of aircraft required by flying only during the day, when attacks on anti-government rebels are most likely, or by going after only Libyan airplanes, not helicopters, he said.
Moving hundreds of aircraft to air bases around Libya would take several weeks, but it could be done without too much effect on U.S. combat operations in Afghanistan. It would not be possible to sustain a no-fly zone using fighters flying from U.S. aircraft carriers, Dunn said.
Before the U.S. and its allies could begin positioning aircraft, they would need consent from governments in countries near Libya to use bases, a hurdle that at a minimum would require winning U.N. authorization for the operation, as well as an endorsement from NATO.
To minimize flight times to Libya, it would be vital to have access to air bases in southern Italy, including a large installation in Naples, and the U.S. might also seek permission from Greece, Egypt or Tunisia, Dunn said.
Italy would look at allowing bases in the Mediterranean to be used by allies only if the operation was authorized by the United Nations, Foreign Minister Franco Frattini said Monday.
latimes.com
To establish a no-fly zone, the U.S. and its allies would need to bomb Libya's air defense system and devote hundreds of aircraft to patrol the country, military officers say.
By David S. Cloud, Los Angeles Times5:57 PM PST, February 28, 2011
Reporting from Washington
| Advertisement |
| |
Libya's military is considered no match for those of the U.S. and its allies, but it would take a large-scale Western effort to establish round-the-clock patrols over Libyan airspace to deter further attacks on rebels, the U.S. officers said.
"This is all doable," retired Air Force Lt. Gen. Michael M. Dunn, former vice director for strategic plans and policy for the Pentagon's Joint Staff, said of creating a no-fly zone.
But "the simple fact of the matter is that it's not simple," he said.
There is little evidence that consideration of a no-fly zone has moved beyond the conceptual stage in Washington or in European capitals, where officials seem to be hoping, at least for now, that the threat alone will deter the Libyan air force from attacking protesters.
British Prime Minister David Cameron said Monday that he had ordered his military to begin planning for such an operation. The White House said a no-fly zone was under "active consideration."
But a senior administration official said the option would be chosen only in a narrow circumstance: if Moammar Kadafi ordered large-scale air attacks against fellow Libyans.
"If Kadafi begins an all-out assault on the opposition, creates a humanitarian crisis, and it includes significant use of air power, then that would be the kind of compelling situation that spurs the international community to take that step," said the official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitive nature of the discussions.
If a no-fly zone is implemented, one of the biggest worries for U.S. planners will be Libya's surface-to-air missile batteries along its coastline, especially its so-called SA-6 missiles, which, though designed years ago by the Soviet Union, remain able to shoot down U.S. and European fighters, several analysts said.
Libya is believed to have about 50 SA-6 missiles, which are easy to move to avoid detection. Pentagon planners probably would seek to neutralize the SA-6s by warning Libya's military not to target NATO aircraft but also with airstrikes against batteries that took threatening actions, such as activating their radar, the officers said.
The possibility of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization engaging in combat has been little mentioned amid the discussion of a no-fly zone, but U.S. officers said that suppressing an opponent's air defense system is a basic tenet of American Air Force doctrine.
When the U.S. instituted a no-fly zone over southern Iraq in the 1990s, the Air Force attacked the Iraqi air defense system so relentlessly that its radars rarely were turned on, allowing U.S. and allied fighters to patrol without suffering any combat losses for more than a decade.
In the initial stages of a no-fly zone over Libya, air defense batteries might test NATO pilots. With Kadafi and his supporters desperately clinging to power, there is also the possibility that at least some Libyan fighters would attempt to engage NATO aircraft, several officers said. The Libyan air force flies Vietnam-era, Soviet-designed MIG fighters that are not considered much of a threat to U.S. aircraft.
Even so, retired Air Force Lt. Gen. David A. Deptula said, "If you are going to do this, you have to be prepared for the possibility that aircraft are going to be engaged in combat."
To carry out patrols over Libyan airspace 24 hours a day, the U.S and its allies would need hundreds of aircraft, including fighters and refueling tankers, Dunn said. The U.S. could reduce the number of aircraft required by flying only during the day, when attacks on anti-government rebels are most likely, or by going after only Libyan airplanes, not helicopters, he said.
Moving hundreds of aircraft to air bases around Libya would take several weeks, but it could be done without too much effect on U.S. combat operations in Afghanistan. It would not be possible to sustain a no-fly zone using fighters flying from U.S. aircraft carriers, Dunn said.
Before the U.S. and its allies could begin positioning aircraft, they would need consent from governments in countries near Libya to use bases, a hurdle that at a minimum would require winning U.N. authorization for the operation, as well as an endorsement from NATO.
To minimize flight times to Libya, it would be vital to have access to air bases in southern Italy, including a large installation in Naples, and the U.S. might also seek permission from Greece, Egypt or Tunisia, Dunn said.
Italy would look at allowing bases in the Mediterranean to be used by allies only if the operation was authorized by the United Nations, Foreign Minister Franco Frattini said Monday.
Tuesday, March 1, 2011
Arab Unrest Puts Their Lobbyists in Uneasy Spot
March 1, 2011
By ERIC LICHTBLAU
WASHINGTON — For years, they have been one of the most formidable lobbying forces in town: the elite band of former members of Congress, former diplomats and power brokers who have helped Middle Eastern nations navigate diplomatic waters here on delicate issues like arms deals, terrorism, oil and trade restrictions.
Just last year, three of the biggest names in the lobbying club — Tony Podesta, Robert L. Livingston and Toby Moffett — pulled off a coup for one of their clients, Egypt. They met with dozens of lawmakers and helped stall a Senate bill that called on Egypt to curtail human rights abuses. Ultimately, those abuses helped bring the government down.
Mr. Moffett, a former congressman from Connecticut, told his old colleagues that the bill “would be viewed as an insult” by an important ally. “We were just saying to them, ‘Don’t do this now to our friends in Egypt,’ ” he recounted.
Now the Washington lobbyists for Arab nations find themselves in a precarious spot, as they try to stay a step ahead of the fast-changing events without being seen as aiding despots and dictators. In Libya, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Yemen, Egypt and other countries in the region, leaders have relied increasingly on Washington’s top lobbyists and lawyers, paying them tens of millions of dollars. Some consultants are tacking toward a more progressive stance in light of pro-democracy protests, while others are dropping their clients altogether because of the tumult.
In Tunisia, where the earliest revolts energized the regional upheaval in January, the Washington Media Group, a public relations and communications firm, ended its $420,000 image-building contract with Tunis on Jan. 6, soon after reports emerged of violent government crackdowns on demonstrators.
“We basically decided on principle that we couldn’t work for a country that was using snipers on rooftops to pick off its citizens,” said Gregory L. Vistica, the firm’s president, who first announced the decision on Facebook.
Others have stayed the course, at least for now. Mr. Moffett, Mr. Livingston and Mr. Podesta, who have a joint multimillion-dollar contract with Egypt, have stepped up the pace of their meetings and phone conferences with Egyptian Embassy officials after the resignation of President Hosni Mubarak. One of the chief aims, the lobbyists say, is to help the military officials now running the country move toward elections that will be regarded as free and fair outside Egypt.
“What we have done for them in the past is what we will continue to do for them in the future — everything in our power to build good relations between the Egypt of today and the United States,” said Mr. Livingston, a former Louisiana congressman who is one of Egypt’s lobbyists.
At the same time, Mr. Livingston acknowledged that he was closely watching the situation in the region. “Is there a danger that the whole area might become Islamist and radical and totally opposed to the interests of the United States?” he asked. “Certainly there’s that risk.”
At Qorvis, a global public relations firm that has represented numerous countries in the region, including Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Yemen and Cyprus, executives from the firm’s Washington office were visiting the Middle East this week with a business-as-usual attitude.
“Our clients are facing some challenges now,” Seth Thomas Pietras, senior vice president of Qorvis Geopolitical Solutions, said in a telephone interview from Dubai, in the United Arab Emirates. “But our long-term goals — to bridge the differences between our clients and the United States — haven’t changed. We stand by them.”
As a rule, leaders in the Middle East have paid consultants generously, even by Washington lobbying standards, with monthly retainers commonly reaching $50,000 or more, according to federal filings.
(Price breaks are available, however: the law firm of White & Case promised Libya “a special 15 percent discount off of our standard rates” in light of the “significant relationship” it hoped to forge with Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi’s country in 2008, according to the contract.)
The United Arab Emirates spent $5.3 million in 2009 for lobbying American officials — second only to the Cayman Islands, which has lobbied to retain its status as a tax haven, according to an analysis by Sunlight Foundation, a nonprofit research group. Working through DLA Piper and other Washington-based firms, the Emirates have sought greater access to American nuclear technology.
Morocco spent more than $3 million on Washington lobbyists, much of it aimed at gaining an edge in its border dispute with Algeria, while Algeria countered by spending $600,000 itself.
Turkey, which shares some interests with the Middle East countries, spent nearly $1.7 million in 2009 to lobby American officials on Turkish and Middle Eastern policy through the firms of Richard A. Gephardt, a former House leader; Mr. Livingston and other prominent lobbyists.
And Saudi Arabia, one of the most powerful foreign interests here, spent about $1.5 million in 2009 on Washington firms, and it has a $600,000 annual contract with Hogan Lovells aimed partly at fighting legislation and litigation that would challenge OPEC’s influence over oil prices.
“These kinds of regimes have a lot of money at their disposal, and that’s a great attraction,” said Howard Marlowe, president of the American League of Lobbyists. Still, he said, “a number of lobbyists will stay away from international clients — period.” To work with dictators in Middle Eastern nations with policies that many Americans find unsavory, he said, “you have to have a strong stomach.”
Mr. Livingston, the former congressman lobbying for Egypt, has also done work for Libya in seeking to resolve legal claims arising from Libya’s role in the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 and to normalize the country’s relations with the United States.
But he said he reached a tipping point in 2009 when Libya welcomed back with open arms a bomber convicted in the Pan Am case and when Colonel Qaddafi threatened to pitch a tent in New Jersey next to a Jewish yeshiva while visiting the United Nations.
“Those two incidents were just more than we could handle,” Mr. Livingston said. Soon after, his firm ended its work for Libya — with “no regrets,” he said.
Other major Washington firms, including White & Case and Blank Rome, a legal and lobbying shop, have also ended their work for Libya, which spent about $850,000 on United States lobbying in 2009. It is not clear from federal records which Washington firms, if any, are still working with Colonel Qaddafi’s government; none have been publicly admitting it.
As demonstrations were taking place in Egypt last month, Mr. Moffett said a friend suggested to him that his lobbying work for the Mubarak government put him “on the wrong side of the Egyptian thing.”
Mr. Moffett demurred. “I don’t feel that way at all,” he said. “We feel honored to be on the scene while all this is happening.”
By ERIC LICHTBLAU
WASHINGTON — For years, they have been one of the most formidable lobbying forces in town: the elite band of former members of Congress, former diplomats and power brokers who have helped Middle Eastern nations navigate diplomatic waters here on delicate issues like arms deals, terrorism, oil and trade restrictions.
Just last year, three of the biggest names in the lobbying club — Tony Podesta, Robert L. Livingston and Toby Moffett — pulled off a coup for one of their clients, Egypt. They met with dozens of lawmakers and helped stall a Senate bill that called on Egypt to curtail human rights abuses. Ultimately, those abuses helped bring the government down.
Mr. Moffett, a former congressman from Connecticut, told his old colleagues that the bill “would be viewed as an insult” by an important ally. “We were just saying to them, ‘Don’t do this now to our friends in Egypt,’ ” he recounted.
Now the Washington lobbyists for Arab nations find themselves in a precarious spot, as they try to stay a step ahead of the fast-changing events without being seen as aiding despots and dictators. In Libya, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Yemen, Egypt and other countries in the region, leaders have relied increasingly on Washington’s top lobbyists and lawyers, paying them tens of millions of dollars. Some consultants are tacking toward a more progressive stance in light of pro-democracy protests, while others are dropping their clients altogether because of the tumult.
In Tunisia, where the earliest revolts energized the regional upheaval in January, the Washington Media Group, a public relations and communications firm, ended its $420,000 image-building contract with Tunis on Jan. 6, soon after reports emerged of violent government crackdowns on demonstrators.
“We basically decided on principle that we couldn’t work for a country that was using snipers on rooftops to pick off its citizens,” said Gregory L. Vistica, the firm’s president, who first announced the decision on Facebook.
Others have stayed the course, at least for now. Mr. Moffett, Mr. Livingston and Mr. Podesta, who have a joint multimillion-dollar contract with Egypt, have stepped up the pace of their meetings and phone conferences with Egyptian Embassy officials after the resignation of President Hosni Mubarak. One of the chief aims, the lobbyists say, is to help the military officials now running the country move toward elections that will be regarded as free and fair outside Egypt.
“What we have done for them in the past is what we will continue to do for them in the future — everything in our power to build good relations between the Egypt of today and the United States,” said Mr. Livingston, a former Louisiana congressman who is one of Egypt’s lobbyists.
At the same time, Mr. Livingston acknowledged that he was closely watching the situation in the region. “Is there a danger that the whole area might become Islamist and radical and totally opposed to the interests of the United States?” he asked. “Certainly there’s that risk.”
At Qorvis, a global public relations firm that has represented numerous countries in the region, including Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Yemen and Cyprus, executives from the firm’s Washington office were visiting the Middle East this week with a business-as-usual attitude.
“Our clients are facing some challenges now,” Seth Thomas Pietras, senior vice president of Qorvis Geopolitical Solutions, said in a telephone interview from Dubai, in the United Arab Emirates. “But our long-term goals — to bridge the differences between our clients and the United States — haven’t changed. We stand by them.”
As a rule, leaders in the Middle East have paid consultants generously, even by Washington lobbying standards, with monthly retainers commonly reaching $50,000 or more, according to federal filings.
(Price breaks are available, however: the law firm of White & Case promised Libya “a special 15 percent discount off of our standard rates” in light of the “significant relationship” it hoped to forge with Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi’s country in 2008, according to the contract.)
The United Arab Emirates spent $5.3 million in 2009 for lobbying American officials — second only to the Cayman Islands, which has lobbied to retain its status as a tax haven, according to an analysis by Sunlight Foundation, a nonprofit research group. Working through DLA Piper and other Washington-based firms, the Emirates have sought greater access to American nuclear technology.
Morocco spent more than $3 million on Washington lobbyists, much of it aimed at gaining an edge in its border dispute with Algeria, while Algeria countered by spending $600,000 itself.
Turkey, which shares some interests with the Middle East countries, spent nearly $1.7 million in 2009 to lobby American officials on Turkish and Middle Eastern policy through the firms of Richard A. Gephardt, a former House leader; Mr. Livingston and other prominent lobbyists.
And Saudi Arabia, one of the most powerful foreign interests here, spent about $1.5 million in 2009 on Washington firms, and it has a $600,000 annual contract with Hogan Lovells aimed partly at fighting legislation and litigation that would challenge OPEC’s influence over oil prices.
“These kinds of regimes have a lot of money at their disposal, and that’s a great attraction,” said Howard Marlowe, president of the American League of Lobbyists. Still, he said, “a number of lobbyists will stay away from international clients — period.” To work with dictators in Middle Eastern nations with policies that many Americans find unsavory, he said, “you have to have a strong stomach.”
Mr. Livingston, the former congressman lobbying for Egypt, has also done work for Libya in seeking to resolve legal claims arising from Libya’s role in the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 and to normalize the country’s relations with the United States.
But he said he reached a tipping point in 2009 when Libya welcomed back with open arms a bomber convicted in the Pan Am case and when Colonel Qaddafi threatened to pitch a tent in New Jersey next to a Jewish yeshiva while visiting the United Nations.
“Those two incidents were just more than we could handle,” Mr. Livingston said. Soon after, his firm ended its work for Libya — with “no regrets,” he said.
Other major Washington firms, including White & Case and Blank Rome, a legal and lobbying shop, have also ended their work for Libya, which spent about $850,000 on United States lobbying in 2009. It is not clear from federal records which Washington firms, if any, are still working with Colonel Qaddafi’s government; none have been publicly admitting it.
As demonstrations were taking place in Egypt last month, Mr. Moffett said a friend suggested to him that his lobbying work for the Mubarak government put him “on the wrong side of the Egyptian thing.”
Mr. Moffett demurred. “I don’t feel that way at all,” he said. “We feel honored to be on the scene while all this is happening.”
Gates Calls Mideast Changes a ‘Setback’ for Iran, al-Qaida
March 01, 2011
U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Tuesday that extremists are suffering setbacks in the ongoing Middle East unrest because their message that change is impossible without violence is being proved wrong. At a news conference, Gates also reiterated statements by other U.S. officials that American military action in Libya is not likely, except for possible humanitarian missions.
Secretary Gates says the revolutions in Tunisia and Egypt, and the ongoing unrest in Libya, Bahrain, Yemen and other countries, proves that peaceful protesters, restrained security forces and responsive governments can bring change, and that change does not have to mean a move to militancy. He called the Middle East changes “an extraordinary setback” for al-Qaida.
“It basically gives the lie to al-Qaida’s claim that the only way to get rid of authoritarian governments is through extremist violence. And the peoples of several countries in the region are proving this not to be the case,” he said.
Gates said Iran also comes out a loser in the unrest, particularly because its security forces have repeatedly used violence to put down popular unrest.
“The behavior of the militaries in Tunisia and in Egypt, and, except for a brief period of violence, in Bahrain contrast vividly with the savage repression that the Iranians have undertaken against anybody who dares to demonstrate in their country,” Gates said.
Gates acknowledged that it will take months, probably years, to know the results of the current unrest. But he praised the beginning of what he called “a process of change” after years of “frozen” politics in many Middle Eastern countries. Gates said that even changes in countries closely allied with the United States, specifically Jordan and Saudi Arabia, would not jeopardize U.S. interests. He said those countries have implemented some reforms over the years, and that the process should continue. He called their the bilateral relationships with the United States“deep,” “strong and longstanding.”
Asked about Libya, the defense secretary indicated that direct U.S. military action is not likely, even though he has ordered at least two U.S. Navy ships into the Mediterranean Sea. Gates said the ships give President Barack Obama options, but that a new U.N. Security Council resolution “presumably” would be needed before force could be used, even to enforce a no-fly zone over Libya as some members of the U.S. Congress have suggested. Earlier, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said Libyan opposition leaders do not want such intervention.
Gates said any action other than providing humanitarian relief would be very complex, could have far-reaching consequences and would have to be considered carefully.
“We also have to think about, frankly, the use of the U.S. military in another country in the Middle East. So I think we’re sensitive about all of these things, but we will provide the president with a full range of options,” he said.
Gates did not provide details, and said no decisions have been made about specific military action.
U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Tuesday that extremists are suffering setbacks in the ongoing Middle East unrest because their message that change is impossible without violence is being proved wrong. At a news conference, Gates also reiterated statements by other U.S. officials that American military action in Libya is not likely, except for possible humanitarian missions.
Secretary Gates says the revolutions in Tunisia and Egypt, and the ongoing unrest in Libya, Bahrain, Yemen and other countries, proves that peaceful protesters, restrained security forces and responsive governments can bring change, and that change does not have to mean a move to militancy. He called the Middle East changes “an extraordinary setback” for al-Qaida.
“It basically gives the lie to al-Qaida’s claim that the only way to get rid of authoritarian governments is through extremist violence. And the peoples of several countries in the region are proving this not to be the case,” he said.
Gates said Iran also comes out a loser in the unrest, particularly because its security forces have repeatedly used violence to put down popular unrest.
“The behavior of the militaries in Tunisia and in Egypt, and, except for a brief period of violence, in Bahrain contrast vividly with the savage repression that the Iranians have undertaken against anybody who dares to demonstrate in their country,” Gates said.
Gates acknowledged that it will take months, probably years, to know the results of the current unrest. But he praised the beginning of what he called “a process of change” after years of “frozen” politics in many Middle Eastern countries. Gates said that even changes in countries closely allied with the United States, specifically Jordan and Saudi Arabia, would not jeopardize U.S. interests. He said those countries have implemented some reforms over the years, and that the process should continue. He called their the bilateral relationships with the United States“deep,” “strong and longstanding.”
Asked about Libya, the defense secretary indicated that direct U.S. military action is not likely, even though he has ordered at least two U.S. Navy ships into the Mediterranean Sea. Gates said the ships give President Barack Obama options, but that a new U.N. Security Council resolution “presumably” would be needed before force could be used, even to enforce a no-fly zone over Libya as some members of the U.S. Congress have suggested. Earlier, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said Libyan opposition leaders do not want such intervention.
Gates said any action other than providing humanitarian relief would be very complex, could have far-reaching consequences and would have to be considered carefully.
“We also have to think about, frankly, the use of the U.S. military in another country in the Middle East. So I think we’re sensitive about all of these things, but we will provide the president with a full range of options,” he said.
Gates did not provide details, and said no decisions have been made about specific military action.
Gates warns against future land wars like Iraq, Afghanistan
The Defense secretary, who leaves office this year, says the U.S. must not forget the lessons it learned since 2001 and that government must try to solve 'festering problems' before they become crises.
Reporting from Washington — Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates warned Friday that the U.S. should avoid future land wars like those it has fought in Iraq and Afghanistan, but should not forget the difficult lessons it has learned from those conflicts.
"In my opinion, any future Defense secretary who advises the president to again send a big American land army into Asia or into the Middle East or Africa should 'have his head examined,' as General MacArthur so delicately put it," Gates said in a speech to cadets at West Point.
"In my opinion, any future Defense secretary who advises the president to again send a big American land army into Asia or into the Middle East or Africa should 'have his head examined,' as General MacArthur so delicately put it," Gates said in a speech to cadets at West Point.
His words are likely to carry special weight, because Gates was chosen as Defense secretary by former President George W. Bush and given the job of rescuing the military from what many saw an unwinnable war in Iraq. Retained by President Obama, Gates has presided over a large buildup of ground forces in Afghanistan.
Gates did not mention Bush or Donald H. Rumsfeld, his predecessor who presided over the invasion of Iraq. Rather than explicitly passing judgment on their decisions, he appeared to be aiming to sum up his tenure and position the Pentagon for the future before he leaves office.
Gates has said he will step down later this year, though he has not said when.
The odds that the U.S. would repeat "another Afghanistan or Iraq — invading, pacifying and administering a large, Third World country" were low, he said.
Instead, future conflicts involving the U.S. military were more likely to be fought with air and sea power, instead of the large ground forces like those that invaded Iraq in 2003 and are now deployed in Afghanistan, he said.
With the defense budget growing tighter, the Army faces growing pressure to justify continued spending on large mechanized formations. Instead, he said, the Army and the rest of the government needed to focus more on preventing "festering problems from growing into full-blown crises which require costly — and controversial — large-scale American military intervention."
With the U.S. role in Iraq ending and troops due to begin coming out of Afghanistan later this year, Gates warned against forgetting the lessons U.S. ground forces have learned since 2001.
Instead of focusing exclusively on conventional combat, ground units would have to be prepared for a range of future missions, including counterterrorism, disaster response and training foreign forces to fight insurgencies, he said.
"Potential adversaries, be they terrorists, insurgents, militia groups, rogue states or emerging powers, will seek to frustrate America's traditional advantages, in particular, our ability to shoot, move and communicate with speed and precision," he said.
Iran trying to buy nuclear missile parts: Norway
By Walter Gibbs
OSLO (Reuters) - Iran has been trying without success to obtain Norwegian missile technology for possible use in delivering nuclear weapons, Norway's security chief said on Monday.
Janne Kristiansen, general director of the Norwegian Police Security Service, told Reuters Iran had approached small Norwegian companies that sell "special components that can ... be used in weapons of mass destruction, for building missiles."
Iranian efforts the past year, she said, targeted dual-use technology suitable for civilian products as well as advanced missiles like those that Norwegian contractor Kongsberg Defense Systems makes for several NATO navies and air forces.
"There are many (companies in Norway) that supply missile technology," she said. "I am not pointing the finger at one company."
The West fears Iran is trying to develop nuclear weapons. Iran denies the charge, saying its nuclear program is for producing electricity.
Kongsberg Defense spokesman Ronny Lie said his company had hundreds of suppliers.
"We are a large state-owned company that always follows a strict export regime in our dealing with other nations," he said. "I would assume Iran knows that. So that's why if they do make approaches it would probably be to small companies."
He added that Kongsberg "has been aware of the general problem for a long time."
Kristiansen said her agency discovered Iran's attempts and stepped in before sensitive technology was passed.
In an assessment of Norwegian security threats that was published on Monday, her agency described "very pushy behavior" by supposed commercial actors from Iran who would often inquire about innocuous products first.
They would then widen their wish list to include sensitive goods "and often make various proposals for transport and financing to circumvent Norwegian export regulations," the agency said.
In its written assessment the agency did not specify missile technology as Iran's target, as Kristiansen did in an interview. Nor were any companies named.
Kristiansen said no Norwegian firms had been prosecuted because investigators lacked proof of intent to violate export controls or United Nations sanctions banning the sale of nuclear weapons-related technology to Iran.
When asked if some firms have intentionally skirted regulations, she said: "Some do."
"These companies have as a rule had good knowledge of potential loopholes and weaknesses in Norwegian export regulations and control mechanisms," the security service said in its published assessment.
"We have also seen how small companies with falling revenues and liquidity problems can become potential targets for procurement actors. Such firms are in a vulnerable position and will potentially have a hard time saying no to lucrative contract offers."
Timothy Moore, a spokesman for the U.S. embassy in Norway, declined to say whether the United States was involved in disclosing the Iranian attempts.
"We have known for some time that Iran has been pursuing high technology around the world and we are naturally concerned, and that's why we work closely with Norway and our other European partners," he said.
OSLO (Reuters) - Iran has been trying without success to obtain Norwegian missile technology for possible use in delivering nuclear weapons, Norway's security chief said on Monday.
Janne Kristiansen, general director of the Norwegian Police Security Service, told Reuters Iran had approached small Norwegian companies that sell "special components that can ... be used in weapons of mass destruction, for building missiles."
Iranian efforts the past year, she said, targeted dual-use technology suitable for civilian products as well as advanced missiles like those that Norwegian contractor Kongsberg Defense Systems makes for several NATO navies and air forces.
"There are many (companies in Norway) that supply missile technology," she said. "I am not pointing the finger at one company."
The West fears Iran is trying to develop nuclear weapons. Iran denies the charge, saying its nuclear program is for producing electricity.
Kongsberg Defense spokesman Ronny Lie said his company had hundreds of suppliers.
"We are a large state-owned company that always follows a strict export regime in our dealing with other nations," he said. "I would assume Iran knows that. So that's why if they do make approaches it would probably be to small companies."
He added that Kongsberg "has been aware of the general problem for a long time."
Kristiansen said her agency discovered Iran's attempts and stepped in before sensitive technology was passed.
In an assessment of Norwegian security threats that was published on Monday, her agency described "very pushy behavior" by supposed commercial actors from Iran who would often inquire about innocuous products first.
They would then widen their wish list to include sensitive goods "and often make various proposals for transport and financing to circumvent Norwegian export regulations," the agency said.
In its written assessment the agency did not specify missile technology as Iran's target, as Kristiansen did in an interview. Nor were any companies named.
Kristiansen said no Norwegian firms had been prosecuted because investigators lacked proof of intent to violate export controls or United Nations sanctions banning the sale of nuclear weapons-related technology to Iran.
When asked if some firms have intentionally skirted regulations, she said: "Some do."
"These companies have as a rule had good knowledge of potential loopholes and weaknesses in Norwegian export regulations and control mechanisms," the security service said in its published assessment.
"We have also seen how small companies with falling revenues and liquidity problems can become potential targets for procurement actors. Such firms are in a vulnerable position and will potentially have a hard time saying no to lucrative contract offers."
Timothy Moore, a spokesman for the U.S. embassy in Norway, declined to say whether the United States was involved in disclosing the Iranian attempts.
"We have known for some time that Iran has been pursuing high technology around the world and we are naturally concerned, and that's why we work closely with Norway and our other European partners," he said.
Remarks at the Human Rights Council Human Rights Council 2011 Libya
Hillary Rodham Clinton
Secretary of State
Secretary of State
Geneva, Switzerland
February 28, 2011
Good afternoon. Thank you, Mr. President, and I want to thank the High Commissioner and all my colleagues for their strong words here today, as well as during the special session on Friday.
Today the world’s eyes are fixed on Libya. We have seen Colonel Qadhafi’s security forces open fire on peaceful protestors again and again. They have used heavy weapons on unarmed civilians. Mercenaries and thugs have been turned loose to attack demonstrators. There are reports of soldiers executed for refusing to turn their guns on their fellow citizens, of indiscriminate killings, arbitrary arrests, and torture.
Colonel Qadhafi and those around him must be held accountable for these acts, which violate international legal obligations and common decency. Through their actions, they have lost the legitimacy to govern. And the people of Libya have made themselves clear: It is time for Qadhafi to go – now, without further violence or delay.
The international community is speaking with one voice and our message is unmistakable. These violations of universal rights are unacceptable and will not be tolerated. This Council took an important first step toward accountability on Friday by establishing an independent commission of inquiry.
On Saturday in New York, the United Nations Security Council unanimously adopted a resolution imposing an arms embargo on Libya, freezing the assets of key human rights violators and other members of the Qadhafi family, and referring the Libyan case to the International Criminal Court.
Tomorrow, the UN General Assembly should vote to accept the recommendation to suspend the Qadhafi government’s participation here in the Human Rights Council. Governments that turn their guns on their own people have no place in this chamber.
The Arab League deserves our praise as the first multilateral organization to suspend Libya's membership -- despite the fact that Libya was serving as the Arab League Chair. We hope to see our friends in the African Union follow suit.
We all need to work together on further steps to hold the Qadhafi government accountable, provide humanitarian assistance to those in need, and support the Libyan people as they pursue a transition to democracy. Today, I’ve had the privilege of consulting with a wide range of colleagues here in Geneva and President Obama is meeting with UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon in Washington. We will continue coordinating closely with our allies and partners.
The United States has already imposed travel restrictions and financial sanctions on Qadhafi and senior Libyan officials. We have frozen assets to ensure that they are preserved for the Libyan people. And we have halted our very limited defense trade with Libya. We are working with the United Nations, partners, allies, the International Committee of the Red Cross and the Red Crescent, and other NGOs to set up a robust humanitarian response to this crisis.
As we move forward on these fronts, we will continue to explore all possible options for action. As we have said, nothing is off the table so long as the Libyan Government continues to threaten and kill Libyans.
Ultimately, the people of Libya themselves will be the ones to chart their own destiny and shape their own new government. They are now braving the dictator’s bullets and putting their lives on the line to enjoy the freedoms that are the birthright of every man, woman, and child on earth. Like their neighbors in Tunisia and Egypt, they are asserting their rights and claiming their future.
Now, while the circumstances in Egypt, Tunisia, and Libya are each unique, in every case the demand for change has come from within, with people calling for greater civil liberties, economic opportunities’ and a stake in the governance of their own societies.
And the world has been inspired by their courage and their determination. We see in their struggles a universal yearning for dignity and respect. And they remind us that the power of human dignity is always underestimated until the day it finally prevails.
This moment belongs to the people, particularly the young people, of the Middle East. On behalf of President Obama and the American people, let me say that we are inspired by what you are doing and heartened by what it means for your future. The United States supports orderly, peaceful, and irreversible transitions to real democracies that deliver results for their citizens.
On this our values and interests converge. Because supporting these transitions is not simply a matter of ideals. It is also a strategic imperative. Without meaningful steps toward representative, accountable, and transparent governance and open economies, the gap between people and their leaders will only grow, and instability will deepen. What might have been possible in the 20th century, with new technologies and the power that people now have to connect, is no longer possible.
And to hang on to systems that are unaccountable and that do not respond to the legitimate needs of one’s people poses a danger, not only a danger to leaders but a danger to all of our interests. By contrast, history has shown that democracies tend to be more stable, more peaceful, and ultimately more prosperous.
Democratic change must grow from within. It cannot be implanted from the outside. And let me be among the first of many to say the West certainly does not have all of the answers. The first steps of change have come quickly and dramatically. It is, however, proving tragically difficult in Libya. In other nations, change is likely to be more deliberate and methodical. In all cases, the United States will support citizens and governments as they work for progress.
We are well aware of the challenges that come with these kinds of transitions. You cannot create jobs or economic opportunities overnight. These changes can be chaotic. And in the short term, there will be new voices and political competitions emerging for the first time. And as history has shown, these new births of democracy, of freedom, of human rights, can be derailed by autocrats who use violence, deception, and rigged elections to stay in power or to advance an undemocratic agenda. But like Colonel Qadhafi, leaders who deny their people freedom and opportunity will, in the end, fuel the very instability they fear.
So the process of transition must be protected from anti-democratic influences from wherever they come. Political participation must be open to all people across the spectrum who reject violence, uphold equality, and agree to play by the rules of democracy. Those who refuse should not be allowed to subvert the aspirations of the people. And leaders cannot claim democratic legitimacy if they abandon these principles once they are in power.
Free and fair elections are essential to building and maintaining democracy, but elections alone are not sufficient. Sustainable democracies are built on strong institutions, including an independent judiciary that promotes the rule of law and helps ensure official accountability and transparency, and stands against corruption.
Recent days have underscored the importance of the freedom of expression, whether it’s in the public square, through the press, or on the internet. Brave journalists have broadcast images of repression around the world, and the young people of Tunisia and Egypt have shown everyone what a force for democracy, the open exchange of ideas, can be.
A vibrant civil society is also an indispensable building block of democracy. And not only in the Middle East but around the world, citizen activists and civic organizations are emerging as strong voices for progress. They help develop solutions to tough problems. They hold governments accountable. They empower and protect women and minorities. The United States is committed to broadening our own engagement with civil society, and we urge leader and governments to treat civil society, as partners, not adversaries.
There also must be for transitions to thrive a commitment to make economic opportunity available to all. Human rights, democracy, and development are inextricably linked and mutually reinforcing. We have seen how inequity and lack of economic opportunities drive people into the streets. So to earn the confidence of one’s own people, governments have to deliver on the promise of improved lives.
There is no doubt that the most important goal for most people in the world today is a decent life for themselves and their families. At the very least, that must be the goal that we deliver on. It is also particularly important that women and minorities have access to opportunity and participation. Nations cannot flourish if half their population is consigned to the margins or denied their rights. We have seen how women play a vital role in driving social and economic progress when they are accorded their rights and afforded equal opportunity. And in so doing, they lift up not only themselves but their families and their societies.
These are not Western principles or American ideals. They are truly universal, lessons learned by people all over the world who have made the difficult transition to sustainable democracy. And as we look at what’s happening now in the Middle East, of course those changes will be shaped by local circumstances and led by local leaders. And people themselves will determine whether or not the change has worked. But universal principles will be important touchstones along the way.
That is why, as we watch what is happening in Egypt, we hope that there will be a broad array of opposition voices and representatives to ensure that the reform process is inclusive. We want to see concrete steps taken, including enacting constitutional reforms and releasing political detainees and lifting the state of emergency. The United States stands ready to assist, however appropriate, especially through economic assistance that helps promote reform and create greater opportunity.
In Tunisia, we welcome the interim leadership’s efforts to form an inclusive, broad-based government and its desire to hold elections as soon as possible. And we were heartened to hear this morning from Tunisia’s state secretary for foreign affairs that it will welcome the opening of a UN human rights office, and open its doors to all UN special rapporteurs. We are supporting the Tunisian people on this long and difficult road ahead. And as other important partners such as Jordan and Bahrain take steps – sometimes very difficult steps – to open their political space, we will stand behind them and support their efforts because we are convinced that they will help advance all of our shared interests.
But now, there is an alternative vision for the future of the region that only promises more frustration and discord. Extremists and rejectionists across the Middle East argue that they are the ones who champion the rights of the downtrodden. For decades, they have claimed that the only way to achieve change is through violence and conflict. But all they have accomplished is to undermine peace and progress. The success of peaceful protests has discredited the extremists and exposed their bankrupt arguments.
Iran, for example, has consistently pursued policies of violence abroad and tyranny at home. In Tehran, security forces have beaten, detained, and in several recent cases killed peaceful protesters even as Iran’s president has made a show of denouncing the violence in Libya. Iranian authorities have targeted human rights defenders and political activists, ex-government officials and their families, clerics and their children, student leaders and their professors, as well as journalists and bloggers.
Last week, the United States imposed new sanctions on Iranian officials for serious human rights abuses. Here at the Human Rights Council, we are proud to be working with Sweden and other partners to establish a special rapporteur on Iran. Its mandate would be to investigate and report on abuses in Iran, and to speak out when the government there does not meet its human rights obligations. Iranian human rights advocates have demanded this step to raise international pressure on their government.
This will be a seminal moment for this Council, and a test of our ability to work together to advance the goals that it represents. Indeed, every member of this Council should ask him or herself a simple question: Why do people have the right to live free from fear in Tripoli but not Tehran? The denial of human dignity in Iran is an outrage that deserves the condemnation of all who speak out for freedom and justice.
The Human Rights Council was founded because the international community has a responsibility to protect universal rights and to hold violators accountable, both in fast-breaking emergencies such as Libya and Cote d’Ivoire, and in slow motion tragedies of chronic abuse, such as Burma and North Korea. We saw this Council at its best on Friday, when it took decisive action on Libya. We saw it in December’s Special Session on Cote d’Ivoire, where the situation is increasingly dire and there’s been a large spike in violence. We must continue sending a strong message to Laurent Gbagbo that his actions are unacceptable, and the international community must keep up the pressure.
Last fall, this Council also took the important decision to create a Special Rapporteur for Freedom of Assembly and Association, and we have likewise seen a strengthening in the Council’s approach to freedom of expression. But too often, still, we are not seeing a serious enough response, to use this institution to advance human rights. Sometimes, the Council does not act, and its integrity is undermined because it defers to regional relations, diplomatic niceties, and cynical politics. Membership on this Council should be earned through respect for human rights. That is the standard laid out by the General Assembly. This Council’s predecessor, the Human Rights Commission, lost its credibility in part because Libya was allowed to serve as its president. It should not take bloodshed for us to agree that such regimes have no place here.
And I must add, the structural bias against Israel – including a standing agenda item for Israel, whereas all other countries are treated under a common item – is wrong. And it undermines the important work we are trying to do together. As member states, we can take this Council in a better, stronger direction.
In 2009, the United States joined the Human Rights Council because President Obama and I believed we could make a difference by working with you on the inside rather than standing on the outside merely as a critic. And over the past 18 months, we have worked together. We’ve reached across regional lines in an attempt to overcome what hobbles this country[i] more than anything else, our divisions as member states. The unity of purpose we have forged with respect to Libya offers us an opportunity to continue that progress.
As we look ahead, and as the Council completes a review of its own operations, we hope to help set a new agenda, based on three principles. First, the Council must have the capacity to respond to emergencies in real time. And it must demonstrate clearly that it possesses the will to address gross abuses, hold violators accountable, and work with governments, citizens, and civil society organizations genuinely committed to reform.
Second, the Council must apply a single standard to all countries based on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It cannot continue to single out and devote disproportionate attention to any one country.
And third, the Council needs to abandon tired rhetorical debates and focus instead on making tangible improvements in people’s lives.
For example, in this session we have an opportunity to move beyond a decade-long debate over whether insults to religion should be banned or criminalized. It is time to overcome the false divide that pits religious sensitivities against freedom of expression and pursue a new approach based on concrete steps to fight intolerance wherever it occurs.
Together, we can and must help this Council live up to its mission and ensure that it plays a constructive role in the days and months ahead. We will face new problems and new challenges, but if we have a firm foundation rooted in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, we will chart a steady course.
Make no mistake, this popular wave for reform is spreading, not receding. Each country is unique, but many of the concerns that drove people into the streets and squares of the Middle East are shared by citizens in other parts of the world. Too many governments are hobbled by corruption and fearful of change. Too many young people cannot find jobs or opportunities. Their prospects are shaped more by who they know than by what they know or what they can dream. But it is not my mother’s or even my world any more. What has happened with new technologies of the 21st century means that young people know everything that is going on everywhere, and they no longer will tolerate a status quo that blocks their aspirations.
Young people in the Middle East have inspired millions around the world, and we celebrate what some are rightly calling the Arab Spring. This is a hopeful season for all humanity because the cause of human rights and human dignity belongs to us all.
So for leaders on every continent, the choice becomes clearer day by day: Embrace your people’s aspirations, have confidence in their potential, help them seize it, or they will lose confidence in you.
Those of you who were here on Friday, and many of us watching on our television screens saw the Libyan representative renounce Qadhafi’s violent rule. He said, “Young people in my country today are with their blood writing a new chapter in the history of struggle and resistance. We in the Libyan mission have categorically decided to serve as representatives of the Libyan people and their free will.”
This is the call we should heed. This is a time for action. Now is the opportunity for us to support all who are willing to stand up on behalf of the rights we claim to cherish. So let us do that and let us do it with the sounds of the young people from the streets of Tripoli to the markets of Tunis and the squares of Cairo echoing in our ears. Thank you very much.
U.S. and Allies Weigh Libya No-Fly Zone
By JOHN M. BRODER
WASHINGTON — Obama administration officials held talks on Sunday with European and other allied governments as they readied plans for the possible imposition of a no-fly zone over Libya to prevent further killings of civilians by forces loyal to Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi.Further increasing international pressure on Colonel Qaddafi, the Libyan leader, Italy suspended a 2008 treaty with Libya that includes a nonaggression clause, a move that could allow it to take part in future peacekeeping operations in Libya or enable the use of its military bases in any possible intervention.
“We signed the friendship treaty with a state, but when the counterpart no longer exists — in this case the Libyan state — the treaty cannot be applied,” Italy’s foreign minister, Franco Frattini, said Sunday in a television interview.
White House, State Department and Pentagon officials held talks with their European and NATO counterparts about how to proceed in imposing flight restrictions over Libya. A senior administration official said Sunday that no decision had been made, and expressed caution that any decision on a no-fly zone would have to be made in consultations with allies.
A diplomat at the United Nations said that any such action would require further debate among the 15 nations of the Security Council, which was unlikely to act unless there was a significant increase in state-sponsored violence in Libya, including the use of aircraft against civilians.
Ban Ki-moon, the United Nations secretary general, was scheduled to meet with President Obama on Monday afternoon at the White House to discuss the deteriorating situation in Libya.
Obama administration officials said Sunday that they were also discussing whether the American military could disrupt communications to prevent Colonel Qaddafi from broadcasting in Libya. In addition, the administration was looking at whether the military could be used to set up a corridor in neighboring Tunisia or Egypt to assist refugees.
“There hasn’t been discussion that I’m aware of related to military intervention beyond that, and a discussion of that nature would have to begin at the U.N.,” a senior administration official said. But, the official added, “I wouldn’t say we’ve ruled anything out, either.”
Italy’s treaty with Libya, signed by Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi in August 2008, calls on Italy to pay Libya $5 billion over 20 years in reparations for its colonial past there. In return, Libya pledged to help block the flow of illegal immigrants to Italy and grant favorable treatment for Italian companies seeking to do business in Libya.
But the treaty also contains a nonaggression clause that some analysts said complicated Italy’s position in the event of international military intervention in Libya. In it, Italy pledges not to use “direct or indirect” military force against Libya, or to allow the use of its territory “in any hostile act against Libya.”
There are several United States and NATO bases in Italy that presumably would be staging areas for any action against Libya, including the United States Sixth Fleet base near Naples. After the treaty was signed, Italy had to explain to NATO that it would respect its multilateral international treaties.
An Italian Foreign Ministry spokesman, Maurizio Massari, noted that Italy had suspended the treaty, not revoked it, and would evaluate how to proceed as the conflict in Libya evolved.
At the United Nations, there was no formal discussion about Libya on Sunday, as diplomats weighed possible next steps and digested the Security Council resolutions passed Saturday night that imposed an arms embargo and economic sanctions on Libya.
An American official, who discussed United Nations deliberations on the condition that he not be identified, said the Security Council had moved more quickly on Libya than on almost any issue in recent years. The body is poised to take further steps, if warranted, like “a rapid deterioration, a significant uptick in violence,” he said. “In terms of big ideas like a no-fly zone, if the international community is ready, and there is a need to impose a no-fly zone or authorize use of force, that would require another whole debate and resolution.”
In U.S.-Libya Nuclear Deal, a Qaddafi Threat Faded Away
By DAVID E. SANGER
WASHINGTON — In late 2009 the Obama administration was leaning on Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi and his son, Seif, to allow the removal from Libya of the remnants of the country’s nuclear weapons program: casks of highly enriched uranium.
Meeting with the American ambassador, Gene A. Kretz, the younger Qaddafi complained that the United States had retained “an embargo on the purchase of lethal equipment” even though Libya had turned over more than $100 million in bomb-making technology in 2003. Libya was “fed up,” he told Mr. Kretz, at Washington’s slowness in doling out rewards for Libya’s cooperation, according to cables released by WikiLeaks.
Today, with father and son preparing for a siege of Tripoli, the success of a joint American-British effort to eliminate Libya’s capability to make nuclear and chemical weapons has never, in retrospect, looked more important.
Senior administration officials and Pentagon planners, as they discuss sanctions and a possible no-fly zone to neutralize the Libyan air force, say that the 2003 deal removed Colonel Qaddafi’s biggest trump card: the threat of using a nuclear weapon, or even just selling nuclear material or technology, if he believed it was the only way to save his 42-year rule. While Colonel Qaddafi retains a stockpile of mustard gas, it is not clear he has any effective way to deploy it.
“Imagine the possible nightmare if we had failed to remove the Libyan nuclear weapons program and their longer range missile force,” said Robert Joseph, who played a central role in organizing the effort in 2003, in the months just after the invasion of Iraq.
“You can’t know for sure how far the Libyan program would have progressed in the last eight years,” said Mr. Joseph, who left the Bush administration a few years after the Libya events, partly because he believed it had gone soft on nuclear rogue states. But given Colonel Qadaffi’s recent threats, he said on Monday, “there is no question he would have used whatever he felt necessary to stay in power.”
Whether he would have is, of course, unknowable.
But Colonel Qadaffi appeared to sense that loss of leverage over the last two years. The cables indicate a last-minute effort to hold on to the remnants of the program, less to assure his regime’s survival than to have some bargaining chips to get the weapons and aid that Colonel. Qaddafi and his son insisted they were promised.
The cache of nuclear technology that Libya turned over to the United States, Britain and international nuclear inspectors in early 2004 was large — far larger than American intelligence experts had expected. There were more than 4,000 centrifuges for producing enriched uranium. There were blueprints for how to build a nuclear bomb — missing some critical components but good enough to get the work started.
The whole package of goods came from a deal the Qaddafis struck with Abdul Qadeer Khan, one of the architects of Pakistan’s nuclear weapons program, who built the world’s largest black-market network in nuclear technology. The $100 million to $200 million that the Central Intelligence Agency later estimated that Libya spent on the nuclear project has never been recovered. For their part, the Libyans could never get the system working; many of the large centrifuges were still in their wooden packing crates when they were turned over.
The haul was so large that President George W. Bush, with photographers in tow, flew to the Oak Ridge National Laboratory in Tennessee to celebrate a rare victory against nuclear proliferation. He briefly noted the success in his recent memoir, “Decision Points,” saying that with the surrender of the weapons Libya “resumed normal relations with the world.” Mr. Bush lifted restrictions on doing business with Libya and praised Colonel Qaddafi, saying his action have “made our country and our world safer.”
In Libya, the story was told very differently. In an interview with The New York Times and the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation for a documentary, “Nuclear Jihad,” Seif Qadaffi complained that the West never followed through on many of its promises.
By 2009, when the Qaddafis were refusing to turn over the remaining highly enriched uranium, he said the decision to give up the weapons had been “contingent on ‘compensation’ from the U.S. including the purchase of conventional weapons and nonconventional military equipment,” a cable in late 2009 reported to the Obama administration.
Colonel Qaddafi, his son said, was unhappy that the centrifuges ended up in the United States, which he called a “big insult to the Leader,” compounded by the fact that little compensation followed.
Today Obama administration officials say that whether or not the Bush administration carried through on its promises, the deal deprived Mr. Qaddafi of far more fearsome weapons that he might have reached for as he attempts to stay in office.
While it is unclear whether he might have ultimately succeeded in building nuclear weapons, as part of the deal he gave up thousands of shells filled with chemical weapons.
“They were bulldozed,” William Tobey, a former senior official in the Energy Department under Mr. Bush recalled on Monday. While Mr. Qaddafi has many tons of mustard gas left, he said, “it’s very difficult to handle and I’m not sure it’s useful” to the Libyan leader.
But the message of the Libyan experience to other countries under pressure to give up their arsenals may not be the one Washington intends.
Iran and North Korea, who have often been urged by the West to follow Libya’s example, may conclude that Mr. Qaddafi made a fatal error.
While South Korea is dropping leaflets in North Korea alerting its population to the uprisings in the Middle East, senior South Korean officials acknowledged in interviews last week that should North Korea face a similar uprising, it could use the threat to unleash its arsenal — which includes six to a dozen nuclear weapons by most estimates — in an effort to keep neighboring countries from encouraging the regime’s ouster.
“When the North collapses — and one day it will, of course — we’re going to face a problem that we’ve been spared in Libya,” one senior South Korean official said on Friday in Seoul, declining to speak on the record about most sensitive contingency planning involving South Korean and American officials. “You have to bet that the leadership is going to threaten to use its weapons to stay in power. Even if they are bluffing, it’s going to change the entire strategy.”
Meeting with the American ambassador, Gene A. Kretz, the younger Qaddafi complained that the United States had retained “an embargo on the purchase of lethal equipment” even though Libya had turned over more than $100 million in bomb-making technology in 2003. Libya was “fed up,” he told Mr. Kretz, at Washington’s slowness in doling out rewards for Libya’s cooperation, according to cables released by WikiLeaks.
Today, with father and son preparing for a siege of Tripoli, the success of a joint American-British effort to eliminate Libya’s capability to make nuclear and chemical weapons has never, in retrospect, looked more important.
Senior administration officials and Pentagon planners, as they discuss sanctions and a possible no-fly zone to neutralize the Libyan air force, say that the 2003 deal removed Colonel Qaddafi’s biggest trump card: the threat of using a nuclear weapon, or even just selling nuclear material or technology, if he believed it was the only way to save his 42-year rule. While Colonel Qaddafi retains a stockpile of mustard gas, it is not clear he has any effective way to deploy it.
“Imagine the possible nightmare if we had failed to remove the Libyan nuclear weapons program and their longer range missile force,” said Robert Joseph, who played a central role in organizing the effort in 2003, in the months just after the invasion of Iraq.
“You can’t know for sure how far the Libyan program would have progressed in the last eight years,” said Mr. Joseph, who left the Bush administration a few years after the Libya events, partly because he believed it had gone soft on nuclear rogue states. But given Colonel Qadaffi’s recent threats, he said on Monday, “there is no question he would have used whatever he felt necessary to stay in power.”
Whether he would have is, of course, unknowable.
But Colonel Qadaffi appeared to sense that loss of leverage over the last two years. The cables indicate a last-minute effort to hold on to the remnants of the program, less to assure his regime’s survival than to have some bargaining chips to get the weapons and aid that Colonel. Qaddafi and his son insisted they were promised.
The cache of nuclear technology that Libya turned over to the United States, Britain and international nuclear inspectors in early 2004 was large — far larger than American intelligence experts had expected. There were more than 4,000 centrifuges for producing enriched uranium. There were blueprints for how to build a nuclear bomb — missing some critical components but good enough to get the work started.
The whole package of goods came from a deal the Qaddafis struck with Abdul Qadeer Khan, one of the architects of Pakistan’s nuclear weapons program, who built the world’s largest black-market network in nuclear technology. The $100 million to $200 million that the Central Intelligence Agency later estimated that Libya spent on the nuclear project has never been recovered. For their part, the Libyans could never get the system working; many of the large centrifuges were still in their wooden packing crates when they were turned over.
The haul was so large that President George W. Bush, with photographers in tow, flew to the Oak Ridge National Laboratory in Tennessee to celebrate a rare victory against nuclear proliferation. He briefly noted the success in his recent memoir, “Decision Points,” saying that with the surrender of the weapons Libya “resumed normal relations with the world.” Mr. Bush lifted restrictions on doing business with Libya and praised Colonel Qaddafi, saying his action have “made our country and our world safer.”
In Libya, the story was told very differently. In an interview with The New York Times and the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation for a documentary, “Nuclear Jihad,” Seif Qadaffi complained that the West never followed through on many of its promises.
By 2009, when the Qaddafis were refusing to turn over the remaining highly enriched uranium, he said the decision to give up the weapons had been “contingent on ‘compensation’ from the U.S. including the purchase of conventional weapons and nonconventional military equipment,” a cable in late 2009 reported to the Obama administration.
Colonel Qaddafi, his son said, was unhappy that the centrifuges ended up in the United States, which he called a “big insult to the Leader,” compounded by the fact that little compensation followed.
Today Obama administration officials say that whether or not the Bush administration carried through on its promises, the deal deprived Mr. Qaddafi of far more fearsome weapons that he might have reached for as he attempts to stay in office.
While it is unclear whether he might have ultimately succeeded in building nuclear weapons, as part of the deal he gave up thousands of shells filled with chemical weapons.
“They were bulldozed,” William Tobey, a former senior official in the Energy Department under Mr. Bush recalled on Monday. While Mr. Qaddafi has many tons of mustard gas left, he said, “it’s very difficult to handle and I’m not sure it’s useful” to the Libyan leader.
But the message of the Libyan experience to other countries under pressure to give up their arsenals may not be the one Washington intends.
Iran and North Korea, who have often been urged by the West to follow Libya’s example, may conclude that Mr. Qaddafi made a fatal error.
While South Korea is dropping leaflets in North Korea alerting its population to the uprisings in the Middle East, senior South Korean officials acknowledged in interviews last week that should North Korea face a similar uprising, it could use the threat to unleash its arsenal — which includes six to a dozen nuclear weapons by most estimates — in an effort to keep neighboring countries from encouraging the regime’s ouster.
“When the North collapses — and one day it will, of course — we’re going to face a problem that we’ve been spared in Libya,” one senior South Korean official said on Friday in Seoul, declining to speak on the record about most sensitive contingency planning involving South Korean and American officials. “You have to bet that the leadership is going to threaten to use its weapons to stay in power. Even if they are bluffing, it’s going to change the entire strategy.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)