Joint statement by Barack Obama, David Cameron and Nicolas Sarkozy
“Together with our Nato allies and coalition partners, the United States, France and Britain have been united at the UN Security Council, as well as the following Paris Conference, in building a broad-based coalition to respond to the crisis in Libya. We are equally united on what needs to happen in order to end it.
“Even as we continue military operations today to protect civilians in Libya, we are determined to look to the future. We are convinced that better times lie ahead for the people of Libya, and a pathway can be forged to achieve just that.
“We must never forget the reasons why the international community was obliged to act in the first place. As Libya descended into chaos with Colonel Gaddafi attacking his own people, the Arab League called for action.
“The Libyan opposition called for help. And the people of Libya looked to the world in their hour of need. In an historic Resolution, the United Nations Security Council authorised all necessary measures to protect the people of Libya from the attacks upon them.
“By responding immediately, our countries halted the advance of Gaddafi’s forces. The bloodbath that he had promised to inflict upon the citizens of the besieged city of Benghazi has been prevented.
“Tens of thousands of lives have been protected. But the people of Libya are suffering terrible horrors at Gaddafi’s hands each and every day. His rockets and his shells rained down on defenceless civilians in Ajdabiya. The city of Misratah is enduring a mediaeval siege, as Gaddafi tries to strangle its population into submission. The evidence of disappearances and abuses grows daily.
“Our duty and our mandate under UN Security Council Resolution 1973 is to protect civilians, and we are doing that. It is not to remove Gaddafi by force. But it is impossible to imagine a future for Libya with Gaddafi in power.
“The International Criminal Court is rightly investigating the crimes committed against civilians and the grievous violations of international law. It is unthinkable that someone who has tried to massacre his own people can play a part in their future government.
“The brave citizens of those towns that have held out against forces that have been mercilessly targeting them would face a fearful vengeance if the world accepted such an arrangement. It would be an unconscionable betrayal.
“Furthermore, it would condemn Libya to being not only a pariah state, but a failed state too. Gaddafi has promised to carry out terrorist attacks against civilian ships and airliners. And because he has lost the consent of his people any deal that leaves him in power would lead to further chaos and lawlessness. We know from bitter experience what that would mean. Neither Europe, the region, or the world can afford a new safe haven for extremists.
“There is a pathway to peace that promises new hope for the people of Libya. A future without Gaddafi that preserves Libya’s integrity and sovereignty, and restores her economy and the prosperity and security of her people. This needs to begin with a genuine end to violence, marked by deeds not words.
“The regime has to pull back from the cities it is besieging, including Ajdabiya, Misratah and Zintan, and return to their barracks. However, so long as Gaddafi is in power, Nato and its coalition partners must maintain their operations so that civilians remain protected and the pressure on the regime builds.
“Then a genuine transition from dictatorship to an inclusive constitutional process can really begin, led by a new generation of leaders. In order for that transition to succeed, Colonel Gaddafi must go and go for good. At that point, the United Nations and its members should help the Libyan people as they rebuild where Gaddafi has destroyed – to repair homes and hospitals, to restore basic utilities, and to assist Libyans as they develop the institutions to underpin a prosperous and open society.
“This vision for the future of Libya has the support of a broad coalition of countries, including many from the Arab world. These countries came together in London on 29 March and founded a Contact Group which met this week in Doha to support a solution to the crisis that respects the will of the Libyan people.
“Today, Nato and its coalition partners are acting in the name of the United Nations with an unprecedented international legal mandate. But it will be the people of Libya, not the UN, that choose their new constitution, elect their new leaders, and write the next chapter in their history.
“Britain, France and the United States will not rest until the United Nations Security Council resolutions have been implemented and the Libyan people can choose their own future.”
32 Comments Comment
Leave a Comment
The only world leaders with balls.
…… with the most at stake.
Exactly, Exxon Mobil, Total and BP
on the other hand the BRIC nations have their interests to keep Libya in Gaddafi’s hands… China has some oil deals with the man and as things stand, Gaddafi lost most of the oil producing territories to the rebels.
http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/opinion/2011/04/201141195046788263.html
Denigrating the west for doing is disingenuous. You should also mention that the rest are dragging their feet because they have vested interests as well.
I personally feel (hope?) that Turkey is showing genuine interest in the well-being of the Magreb and the Middle East. Hopefully the US, EU and Turkey could take a more enlightened course of action than the usual demonise, trash and burn the natives of the last couple of centuries.
Why do the cynics never talk about the vested interests of *not* doing anything about Gaddafi?
More specifically, why don’t they ever say anything about the vested interests that are keeping him in power?
And why do they never, ever talk about the fallout of his 42 years of tyranny?
The world leaders who throw most bullshit around, more like it.
Obama, Sarkozy and Cameron, now that’s three pairs of steel balls.
http://www.corriere.it/esteri/11_aprile_15/tre-leader-gheddafi-libia_bc20848a-673e-11e0-82d9-fefb5323b337.shtml
The no-balls Italians have an excuse why they do not want to bomb.
Meanwhile Gaddafi sticks up two fingers and continues massacaring his people.
Yes soon Libya will be an all encompassing democracy just like Malta.
Naf li m’ghandux x’jaqsam, imma … this one must really get the racists’ goat, finding out that their own roots are were in Africa: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1377150/Every-language-evolved-single-prehistoric-mother-tongue-spoken-Africa.html
I meant “were” …
Every so often some wise guy (not ‘wajz’) makes some nonsense statement, after years of research, just to justify his sponsors and get from funding from universities and bodies (who do it as a tax deduction). Naturally the media, starving for material to fill their columns, quickly report it as if it were dogma. What a world! This guy must have a time-machine to be able to tell the language prehistoric man spoke – or maybe he has been watching too many re-runs of the Flintstones
I have been following for weeks now, but keeping more or less silent, as I feel that this blog is becoming too belligerent in its outlook. (Its offshoot, the blog Mr. H.P. Baxxter began, confirms my view even from its name.)
[Daphne – Baxxter’s blog is not an offshoot of this one. I don’t even know who he is.]
I have been concerned from the very beginning of the West’s attack on Gaddafi, that that might be viewed as neocolonial intervention. I think I may now safely claim I have been vindicated: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8453504/Libya-al-Qaeda-deputy-leader-urges-Muslims-to-fight-Nato.html
The German Deputy Foreign Minister has had this to say:
Germany meanwhile warned that the military action ran a “big risk” that a crippled, divided Libya would become a failed state on the doorstep of Europe. “The fact is there is a big risk that this military operation gets stuck in the sand somewhere and at the end of the day Libya turns into a failing state and Gaddafi is still in control of quite a chunk of that failing state,” said Werner Hoyer, the deputy foreign minister. “That would be a nightmare.”
from: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8454507/Libya-Italy-rejects-calls-to-join-ground-attack-operations.html
To my understanding, Sarkozy’s election-eve desperation coupled with Cameron’s unwise decision to spend public money on dethroning Gaddafi while the British people are asked to tighten the belt – are mere symptoms of folie de grandeur.
The problem is that France and the UK are relatively far away. But, like the German Deputy Foreign Minister, I feel that a failed state in Libya would be a nightmare. If it would be a nightmare for faraway Germany, just imagine what it would be for stone’s-throw-away Malta.
You – and particularly this Baxxter person – should calm down a bit, and start seeing things in the perspective of the national interest.
Particularly, stop criticising Gonzi and Borg, who seem to be levelheaded enough to walk down the right path.
[Daphne – They are NOT walking the right path. They are sitting pretty, comfortable in the knowledge that others are fighting our battles for us. It is incredible that you can’t see the facts staring at you in the face. What do you imagine the outcome would have been had Britain, France and the United States not acted? Go on, tell me. Please tell me, too, what you consider to be the national interest, because I am truly at a loss to imagine. Gaddafi staying on? A return to the status quo with the prospect of another blow-up five years down the line? It is precisely because Malta is nextdoor that we cannot afford to have Gaddafi there any longer.]
L-iehor ukoll. “Stop criticising Gonzi and Borg”. Or else what?
Nice to see that my blog is being described as an offshoot of Daphne. Like a planet, I bask in the sun’s dazzling glory, what.
Baxxter, you and Daphne are extremists on this issue. Anyone who disagrees with this mess-creating charade is “sitting on the fence”. For you it’s all about Gaddafi, Gaddafi and Gaddafi (please save the bleeding heart).
So, this Baxxter blog I hear about, does it shoot from the hip like the one that inspired it?
A carbuncle on the face of beauty.
And why don’t these apologists just come out and say that Gaddafi has every right to shoot dead any protesters.
Kill ’em all and then we can get on with holidays in the sun.
Weekend in Tripoli anyone?
Issa, Baxxter.
Or else what, what?! Should there be a threat?! Too belligerent, man, you’re too belligerent. And bellicose. Calm down, will you.
By the bye, Daphne categorically denied your blog is an offshoot of hers. She – like us – is saying, we don’t know who you are.
Who are you, actually?
I hide my identity because I don’t propose a blog to the world, I just post opinions the responsibility for which falls on Daphne’s shoulders. (In fact, she edits them and can decide which posts are published and which not.)
You instead propose(d) a blog – so you should tell us who you are… you even asked us to vote… so you should tell us whom you invited to share our views with…
DCG is courageous. She shows her true identity. You – despite all your bellicism and big talk about taking part in the present episode of the Great War Good wages against Evil – seem to lack this distinctive feature… or am I wrong?
No. It takes aim and shoots from the shoulder, accurately.
Ze great Baxxter manhunt.
To start with, I can’t see why I should reveal my name. After all, hundreds of other readers contribute to this blog while hiding their identity. Perhaps my comments hit some raw nerves. But that’s the way it’s always been: it’s personal. I never pretended otherwise. And wouldn’t you know, none of my comments have ever affected anyone’s 50k pa salary or position. So there.
Secondly, I’ve got balls and all, but I’m not an idiot. I haven’t got a single euro to pay a defence lawyer when the libel suits start pouring in. Not because I ever lied, mind, but because calling someone a moron or an idiot is considered an act of libel in anally retentive Malta.
Thirdly. ‘Extremist’ = someone who doesn’t tolerate fools. Is that right? Perhaps you refer to my repeated appeals to the Maltese government to strap me with explosives and send me into Gaddafi’s tent as the ultimate smart bomb. Yes I’d rather die than keep on living. I don’t think it qualifies as extremist. As I said, it’s personal.
Baxxter Boy: the only reason why you should tell us who you are is because you started a blog. No more, no less.
Why? Does the sincerity or veracity of what I write depend on whether I sign off with my real name? I predicted the outcome of the Libyan war play by play, and all the while I hid my real identity. Does that change anything? Believe me, I wasn’t living under a bridge I’d give you my real name, but I don’t want my enemies to see me bleeding. And then sue me for libel.
Min Weber, too much has been squandered these last 40 years, either in life or in economic development. So I don’t agree with your definition of the national interest.
Over 140 billion and more hidden away should have been used to develop Libya. Just imagine the economic powerhouse we should have had next door and you prefer a tyrannical dictator? Get your priorities right.
German external politics have gone 10 years backwards. When this is all over, German foreign influence is going to be behind even that of Italy – definitely not something the Germans were contemplating in 2010.
As regards Malta – small minds are happy with nothing.
And may the newly discovered proto-planet Baxxter continue to bask and purr in the sun’s dazzling glory.
The internal affairs of a sovereign State are its internal affairs.
What’s happening in Libya is no 1789 or 1848. Let us not read too much in it.
It is in the national interest of Malta that there be no destabilization of the region.
Needless to say, this is from a realpolitik point of view. Morally, it’s another story.
But morality might be a luxury we can’t afford.
Tautology is the enemy of clarity, not its friend.
What is happening in Libya is also what is happening outside Libya.
Malta is in no position to stabilise the region.
Morality is not a luxury. It is a necessity, even if you don’t take the long view.
It is in Malta’s national interest to get rid of Gaddafi. If only because he’s in cahoots with the worst specimens of Maltese “biznispersons”. Morality be damned.
If policy were determined on the grounds Baxxter is proposing – I can’t see him being tongue-in-cheek in this – then that would be a recipe for disaster.
La Redoute, I agree that Malta is in no position to stabilize the region. Likewise, it is in no position to do anything to remove Gaddafi from power. I therefore reiterate my position: ask the Bellicose Party (BP) – led by High-Powered Baxxter – to calm down. We are just too small. The whole project is already on the plane of folie de grandeur for the UK – just imagine teeny weeny Malta.
Yor/Malta, you might be right. But there are two dangers: (i) the State of Libya might degenerate into a failed State and (ii) if NATO / West troops intervene on the ground, that would lead to a surge in Al-Qaeda support. Both scenarios are extremely negative for Malta.
In view of these dangers, I think it is not wise to go down the path you, and others of the BP, are suggesting.
Min Weber, you seem to suggest that we of the BP are saying that removing Gaddafi from power is a task for Malta alone.
Wrong.
Let me spell it out for you: CO-A-LI-TION.
In any case, you are also wrong in your geostrategic assessment. I won’t bother answering. Too busy. Sorry.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/apr/15/libyan-rebels-plan-geurrilla-action?CMP=twt_fd
I see it as the US, France and UK are being purpously patient with Gaddafi – I think that this will go until Gaddafi really feels that he has been humiliated enough. I know that he is thick skinned, but I feel that the US, France and Britain are able to penetrate that thick skin.
Listen to the calm voice of reason coming from Min Weber. I am in complete agreement with you Weber. As I posted at the beginning of the Libya hostilities, I said that Baxxter reminds me of a chihuahua – all belligerence but pretty ineffectual for the weight it carries.
Your chihuahua must be pretty smart. You meet me at a place of your choosing and I’ll show you ineffectual.