US And UN Limited To Toothless Rebukes Of Libya

Again, you know, this ultimately and fundamentally an issue between, you know, the Libyan government, its leader, and the Libyan people.
State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley

Here we go again.
It looks like when it comes to Libya, Obama will be in Iran-mode, not Egypt-mode--and that means no butting in.

And that has not gone unnoticed.

Jackson Diehl writes about the Obama administration's timid response to Libya:

For the Obama administration, Libya ought to be the easy case in the Middle East's turmoil. Dictator Moammar Gaddafi, aptly labeled a "mad dog" by Ronald Reagan 25 years ago, is no friend of the United States, unlike Egypt's Hosni Mubarak. And he has launched a shocking war against his own people, killing at least hundreds and probably thousands in attacks by warplanes and foreign mercenaries. On Tuesday he gave a bloodcurdling speech in which he vowed to fight to the last drop of blood and cited the Tiananmen square massacre as an example.

Yet the administration so far has declined to directly condemn Gaddafi, call for his ouster, or threaten sanctions. Instead, it has repeated the same bland language about restraint and "universal rights" that it has used to respond to the uprisings in Egypt, Bahrain, and other countries with pro-U.S. regimes. [emphasis added]

Yeah, isn't odd that once again, Obama seems to be at his most outspoken and belligerent when dealing with US allies than with those regimes that aren't--even when those regimes are attacking their own people, as in the case of Iran and Libya?

Meanwhile, Secretary of State Clinton was no tougher on Libya:

"This bloodshed is completely unacceptable," warned US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who cited "reports of hundreds killed and many more injured" and declared Washington held Kadhafi's government responsible for violence.

"We will take appropriate steps in line with our policies, our values and our laws, but we're going to have to work in concert with the international community," she said during a joint appearance with Latvia's foreign minister.

Clinton told reporters that the safety of US nationals inside Libya was "our highest priority" and stressed the United States was "in touch with many Libyan officials directly and indirectly and with other governments in the region to try to influence what is going on inside Libya."

"There is no ambivalence. There is no doubt in anyone's mind that the violence must stop and that the government of Libya has a responsibility to respect the universal rights of all of its citizens," she said.

Clinton makes no mention of any action or sanctions, so apparently the US is only going to wait for some kind of international consensus.

That reminds me, how is the UN responding to all this?

Apparently the UN reaction to Kadhafi killing his own people is as timid as Clinton's:

The members of the Security Council expressed grave concern at the situation in Libya. They condemned the violence and use of force against civilians, deplored the repression against peaceful demonstrators, and expressed deep regret at the deaths of hundreds of civilians. They called for an immediate end to the violence and for steps to address the legitimate demands of the population, including through national dialogue...

Ya Libnan points out that any stronger reaction from the UN will take time:

The statement has no instant teeth – it will lead to no action on the part of the international community. That would require the forging of a resolution that would take days, if not weeks, to accomplish.

So now we watch and wait while the UN gets its act together and comes up with some sort of concrete plan to get the killing to stop.

But there is a bright side: at least this time no one can accuse the Obama administration of flip-flopping--they are all espousing the same hands-off, wait and see policy.

Technorati Tag: Libya.