Congress Fails to Connect Protection of Civilians in Libya to National Interests

Women in Benghazi react to UN Security Council decision to protect civilians in Libya (photo credit: The Telegraph)

The topic of intervention in Libya has been a recent subject of debate for Congress. Just last week, the House of Representatives passed a resolution, H.Res.292, that requested a comprehensive report from President Barack Obama on the United States involvement in the ongoing military intervention in Libya. H.Res.292 was introduced by Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) and passed in a 268-145 vote. Most unfortunately, the resolution implied that the protection of civilians in Libya is not in the U.S. national interest.

This assertion is as troubling as it is misguided. With the Senate Foreign Relations Committee set to consider a virtually identical resolution next week, it seems useful to reiterate the national interest implications of intervening to protect civilians from atrocities.

Preventing Mass Atrocities Advances National Interests

Secretaries William Cohen and Madeleine Albright (photo credit: American Academy of Diplomacy)

In December 2008, the highly-praised, bipartisan Genocide Prevention Task Force–convened by former Secretary of Defense William Cohen and former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright–issued a report that found:

Genocide and mass atrocities also threaten core U.S. national interests.

They feed on and fuel other threats in weak and corrupt states, with dangerous spillover effects that know no boundaries. If the United States does not engage early in preventing these crimes, we inevitably bear greater costs—in feeding millions of refugees and trying to manage long-lasting regional crises.

In addition, U.S. credibility and leadership are compromised when we fail to work with international partners to prevent genocide and mass atrocities.

The Senate agreed. Last year, a unanimously passed resolution stated clearly that:

…it is in the national interest and aligned with the values of the United States to work vigorously with international partners to prevent and mitigate future genocides and mass atrocities.

It’s unfortunate that some members of the Senate seem to have so quickly forgotten a piece of legislation the entire chamber supported less than six months ago.

The Argument for Advancing National Interests by Protecting Civilians in Libya

Obama Gives Speech on Libya (photo credit: Politico)

It’s not in just a general sense that preventing and responding to mass atrocities advances U.S. national interests. Specifically intervening to protect civilians in Libya advances core interests. In a speech given on March28, President Obama detailed the necessity of the intervention effort in describing the reasoning behind U.S involvement:

Gaddafi declared that he would show “no mercy” to his own people. He compared them to rats, and threatened to go door to door to inflict punishment. In the past, we had seen him hang civilians in the streets, and kill over a thousand people in a single day. Now, we saw regime forces on the outskirts of the city. We knew that if we waited one more day, Benghazi – a city nearly the size of Charlotte – could suffer a massacre that would have reverberated across the region and stained the conscience of the world.

It was not in our national interest to let that happen. I refused to let that happen. And so nine days ago, after consulting the bipartisan leadership of Congress, I authorized military action to stop the killing and enforce UN Security Council Resolution 1973.

History has demonstrated the disastrous impact that genocide and mass atrocities can have in destabilizing a country, undermining global security and creating an environment where terrorism can flourish. Further, the consequences in terms of loss of life and livelihoods are absolutely devastating.

Senator John Kerry

In the case of Libya, intervention has served to avert atrocities, advance prospects for long-term regional stability and decrease the likelihood that disaffected populations will turn to militant extremism. As Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee John Kerry (D-MA) said in a statement issued back in March:

First, we do have strategic interests at stake in Libya. What we do as part of this international coalition reverberates throughout North Africa and the Middle East, a region where extremism has thrived and attacks against Western interests have been incubated.

By supporting the Libyan opposition, we give them a fighting chance to oust a dictator with a history of terrorism and the blood of Americans on his hands. At the same time, we keep alive the hopes of reformers across the Arab world. We also counter the violent extremism of Al Qaeda and like-minded groups. And we encourage a new generation of Arabs to pursue dignity and democracy and we create the opportunity for a new relationship with the people of the greater Middle East.

These are worthy goals and by accomplishing them we advance our values and protect our interests.

However, the work is not yet complete. By denying the connection between the prevention of mass atrocities and national security, current Congressional initiatives serve to undermine critical interests. With civilian protection as the continued objective, the U.S. and international community must maintain the effort. The future relationship between the United States and Libya depends on support for the people. Any attempt by the U.S. to turn its back on the protection of civilians will have negative moral and strategic implications down the road.