- Title: USA / LIBYA: Human Rights Watch says military action against Gaddafi justified
- Date: 22nd March 2011
- Summary: NEW YORK, NEW YORK, UNITED STATES (MARCH 21, 2011) (REUTERS) (SOUNDBITE) (English) FRED ABRAHAMS, SPECIAL ADVISOR, HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH, SAYING: "The military intervention in Libya came about to protect civilians. The forces of Muammar Gaddafi were marching on the eastern part of the country. Those were rebel-held parts of the country, and there was a real danger. We spoke about, we saw that danger, that had he retaken those towns, there could have been atrocities." OUTSIDE BENGHAZI, LIBYA (RECENT - MARCH 20, 2011) (REUTERS) VARIOUS OF BURNING TANK, DESTROYED BY COALITION FORCES AIR STRIKES OUTSIDE BENGHAZI, LIBYA (RECENT - MARCH 20, 2011) (REUTERS) VARIOUS OF REBELS CELEBRATING ON AN ABANDONED LIBYAN ARMY TANK BENGHAZI, LIBYA (RECENT - MARCH 20, 2011) (REUTERS) VARIOUS OF DAMAGED SHOP REBEL SOLDIER WALKING THROUGH DAMAGED SHOP NEW YORK, NEW YORK, UNITED STATES (MARCH 21, 2011) (REUTERS) (SOUNDBITE) (English) FRED ABRAHAMS, SPECIAL ADVISOR, HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH, SAYING: "Human Rights Watch is not happy it came to military intervention. We don't want to ever see it come to that. That's clear. But every other measure had been taken. There were sanctions, there was an asset freeze, referral to the International Criminal Court. Every non-military option had been taken here, and so the governments and the U.N. were faced with intervening militarily to protect civilians. So, we're not glad it came to that, but we hope it will lead to some sanctuary for the civilians who are facing repression from their government." TRIPOLI, LIBYA (FILE - MARCH 2, 2011) (REUTERS) MUAMMAR GADDAFI CHEERING CROWD CHEERING GADDAFI TALKING NEW YORK, NEW YORK, UNITED STATES (MARCH 21, 2011) (REUTERS) (SOUNDBITE) (English) FRED ABRAHAMS, SPECIAL ADVISOR, HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH, SAYING: "The difference between Libya, Yemen, and Bahrain is clear. In Libya, Gaddafi is viewed universally as a trouble-maker. In Yemen and Bahrain, these are governments with close ties to the United States for instance, military support, political support. They are allies in the region, so the response from the U.S. government has been more muted about these government's violations, as a result the Security Council has also been more muted. The U.S. is a driving force, is the driving force on the Security Council, so Washington's view on these countries is essential, and that's why the Security Council has been more restrained in its response to Yemen and Bahrain." MANAMA, BAHRAIN (RECENT - MARCH 19, 2011) (REUTERS) VARIOUS OF PROTESTERS SANAA, YEMEN (MARCH 21, 2011) (REUTERS) VARIOUS OF PROTESTERS NEW YORK, NEW YORK, UNITED STATES (MARCH 21, 2011) (REUTERS) (SOUNDBITE) (English) FRED ABRAHAMS, SPECIAL ADVISOR, HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH, SAYING: "The key difference between Libya and Iraq is in Iraq, the military intervention was about regime change. The coalition, U.S.-led wanted to overthrow Saddam Hussein. In Libya, the intervention, is primarily about protecting civilians from the forces of Muammar Gaddafi. They have not said this is about regime change, they have said explicitly, this is not about overthrowing Muammar Gaddafi, and it may come to that. It may come to that in the end, but right now, that is not the goal of this mission, so it is different. I should add there is another very key difference and that is Iraq was a coalition led by the United States and Western governments. The Libya intervention has the approval of most Arab governments. The Arab League for instance has expressed itself in favor. The Organization of Islamic Conference has expressed itself in favor and that is a fundamental difference with the intervention in Iraq. It's not a Western and U.S. driven military intervention. It has a wider coalition, including the Arab world."
- Embargoed: 6th April 2011 11:44
- Keywords:
- Location: Usa, Libya
- City:
- Country: Usa Libya
- Topics: International Relations
- Reuters ID: LVA520AW7T7M2MXLLJWXE6Y8YP4Y
- Aspect Ratio: 4:3
- Story Text: Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi left the world with no other option, but to use military force, said Human Rights Watch.
Western powers launched a second wave of air strikes on Libya early on Monday (March 21) after halting the advance of Gaddafi's forces on Benghazi and targeting air defenses to let their planes patrol the skies.
The United States is carrying out the air strikes in a coalition with Britain, France, Italy and Canada among others to back a U.N.-mandated intervention to protect civilians caught up in a one-month-old revolt against Gaddafi.
Fred Abrahams, Special Advisor to Human Rights Watch, told Reuters that without a military intervention, the civilians of Benghazi could have faced retribution from Gaddafi.
"The military intervention in Libya came about to protect civilians. The forces of Muammar Gaddafi were marching on the eastern part of the country. Those were rebel-held parts of the country, and there was a real danger... Had he retaken those towns, there could have been atrocities," said Abrahams.
Abrahams said Gaddafi left the international community no other option, but to use force.
"Human Rights Watch is not happy it came to military intervention. We don't want to ever see it come to that. That's clear. But every other measure had been taken. There were sanctions, there was an asset freeze, referral to the International Criminal Court. Every non-military option had been taken here, and so the governments and the U.N. were faced with intervening militarily to protect civilians. So, we're not glad it came to that, but we hope it will lead to some sanctuary for the civilians who are facing repression from their government," he said.
Libya is just one of several countries in North Africa and the Middle East where simmering frustrations has boiled over into massive protests and demands for democracy.
The overthrow of Hosni Mubarak in Egypt and Zine al Abidine bin Ali in Tunisia -- as well as mass protests against leaders in Yemen and Bahrain -- have restored a dormant Arab pride which was crushed by decades of autocracy and foreign intervention.
But the response in the region by the United Nations, the United States, and the international community has been mixed. While, Libya has been bombarded with both diplomatic and military action, the autocratic regimes of Yemen and Bahrain received less attention from world leaders.
Abrahams said that is because of Yemen's and Bahrain's relationship with the U.S.
"The difference between Libya, Yemen, and Bahrain is clear. In Libya, Gaddafi is viewed universally as a trouble-maker. In Yemen and Bahrain, these are governments with close ties to the United States for instance, military support, political support. They are allies in the region, so the response from the U.S. government has been more muted about these government's violations, as a result the Security Council has also been more muted. The U.S. is a driving force, is the driving force on the Security Council, so Washington's view on these countries is essential, and that's why the Security Council has been more restrained in its response to Yemen and Bahrain," he said.
In Bahrain, after decades of oppression, demonstrators demanded a new government and the release of political prisoners. The government responded with a crackdown by security forces and a ban on all public gatherings.
In Yemen, tens of thousands of people have protested for weeks against Yemeni President Ali Abdullah Saleh's three decades-long rule. And on Monday, mourners buried some of the 52 anti-government protesters shot dead by rooftop snipers after Muslim Friday prayers.
Friday's bloodshed prompted Saleh, a key U.S. ally in the fight against al Qaeda, to declare a state of emergency for 30 days that restricts freedom of movement and the right to gather. It also gives police more powers to make inspections and arrests.
Meantime, the military intervention against Libya is the biggest against an Arab country since the 2003 invasion of Iraq.
U.S. officials, eager to avoid similarities to the invasion of Iraq and the toppling of Saddam Hussein, have been playing down Washington's role and emphasizing that overthrowing or killing Gaddafi is not the goal of the attacks on Libya.
"The key difference between Libya and Iraq is in Iraq, the military intervention was about regime change. The coalition, U.S.-led wanted to overthrow Saddam Hussein. In Libya, the intervention, is primarily about protecting civilians from the forces of Muammar Gaddafi. They have not said this is about regime change, they have said explicitly, this is not about overthrowing Muammar Gaddafi, and it may come to that. It may come to that in the end, but right now, that is not the goal of this mission, so it is different," said Abrahams.
He also noted, "There is another very key difference and that is Iraq was a coalition led by the United States and Western governments. The Libya intervention has the approval of most Arab governments. The Arab League for instance has expressed itself in favor. The Organization of Islamic Conference has expressed itself in favor and that is a fundamental difference with the intervention in Iraq. It's not a Western and U.S. driven military intervention. It has a wider coalition, including the Arab world," said Abrahams.
Iraq's Saddam Hussein was driven from power in 2003. - Copyright Holder: REUTERS
- Copyright Notice: (c) Copyright Thomson Reuters 2020. Open For Restrictions - http://about.reuters.com/fulllegal.asp
- Usage Terms/Restrictions: None