USIP’s Lawrence Woocher reacts to President Obama’s speech on Libya, genocide prevention and the responsibility to protect.

Does the U.S. have a national interest to prevent atrocities from happening in Libya?

I would argue that it is in the U.S. national interest to prevent mass atrocities from happening anywhere, including in Libya. This interest is derived partly from the intersection of atrocities with political instability, massive humanitarian demands, and other ills that the United States has an interest in preventing.

As President Obama said, "America has an important strategic interest in preventing Qaddafi from overrunning those who oppose him.  A massacre would have driven thousands of additional refugees across Libya’s borders, putting enormous strains on the peaceful –- yet fragile -– transitions in Egypt and Tunisia.  The democratic impulses that are dawning across the region would be eclipsed by the darkest form of dictatorship, as repressive leaders concluded that violence is the best strategy to cling to power."

And, perhaps more importantly, engaging seriously in preventing atrocities signals powerfully to the world that U.S. rhetorical commitments to human rights and liberty are not empty. This enhances America’s "soft power," helping to foster an international environment that is conducive to promoting American goals.

Does the international community have a responsibility to protect people from atrocities when a nation is committing those atrocities or fails to protect its own citizens?

In 2005, all governments accepted each individual state’s responsibility to protect its populations from genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity and ethnic cleansing, and the international community’s responsibility “to use appropriate diplomatic, humanitarian and other peaceful means” to help protect populations from these crimes. Governments further stated “we are prepared to take collective action, in a timely and decisive manner…should peaceful means be inadequate and national authorities manifestly fail to protect their populations” from these atrocities. According to governments’ own commitments, thus, the nature of the international community’s responsibility depends on the type of action required to protect populations. Its responsibility clearly extends to the use of non-coercive means, but governments have not accepted a responsibility to enact sanctions or use force, only to be “prepared to take collective action” should peaceful means fail.

What messages from President Obama's speech last night intersect with your work on mass atrocity prevention?

The president stressed that both strategic interests and American values pushed him to order military action designed to prevent the mass slaughter of innocent Libyans. The concurrence of interests and values is a theme that runs through much of USIP’s work on the prevention of violent conflict and mass atrocities, including for example, the Genocide Prevention Task Force. Acting before violence becomes full blown not only saves lives, but also treasure, and it can ease a host of burdens that accompany large-scale violence--e.g., massive humanitarian needs, long-lasting regional instability, and demands for post-conflict justice and accountability.

"We were faced with the prospect of violence on a horrific scale," according to President Obama, arguing that had Qadaffi’s forces captured Benghazi, it could have suffered “a massacre that would have reverberated across the region and stained the conscience of the world.” The President called directly to Americans’ sense of values: "To brush aside America’s responsibility as a leader and -– more profoundly -– our responsibilities to our fellow human beings under such circumstances would have been a betrayal of who we are.” Almost in the same breath, the President declared "America has an important strategic interest in preventing Qaddafi from overrunning those who oppose him." He cited the risk that refugee flows could threaten democratic transitions in Tunisia and Egypt, as well as the potential for others around the world to conclude that violent repression is an effective survival strategy and that the United Nations demands are “empty words."

Is the international community learning how better to respond to brutality by dictators against civilians?

The signs are mixed. On the positive side, the prevailing debate from the 1990s, which pitted the "right of humanitarian intervention" against strict conceptions of sovereignty and non-intervention, has largely shifted to discussion of the "responsibility to protect” populations from genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity and ethnic cleansing. Governments unanimously accepted the responsibility to protect at the 2005 World Summit, and the United Nations Security Council invoked Libya’s responsibility to protect in its recent resolutions--reportedly without controversy. On the negative side, there continue to be cases where mass violence is threatened but effective international action is wanting. The current situation in Cote d’Ivoire comes to mind. Laurent Gbagbo, who lost the presidential election to Alassane Ouattara, refuses to leave power. Hundreds have been killed in the post-electoral violence and hundreds of thousands have fled in this crisis that is likely to get significantly worse, jeopardizing stability in all of West Africa.

Related Publications

Libya: Amid Hope for Peace, Regional Rifts Still Pose Hurdles

Libya: Amid Hope for Peace, Regional Rifts Still Pose Hurdles

Friday, February 26, 2021

By: Simona Ross; Stefan Wolff

Libyans and the United Nations advanced their current effort to end almost a decade of instability and war this month when a U.N.-backed forum nominated an interim government to prepare nationwide elections by the end of 2021. The new transitional government brings hope that this process—the third major U.N. peace effort in Libya—might lead to stability. Still, achieving lasting peace will require that the process address the main underlying driver of conflict: the divisions among Libya’s three main regions, notably over how to organize the government. It also will need the United States and other countries to support the transitional government and hold Libya’s contesting sides accountable.

Type: Analysis and Commentary

Peace Processes; Democracy & Governance

Libya 10 Years After Revolution: To Forgive or Forget

Libya 10 Years After Revolution: To Forgive or Forget

Thursday, February 18, 2021

By: Esra Elbakoush; Nate Wilson

This week marks the 10-year anniversary of the uprising that overthrew the four-decade dictatorship of Muammar Qaddafi. In the intervening decade, Libya has been mired in conflict and political gridlock, exacerbated by competing power centers and longstanding tribal hostilities. What’s more, a host of foreign powers have entered the fray, looking to pursue their own interests rather than build a peaceful Libya. While there is momentum toward peace in recent months, Libyans will have to decide for themselves how to arrive at reconciliation and build a roadmap to get to a sustainable peace. But what does that look like?

Type: Analysis and Commentary

Peace Processes; Reconciliation

The Current Situation in Libya

The Current Situation in Libya

Wednesday, December 30, 2020

Eight years after the fall of Muammar Qaddafi, Libya continues to struggle to end its violent conflict and build state institutions. External actors have exacerbated Libya’s problems by funneling money and weapons to proxies that have put personal interests above those of the Libyan people.

Type: Fact Sheet

Libya: Peace Talks Advance, But Will Need Local Support

Libya: Peace Talks Advance, But Will Need Local Support

Thursday, November 19, 2020

By: Nate Wilson

Libyans have taken an uncertain step toward ending nearly a decade of civil war, agreeing in U.N.-mediated talks to hold national elections in December 2021. The discussions, in the neighboring capital, Tunis, fell short of yielding a transitional government to oversee the elections and the establishment of a new constitution. The talks are shortly to resume. From Tunis, USIP’s Nate Wilson notes that the step is positive for a country that began 2020 with a surge in warfare and the involvement of foreign forces. Making this peace effort effective will require restraining that foreign involvement, he says, and will need to ground the talks in grassroots support.

Type: Analysis and Commentary

Peace Processes

View All Publications