Obama Administration Steps Up Outreach to Libyan Opposition, Ambassador Says Meeting with Clinton Was “Very Positive”
ABC News' Kirit Radia reports: The United States stepped up its outreach to the Libyan opposition on Thursday, with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton meeting with Libya’s Ambassador to Washington Ali Aujali, who has pledged his support for the opposition. Earlier in the day Clinton told a congressional panel she also planned to meet with representatives from the opposition when she travels to North Africa next week. Reached by phone after the meeting, Ambassador Aujali told ABC News the encounter was “very positive.” “They are taking the issue very serious (sic),” he said of the Obama administration. “I hope that there will be action to stop this Gadhafi family killing.” He declined to say if Clinton told him the United States was prepared to do anything specific, but said the US is studying its options and consulting with its alliances and the United Nations. This morning Secretary Clinton announced the United States was suspending ties with Libya’s embassy in Washington. The move does not mean, however, that the United States is cutting diplomatic relations with Libya. “We expect them to end operating as the embassy of Libya,” she said. Aujali said he was still the ambassador and now represents the people of “free Libya.” A State Department official, speaking on the condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak for the department, said embassy employees who have maintained support for the Gadhafi regime since the uprising began will be asked to leave the country by Friday. As for Ambassador Aujali’s status, the official said that is still being determined. The United States would like to keep in touch with him as a liaison with the opposition and he would be unable to return to Libya since he has spoken out against the government. The White House also announced today that it would be sending humanitarian assistance teams into Libyan territory for the first time, entering into space controlled by the opposition. Previously aid was delivered to the borders with Tunisia and Egypt where many who were displaced by the fighting fled to. The diplomatic screws were also tightening on Col. Gadhafi’s regime elsewhere around the world. France became the first country to officially recognize the opposition today and agreed to swap ambassadors. A U.S. official said that the Obama administration has no plans to do the same. In Brussels today, NATO ministers agreed to present the alliance with a proposal next week to increase naval assets for added surveillance capability and enforcement of the United Nations-imposed arms embargo, as well as initiate planning for additional humanitarian relief. While the body did not decide to impose a no-fly zone on Libya, it agreed to continue planning in case one is eventually needed. In her testimony today, Secretary Clinton warned about the consequences of unilateral American action inside Libya. “I'm one of those who believes that absent international authorization, the United States acting alone would be stepping into a situation whose consequences are unforeseeable. And I know that's the way our military feels,” she said. “I want to remind people that, you know, we had a no-fly zone over Iraq. It did not prevent Saddam Hussein from slaughtering people on the ground, and it did not get him out of office. We had a no-fly zone, and then we had 78 days of bombing in Serbia. It did not get Milosevic out of office. It did not get him out of Kosovo until we put troops on the ground with our allies,” she reminded lawmakers. “So I really want people to understand what we are looking at. And I will reiterate what the president has said and what our administration has consistently said. We are considering everything, but we think it's important that the Congress and the public understand as much as possible about what that actually means. And I can assure you that the president is not going to make any decision without a great deal of careful thought and deliberation,” she said in defense of the administration’s decision not to take some of the steps many on Capitol Hill have called for. Defense Secretary Robert Gates has cautioned against the imposition of a no-fly zone and earlier this week the US Ambassador to NATO Ivo Daalder told reporters it would not be effective in preventing the helicopter and ground attacks that Gadhafi’s forces have been employing against the rebels. Illustrating another element of complication, a new study today by analysts at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments determined that a full no-fly zone over Libya would cost between $100 million to $300 million per week, and that depending on the number of ground targets, a one-time strike operation to take out air defense systems might cost between $500 million and $1 billion. Even a partial no-fly zone using a combination of naval and sea assets would cost $15 million to $25 million per week, the study found.
Email
Is Congress Sounding Dumber?
Sonia Sotomayor Speaks to NYU Graduates
The President of the United States has expressly declined to assume a leadership role. Sarkozy and Cameron have stepped forward to fill the void.
And the whole world is watching
Posted by: Fascist Hyena | March 10, 2011, 3:54 pm 3:54 pm
He likes to PLAY president just can’t make any decisions that’s above his paygrade.
Posted by: usgerman43 | March 10, 2011, 4:17 pm 4:17 pm
So we bring up a no fly zone and then say it won’t save lives. Now, we are talking to the “opposition” in hopes of what? Are we going to arm them for a civil war? I would rather simply drop a bomb on Ghaddafi. Here’s what Clinton and all of our politicians need to say, “”we hope for a peaceful solution to the issues facing Libya”". Stay out of it. Otherwise, commit, but you can’t do both!
Posted by: lfrichar | March 10, 2011, 4:24 pm 4:24 pm
republican president on the next election.
Posted by: registered voter | March 10, 2011, 4:55 pm 4:55 pm
After President Reagan dropped a bomb on Gadhafi’s tent, they leader was real quiet. Now that we have a President who is scared of making a decision he does what he does best kill people. He started with Pam-Am and the bombing of a nightclub in Berlin.
Posted by: usgerman43 | March 10, 2011, 4:57 pm 4:57 pm
Fascist Hyena-
At least Carney has stopped saying we are leading.
Posted by: MayBee | March 10, 2011, 5:21 pm 5:21 pm
Why is Clapper still in his position?The moron blabbermouth undercut his own SECSTATE shooting his mouth off about intelligence estimates about Gadhafi.Can’t Obama recognize how weak he looks by keeping this fool in the intelligence leadership position?Of all the faults an intel director could have,he has the worst-HE CAN”T KEEP HIS MOUTH SHUT.Obama better get off the chair and do SOMETHING for once.He couldn’t even respond to the Petreus-Gates exchange.I don’t care for his policies,but my God-try to lead for a change.If he doesn’t start doing something soon his approval will drop below 40%-and that is not good for a sitting President who doesn’t seem to want to work.
Posted by: Nephron | March 10, 2011, 5:21 pm 5:21 pm
So we bring up a no fly zone and then say it won’t save lives. Now, we are talking to the “opposition” in hopes of what? Are we going to arm them for a civil war? I would rather simply drop a bomb on Ghaddafi. Here’s what Clinton and all of our politicians need to say, “”we hope for a peaceful solution to the issues facing Libya”". Stay out of it. Otherwise, commit, but you can’t do both!
====
Completely agree.
Posted by: MayBee | March 10, 2011, 5:22 pm 5:22 pm
Maybee-if Obama’s current performance doesn’t confirm the points in “Deconstructing Obama” I don’t know what does.His current governing plan seems to be to do nothing and hope for the best.He seems completely devoid of imagination or ability to make a rational decision.WHERE IS HE?
Posted by: Nephron | March 10, 2011, 5:31 pm 5:31 pm
No-fly zones alone will not stop the killings. Gadhafi needs to be ousted from within. Incentives to oust him must be given by their opposition and by the western powers. This war can end soon if the right measures are taken.
If a no-fly zone were to be imposed it would not solve the main problem. In fact it would create more problems.
Posted by: kottaras | March 10, 2011, 6:04 pm 6:04 pm
Why should America’s administration be expected to take a leadership role in a military offensive on Libya? And how can they do so without a base of operations in the area, without NATO’s agreement to use theirs, and without an act of congress?
Do you people bother to educate yourselves before reflexively attacking President Obama? You really should try, because all this shouting does is make you look ignorant, the same way that all the posturing form France and the UK has made zero difference to Gaddafi’s behaviour and just made them look foolish, and irrelevant.
Libyans don’t want tough talk, they want action and Americans given more concrete action than anyone else.
Posted by: Growupandquitposturing | March 10, 2011, 6:52 pm 6:52 pm
PS If president Reagan did such a great job with Gaddafi, how come he’s still hanging around two decades later, stinking up the joint?
Posted by: Growupandquitposturing | March 10, 2011, 6:59 pm 6:59 pm
Gasoline prices are up 67% since Obama took office.
Posted by: Fascist Hyena | March 10, 2011, 10:32 pm 10:32 pm
“Why should America’s administration be expected to take a leadership role in a military offensive on Libya?”
It shouldn’t, of course, unless America is the world’s only superpower. And if it is indeed a superpower, it need not take the lead in a “military offensive” against Libya; it should, however, be taking the lead in formulating NATO’s response, rather than abdicating that role in favor of Sarkozy and Cameron. It should have been the first, not the last, to denounce Ghadaffi by name and call for his ouster. It should have been the first to recognize the rebels; it seems certain to be the last. It should not have sent an inadequate ferryboat to evacuate its citizens while China was sending a warship and France and Britain were sending military air transports.
The whole world is warching this administration. And it is appalled.
Posted by: Fascist Hyena | March 10, 2011, 10:41 pm 10:41 pm
War against Serbia was illegal and someone should take responsibility for killing innocent civilians. They purposely targeted passenger trains and bridges. And may I remind you that in Kosovo there was only 2000 bodies found and that was from all ethnic groups including Serbs. That number is not high enough to call the situation “ethnic cleansing”. Another question for Obama and Clinton would be “Do you support Kosovo Albanians in kidnapping Serbs and selling their organs?”
Posted by: sam | March 15, 2011, 10:54 am 10:54 am