WASHINGTON — American and allied diplomats pressed the United Nations Security Council on Thursday to authorize a broad range of military a...
In a shift from the Obama administration's earlier caution on military action, U.S. officials urged the council diplomats in a series of morning meetings to vote for a resolution that would permit airstrikes on Libyan ground forces and aircraft that have encircled the rebel stronghold of Benghazi.
A senior Pentagon official said U.S. military operations could begin quickly if the U.N. approved the action, aimed at protecting civilians in rebel-held areas and stopping the momentum of Kadafi's forces.
Proposals for a no-fly zone or other military action have faced strong resistance in recent weeks from traditional U.S. allies, such as Germany, as well as Russia and China. But council members have grown increasingly worried about a looming humanitarian disaster in Benghazi, and some U.S. officials have expressed confidence that the resolution will be adopted.
The council was to begin discussing the proposed resolution on Thursday evening.
William J. Burns, the State Department's No. 3 official, told a Senate committee, "I think we can produce a resolution. ... I hope we can today." He said the United States supported action short of "boots on the ground."
Even if the U.N. approves the use of force, diplomats remained cautious about whether the strikes would be effective or come soon enough. Some diplomats suggested privately that the last-minute diplomacy could be aimed, at least in part, at giving political cover to the administration and other governments that are facing criticism over what could be an impending slaughter in Benghazi, a city of about 700,000.
Administration officials have been emphasizing the drawbacks of military action for most of the last month and appeared eager to avoid U.S. military involvement in another Middle Eastern state, with American armed forces already stretched thin in Iraq and Afghanistan. But officials said the growing recognition over the last week or so that the rebels were losing ground, and that the war could end with a humanitarian calamity in the rebel capital of Benghazi, changed opinions within the administration.
A senior U.S. official who spoke on condition of anonymity due to the sensitive diplomacy said the administration had hoped that the Libyan uprising would unfold "organically," like those in Tunisia and Egypt, and that there would be no need for foreign intervention.
"Everyone hoped that would be the case here, and no one could say that the U.S. was behind it," he said. "But when it turned, and it looked like there might be an imminent slaughter, there was a responsibility on the part of the international community not to let it happen."
But the U.S. also needed other conditions to be met before moving ahead, such as visible Arab support, as well as that of other world powers, the official said.
And Washington has been insisting this week, for the first time, that the U.S. can't act without the U.N.'s blessing.
"The best chance of long-term success comes from international action here," said a White Houseofficial who also spoke on condition of anonymity. "There would be negative consequences for the United States to act alone or for the West to act alone."
"Only the security council can authorize action," said Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton in an interview with CNN. "And if they do authorize action, there needs to be a true international response, including Arab leadership and partnership."
Kadafi has declared that his victory over the rebels could come within as little as one day. French President Nicolas Sarkozy has said it might be hours away.
The resolution under discussion Thursday was proposed by Lebanon, with support from the Arab League, as well as France and the United Kingdom. Though the U.S. delegation had been vague about its position earlier in the week, on Wednesday it proposed changes that would allow a range of military options, rather than just the no-fly zone, which was the core of the original proposal.
Diplomats said the U.N. resolution will not declare that support of the rebels is the aim of military action. But U.S. officials contend that U.N. action could immediately help the rebels by giving them reason to hang on against Kadafi's forces. It may also prevent a panicked exodus of civilians in eastern Libya.
U.S. officials said they had been considering the military steps for days. They were encouraged by the support of the Arab League, which, in a rare move against a former member, voted to support a no-fly zone last weekend.
U.S. officials, eager to avoid perceptions that military action amounts to another U.S. intervention in the Arab world, are pressing Arab countries to participate in any show of force.
Even if the U.N. approves the proposal, it remains to be decided which countries would be involved and what role they would take. But some diplomats speculated that countries that already had military ships and planes in the region, including the United States and some European nations, could move quickly.
The most likely Arab participants are Saudi Arabia and other members of the Gulf Cooperation Council.
It may take a week for the North Atlantic Treaty Organizationto approve any plan of military action, diplomats said, even though NATO officials have been weighing possible military actions.
Tom Malinowski, Washington director of Human Rights Watch, said that although Russia and China traditionally oppose U.N. support for military intervention, advocates are hoping that in this case they would not exercise their veto, since many Arab countries and some Libyans are calling for action.
He said the advocates could succeed in winning the nine council votes they needed, even if there were no votes by some nonpermanent members and abstentions from some veto-carrying permanent members.
One Middle East expert said the Obama administration's new position suggested a belated consensus had emerged on how to proceed against Kadafi.
Michele Dunne, a senior associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, said: "All along there have been some people arguing for a more assertive American role. …. There's a small group of people who have been having high-level meetings on this, and different views have been articulated within that group. But it does seem to be gelling at this point that the U.S. — while it did not want to lead the charge for international military intervention — is now going to support that.''
She added: "But what we see here, too, is a military situation in Libya that is getting to a critical point. This could be over in a few days and not end up the way we would like to see it.''
paul.richter@latimes.com
peter.nicholas@latimes.com
Staff writer Ken Dilanian in Washington contributed to this report.
No comments