In the days since President Barack Obama authorized U.S. military strikes in Libya, there has been a barrage of commentary on whether he should have made the conflict our problem. Supporters agree with the president that America could not stand idly by as Col. Muammar Qaddafi waged violence against citizens — a situation that they say undermines our democratic values and could lead to a humanitarian crisis.
Detractors point to confusion over the nature of the conflict and argue that, with the U.S. military stretched thin in Afghanistan and Iraq, we have more pressing business to attend to. Both sides of the debate have been fierce.
Rep. Donald Payne (D-N.J.), ranking member of the House Subcommittee on Africa, Global Health and Human Rights, has a more nuanced take. In an interview with The Root, he explained why he agrees with President Obama's decision to get involved, while also acknowledging the troubling uncertainties ahead.
The Root: Congress is split on the president's decision to get involved in the Libyan conflict. Where do you weigh in? Should we be there?
Donald Payne: I think so. The people of North Africa have finally spoken out, and I think that, as a country founded on democratic principles, we should support people's legitimate right to self-determination.
TR: What makes the humanitarian stakes in Libya so unique that they compel U.S. intervention, as opposed to other injustices and suppressed people around the world?
DP: I think Col. Qaddafi is the only one that said he was going to unleash military might on his own people. Disturbances in Yemen and Iran, for example, have been handled more by police action, and neither president in those countries has declared war on the protesters. I don't condone [violence in those countries]; however, I think the situation in Libya is different. Qaddafi said he will unleash his military on the protesters and now, of course, on the semblance of a rebel group opposing him.
Secondly, there is no attack on the armed forces of Libya. What is happening is the destruction of ground-to-air missiles and capability that would prevent a no-fly zone from going into effect. The action to date is basically destroying the assets that would prevent a no-fly zone, which is what the Arab League has asked for. And that's an extraordinary point that many people are missing: This is the first time that the Arab League has ever asked the U.N. to intervene against an Arab state.
TR: So you don't think our involvement is about oil and rising gas prices, as some opponents have suggested?
The United States doesn't get oil from Libya; we get oil from Saudi Arabia and other parts of Africa. It's not like, "There's oil, so let's go on in." As a matter of fact, the actions may have come too late. Had there been a swifter response to the pleas of the Libyan people, I think that the opposition people would be in a much better position.
TR: Now that we're involved, though, what's the endgame if Qaddafi and his forces don't stop?
DP: The Libyan rebel forces are going to have to confront Qaddafi's forces. It's going to be up to the Libyan people, by and large, and they're certainly the underdogs. But there has been no talk about troop intervention by United Nations forces. So it's far from a slam dunk. It's still going to be a struggle for the opposition people to be the final victors.
TR: With all this uncertainty, has the plan been adequately defined? We want to support the opposition rebels without getting American troops on the ground and without pushing Qaddafi to step down, but it doesn't sound as if Libyan rebels are on track to prevail.
DP: I think the president has been trying to articulate the goals. It's far from crystal clear. However, the premise that is clear is the desire to have a no-fly zone, and the action has been to pave the way. The next phase is that the Libyan opposition forces will have to combat the Libyan forces, unless the Libyan military decides to do what they did in Egypt. In Egypt, the military decided that they, too, were tired of a dictator, and they would not turn their weapons against their people.
TR: Meanwhile, Qaddafi has support from other parts of Africa. The African Union has condemned the airstrikes and urged international forces to stop. Can you explain Qaddafi's support in the African Union?
DP: Qaddafi is a wealthy person, and he has had a relationship with the African Union. He even participated in it and knew many of the leaders, so perhaps it's something that's been developed over the years. But Qaddafi has had his hands in some terrible things. He supported [former Liberian president] Charles Taylor and the Revolutionary United Front in Sierra Leone, the ones who cut off the hands of women and children [while brutalizing] the country for blood diamonds.
I haven't spent much time assessing the African Union, but I don't see where they would like him — they may just feel it's something they don't need to be involved in. They've taken a totally different tactic on Côte d'Ivoire, where they said that [outgoing president] Gbagbo should step down. I can't see why they would think Qaddafi's all right, yet say Gbagbo, who refuses to leave and has started to use his forces against the people, should step down.
TR: There are reports that Qaddafi has flown in black Africans from other countries to serve as mercenaries to prop up his regime, but it's difficult to separate truth from rumor. Do you have a sense of how important a role these mercenaries are actually playing?
DP: I've spoken to a number of very high officials in Kenya, which has a strong military and tends to know what's going on on the continent. They said that they don't put much credence in that. They said there may be some bandit types that you can hire, but in their opinion, there is no nation that has organized military people to send in support of Qaddafi. No one has any way of knowing where these guys might have come from.
TR: On account of this rumor, some Libyan rebels are attacking black migrant workers in Libya — people who have long faced discrimination in the country. What are your thoughts on the U.S. helping armed rebels, who are in turn attacking blacks in Libya?
DP: Well, there's a lot of xenophobia throughout the world. It's something that happens, and not totally unusual. There are also a number of Filipinos and other Asian migrant workers who are not given the same rights. I don't know the exact conditions of the migrant workers in Libya, but if there are rumors that black Africans are coming in and killing their families, you're going to have a reaction. I can't verify it because I haven't seen those reports, but [if true,] it's unfortunate and should cease.
There's very little that the United States can do. We [closed] our embassy, and the Turkish Embassy is now handling our issues, so we have no diplomatic relations. We could make a statement acknowledging it and request corrective action, and perhaps that's what we should do. But I'd also like to find out who this is happening to exactly.
TR: President Obama has insisted that American engagement will be limited, but there is still talk that this will lead to a long, third war in the Muslim world. How do you think this might all unfold?
DP: Once again, the big difference is that there's support from the League of Arab States, which is something you can't overlook. If they felt that NATO should intervene, then evidently they must have some strong feelings that what Qaddafi is doing would have ended in the deaths of many thousands of Libyans. I'm sure the U.N. did not do this without having a great deal of debate, and the resolution was not raised in the Security Council until the Arab League asked for it.
TR: Americans are anxious, though, that as things proceed, we're going to ramp up our military efforts.
DP: Well, the secretary of defense said that Iraq would take 30 days, and then we'd be out of there. So you can't necessarily go by what some of the top officials predict, that's for sure. We can only hope that it's not going to be a long, protracted engagement. The quicker this can end, the better it is for the people of Libya, and that's what it's all about.
Cynthia Gordy is The Root's Washington reporter.