Our One and Only Objective Was Freedom of Navigation

There has been much spurious speculation about why we conducted our U.S. naval operations off the Libyan coast--particularly suggestions that our stated intent to exercise freedom of navigation in disputed Libyan waters masked a more malicious motive: to taunt and embarrass Col. Moammar Kadafi.

According to this scenario, we hoped to goad him into a military confrontation with the United States, thus giving us an excuse to attack him and a few Libyan terrorist bases.

Actually, our objective in this operation was as we stated from the outset: to maintain basic principles of freedom of navigation in international waters and airspace. We sought only to conduct a freedom-of-navigation exercise in waters universally recognized as international seas, more than 100 miles off the coast of a country whose government has made excessive claims to those waters and had militarily threatened any nation to defy them.

The significance of the freedom of navigation in international waters may not be fully understood or appreciated.

Freedom of navigation has been critically important to the world community since man began traveling the seas. Given that two-thirds of the world’s surface is covered by water, this is not too surprising. Commercial vessels and warships have trafficked in international waters for centuries on strategic or economic missions--and sometimes just purely for pleasure. More recently, that same right was extended to commercial and military aircraft flying in international airspace.

For these reasons, the United States and most other countries must deny any excessive claims to waters made by any nation. This includes Libya, whose claims happen to be more excessive than most. Even the Soviets do not recognize Libya’s claims to the Gulf of Sidra, only the 12-mile territorial sea limit.

To show that we do not recognize such claims, we have conducted freedom-of-navigation exercises many times in many places around the world--in international waters off countries both friendly and hostile. Since this program was instituted in 1979, many of the 90 countries with excessive claims have been challenged.

Libya is the only nation that has publicly threatened, and now has actually used, military force to challenge a freedom-of-navigation exercise in international waters. These actions have pointed out clearly for all to see the reckless and unlawful nature of Kadafi’s regime. Such actions cannot be tolerated. No one has the right to impede navigation of the high seas or international airspace. No one has the right to shoot at a nation exercising its freedom-of-navigation rights.

Libyan actions in response to our operations were unjustified and beyond the bounds of normal international conduct. Since 1981 we have entered the Gulf of Sidra on eight separate occasions. Why the Libyans decided at this particular time to confront these operations with hostile military actions is anyone’s guess.

We had hoped to avoid a direct confrontation. Instead, our naval and air exercises--routine, peaceful, and well-publicized in advance--were greeted with fire from Libyan military forces. This could have damaged U.S. ships and aircraft and seriously harmed American personnel. We responded in self-defense.

U.S. forces exercised a great deal of forbearance before responding to Libyan missile firings directed at them. The fact that we responded in a measured way should dispel any notions that we were looking for an excuse to launch a larger operation against Libyan targets ashore.

Some have suggested that these engagements constitute an act of war. Such a characterization is wrong. We were engaged in peaceful, lawful naval operations. The Libyans fired lethal missiles. In self-defense and in a limited way, we responded.

If we had chosen to escalate hostilities, the pretext certainly was there. But that was not our intention and we so demonstrated this by our conduct. This time, we happened to be off Libya. Next month, perhaps it will be somewhere else--and there need be no military confrontations.

What if Kadafi had attempted to engage in similar activities against the naval forces of a less-powerful nation or commercial vessels attempting to exercise their navigation rights and freedom in the Gulf of Sidra? The results could have been disastrous.

Some may argue that Kadafi has reserved his threats only for American forces, but can we be so sure? Being a global maritime power gives us certain responsibilities to ensure navigation rights and freedoms--not just for the United States, but for flag vessels of all nations, and not only in the Gulf of Sidra but through the Strait of Hormuz or any other sea-lanes that have been threatened with interdiction.