Libya and Iraq

In an interview with al Sharq al Awsat, the Iraqi Minister of Defense Hazem al Sha'alan accused Libya of providing material support to the "terrorist activities" in Iraq via remnants of the old regime. (Here's the Washington Times/UPI story; nobody else seems to have picked it up yet. Just stories about Boeing's plans to sell Libya some jets and a bunch of reports on Silvio Berlusconi's happy plans to open an gas pipeline to Libya and relocate some Egyptian boat people in Libya).

I have no idea if this is true. If it is not true, then that's bad enough - just another example of how the United States and its local allies are flailing about trying to explain away the insurgency by pointing fingers abroad rather than confronting hard truths about what's actually going on inside of Iraq.

If it is true, though, it's even worse. Because Libya has been Bush's "Exhibit A" for the regional success of its invasion of Iraq. Remember how Bush, Cheney, et al continue to invoke Libya's decision to abandon its nuclear weapons program as evidence that the invasion of Iraq had scared Qadaffi into giving up the "rogue" game? In case you forgot, here's Dick "you know I'm lying because my lips are moving" Cheney yesterday: " One of the great byproducts of what we did in Afghanistan and Iraq is what happened to Libya. Moammar Ghadafi watched this whole operation, and as we launched into Iraq in the spring of '03, he called, and contacted President Bush and Tony Blair. He did not call the United Nations. (Laughter.) He then said that he wanted to begin negotiations to surrender his WMD."

Now, this argument never really made sense, even if it had some superficial plausibility. Most experts on Libya, both academic and governmental, argued something quite different: Libya took the opportunity to cash in its non-existent nuclear program in exchange for the lifting of sanctions and restoration of diplomatic relations, which Qadaffi had been trying to get through negotiations for many years. Qadaffi got what he wanted - the sanctions lifted and normal diplomatic status - and gave up very little. (see this Council on Foreign Relationsinterview with Lisa Anderson, probably America's leading Libya expert). And, of course, the hole in the so-called Bush doctrine which his defenders never like to acknowledge: all of this came without any change in the undoubtedly repressive and dictatorial Libyan regime. No promises of democracy or even liberalization, no internal reform - in short, the kind of deal which, if made by a Clinton or Kerry, would have sent the Weekly Standard into months and months of hysterical screaming.

But now, if the Iraqi Minister of Defense is telling the truth (and really, as Dick Cheney reminds us, how can we question what they say when there is a war on?), then the Libyans haven't given up the rogue game after all. Nor do they seem particularly deterred or cowed by American power. Indeed, if the Iraqi Minister of Defense is telling the truth, the Libyans seem positively delighted by the opportunity to invest some of that cash gained from Bush's decision to lift the sanctions in funding an insurgency against the American occupation. Imagine that.

Now, like I said, I don't actually know if Libya is funding the insurgency or not. I don't much trust the pronouncements of the Iraqi "government" - how can I, when Iyad Allawi waltzes into Washington and gives a speech written by Dan Senor and openly campaigns for Bush's re-election? But others have argued that such suspicion are irresponsible, so I expect that they will want to explore these allegations... and take them wherever they might lead. Take it away, real journalists of the world!

Comments

[praktike]

You missed the best part of the Libya story -- Richard Armitage is on the record essentially saying that the Cheney story is a big fat lie.

[the aardvark]

got a link on that, praktike? happy to throw it up to the main post!

[Nur al-Cubicle]

Now you don't think al Sha'alan is upset about this, do you?

23:17 Qadaffi, “Iraqi resistance legitimate”. Libyan leader Muammar Qadaffi says resistance to the occupation is a legitimate right: “Resistance by the Iraqis to the occupation is a legal right, especially since the justification for the invasion has been shown to be false." [From Wednesday's edition of la "La Repubblica."]

If I recall correctly, Italy was quite heavily invested into Libya when Reagan insisted that Fiat and other Italian companies divest of their Libyan-owned shares. The Italians also had sold millions of dollars worth of earth-moving equipment (Allis Chalmers) to Libya for the Saharan underground water project and a pipeline supplying Italy when Washington forced Italy to abandon the projects in 1981.

Qadaffi just announced that Italian "pieds noirs" may return to Libya. A most suprising development. Looks like Berlusconi is crafting a very close and special relationship with Libya. Very clever if the Italians wind up with very significant Libyan oil contracts.

[Nur al-Cubicle]

But wait a minute...If Aznar got Carnivore..then Berlusconi got Bush to lift sanctions on Libya! Coalition of the bribed, indeed! Now what did Tony get? Hmmm.

[tex]

Is the Sha'alan in your post the same as this one?

Iraqi Defense Minister Hazim Shalan al-Khuza'i

http://www.rferl.org/featuresarticle/2004/07/1e8fc133-78d4-4120-84bd-ca08268b5d36.html

[praktike]

Sorry, I've been away. Here's one interview:

http://www.nni.nikkei.co.jp/FR/TNKS/TNKSHM/armitage.html

And here's another one:
-------------------------
QUESTION: Secretary Armitage, let me move to Libya. And here, people are -- some analysts consider that a lesson from the Iraq war for the U.S. is that no longer talking about regime change with Iran or Libya or even Syria. They are talking about behavior change, and that is the case of Libya, and mainly because of the -- what they was faced in Iraq that did not expect before?

DEPUTY SECRETARY ARMITAGE: No. First of all, Mr. Qadhafi made up his own mind to change the direction of Libya, based on a number of factors, and it wasn't simply the fact that the coalition had come to war in Iraq. It was more complicated than that, though, certainly, I don't think the fact that we were willing to go to war in Iraq was lost on the leadership of Libya.

We have never said that "one size fits all," and regime change was not necessarily our policy. Had Saddam Hussein simply lived up to the requirements of the UN Security Council resolutions, had he done that, he would still be in Baghdad.

So sometimes, you have to take a bold leadership role, as we did in Iraq. Other times, you can work diplomatically, as we're doing in North Korea, as we did with Libya, alongside our UK allies.
--------------------------------
http://www.usembassy.org.uk/iraq81.html