Rethinking Libya

In response to my post yesterday about the brutal murder of Libyan journalist Dhayf al-Ghazzal, almost certainly at the hands of Qaddafi's secret police, praktike writes that we shouldn't let such domestic issues override strategic interests.  For the murder of Dhayf al-Ghazzal, Qaddafi

should be criticized by Bush and Blair, who by standing up for brave opposition journalists working in dictatorships may encourage the State to think twice about provoking a reaction. I don't see a binary choice between having diplomatic relations and frank talk.

Fair enough.  Alas.... the State Department (the Secretary and the Daily Press Briefings) and the White House (the President and the Daily Press Briefings) have to this point said not a single word about it.   What do you call "diplomatic relations and frank talk" minus the "frank talk"?

I'm actually more in favor of engagement strategies than containment - I agree about Cuba, and several years ago I wrote about the futility of American unilateral sanctions on Iran - but such strategies only work when you actually put things like this on the table.   Otherwise you end up with exactly the Libya situation:  you give them what they want (ending their post-Lockerbie isolation, one of Libya's highest strategic priorities for years) in exchange for something of relatively little value (the moribund "nuclear program") without gaining any real leverage over things you value (minimal respect for human rights, political freedoms, maybe?). 

I think that Bush and Blair got snookered by Qaddafi in 2003 - he got what he wanted without giving up anything he really cared about. We gave up our main bargaining chip without getting to the core of Bush's own clearly articulated conception of America's national interest in exchange.  Remember that whole "it's not whether or not an evil leader currently has WMD, it's that you can't trust an evil leader with a record of trying to acquire WMD to not do so in the future" argument for why we had to overthrow Saddam? 

But that's the past.  Just because Bush messed up in 2003 doesn't mean that we have to continue rolling over and ignoring atrocities such as this.  So I think praktike and I agree here:  onwards with the frank talk and conditional engagement.

Plus, it just makes Arabs giggle - or cry - when we go on about the urgent need for Arab democracy while sipping tea with Moammmar Qaddafi. 

Comments

[Nur al-Cubicle]

It's Reagan's fault. He forced the international community to leave Tripoli (we Exxon folks) and the Snamprogetti people and the Total guys and our fabulous Underwater Club with bridge and tennis and our picnics at Sabratha. We interacted with the Libyans, our mechanics and our restauranteurs and our grocers and our Libyan Airlines and our chess club and the programmers we trained for the sake of the likes of Reagan's man Michael Ledeen's hatred of Arabs.

I often wonder how things would have transpired, if Libya's trajectory would have been different had we stayed. After we left all hell broke lose. Libyan disinvested from Allis Chalmers and Fiat, the water project stalled, the London Embassy incident, the useless Gulf of Sirte US military maneuvres and all manner of grief.