Rice: "Lybia is an important model"

Back to the future all over again. Another of "our nice sweet dictators"?

"Either you're with us or against us."

I guess Khaddafy is with us now...

I thought this was exactly the kind of diplomacy you say we need more of.

I thought wanted more diplomacy and less force.
Now,we have a serious diplomatic move,and you are complaining about it.

Exactly what do you want?

We want another regime change.

In Libya?

Yes. We have Khaddafy right where we want him. They'll be honoring our troops with flowers and sweets in Tripoli...

Excellent article in the New Yorker by Andrew Solomon about Libya in the May 8th issue... hmph, can't find it online.

This has some of it:

http://www.newyorker.com/printables/press/060508pr_press_releases

Really excellent and textured article.

Qaddafi is a crazy dictator but has some genuinely not-bad aspects to him, and one surprising thing from the article is that some of the terrorism laid at his feet may not have actually been his fault (Lockerbie, especially). He's definitely a baddie, though.

It sounds like there is some hope (some) that Seif, his son, will turn out to be some kind of an actual reformer.

It's so tricky because he's anti-Islamic fundamentalist and anti-terrorist especially when it suits him, and it makes sense that such things should be acknowledged. We (the U.S.) need to be careful not to go over the top, though, as I think Rice did in those statements.

Just finished the article last night soz...I think we're doing the right thing....in moderation.

I guess you're right, to some degree ...

My heart always goes more out to the destabilise-in-any-way-possible-short-of-war tack .. that is: dont go to war, but fight them in every other way possible. Dont support them, in any case.

But I guess, just like the option of war should be there as an ultimate resort, on the other end of the scale, wheeling and dealing with the petty dictators also has to be part of your toolkit, if it can effect change...

But it's a fine line to tread. Diplomacy to avoid war is good. But actually embracing dictators like they're some kind of ally - what Deb said, the whole "he's a son of a bitch but he's our son of a bitch" line of thinking - that kind of realpolitik has been disastrous in the past.

Not just does it have you supporting petty tyrants, it's also short-sighted. "Our son of a bitch" of today will tomorrow turn against you and, say, shelter the 9/11 terrorists (Mujahedeen anyone?). Better oppose sons of bitches from the start - as a matter of principle.

I dont know. You put it like its all or nothing - we dont want war so we should be happy with this cosying up ... but ... I think it should be neither.

I realise Rice had to make some kind of encouraging move to encourage Khadafy to really stay away from funding violent groups abroad ... but like Soz, judging on these quotes, I think she went too far.

Faced with what is still one of the world's harshest dictatorships, you should never say it "conforms to international norms of behaviour" without at the same time pointing out where it doesn't. Otherwise it's like tacitly saying, "we dont mind so much about what you do in your own country".

I dunno.

I am also for diplomacy, and applaud Libya's efforts.

I can understand why Rice is propping Libya up as a model, though, nimh; they don't care about the human rights abuses. All they care about is terrorism.

Hell, they applaud human rights abuses - when it gets us the intelligence we need to fight terrorism.

Cycloptichorn

All in all, it still amounts to realpolitik, kinder, gentler realpolitik, but realpolitik nonetheless.

Is it really avoidable, though?

I too have to wonder what will please some of you folks.

I must say though nimh that at least you have acknowledged the possibility of contradictory arguments.

It does seem to me, however, that this do everything possible to the bastards short of war position is not much more than a fallback once caught in a contradiction.

Economic sanctions, as respects Iraq, were short of war and yet they were decried by the Left.

Withholding funding is well short of war, as respects Hamas in Palestine, and yet The Left finds fault with this approach: "Be careful of what you ask for," they scold, "you encouraged democracy and now you must live with its consequences."

In a dizzying feat of hypocrisy, The Left has criticized multi-lateral negotiations with the North Koreans ---obviously well short of war.

It's difficult to see how Bush & Co can do anything right in some people's regard.

I feel fairly confident that if the US went whole hog in financing and supporting the Iranian opposition we would hear The Left caterwauling over our temerity for interfering with a sovereign nation. After all, there is no shortage of voices on The Left lecturing us that the most recent Iranian elections were actually free and democratic.

So let me see if I understand this notion of foreign policy:

Don't wield a stick that might steer despots to the carrot.

Do provide despots with a carrot rather than beating them over the head with a stick.

When they grab the carrot and agree to our wishes, do all we can to foment internal revolution.

Now that's clever policy. None of the other despots in the world would pay attention to Libya and we could catch them napping too!

And those that sneer at this example of real politik, please tell us what you would have had the nation do in regards to Libya. Frown harshly at Khadafy and not invite him to your next Katrina Victims Benefit?

libya
the development in the relations between libya and western nations started some time ago . both oil and LNG can be found in libya .
i also read that libya has some of the choice light oil available .

tony blair visited the colonel in 2004 . at that time SHELL OIL was ready to restart oil exploration in libya , apparently the cost of extraction is very reasonable in libya (cheap a better word ?).
there are a lot of artcles to be found dealing with libyan oil online

from REUTERS news report :

"Libya produces about 1.6 million barrels per day of crude oil, which puts it toward the rear of the pack of OPEC's 10 members. Led by the one-time U.S. antagonist Muammar Gaddafi, Libya badly needs foreign investment in its energy industry, estimated at about $30 billion. Libya has not pumped above 2 million bpd of oil since the 1979 oil price shocks.


The lifting of sanctions will make it easier for U.S. companies to ship in high-tech gear that could breathe new life into Libya's fields, many of which have languished from two decades of underinvestment and neglect.

So-called enhanced oil recovery projects on existing fields are one of international majors' best chances to play a role in boosting Libya's capacity in the near term, experts said.

"The quickest return we are likely to see is the acceleration of negotiations on enhanced oil recovery from Libyan oil fields which can bring new supplies to the market in the next two or three years," said David Goldwyn, an energy consultant and former government official.

"The normalization (of diplomatic relations) will mean that the export of these enhanced recovery technologies ... should happen," echoed Charles Esser, an analyst at the U.S. Energy Information Administration. "

...FULL REUTERS REPORT...

Re: libya


Yep - It's all about oil. They call that a One Trick Pony.

Was there some doubt in someone's mind that it's all about oil?

Lybia has lots and lots of it. This has nothing whatever to do with Qadaffi's change of heart or alleged stand against terrorism. I'll bet King Fahd, in his palace at Rhyad, is a little bit worried right now. And our oil-producing friends in the Emirates, too.

Realpolitik? In spades!

Ride that pony Merry!

You quite deftly showcase what the problem is with perceiving the world entirely in terms of neatly preconceived notions of what your side versus "the Left" thinks.

In reality, of course, there are many differing views among the left, as there are among the right - especially when it comes to foreign policy views.

In casu: you pretend to address my personal POV that my feelings mostly go out to a "do-everything-but-short-of-war" approach.

You then pretend to address that POV by launching into a tirade about what "the Left" thinks and wants.

Problem: leftists, much like rightwingers, differ in opinion on Iraq sanctions, the Afghan war, policy re: Hamas, etc.

To use the argument that, if my view doesn't align with that of all the other arguments you've lined up as being that of "the Left", somehow either I or the Left is thus being "contradictory" or even hypocritical, is rather transparently bullshit.

Its like as if, when I hear you say that you are for intervention in Sudan, I respond by LOL that but well, "the Right" is "always going on" about only sending our soldiers when national interest is at stake; about how we shouldnt be doing "nation-building"; about how other continents should solve their own problems once in a while, why should it always be the US to have its soldiers dying? Let France do it, or the UN! - Yet now look at what you are saying! See how hypocritical "The Right" is?!

See the problem with that argument? Its a nice way to storm up some gratifyingly partisan moral indignation, but it wouldnt, of course, prove zilch.

So, for the record:

-> No, I am not among those who decried the sanctions against Iraq
-> No, I am not among those who disagree with withholding funds from the Hamas government
-> I am undecided about multilateral vs bilateral talks with North-Korea

There's a less conceptual, major problem with your post as well, of course.

It might ill serve your cherished enemy image, but there are lots of mainstream leftists and leftwing parties who supported the sanctions against Iraq. In fact, as "reporter from Europe", I'll note that the fiery repudations of said sanctions came from specific groups (communists, far-left socialists, some of the greens) but were not shared by the mainstream left (social-democrats, other greens, left-liberals).

In that regard, when ranting on about "the left", you're whistling in the wind.

The example of Iran is perfect in this regard. Supporting the Iranian opposition, as necessary alternative to arms-rattling, is of course exactly what leftwing human rights activists have been proponing and demanding.

In the Left (in Europe at least), there are basically two currents of political instinct. There's the isolationist one mostly championed by populist socialist and communist groups, and there is the human rights-centered interventionism mostly championed by greens and social-democrats (that's a rough division, there are divisions among each group as well).

The latter groups is, of course, far larger - which is what makes your rant about "the Left" so out of whack.

What distinguishes the human-rights intervenionist strand from right-wing intervenionism, in turn, is of course exactly its hammering on a consistently strict diplomatic line against dictatorships, and a consistent support to independent civil society instead.

Dont cuddle the one dictatorship and bomb the other based on political opportunism. Sail a straight course on each: do everything possible to isolate and oppose them, short of war.

Supporting human rights activists from the country, supporting free media and citizens groups, empowering exile groups, etc are all pretty much standard pieces of this line.

It is exactly what the various programs of George Soros - surely another of your "leftwing" bogeymen - do, year in, year out, with rather massive flows of money.

So much for your point about Iran.

Now you call the everything-possible-except-war line "not much more than a fallback once caught in a contradiction".

But to me it seems a hell of a lot less contradictory a position than bombing Saddam but embracing Khadafy; threatening Iran but funding Uzbekistan (as the US did until quite recently); lambasting Chavez but ignoring Burma; et cetera, et cetera; a tradition of opportunism that goes a long way back in conservative foreign policy.

Now, regarding contradictions, Finn.

In the Sudan thread, you decried my use of the statistics of death as criterium for when to intervene or not.

I proposed that a massive slaughter going on in Sudan right now does constitute reason for a intervention, whereas, considering you cant invade all dozen brutal dictatorships in the world, a comparable massive slaughter in Iraq that took place two decades ago and had since been mostly stopped, doesn't.

You railed against this attempt to set a criterion for when to intervene as "an argument in which the deaths of humans are merely statistics, tied to time frames"; as "tortured beyond belief" a distinction, in fact.

Curtly, you wrote, "Either you want to stop power-mad schmucks from killing innocents or you do not"! "If you are able to frame an ideological reason for intervening in one crisis but not another, then you are a despicable breed of intellectual."

Now, I'm curious.

Khadafy is, quite obviously, a "power-mad schmuck" as well.

Are you in favour of military intervention against Lybia? Or do you rather approve of Rice's praise for the schmuck in question, instead?

Khadafi, too, is responsible for the torture and death of thousands - especially if, taking your example on Iraq, you count the whole 37 years he's been in power (it would be "tortured" a distinction to "tie time frames" into the question, after all).

Why not intervene in this case?

What about Syria?

The Assads are truly power-mad schmucks. Plus, just like the Saddam regime, the Assad regime did murderously attack an entire population of his country in the 80s, bombing, besieging and using poison gas against the city of Hama; 10,000-25,000 people died within days.

Wouldn't identifying some reason for intervening in Iraq and Darfur, but not Lybia or Syria make you "a despicable breed of intellectual"?

This could be my signature line, in fact.