A Regime We Can Trust

How did the West get Qaddafi so wrong?

BY CAMERON ABADI | FEBRUARY 22, 2011

When Muammar al-Qaddafi assumed power in Libya in 1969 by means of a military coup d'état, he seemed intent on cultivating the status of international pariah: He banned all political opposition, loudly advocated sweeping Islamist ideologies that demanded the reordering of the international system, picked territorial fights with neighbors, and supported terrorists from the Irish Republican Army to the Palestine Liberation Organization. If his goal was to isolate himself and his country, Qaddafi was largely successful in his first three decades as head of state, even earning comprehensive U.N. economic sanctions.

But if Qaddafi never admitted the error of his ways, he eventually learned how to minimize the effect his erratic personality and repressive political inclinations had on his regime's pursuit of stable relations with the rest of the world. By the time Qaddafi renounced the pursuit of weapons of mass destruction in 2004, the international community was eager to begin patching up relations. Qaddafi made up for his years of solitude with a number of high-profile trips to Europe, as well as to the U.N. -- though the lingering effects of isolation expressed themselves in his sometimes bizarre behavior and statements. Once interpreted as signs of pathology, Qaddafi's eccentricities were redefined as mere personality quirks.

But now that Qaddafi's brutality has returned full force -- with his giving orders in recent days for indiscriminate attacks on protesters throughout Libya -- there are more than a few in the West who may wish they can forget these past several years' worth of photo ops.

British Prime Minister Tony Blair

Britain traditionally has had fraught relations with Qaddafi's regime: Not only was the 1988 Lockerbie bombing perpetrated on British territory, but in 1984 a London police officer was killed in St. James Square, apparently by Libyan Embassy personnel shooting into a crowd of protesters (though the subsequent investigation was forestalled by Tripoli's invocation of diplomatic immunity).

So it was particularly controversial in Britain when then-Prime Minister Tony Blair arranged to visit Qaddafi in February 2004, declaring, "It does not mean forgetting the pain of the past, but it does mean recognizing it's time to move on." In fact, Blair chose to make Libya's opening to the West -- and its continued domestic economic reform and international moderation -- a major priority of his foreign policy. In the weeks before the trip, he praised Qaddafi for giving up his nuclear weapons program and thanked him for contributing to the fight against Islamic terrorism.

The meeting in Tripoli, however, wasn't entirely focused on such lofty matters. Shortly after shaking hands with the Libyan leader on Feb. 24, Blair announced that the Anglo-Dutch oil company Shell had inked a deal for gas exploration rights off the Libyan coast worth $550 million. It was later revealed that Blair had personally lobbied the Libyan leader for the deal, using a letter drafted for him by Shell.

Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi

For much of his tenure, Qaddafi directed his ideological anti-colonial ire at Italy, Libya's colonial-era ruler. Shortly after the coup d'etat that brought Qaddafi to power, he unceremoniously ordered all Italians to leave Libyan territory. For the next several decades, the two countries had little to do with one another.

But after Silvio Berlusconi began his third non-consecutive term as prime minister in 2008, he realized he was going to need to reach out to Italy's former territory. Berlusconi had campaigned on a law-and-order agenda with a hard line on illegal immigration from North Africa. The most efficient fix was to enlist Libya's help.

Berlusconi convinced Qaddafi to look past old colonial grievances by means of a $5 billion reparations package, agreed upon in 2008. Qaddafi then flew to Rome in June 2009 to officially announce a deal to curb illegal immigration, allowing Italian patrols to return would-be migrants to Libyan ports. The visit was not without controversy. Qaddafi stepped off his airplane in Rome with a photo pinned to his chest of Omar Mukhtar, a Libyan resistance leader who was hanged by Italian colonialists in 1931. The Libyan leader also demanded that the Italian government arrange an event at which he could proselytize the virtues of Islam to a group of 1,000 Italian women. Finally, in discussing the immigration deal with the Italian press, Qaddafi made confusing and racially controversial remarks suggesting that African migrants to Europe had no intention of applying for asylum.

"The Africans do not have problems of political asylum," Qaddafi said. "People who live in the bush, and often in the desert, don't have political problems. They don't have oppositions or majorities or elections."

Economic ties between Italy and Libya have also been strengthened in recent years -- Italy imports 20 percent of its oil from Libya, and Italian energy companies have invested heavily in Libyan infrastructure -- but Berlusconi has proved unable or unwilling to apply political leverage against Qaddafi during the recent turmoil, saying that he has not wanted to "disturb" the Libyan leader during the crisis.

French President Nicolas Sarkozy

Nicolas Sarkozy took office promising to revise France's traditional Gaullist disregard for human rights diplomacy, and he stocked his diplomatic ranks with officials with strong moral streaks. This just meant that no one in his government was happy when the president decided to apply classic French realpolitik in the case of Libya.

In the summer of 2009, Sarkozy was burnishing his reputation as an international statesman by involving himself in the final negotiations with Qaddafi to release eight Bulgarian nurses that the Libyan regime had imprisoned on charges of deliberately infecting 438 children with the HIV virus.

Later that year, in December, Sarkozy's resident moralists were furious after their boss invited Qaddafi on a lavish five-day visit to France -- one that began on "International Human Rights Day." Sarkozy's secretary of state for human rights fumed that Sarkozy threatened to make France a "doormat" where the Libyan leader "can come to wipe off the blood of his crimes." Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner signaled his distaste for the visit, saying, "I am resigned to hosting him. It was necessary."

Sarkozy defended himself by arguing that Qaddafi needed to be rewarded for his recent gestures toward the West. He also made a point of advertising $10 billion worth of investment deals that French companies signed with the Libyan government during the trip. But Sarkozy also went so far as to claim that Qaddafi was not considered a dictator in the Arab world, using his tenacious grip on power as evidence. "He is the longest-serving head of state in the region, and in the Arab world, that counts," Sarkozy told the magazine Nouvel Observateur.

Richard Perle

When the United States lifted its sanctions against Libya in 2004, lobbying firms across the country began sizing up business opportunities. It couldn't be denied that Libya's image in the United States was in need of polish. After decades of support for international terrorists, Qaddafi's Libya had become synonymous with disregard for international law -- the archetypal rogue regime. The Libyan government quickly hired firms like Fahmy Hudome International and the Livingston Group to work on its behalf in Washington, though those business relationships have since been terminated.

But according to a report published Monday Feb. 22 in Politico, the Monitor Group, a Boston-based consulting firm, continues to be paid $3 million per year to, in the firm's own words, "introduce and bring to Libya a meticulously selected group of independent and objective experts" who could portray Libya in a better light. Among those who worked for the Monitor Group in this capacity was Richard Perle, a prominent conservative defense official who worked in George W. Bush's administration as chairman of the Defense Policy Board. Politico reports that Perle traveled to Libya twice in 2006 to meet with Qaddafi and "afterward briefed Vice President Dick Cheney."

Politico quotes a 2007 report from the Monitor Group that claims the firm "continues to advocate on Libya's behalf with a range of leading individuals" and "various agencies of the United States government." The report cites a 2007 memo from the Monitor Group that lists among the participants in the Libya program prominent academics Francis Fukuyama and Bernard Lewis, and MIT faculty member Nicholas Negroponte, brother of former deputy secretary of state and director of national intelligence John Negroponte.

Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez

Qaddafi's rambling 2009 speech to the U.N. General Assembly, in which he branded the Security Council a "terror council" and insinuated that the U.S. government was behind both 9/11 and swine flu, may have confused and annoyed most of the international community, but it won him a fan in the Venezuelan president, who praised the Libyan leader in his own address and invited him to a summit that month on the Venezuelan island of Margarita, calling him "one of the great leaders of this century." At the powwow, which also featured an appearance from Zimbabwe's pariah president, Robert Mugabe, the two leaders proposed a new international definition of the word "terrorism" and called for a South Atlantic alternative to NATO.

Chávez presented Qaddafi with Venezuela's highest civilian honor -- the order of the liberator -- and gave him a replica of Simon Bolivar's sword. The sword wasn't the only bling Qaddafi brought home from his first ever trip to Latin America: He spent much of his time at the summit shopping for digital cameras and jewelry and posing for pictures with tourists. (He picked up a silver suit of armor for his host.)

Chávez also paid a visit to Libya that year, when he was the guest of honor at a military parade and had a soccer stadium named in his honor. One year later, he visited again to receive an honorary degree from Tripoli's Academy of Higher Education. The third annual Africa-South America Summit was also due to be held in Libya later this year.

Qaddafi's generosity has come in handy for Chávez. Last December, when he invited 25 families dislocated by floods to stay in his presidential palace, he temporarily moved into a Bedouin tent that his new friend had given him as a gift.

During the current unrest, British Foreign Secretary William Hague suggested that Qaddafi might have fled to Venezuela. Venezuelan authorities denied the reports, and Qaddafi has since appeared on television from Libya. Chávez has remained quiet during Qaddafi's recent troubles, but his fellow Latin American leftist leader and friend of Libya, Daniel Ortega of Nicaragua, has waded right into the controversy, saying that Libya's leader "is again waging a great battle" to defend his nation.

 SUBJECTS: DIPLOMACY, MIDDLE EAST
 

Cameron Abadi is an associate editor of Foreign Policy.

KEVINSD

11:33 PM ET

February 22, 2011

You can't wake someone who is not asleep

I don't get the author's point. From the Wikileaks disclosures to the investigation into Scotland's freeing of al-Megrahi, everything we've learned suggests that the West's grasp of Qaddaffi and his regime was quite keen. Unfortunately, we've also learned that when their own self-interest is involved we can't many of our foreign policy and corporate elites to do the right thing. One can't put the planners of the Lockerbee murders on the same level as those who would set murderers free so they could get some juicy contracts, I'll grant you, but both should shock the conscience.

 

LEARNFROMHISTORYUSA

2:43 AM ET

February 23, 2011

His son's names explain the entire human crisis in the mid east

Nothing has changed in Libya, and the Colonel sure hasn't. He's just showing his true colors. He said he wants to die a martyr, this is an enormous event in history where a leader of a nation wants to die a martyr. This is the absolute worst scenario that he was able to utter them senseless evil words out of his mouth, the future could have multiple leaders saying those exact words. i.e. Syria, Iran, or any other radical muslim dictator. The middle east and Islam in general has been a bomb waiting to explode. It is like an uncontrollable wildfire set ablaze. When is the line going to be drawn in the sand where enough is enough? If the last 20 years tells us anything we better extinguish or defuse this horrific situation now. If not we risk fighting a 50 year war...This is a religious war believe it or not. We better be planning some major strategic shifts now before it's too late...Things are changing over night these day's we cannot afford to keep believing we can appease or negotiate with Islam. If this Libyan massacre doesn't show the true colors of this disease I don't know what will.

 

JUAN67

7:59 PM ET

February 23, 2011

@LEARNFROMHISTORY

@LEARNFROMHISTORY, it seems that you know a little about Libya, I lived there for many years and I know 4 sure that Islam has nothing to do with this mad dog's defiance. He simply has no where to go, he knows that he is dead at the end of this anyway , so he chose a stand which he thinks will give him a honorable death, he is trying to bring the West to the fight so he dies fighting his eternal enemy, he cares so much about what history will tell on him and he genuinely believes that he is a great man who could effect the whole world.

 

WS

11:51 PM ET

February 22, 2011

The West misjudged the Arab masses, not their dictators

The governments of the West have always espoused democratic values while making deals with dictators when it served their geopolitical interests. There is nothing new in this. It may be embarrassing, at this historic moment, to see the video on Aljezeera of Blair so warmly embracing Qaddafi on his visit to Libya. But he had good reason to seek a rapprochement. Blair was looking for oil deals and the ruthless support of Qaddafi in 'the war on terror'.

It was well known among Western intelligence that Qaddafi was absolutely ruthless in suppressing opposition within Libya. Western leaders didn't misjudge the man. Their calculus was simply that it didn't matter. The Arab masses were grumblers but they would never rise up against their rulers. Dictators like Qadaffi -- in power for 40 years -- appeared to be durable. Their brutal control was well managed and largely hidden from sight. In the West, we looked the other way while filling up our SUVs. The suffering of the Arab people under brutal dictators was regrettable, but it didn't really matter in the larger scheme of things. Blair could fulminate against Saddam for gassing the Kurds, and use this to justify joining the US invasion of Iraq, while embracing Qadaffi. Did he imagine that Qaddafi was incapable of resorting to mass murder to suppress an uprising of his people -- as Saddam had done? Not if he was reading British intelligence reports. He just never imagined it would be necessary on a mass scale.

What the West 'got wrong' was the Arab masses, especially the youth. It is their courageous struggles for democracy that have revealed the West's hypocricy -- trumpeting democratic values while propping up repressive rulers. Now they are toppling, and Western leaders are "shocked" -- as if they didn't really know what these regimes were capable of.

 

BEINGTHERE

8:31 AM ET

February 24, 2011

Reagan and Thatcher did not get Qadaffi wrong ...

The U.S. forgets lessons it supposedly has learned in its relatively short history about "strong men." Dictators - most of them sociopaths at the least - don't change their strategies of oppression. Take Karzai ....

Intellectuals at Foreign Policy must keep reminding us why the U.S. is in Afghanistan, other than to support a strong man and his corruption. Of course, there is something in it for the already-rich contractors, and it does involve Bob Gates' legacy and an upward path for David Petraeus' brilliant career. Wait ... this was about dictators and their keeping on doing what they know, year after year after year, often with help from democracies ...

 

ROMANIX

5:45 PM ET

February 24, 2011

Learn from the Arab masses

>> WS: What the West 'got wrong' was the Arab masses, especially the youth.

Maybe the West learns something from those masses and rebels against the dominance of multi-national companies. Well, it's unlikely, but who knows...

 

PFOLLERS

1:55 PM ET

February 27, 2011

The middle east and Islam in

The middle east and Islam in general has been a bomb waiting to explode. It is like an uncontrollable wildfire set ablaze. When is the line going to be drawn in the sand where enough is enough? If the last 20 years tells us anything we better extinguish or defuse this horrific situation now. If not we risk fighting a 50 year war...This is a religious war believe it or not. We better be planning some major strategic shifts now before it's too late...Things are changing over night these day's we cannot afford to keep believing we can appease or negotiate with Islam. If this Libyan massacre doesn't show the true colors of this disease I don't know what will.

 

HAGELADUKI

9:26 AM ET

February 28, 2011

The human crisis is going to the world

Nothing has changed in Libya, and the Colonel Calories in a Banana sure hasn't. Just like Karzai and his brothers were always GHW Bushes toadies.