Maine Owl

Libya energy reserves on the table

Libya has 40 gigabarrels oil reserves, excellent stores of natural gas, and along with Iraq is among the few countries in the world with the potential for substantially increasing production. Some weeks ago it was reported that the Russians had been wooing Qaddafi:

Gazprom seeks to buy all of Libya's oil, gas exports
Russia's state-controlled gas giant seeks to expand presence in North Africa; By Polya Lesova, MarketWatch; Last update: 1:46 p.m. EDT July 10, 2008

NEW YORK (MarketWatch) -- Russia's state-controlled energy giant Gazprom is in negotiations to buy Libya's total export volume of gas, oil and liquefied natural gas at competitive prices, according to a statement Wednesday on Gazprom's Web site.

The news follows a meeting between Gazprom's CEO Alexei Miller and Libya's leader Moammar Gadhafi. Libya and Gazprom decided "to initiate the thematic negotiations on the purchase of the currently available hydrocarbon volumes from the Libyan party," said in a statement.

The two sides also agreed to establish a joint venture aimed at upgrading Libya's existing oil refining capacities and constructing new ones.

No wonder U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice had the highest-level diplomatic meeting a U.S. official has had with that same Qaddafi, as reported in newspapers today, including in an AP release in the Bangor Daily News and this New York Times story:

Isolation Over, Libyan Leader Meets With Rice
By HELENE COOPER

TRIPOLI, Libya ? For the first time in more than half a century, a sitting American secretary of state is in Libya. Condoleezza Rice arrived here on Friday to meet with the man whom Ronald Reagan famously called the "mad dog of the Middle East."

But that was then. Ms. Rice, after waiting at the Corinthia Bab Africa Hotel here for an hour as the Ramadan sun set, finally got word that Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi was ready to receive her at his Bab al Azizia residence ? the same compound bombed by American airstrikes in 1986 during the height of tensions with Libya.

Amid a swarm of cameras and reporters, she walked into the receiving room where Mr. Qaddafi, clad in a long, flowing white robe, purple and gold sash, and a green Africa brooch, stood waiting to greet her.

He didn?t shake her hand; instead, he put his hand against his heart in a gesture that North African men often use to greet women, then motioned for her to take a seat. It was a very different Libyan leader, in the eyes of Ms. Rice and the Bush administration, from the man who had bedeviled six American presidents over the past four decades.

Evidently despite the cultural misogyny, Qaddafi is a fan of Secretary Rice,

Qaddafi (to Al Jazeera last year): I support my darling black African woman. I admire and am very proud of the way she leans back and gives orders to the Arab leaders. ... Yes, Leezza, Leezza, Leezza... I love her very much.

The policy turn-around with respect to Libya is of course head scrambling. The fact that Rice had to claim the meeting was not just about energy (see also, THIS Bloomberg item) means that it was nearly 100% about energy and heading off the Russians.

It's interesting to go back twenty-two years and review the Reagan-era demonization of Libya and Qaddafi. The Reagan "mad dog" quote widely mentioned today was actually given in response to a question by Helen Thomas at an April 9, 1986 news conference. Here is the full exchange. Does not Reagan's verbiage have the familiar ring of justification for use of U.S. power against perceived Islamic threats despite the foreseeable loss of innocent life?

Libya and Terrorism

Q. Mr. President, do you have any solid evidence that Qadhafi is responsible for the recent acts of terrorism? And if you are contemplating major retaliation, won't you be killing a lot of innocent people? I'd like to follow up.

The President. Helen, we have considerable evidence, over quite a long period of time, that Qadhafi has been quite outspoken about his participation in urging on and supporting terrorist acts -- a kind of warfare, as he has called it. Right now, however, I can't answer you specifically on this other, because we're continuing with our intelligence work and gathering evidence on these most recent attacks, and we're not ready yet to speak on that. And any action that we might take would be dependent on what we learn. And so, I can't go further.

Q. Mr. President, I know you must have given it a lot of thought, but what do you think is the real reason that Americans are the prime target of terrorism? Could it be our policies?

The President. Well, we know that this mad dog of the Middle East has a goal of a world revolution, Moslem fundamentalist revolution, which is targeted on many of his own Arab compatriots. And where we figure in that, I don't know. Maybe we're just the enemy because -- it's a little like climbing Mount Everest -- because we're here. But there's no question but that he has singled us out more and more for attack, and we're aware of that. As I say, we're gathering evidence as fast as we can.

Five days later, on April 14, 1986, U.S. bombs rained down on Qaddafi's compound, the very one just visited by Rice, killing scores of civilians, including infants.

Five years ago when the Bush Administration first initiated policy reversal and rapprochement with Libya, I wrote a long piece for the old blog. Amazingly most of the links are still working there, and I reproduce it below. I think my work on this is quite an interesting contribution to placing U.S. policy toward both Iraq and Libya in the proper context. The main thrust of the piece is that the new Libya policy unveiled in late 2003 constituted a flip-flop of demons, where Saddam Hussein had occupied the role of favored dictator in 1986 and demon in 2003--an exact reversal of roles.

The tale that usually is told is that Qaddafi was cowed into giving up his weapons programs because he felt the pressure of what the U.S. had done in Iraq. Maybe, but that I believe is a minor part of the story that had the unintended consequence of providing to the public a view of the A. Q. Kahn WMD network out of Pakistan. The major part of the story is economic. Qaddafi needs outside investment, and international oil companies need tappable reserves. This was not unlike the situation with Iraq in 1986 when the Iraqgate commerce with Saddam ramped up, despite his use of chemical weapons. See below for the full story.

Libya-Iraq panic button flip-flop
Tuesday, 23 December 2003

With the homeland security alert raised to the ethereal orange state for the holidays after President Bush's surprising Libya announcement, this is a good time to review the almost comical meanderings of the foreign policy panic button. Thinking about it too much really can make the head swim.

The context of President Bush's December 19 announcement that a sort of rapprochement has been reached with the leader of Libya, Colonel Mu'ammar al-Qadhafi, is on the surface strange indeed. The Libyan leader, sometimes accurately called a "strongman" in the US press, was referred to by former President Ronald Reagan as a "subversive" who is "not only an enemy of the United States", but also has a "record of subversion and aggression against the neighboring States in Africa". Qadhafi 's support for an April 5, 1986 bombing at the La Belle discotheque in Berlin, an act that killed two American servicepersons, constituted "monstrous brutality [that] is but the latest act in Colonel Qadhafi 's reign of terror." President Reagan used this demonization to justify an April 14, 1986 bombing raid on Tripoli intended to kill the strongman. Qadhafi escaped, but his one-month old daughter was killed in the American attack. Now the subversive is being welcomed back into camp America.

Supposedly, Libya's weapons of mass destruction programs will be curtailed in the deal. Obviously, these weapons are of little or no importance to either Qadhafi or the United States. Steve Gilliard goes right to the heart of the matter:

"Gaddafi isn't stupid. While the Marines weren't going to repeat the Shores of Tripoli, he looked around the world and realized that he could do more with oil money and modern production equipment than some canisters of mustard gas. He knew the American-equipped Egyptian Army would blow his collection of Soviet, Cold War relics which is now his army. And while everyone is patting themselves on the back and saying "oooh, Libya isn't a threat [anymore]", they miss the great switch Qadhafi made. By playing the WMD card, Libya can expect to receive billions of investment from Big Oil." (Monday, December 22, 2003, The Libyan Scam)

While I never believed President Reagan had a right to go bombing in Libya, he certainly had a point about Qadhafi's brutality. In a recent Amnesty International report on the human rights situation in Libya, it is clear that the record is not good.

"Approximately 65 political prisoners, including five prisoners of conscience detained since 1973, were released. Hundreds of others reportedly remained in prison. Families of dozens of prisoners were informed by the authorities that their relatives had died in prison, but were not told the date or cause of death. Several cases of 'disappearance' were still not clarified. Two possible prisoners of conscience were sentenced to death. Reports of torture continued to be received; no investigations were known to have been carried out. Legislation remained in force criminalizing non-violent political activities and providing for unfair trials".

The US State Department's own recent website article on Libya interestingly soft-peddles the human rights situation. It does get around to raising some serious issues, but only from about ten years ago. And Qadhafi's "anti-islamic" policy (Qadhafi is a mortal enemy of Osama bin Laden) puts him in good company, in US eyes, along with another strongman, Uzbekistan's Islam Karimov.

The State Department site says, "In the late 1980s, Qadhafi began to pursue an anti-Islamic fundamentalist policy domestically, viewing fundamentalism as a potential rallying point for opponents of the regime. Ministerial positions and military commanders are frequently shuffled or placed under temporary house arrest to diffuse potential threats to Qadhafi's authority.

"Despite these measures, internal dissent continues. Qadhafi's security forces launched a pre-emptive strike at alleged coup plotters in the military and among the Warfallah tribe in October 1993. Widespread arrests and government reshufflings followed, accompanied by public "confessions" from regime opponents and allegations of torture and executions. The military, once Qadhafi's strongest supporters, became a potential threat in the 1990's. In 1993, following a failed coup attempt that implicated senior military officers, Qadhafi began to purge the military periodically, eliminating potential rivals and inserting his own loyal followers in their place".

With respect to terrorism, the most troubling issue has been Libya's involvement in the December 21, 1988 downing of Pan Am Flight 103. This is a very complex story, well explained in a penetrating 2000 American Radio Works documentary. A Scottish court entered a guilty verdict against one Libyan agent in 2002 while acquitting another.

The State Department now says, "Libya refused to comply with any of its UNSCR requirements on Pan Am 103 until 1999, when it turned over two suspects for trial by a Scottish court in the Netherlands. UN sanctions were subsequently suspended. UN sanctions were lifted on September 12, 2003 after Libya fulfilled all remaining UNSCR requirements, including acceptance of responsibility for the actions of its officials and payment of appropriate compensation to the victims' families. US sanctions remain in force".

The president did not mention the Pan Am 103 crash or the families of those who died on December 19, leaving some of them bewildered or upset. According to a December 20 Baltimore Sun dispatch, "Susan Cohen, whose daughter was killed when a bomb exploded as the jetliner flew above Lockerbie, Scotland, on Dec. 21, 1988, said she was disturbed by Bush's omission and by the agreement.

" 'It was a total betrayal'. Cohen said. Gadhafi 'blew up a plane. God knows, if this can happen, Osama bin Laden can come back'. "

In recent months, it is former Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein who has been invaded, deposed, and captured for being untrustworthy, deceitful, and a murderous tyrant. With respect to Libya, however, President Bush's December 19 announcement did not say the words "freedom", "democracy", or anything thing else about how he expects the political conditions within Libya to evolve, other than that relations with the United States in the past have been "troubled".

The president said, "As Libya becomes a more peaceful nation, it can be a source of stability in Africa and the Middle East".

Stability, he says, not freedom, not democracy. This is code -- a strong signal. In 2004, it looks like Libya, with the subversive Qadhafi in charge, will be open for business despite human rights abuses. Meanwhile Saddam Hussein will stand trial for his crimes against humanity.

Upside down in '86
On January 7, 1986, following terrorist shootings at airports in Rome and Vienna, President Reagan pushed the Libya panic button. His letter to Congress laid out a decision to declare a "national emergency" based on section 204(b) of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. In effect, this declaration prohibits purchases and imports from and exports to Libya; bans U.S.-Libya maritime and aviation relations; bans trade in services relating to projects in Libya; bans credits or loans or the transfer of anything of value to Libya or its nationals; and prohibits transactions relating to travel by Americans to or in Libya.

President Reagan wrote, "I have authorized these steps in response to the emergency situation created by international terrorism, in this instance the actions and policies of the Government of Libya. Its use and support of terrorism against the United States, other countries, and innocent persons violate international law and minimum standards of human behavior. These Libyan actions and policies constitute a threat to the security of the United States as well as the international community. Our Nation's security includes the security of its citizens and their right freely to go about their lives at home and abroad. Libyan use of and support for terrorism also constitute a threat to the vital foreign policy interests of the United States and of all other states dedicated to international peace and security".

Later, in April 1986 following the Tripoli bombing raid, President Reagan told the country, "Before Qadhafi seized power in 1969, the people of Libya had been friends of the United States. And I'm sure that today most Libyans are ashamed and disgusted that this man has made their country a synonym for barbarism around the world. The Libyan people are a decent people caught in the grip of a tyrant".

This state of emergency with respect to Libya declared in 1986 remains in effect to this day. [Ed. note: The State of Emergency and terrorist state designation were not fully lifted until 2006, twenty years after the fact.] According to President Bush, in his required renewal letter on January 3, 2003, "The crisis between the United States and Libya that led to the declaration on January 7, 1986, of a national emergency has not been resolved". (Perhaps the recent announcement will lead to lifting of these sanctions.)

How was Saddam Hussein being handled at exactly the same time the Libya situation was being declared a "national emergency" ?? SADDAM'S USE OF CHEMICAL WEAPONS AGAINST IRAN WAS KNOWN, QUIETLY OBJECTED TO, BUT IN EFFECT IGNORED by US policymakers. The US-Iraq business relationship was simply more important than death of thousands through Saddam's poison gas.

A new release of relevant documents from the National Security Archive concerning a March 1984 trip to Iraq and meeting with high officials, including Saddam, conducted by special envoy Donald Rumsfeld offers sharp insights on the policy. Two years prior to the Libya emergency, a pre-trip briefing was given to Rumsfeld's party.

In the cable to Rumsfeld, it was written that US Secretary of State George Shultz and Undersecretary Laurence Eagleburger had tried to reassure Iraq's Undersecretary of Foreign Affairs Ismet Kittani that they wanted to keep the relationship on track.

According to the March 24, 1984 briefing document, "They clarified that our CW (chemical weapons) condemnation was made strictly out of our strong opposition to the use of lethal and incapacitating CW, wherever it occurs",

"They emphasised that our interests in (1) preventing an Iranian victory and (2) continuing to improve bilateral relations with Iraq, at a pace of Iraq's choosing, remain undiminished."

The document goes on to discuss the shaky creditworthiness of Iraq with respect to the Bechtel Corporation's proposed Aqaba Pipeline, a project in which Shultz had an interest as a former Bechtel high executive.

Fast forward two years--In March 1986, at exactly the time Libya had become a "national emergency", the United States quietly prevented the United Nations Security Council from passing a resolution condemning Iraq's use of chemical arms after the loss of hundreds of thousands of lives in the grizzly Iran-Iraq war. Toothless UNSCR 522 passed on February 24, 1986. But when it came time for specific condemnation of Iraq, the US balked.

Nathaniel Hurd and Glen Rangwala tell the story at the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq website.

"The Security Council could only condemn Iraq by name for using chemical weapons through non-binding Presidential statements, over which permanent members of the Security Council do not have an individual veto. On 21 March 1986, the Security Council President, making a 'declaration' and 'speaking on behalf of the Security Council', stated that the Council members are 'profoundly concerned by the unanimous conclusion of the specialists that chemical weapons on many occasions have been used by Iraqi forces against Iranian troops...[and] the members of the Council strongly condemn this continued use of chemical weapons in clear violation of the Geneva Protocol of 1925 which prohibits the use in war of chemical weapons' ".[S/17911 and Add. 1, 21 March 1986. Note that this is a 'decision' and not a resolution.]

"The US voted against the issuance of this statement, and the UK, Australia, France and Denmark abstained. However, the concurring votes of the other ten members of the Security Council ensured that this statement constituted the first criticism of Iraq by the Security Council. A similar Presidential statement was made on 14 May 1987..."

Are you dizzy yet?
So US demonization versus US support for Mu'ammar al-Qadhafi and Saddam Hussein have flip-flopped completely since 1986. The demonization is always accompanied by hyperbolic rhetoric and often leads to military action (incredibly extreme in the case of Iraq). The policies are incoherent if taken at face value. The rhetoric is good for swelling the reactionary emotions present in the US public when certain actions must be taken at certain times, or when public attention needs to be distracted -- but it is not so good for explaining the inevitable policy shifts as time goes on. For that, our officials depend on us having short attention spans.

To confuse us, the hawks will try to explain the Libya deal as a favorable reflection on Bush and a success of Reagan's policy. But that's a stretch, as Juan Cole points out.

...the hawks have explained Qadhafi's abandonment of support for terrorism with reference to Ronald Reagan's 1986 bombing of Tripoli; not being good at math, they don't seem to realize that 1988 comes after 1986. One could more reasonably draw the conclusion that the US aerial strike encouraged Libya to commit more terrorism."

In the end, a history of terrorism and use of horrid weapons by tyrants is far less important than the quiet policies that advance oil and other commercial interests.