Tuesday, October 10, 2006
What good came of the Libya deal?
Michael Rubin and Victor Davis Hanson are arguing about the ultimate merits of having cut a deal with Libya in 2003 to relieve sanctions in return for various concessions on WMD and the Lockerbie case. Rubin thinks Libya may have the last laugh, but VDH counts the benefits:
I agree that Libya ostensibly seems to get the better of the deal of normalization; but there are some pluses for us: The surrender of a considerable stockpile of WMDs; The settlement payments of the Lockerbie murders; The real possibility that Libya's relatively easy restoration to 3 million barrels of export oil production will do some part in mitigating the global stranglehold of OPEC. But most importantly, the introduction of cell phones, dish TV, and the Internet have stirred the ostracized Libyan people, who really were subject to the madness of the Green Book (e.g., everyone once required to raise a chicken).
I would add to this list -- probably at the top -- the public leverage that we were able to gain over the A.Q. Khan nuclear proliferation network. True, crack Western intelligence agencies were piecing together the evidence that Khan was handing out nuclear technology faster than the Chinese can pirate Hollywood movies, but the information was patchy and came from sources that were so sensitive that we did not want to compromise them by taking action against Khan. Then Libya opened its doors and coughed up "public" evidence against Khan. We then understood the extent of Khan's dealings and were able to walk back the evidence to Pakistan. Khan may still be at large on account of his heroic status in that country, but his tech transfer program has been shut down. Perhaps it was a case of closing the barn door later than would have been ideal, but there remained much damage that might have been done.
2 Comments:
By 
skipsailing, at
Tue Oct 10, 10:16:00 AM:
The thing is both guys are very well qualified to argue thier POV's.
This might be an interesting glimpse into what a cabinet meeting might be like. Very intelligent well educated people with opposing points of view debating the probity of a proposed decision.
By Lanky_Bastard, at
Tue Oct 10, 12:11:00 PM:
I thought it was a win-win situation and a much-needed diplomatic victory. On top of the other bonuses it shows goodwill on the part of the US to bury the hatchet with an old enemy. To be a little blunt, that goodwill buys us political cover as we war with 2 Arab countries. It sends a message that our issue isn't with Muslims, it's with threats to our state. Libya's negotiations make it easier for other Arab leaders to work with us against terrorism, despite being the Great Satan/whatever. If Libya can cooperate, then neutral parties can cooperate. Even better, it shows dictators that there is another path away from US wrath besides getting invaded, developing nukes, or being a perpetual pain in the ass. Normalcy is a nice looking (and inexpensive) carrot compared to the stick of Afghanistan or Iraq. Hopefully others learn from the message.
Add those to the positives listed by Hanson and TH, and I think we got a good deal. It's rare for me to praise the Bush administration (for diplomacy no less!), but they've done well and advanced US interests.
