Libya

Originally posted August 2011

The recent uprisings in Bahrain, Egypt, Libya, Syria, Tunisia, and Yemen share associated economic grievances and a common call for responsive government and a more dignified way of life; however, their underlying social dynamics are the product of diverse encounters with the outside world and years of oppression under very different political regimes. This is particularly true in the Libyan case, where socioeconomic and political structures and institutions shaped before as well as during the Qadhafi years have combined to produce a unique political economy.

*This Commentary first appeared on neimanwatchdog.org on July 8, 2011

While political debate still roils over the legality of the American role in Libya, other questions have grown more pressing. Those questions include whether the European side of the NATO operation can be sustained and whether the Libyan opposition truly has the ability to achieve their goal of taking down the regime of Muammar Qaddhafi & Co.

These issues are critical for those favoring US participation in NATO operations as well as those opposed.

The Middle East Institute and the UNDP are proud to host a discussion with UNDP Administrator Helen Clark, Under Secretary for Economic, Energy and Agricultural Affairs Robert D. Hormats, and Middle East Institute Scholar Amb. Edward Walker about how best to address political, economic and human development needs in the Arab world today.

The Maghreb extends about 2,000 kilometers on either side of the Greenwich meridian (-13° West from Cabo Jubi and 11.08° East to Kelibia) and is located on the same longitude as Europe. Although the Maghreb forms a single climatologic and geographical unit, it is a diverse landscape of mountains, fertile areas, and steppes. Nevertheless, the similarity of climate, geography, and culture in the Maghreb provides a solid foundation for developing a common environmental strategy.

Elaboration of a Sustainable Development Strategy

The Middle East Institute is proud to host Ambassador Ali Suleiman, Paul Pillar, and Jeffrey White for a discussion about the current situation in Libya and ways to address the stalemate between Libya's rebels and the forces of Colonel Qaddhafi. As the conflict drags into its third month, Aujali, Pillar and White will examine the humanitarian situation on the ground, NATO's recent operational innovations, and the role of the US and Europe in aiding Libya's rebels.

American policy toward conflict in Libya is bearing disappointing fruit. The conflict there seems to be settling in to a stalemate with the likely prospect of becoming an extended civil war. In the face of this prospect, John McCain and other Senators are calling for greater US involvement. That goes against the grain of American public opinion. It raises in sharp relief the question: Will our current limited engagement policy work? And if so, when?

It was absolutely predictable that Republicans would attack President Obama whatever he did in Libya, though Newt Gingrich, in his overeagerness, overreached by criticizing him for too explicitly opposite reasons. It was also likely that the anti-interventionist left, which sees (almost?) any use of American military power as imperialistic and unwarranted would likewise be opposed.

Rahm Emanuel famously quipped that a crisis should never go to waste. In his absence, the Administration seems determined not to take sufficient advantage of the ongoing and huge crisis in the Arab world. Its hesitant, uncertain, and (to date) completely ineffectual response to events in Libya sadly make this all too clear.

It now appears that the US finally has gotten serious about doing something meaningful to assist opposition forces in Libya. Exaggerated fears and an insufficient grasp of the adverse consequences of not taking such action previously paralyzed US (and most European) policymakers with respect to even an eastern no-fly zone, let alone more robust measures. Meanwhile, what is left of the organized Libyan opposition is increasingly hard-pressed.

The greatest threat to U.S. national security is Congress’s abdication of its constitutional responsibilities. Nothing could make this point more clear than the current discussion of whether Washington should bear the lion’s share of the costs and risks of a no-fly zone over Libya.

US-Libya Business Association Honorary Chairman Amb. David Mack and Executive Director Charles Dittrich traveled to Libya for five days in mid-December. They met with Libyan government officials, Libyan private business leaders and representatives of American companies working in the country. They will share impressions regarding the political and economic climate in Libya and the implications for both overall US-Libyan relations and the prospects for American business interests.

*This article was first published in January 2011 by the Foreign Service Journal.

Relations between Libya and the U.S. have a turbulent history: War at the beginning of the 19th century; U.S. government support for Libyan independence after World War II; official and private-sector American engagement in the development of Libya’s oil wealth and human resources in the mid-20th century; Libyan terrorism and U.S. military retaliation in the 1980s; U.S.-engineered economic sanctions and isolation in the late 20th century; and restoration of diplomatic relations in 2006.