The Makings of an African Renaissance
TRIPOLI, LIBYA - Try to make a phone call from Libya to any U.S. area code added after 1986 - such as New York's "917" - and your call probably won't go through. That's because 1986 was the year U.S. fighter jets bombed Tripoli in retaliation for Libya's role in the Berlin disco bombing that killed an American serviceman. U.S.-Libya telephone service, along with nearly every other aspect of our bilateral relationship, came to a full stop.
Several years ago, U.S. and British intelligence officials caught Libya red-handed importing material for its weapons of mass destruction programs. The incident proved a tipping point. Libya not only agreed to give up its WMD programs but also to compensate the Americans murdered when Pan Am 103 blew up over Lockerbie, Scotland.
For the past two years, the relationship has been warming.
Having Libya as a productive member of the international community may seem strange to some. On my second visit in two years, it feels out of place to whiz past huge banners with Qaddafi's picture, but it makes sense to engage in dialogue.
Sanctions are now lifted, and the U.S. presence here is growing.
The U.S. State Department has opened a formal U.S. Liaison Office here - a precursor to an official embassy - operating out of the five-star Corinthian Hotel on the shores of Tripoli. Full diplomatic relations may not be far off.
And three American oil firms recently signed deals to come back into Libya.
What's going on here?
Many African countries are making the strategic decision to join the U.S. on a host of issues, including the fight against Islamic extremism.
Some of these countries can actually teach the U.S. a thing or two, according to a senior U.S. general I spoke with. The centerpiece of one meeting with an African country was an elaborate two-hour Powerpoint presentation - complete with full-motion video -- on the scope of Al Qaida-affiliated terror cells operating in Africa. I was impressed. They know the nature of the terrorist threat, and they have a serious, focused plan to deal with it.
Their message: We want to work with you to combat Islamic extremist groups and shut down the foreign fighter network into Iraq.
What's in it for them? Two things.
First, we help them build capabilities to operate against Islamic extremist groups that threaten their regimes, as well as Western targets primarily in Europe.
These governments get specific training, improving their ability to conduct operations against the terrorist target. And they are getting good at it.
Second, these countries get the benefit of stronger relations with the West, which translates into greater trade and investment for their weak economies. In Morocco for example, some 20% of the population is unemployed, and the highest percentage of unemployed people are those with a college degree!
An educated workforce that lacks opportunity is bound to chafe violently against the system. Granted, many terrorist leaders, like Abu Musab al Zarqawi, are fanatics who won't be convinced to change course. But we can help provide economic opportunity to those who would otherwise be potential recruits for the terrorists. That is truly reaching hearts - and minds.
The real challenge for the U.S., the UK, and our allies in the Arab world is to do a much better job of getting out a message to the next generation of potential recruits.
This is about more than just "public diplomacy." It's about actually succeeding to help transform these regimes into moderate, transparent and democratic governments that promote equal rights, women's rights and economic opportunity.
Deepening economic and trade ties to the West is the first step. The free trade agreement concluded between the U.S. and Morocco is a great model. (A similar one has been signed with Jordan.)
If U.S. companies are allowed to conduct responsible business activities in these countries, America's "brand" will be more than just whatever Al Jazeera chooses to report from Baghdad.
Our cooperation across Africa must not simply be realpolitik - the enemy of my enemy (Al Qaida) is my friend. It must be based on a common vision that respect for freedom and the rule of law are the surest paths to security.
In Liberia this week, Edith Sirleaf Johnson was inaugurated as the first female democratically elected President in Africa. It's a victory for democracy and a victory for women's political rights. I'd call that a good start.
And Tripoli may someday be the center of an African renaissance, which might eclipse the grandeur of the Roman ruins that dot Libya's coastal areas.
US policy is, as Robert Pape put it, like an supertanker headed in the wrong direction.
180 degree course changes require focused effort.
Stay focused.
Consider, for instance, tha hamhanded descriptions of Libya. It is as if Europe did not exist and the only meaningful foreign policy was between Libya and the United States.
But it is arguable that the process of thawing with Libya has been going on for a decade or more and has been lead and managed by Europe. Quaddaffi's disenchantment with terrorism, or some forms of terrorism, seems to date back to the early 90's, when he began to complain of the Arab fundamentalists who were returning from fighting the Russians in Afghanistan and causing trouble all over the Arab world. He identified their revolutionary vision of purging the Islamic world and opposed it. Believe it or not, Quaddaffi was the first person to issue a warrant for the arrest of Osama Bin Laden in 1994, two years before America got around to it.
During this period, Libya ceased most overt support of terrorism, except possibly for expressing sympathy with the Palestinians. It had previously discontinued its adventure in Chad, had sought good relations with Egypt (there had been border skirmishes) and even extradited the Lockerbie bomber terrorists to England. It paid damages and compensation to victims for its previous support of terrorists.
As to why this about face came about with Libya, it is not clear. Possibly, the presence of Islamic fundamentalism persuaded the Libyan regime to rethink all of its relationships, and decide to seek rapprochement. Possibly Quaddaffi was just getting middle aged or old and had decided enough was enough, he had a good thing, why go through life picking fights.
Libya's dramatic disclosure of wmd's and its exposure of the Pakistani covert trade in nuclear weapons information was pure showmanship. Hell, half this stuff wasn't even uncrated. He kept mustard gas containers under a turkey farm. Nope, it was just a big spectacle and America fell for it.
Quaddaffi figured that he could not rebuild relations with America the way he had with Europe. He correctly pegged the American psyche, and when he was ready, he chose his time and put on a huge dog and pony show to demonstrate his messianic conversion to the side of good, with a few tearful notes that it was George W. Bush who had shown him the way.
Yeah, right. Whatever. I mean, all's well that ends well, and I have no complaints. So it's kind of a shame to prick the bubble of American delusionalism. It's a lovely readers digest story, no question. It's just not quite the actual truth.
Now Morrocco is a different kettle of fish. Morocco has pretty much always been an American ally. The most remote and the most distinctive of the north african arab/berber states, Morocco managed to hang onto its independence until the early 20th century, accepted protectorate status and preserved its internal government and social structure under the french, and merrily trundled along its way. It's been pretty much fixed in the American orbit since the 1960's or 1970's.
It's never been a hugely important or key country in Africa for America, largely because its got no oil and no critical natural resources.
So, Morocco isn't any kind of brand new success story. It's got its history, its politics, its problems, its struggles with development and liberalization, etc.
But really, the fact that its the second poster boy here shows how out of touch this article is.
Where, for instance, is the discussion of the aftermath of the Algerian civil war? What about Sudan and Darfur, or the Congo? In terms of Islamic tensions, what about Nigeria or Tanzania, both on the respective front lines of encroaching Islamic fundamentalism.
There's much scope for hard thinking about many aspects of the African situation.
But this article doesn't give us any of that. It merely offers up another American readers digest fantasy.
Now, I don't want to be mean. But I think the world and Africa is in such a state that we can no longer afford that kind of thing.
. . . this post seems superficial in so many ways. Den Valdron
I don't even know what Harman's doing on this board.
For the past four years she's been in bed with Bush and Cheney listening to them crow about how the "unitary presidency" don't need no stinking warrants to spy on Americans and good Geisha that she is, kept mum about all that pillow talk.
Until she's adequately explained why her priveleging her political career over her duty to defend the Constitution shouldn't work a ban on her speech in liberal precincts, publishing her here is an outrage.
Coming from the business world, I shudder when I hear government and policy officials using the concept of "brand" and resorting to power point presentations. Whether in business or government they are style, a facade with nothing behind.
As I look at the US approach of "getting out a message" I see a country acting as the one with knowledge who needs to impart it to the locals. We would do better to stop selling the US and instead focus on listening and engaging in joint development. We should be extra sensitive about acting like an imperial power.
This is a double-edged sword. Africa has always been a continent where the West wages their wars by proxy. We know the result of blindly propping up dictators solely based on their position on communism. We also know the result of total neglect. Let's hope oil and terrorism do not lead to yet another "scramble" for Africa's resources, or make terror yet another litmus test for support - that thinking inevitably leads to toppling democracies and backing despots based on our own perceived self-interests. Our self-interests would be better served by fostering stable governments responsive to the needs of its citizens, not ours.
Ah, so this is apparently a 'Congressperson' on a junket to Libya. Much is explained.