When the Libyan government announced that it would discontinue all its weapons-of-mass-destruction and advanced-missile programs, a debate arose over whether this was a triumph of diplomacy or arms. Proponents of the former pointed to the fact that the new policy was the result of months of closed-door talks with British and American negotiators, and not arrived at through threats or coercion. The pro-force argument noted the coincidence of timing of the negotiations–the Libyans made their overtures shortly before Operation Iraqi Freedom commenced, and announced the results shortly after Saddam Hussein was apprehended. In my opinion, the debate is based on an erroneous premise, the false dichotomy between diplomacy and the use of force. Those who view international relations in these either-or terms miss the important role that coercive measures play in negotiations, and vice-versa. As Frederick the Great observed, “diplomacy without arms is like music without instruments.” These talks did not come out of the blue. Muammar Khaddafi could well have seen himself suffering the same fate as Saddam Hussein in the near future; like Saddam, he sought to obtain weapons of mass destruction, and was a major sponsor of international terrorism. He also committed international acts of armed aggression, though being bested in a confrontation with Chad hardly did much to enhance his reputation as a warlord. He and Saddam had similar motives, secularizing, socialist, pan-Arabists with visions of grandeur. In short, Khaddafi is typical of a generation of authoritarian leaders in the developing world who came to power during the Cold War and sought to use the tools of those days to achieve some type of international prestige. However, unlike Saddam, Khaddafi seems to have come to his senses, with a little nudge from the Coalition.
The significance of the new Libyan policy is not so much how it came about as the philosophy it apparently represents. It is a frank recognition that the rules of the game have changed. Khaddafi has come to understand that in the post-9/11 international climate, WMDs do not bring strength. In fact, they are a decided liability, and countries like Libya are more secure without them than with them. Libyan Foreign Minister Abd-al-Rahman Shalqam stated that Libya originally sought advanced weapons for self-defense. “These [weapons] are no longer defense capabilities,” he said. “When they were defense capabilities, we sought to acquire them. These are no longer defense capabilities in light of the current circumstances.” There are other, less expensive, far less risky means to safeguard one’s country–such as joining our team. Col. Khaddafi ’s son and probable heir Seyf al-Islam has emphasized the fact that in exchange for abandoning its WMD aspirations, Tripoli has been promised military assistance from the United States, which he sees as an implicit guarantee of Libyan sovereignty and territorial integrity. Hopefully a status-of-forces agreement is already being negotiated. Couple this with Libyan intelligence support in the global war on terrorism and it adds up to a bad day for the enemies of civilization.
But there is more to the logic of the deal than Khaddafi simply desiring to avoid Saddam’s fate. Libyan Prime Minister Shukri Ghanim stated that his country’s decision to get rid of WMD programs “followed a careful study of the country’s future in all domains, led by the quest to improve the economy, raise the standard of living of the citizens, establish a modern social structure and set up a base for private ownership conforming to the aspirations of the Libyan leadership and people.” The resources that had previously been committed to weapons programs–both unconventional and conventional–can now be directed towards internal improvements for the benefit of the Libyan people and the expansion of markets. This is a startling admission of the obvious. The world has been used to leaders in the developing world pursuing state-centered self-aggrandizing policies almost as a matter of course. The notion that Libya might willingly sign on to globalization is extraordinary. It is not unprecedented in the Middle East–witness Qatar, for example, or Jordan, or Kuwait–but Libya is the first of the true rogue states voluntarily to make the switch. Ironically, or maybe tragically, there was no good reason for Libya or any other similar state to leave the civilized fold in the first place. The authoritarian generation that came to power in the 1960s and ’70s had an opportunity to choose the liberal path, but instead wrecked their countries through a combination of socialism and repression. Of course in those days, even western economics textbooks gave serious discussion to the benefits of central planning, but the true motive of the dictators was the pursuit of personal power. In the end, they became international pariahs with eroding economies, and incidents such as the exhumation of Saddam only make explicit what has been observable for a decade. The old ways have passed. It is time to move on. If they won’t do it voluntarily, the Coalition is here to help.
Libya’s new approach has been criticized by some of the hard-liners in the region–chiefly Palestinians–but why is giving in to peace and prosperity so painful? The PA, Syria, Iran or North Korea could learn a thing or two from this. Imagine the new Libya. Revenues derived from oil profits could be used for infrastructure improvements and education programs. Libya could reform its banking and property laws to encourage capital flows. Safe and inexpensive travel would contribute to a growing tourist industry. The country is a natural for tourism, especially with its proximity to Europe. Libya has miles of excellent beaches (once they are demined, of course), Roman and Carthaginian ruins, and Tobruk is crying out for a “Montgomery vs. Rommel” theme park. Making the transition is not difficult–drop the revolutionary rhetoric, promote a climate of stability, and transform the country from an armed camp to a peaceful member in good standing of the international community. Sure, Khaddafi will not be the ruler of all of Africa, and he may miss those big parades of tanks and missile launchers, but you have to give up your adolescent dreams sometime.