- FEBRUARY 9, 2010
-
Why Barack Obama should be wary of Muammar el-Qaddafi's ambitions.
By Dana Moss
With his flamboyant fashion sense and Amazonian female bodyguards, it is sometimes difficult to take Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi seriously on the world stage. Yet the Libyan strongman's recent selection as chairman of the African Union, which caps a lengthy diplomatic push on the continent, demonstrates that his country's international rehabilitation has been very effective indeed. No impulsive whim -- there is a clear purpose to Libya's assertive foreign policy on the continent, with distinct implications for the United States. Qaddafi sees himself as a symbolic and de facto leader of Africa. But if U.S. President Barack Obama does not want Qaddafi to undermine counterterrorism and human rights initiatives in the region, he would do well to keep watch of the mercurial Libyan leader's continental ambitions.
The colonel's self-proclaimed betrothal to Africa has been a relatively recent affair. Although he has ruled Libya since 1969, it was only a decade ago that he unveiled his plan for a "United States of Africa." Up to that point, Qaddafi expended his considerable energies touting Libya's Arab heritage and pursuing Arab unity. Disappointed again and again, Qaddafi promised, "If the revolution does not believe in Arab unity, it will not be a revolution, and I will work for another revolution." He soon proclaimed his conversion explicitly: "We Libyans are Africans."
Since then, Qaddafi has renewed relations with the United States, transforming Libya from a terrorism-supporting state responsible for the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 in 1988 to a reluctant U.S. ally, much to the delight of many in Washington.
But the United States should tread carefully where Qaddafi and his African ambitions are concerned. In recent years, a confident Libya has channeled its oil wealth into a cocktail of pan-African ideology, assertiveness, and petrodollar diplomacy, his brand of which counters the interests of the United States. Qaddafi's anticolonial rhetoric, for a start, hasn't gone away. As recently as this month, Qaddafi alleged that "Western powers ... and companies ... continue sucking Africa's blood."
Qaddafi's "Africa for the Africans" mantra (which often places Qaddafi at the apex of that continent) also translates into real opposition to specific U.S. policies. Of particular concern to Washington is Qaddafi's hostility toward the establishment of an African base to Africom, the Pentagon's new African military command. Qaddafi has urged others to echo his opposition: In 2007, the 28-member states of CEN-SAD (the Community of Sahel-Saharan States), a regional economic community funded mostly by Libya, issued a communiqué stating that it "flatly refuses the installation of any military command or any foreign armed presence."
Tripoli's African sovereignty prism has also led it to support the more unsavory regimes on the continent, including Zimbabwe and Sudan. Libya fought against both the U.S.- supported sanctions against Zimbabwe and last year's U.N. arms embargo. In Darfur, though Libya acted as a mediator and has provided an aid corridor, Qaddafi has also played down the conflict, claiming it is unnecessarily politicized because "there are superpowers who are interested in oil."
Libya's sidelining of human rights in regional diplomacy also threatens to undercut U.S. efforts to improve governance. Qaddafi promotes his idiosyncratic model of "direct democracy," which in practice offers little representation, bars political opposition, and squashes free speech and basic human rights. He has suggested to other African leaders that "multiparty democracy is [a] sham." CEN-SAD, for example, defends unsavory leaders such as Omar al-Bashir of Sudan.
Behind Qaddafi's postured wackiness lie consequences -- and fundamental conflicts with U.S. interests on the continent he intends to lead. Qaddafi is antagonistic to the U.S. political and economic presence in Africa. Although his intemperate rhetoric does not always translate into action, Tripoli's statements are unhelpful, and Libya's oil wealth enables it to undercut some of Washington's endeavors in the region. So indeed, the United States must remain wary of the continuing Libyan-U.S. rapprochement. Libya's leader may seem eccentric, but Qaddafi is no joke.
Dana Moss is next generation fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy.
SIMON MAINA/AFP/Getty Images
"African" assertiveness should worry most those who have stronger interests in the continent, and in that sense one could argue that China has more to lose than the US. Moreover, as far as greater African unity under Qaddafi's leadership actually materializes and begets some degree of resistance to alleged neo-colonial activities in the continent, this could suggest that China will find it more difficult to deepen its inroads in Africa.
The Chinese have been considerably more lenient towards "unsavory regimes" than the US, so they would continue to encounter less resistance and may even be welcomed to some degree, but should nonetheless worry that as these regimes are strengthened and as domestic and regional politics necessitate, "pan-Africanism" could bite them in the arse too.
Qaddafi's africa or Pana-Arabism.
I read a long time ago that Libya is a land wherefrom always comes something novel. I think he is trying to prove it true. He might be successful or not the time will be the best judge.
He, like many other nationalists, including those in the west, has the right to secure his and his nation's place in the history. If he is oppose to western presence in Africa what is wrong with that? Has west not already robbed every corner of the world arleady. Don't People have the right to salvage the remnents in Asia, Africa, the only two, delapidated, poverty infested, illitracy ridded, continental encampment like free-town of sierra-Leon?
First it Was Liaqat Ali Khan of Pakistan, then Bhutto, then Shah Faisal of Saudi Arabia,then Demonized by west Saddam Hussain and Now it the the turn of Qaddafi.Forget about the millions slaughtered in Iraq, Iran, Kashmir,Chechnia, Afghanistan, Kosovo, Minadanao,Somalia,Palestine and many other places How much blood west needs to survive on top and for How long??? One day their jesus christ, Lord shall turn against them for all the bloodshed and they would find no escape.
i did type but lost
Qaddafi has long tentacles that have been delving deeper and deeper into Zimbabwe over the past few years.
He (or Libya, which he treats as his own personal property)has been acquiring extensive land and mineral rights in return for propping up Mugabe. He will lead the Islamization of the continent, and end up controlling the bulk of the world's valuable mineral resources.
Why Obama should NOT be wary of Qaddafi's ambition
Dana Moss said nothing new besides the self-indulgent western-biased induced eccentricities against anyone clamoring for African unity. Moss is right that; “behind Qaddafi's postured wackiness lie consequences - and fundamental conflicts with US interests on the continent.” These conflicts are inevitable in the present context of global neo-liberal capitalist competition. The belated attempt to create a false image of Qaddafi as a benevolent dictator of a United Africa was a wasted effort; not because Qaddafi’s Pan-African credentials are suspect as Moss claims. But because the concept as presently articulated by the AU and its NEPAD apologists remain an obscurantist cacophony of practically refuted and discredited pseudo-Marxist dependency theory claptrap.
A United States of Africa will remain at best a luxurious desire until African leaders submerge their overweening egos and national sovereignty posturing for the overriding interest of the continent. Africa is the only continent with the resources needed to feed the global economy. It then stands to reason that African leaders should be working towards harnessing these resources for the socio-economic and political development of the continent. Quite predictably, the USA and some EU countries like France are leading efforts to undermine unity among the peoples of Africa.
Finally, Moss’s assertion that “Qaddafi is antagonistic to the US political and economic presence in Africa” is entirely without merit. Qaddafi is not alone in his opposition to the establishment of Africom, the Pentagon's new African military command. The former US ambassador to Nigeria, Walter Carrington has criticized the plan as a “great mistake…extremely ill-conceived,” saying it will militarize US policies towards Africa, draw Africa into war and terrorism. Carrington, like the Resist Africom forces in America believe that Africom would radicalize the entire region and compound the problem it meant to solve.
The Obama administration should be less wary about Qaddafi’s “postured wackiness” (to borrow Moss’s clumsy expression) and more concerned with fifth columnists like Dana Moss and other United African detractors who are yet to understand that a United States of Africa will create a common market of 700 million people (the USA & EU combined) and will serve as a counterpoise to China and India. Such an entity will better serve the long-term geo-political and strategic interests of the United States and the international community; the rantings of Dana Moss notwithstanding.
January/February 2010
-
Cover Story
-
Dispatch
-
Feature
(5)
HIDE COMMENTS LOGIN OR REGISTER REPORT ABUSE