Late Congressman Lantos Praised Libya’s ‘Major Gesture for Peace’
Just as Muammar al-Gaddafi insisted for weeks that the rebels he is fighting in eastern Libya are linked to al-Qaeda, so too did he insist that he had been a reliable partner of Western nations: in particular, in the war on terror. And just as his warnings about the strongholds of the rebellion in eastern Libya are borne out by a study of the Combating Terrorism Center at West Point (see my report here), so too are his assurances about the Libyan government’s cooperative relationship with the West borne out by leaked State Department cables.
All the issues commonly cited by American commentators as evidence that Gaddafi is an enemy of the United States are issues that were resolved in multi-year negotiations between the United States and Libya leading up to the restoration of full diplomatic relations in 2006. Far from treating Libya as an enemy, a U.S. State Department cable from as recently as August 2009 describes the country as “a critical ally in U.S. counterterrorism efforts” and in stemming the flow of foreign fighters to Iraq.
The leaked State Department record of an August 2006 visit to Libya by the late U.S. Congressman Tom Lantos and former Senator Arlen Specter reads like a veritable love-fest of mutual admiration and support. Lantos in particular showers praise on the Libyans; whereas his Libyan interlocutors hold forth on various Middle East topics in terms that are largely indistinguishable from those of American foreign policy analysts — especially conservative or even indeed “neo-conservative” ones.
Lantos’s Libyan interlocutors included Colonel Muammar al-Gaddafi, his son Saif al-Islam al-Gaddafi, the then head of Libyan “external security” and current Foreign Minister Musa Kusa, and the head of Libyan military intelligence Abdullah Sanussi. In Western press accounts, Sanussi has been blamed for the repression of protests in Benghazi that allegedly sparked the eastern Libyan revolt.
The record of the August 2006 visit comes from the same collection of State Department cables that has been partially published by WikiLeaks and by selected media working with WikiLeaks. The cable in question, however, has not been published by WikiLeaks or any official WikiLeaks “media partner.” It has been published rather by the Norwegian newspaper Aftenposten. In December of last year, under still unclarified circumstances, Aftenposten obtained “unauthorized” access to the full collection of leaked State Department cables. The newspaper has been publishing cables on its website independently of WikiLeaks. (On Aftenposten and the State Department cables, see my report here.) The cable is available on the website of Aftenposten here.
In what the cable describes as a “an hour-long tête-à-tête” between Muammar al-Gaddafi and Congressman Lantos on August 22, the elder Gaddafi emphasized the dangers represented by the spread of radical Islamic “Wahabist” ideology in Saudi Arabia and exported from Saudi Arabia. In a joint meeting with Lantos and Specter the next day, military intelligence chief Sanussi returned to the same theme and asserted that there were links between the Saudi government and al-Qaeda. According to the cable, “Sanussi also took credit for the GOL [Government of Libya] putting Osama bin Laden on an Interpol watch list in 1997, showing that they had an inkling of events to come far in advance of 9/11.”
In an August 24 meeting with Musa Kusa, Lantos praised Libya’s “historic” 2003 decision to abandon its nuclear armaments program. This was the key decision that led to the normalization of U.S.-Libyan relations. Lantos predicted that “books will be written about” it. The full State Department summary of the meeting reads as follows:
In an August 24 meeting with Director of External Security Musa Kusa, Lantos called the difference between Iran and Libya “monumental” and predicted that books will be written about the historic decision Qadhafi took in giving up its WMDs. While Kusa seemed to agree, he expressed worry over the imbalance that was created with the changes in Iraq, tipping the scales towards Iran. “Iran and Iraq used to balance each other out…now, there is no balance.” He said the Libyans were “sure that the Iranians are enriching uranium and making a bomb,” adding that events in Lebanon are really just an “Iranian-Syrian game.” He also expressed a concern about the estimated 300 Libyans aiding the insurgency in Iraq: “We can´t control our own children. We are doing our best, but we uncover a new cell everyday.”
In a meeting with Muammar al-Gaddafi’s son Saif al-Islam al-Gaddafi, Lantos praised a speech given by the younger Gaddafi on political and economic reforms and freedom of the press, telling him “I was very proud of your speech.” Saif al-Islam, however, expressed doubts about whether Libya might not be “let down” by the United States after abandoning weapons systems. Lantos vigorously denied this, insisting that the U.S. government “truly appreciates” what the Libyan government has done and inviting Saif al-Islam to join him on a trip to North Korea in order to “share Libya’s story of giving up WMDs.” Lantos described the latter decision as a “major gesture for peace globally.” The full State Department summary of the exchange reads as follows:
Seif, who took a passive role during most of the meeting, then queried Lantos about Iran, stating that the Iranians are telling the GOL that “the Americans are playing a game with you” and will refuse allow replacement of Libya´s SCUD missiles, instead stripping the GOL of its weaponry. “They have told us that the Americans will let us down.” Representative Lantos countered that those assertions are untrue and that the USG truly appreciates what the GOL has done in abandoning its WMD program. Seif then asked about the disarmament of Hizballah, which Lantos replied is a “must” as all countries must be in control of their own borders: “Nasrallah has set the development of Lebanon back years.” Lantos invited Seif to join him on his next trip to North Korea to share Libya´s story of giving up WMDs, a “major gesture for peace globally.”
The Hungarian-born Lantos served in the U.S. Congress from 1981 until his death in 2008. The Democratic congressman was the only Holocaust survivor ever to serve in the Congress and he was a prominent defender of Israel. In June 2008, Lantos was posthumously awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom by President Bush.
In August 2009, Republican Senator John McCain led a delegation of four U.S. senators to meet with Muammar al-Gaddafi and other Libyan leaders in Tripoli. The other senators were Joseph Lieberman, Susan Collins, and Lindsey Graham. The State Department’s “Scene Setter” for the meeting has been published by the British daily The Telegraph in conjunction with WikiLeaks. The leaked cable is available online here.
The cable notes:
Libya’s decision to give up its WMD programs and to renounce its support for terrorism opened the door for a wide range of cooperation in areas of mutual concern. Libya has acted as a critical ally in U.S. counterterrorism efforts, and Libya is considered one of our primary partners in combating the flow of foreign fighters. Our strategic partnership in this field has been highly productive and beneficial to both nations.
Furthermore, the cable notes that “Libya has stated its number one priority, in return for relinquishing WMD, is a security guarantee by the U.S. against foreign aggression.”
The cable, which is signed by U.S. Chargé d’Affaires Joan Polaschick, concludes, “We look forward to welcoming you in the Libyan Jamahiriya.” The “Jamahiriya” is the official designation for the supposedly revolutionary popular form of government established by Muammar al-Gaddafi in Libya.
ok what friends can we screw over next? how about Israel? o, never mind, that’s already being done…
Well, if you’re going to befriend a dictator, at least make sure he’s a SANE dictator. At least men like the Shah of Iran and Hosni Mubarak were reliable partners to this country before we stabbed them in the back and sold them out to their respective revolutions. Interesting, though, how Jimmy Carter sold out the Shah and Obama sold out Mubarak, two Democratic presidents and both of them liberals as well. Maybe that will teach the world how unreliable liberal Democrats are as partners or allies. Right now, if I was in Saudi Arabia or Bahrain, I’d be very, very, worried about being sold out by Obama. Very worried.
Both Obama and Carter didn’t want to admit that this was a messy world and that sometimes you had to tolerate dictators for a greater good. After all, were we not allies with Stalin during World War II, one of the biggest mass-murderers of the 20th Century? Whoever said that “Politics makes strange bedfellows” sure wasn’t kidding. Unfortunately, liberal Democrats live in ivory towers and NOT the real world.
It seems as though members of Congress are conspirators. Those folks are worlds apart from the American Public.They protect and give to everyone in the world other than those of us who were born and raised here.America as a nation doomed if we dont clean out the ruling aristocracy.
“In August 2009, Republican Senator John McCain led a delegation of four U.S. senators to meet with Muammar al-Gaddafi and other Libyan leaders in Tripoli. The other senators were Joseph Lieberman, Susan Collins, and Lindsey Graham. The State Department’s “Scene Setter” for the meeting has been published by the British daily The Telegraph in conjunction with WikiLeaks. The leaked cable is available online here.”
Read this and weep American voters. “Scene setter” is now in civil war with the entire west involved. Failure of leadership. Mccain reelected. Lieberman stepping down. Collins Rino. Lindsey needs to retire and go home and sit under a pecan tree. Rinos all, tools of the Democratic Party.
My bet is that Khaddafi did not win over these brave American legislators, but simply provided them with parting gifts that influenced their thinking. After all, Lantos and Sphincter are two of the most ethical guys we’ve had in Congress for many years.
Khadaffi is a smart guy with almost unlimited wealth. If we had an honest media, we’d know a lot more about his efforts to buy US legislators.
“Furthermore, the cable notes that ‘Libya has stated its number one priority, in return for relinquishing WMD, is a security guarantee by the U.S. against foreign aggression.’”
Considering that the “rebels” in Libya are affiliated with al Qaeda, which can certainly be called “foreign aggression.” I would say that the US has failed to live up to this agreement.
But then, as any American Indian can tell you, treaties signed by the US (or anybody else, for that matter), are rarely worth the paper they are printed on. As soon as somebody else comes to power, all previous treaties go up for grabs.
Diplomats and peace-talkers are the most crooked and contemptible species that ever walked this earth.
The article really raises the question of whether the US is being manipulated,not just in Libya but across the Middle East.It is certainly plausible that Al Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood have engineered these uprisings.The record of the CIA and the State Dept.in terms of knowing what is going on is dismal at best.Ofcourse we also have a president who is naive in the extreme.
The real trouble in reading “leaked cables” here and there, even if some of them may be closely connected and from the same source, is that these snippets are just that..snippets…no matter how many words are involved.
All of these admittedly fascinating little window-cables remain only bits and pieces blown about and “snow-flaked” [pardon the expression] in separately out of one humungous Middle Eastern/Asian composite. There’s no question that all participants are playing double games, some of course a better at this risky, nasty business than others.
So, dear readers, if you were the one “in charge” of a whopping load of stuff and having to make swift life and death decisions in swiftly changing multiple environments……how do you place these particular cables mentioned here inside the “big picture” mosaic coming at you from so many of our Embassy’s personnel with varying skill levels and language abilities; how do you filter out which stuff to be deleted from the summary you send upstairs to your boss, and this same reductive analysis is repeated and repeated all the way up to our Commander in Chief?
And, suppose also that too many of those doing this reductive, condensed analysis are reading this stuff squinting through rose-colored glasses?
Washington….we have problems.
The real trouble in reading “leaked cables” here and there, even if some of them may be closely connected and from the same source, is that these snippets are just that..snippets…no matter how many words are involved.
All of these admittedly fascinating little window-cables remain only bits and pieces blown about and “snow-flaked” [pardon the expression] in separately out of one humungous Middle Eastern/Asian composite. There’s no question that all participants are playing double games, some of course are better at this risky, nasty business than others.
So, dear readers, if you were the one “in charge” of a whopping load of stuff and having to make swift life and death decisions in swiftly changing multiple environments……how do you place these particular cables mentioned here inside the “big picture” mosaic coming at you from so many of our Embassy’s personnel with varying skill levels and language abilities; how do you filter out which stuff to be deleted from the summary you send upstairs to your boss, and this same reductive analysis is repeated and repeated all the way up to our Commander in Chief?
And, suppose also that too many of those doing this reductive, condensed analysis are reading this stuff squinting through rose-colored glasses?
Washington….we have problems.
This double-post of mine is mea culpa, a case of fingertip-double-quiver. Would a musician say demi-semi-hemi-quaver?
So, Gadaffi, historically a sort of pan Arab secular socialist, got the good house keeping seal of approval from a San Francisco Bay area democrat for giving up his weapons of mass destruction, paying reparations for previous terrorist sins of commission and omission, but because Gadaffi has a little difficulty with his eastern Islamists rebelling and opting for an Arab Spring, a democratic president pulls the trigger on Gadaffi while denying he’s pulling the trigger on him. Maybe it was because Gadaffi’s understanding was with George Bush? Um, it doesn’t look to me like this is a very good way to get the Iranians to give up their nuke program. I mean what’s the incentive for the Iranians, if they’re going to whacked anyway after giving it up?
We know about Gadaffi giving up the nuclear program, about various reparations, and about the resumption of the diplomatic relationship. But are the claims made in these cables and conversations true? Have the Libyans been helpful in the fight against Islamic extremists/terrorists in recent years, before the current unpleasantness, or at least not supporting them? This would seem to be yet another major unanswered question.