Lobbying for Libya’s Mad Dog

The irony of American “rapprochement” with a tyrant is that what was recently considered egregiously immoral is suddenly deemed proper and imperative — obvious, even. So it seems to be in the case of Muammar Gaddafi and U.S. firms between 2004 and 2011. With Saddam Hussein facing the gallows, Gaddafi “opened” Libya up to the West. He handed over the nuclear material he was hiding in some turkey farm and promised to play nice. As a result, a slew of lobbyists began to ink deals that would present the Libyan dictatorship in a new light.

The bizarre part is that they may have done so illegally. The more bizarre part is that the U.S. government was doing it too.

According to documents found by the Libyan opposition, the Monitor Group, a global consulting firm with 30 worldwide offices, worked for Gaddafi without registering under the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA). The Monitor Group does not deny the $3 million contract. But they have said that since they were not lobbying for Gaddafi, FARA does not apply.

Well, what does FARA say? It defines lobbying as “any activity that the person engaging in believes will, or that the person intends to, in any way influence any agency or official of the Government of the United States […] with reference to formulating, adopting, or changing the domestic or foreign policies of the United States.”

Sounds reasonable. But in a 2007 memo, the Monitor Group defined their Libya strategy as “introducing to Libya important international figures that will influence other nations’ policies towards the country.” They also sought to promote “the idea to an international policy elite that there is more to Gaddafi than historically-biased perceptions.” More to Gaddafi than those jheri curls, eh? Like what — a sensitive side? I’m not a lawyer, but this sounds an awful lot like “any activity” that in “any way” influences “any agency or official” toward “changing [the] policies of the United States.”

But let’s not pick on the Monitor Group. Last month, Pajamas Media’s Richard Pollock not only had the scoop on the Monitor Group but the Livingston Group as well. That’s the Washington, D.C.-based firm run by former Rep. Bob Livingston (R-LA). Livingston, once speaker of the House-elect, arranged for Libyan Ambassador Ali Aujali to hold private meetings with nearly half of the U.S. House Foreign Affairs Committee. As Pollock says, “The Livingston campaign for Gaddafi […] illustrates how former members of Congress on both sides of the aisle enrich themselves on behalf of dictatorships.”

Lobbying is not an inherently unethical practice, as hypocritical politicians often imply. After all, Livingston would point out that his work with the Gaddafi regime helped settle legal claims for the families of victims of Pan Am Flight 103 (a plane of Americans that Gaddafi blew up). The Monitor Group, likewise, might confess to honest oversights on FARA, especially now that the U.S. Justice Department could look into the matter.

That’s not the issue. The issue is, when a tyranny “opens up” — a contradiction in terms — it portends that the new relationship with the United States will rapidly become decrepit. None of this lobbying, whether legal or illegal, would have happened had the U.S. government not incompetently permitted gray areas of ambiguity to exist.

I called Rep. Brad Sherman (D-CA) of the House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on Terrorism, Nonproliferation, and Trade. He and his office helpfully provided documentation proving U.S. government financial assistance to the Gaddafi regime. Some of this was already known. But it’s quite remarkable.

The White House sent $200,000 to the Gaddafi Development Foundation, a front organization run by Gaddafi’s playboy-idiot son, Saif. Another $200,000 was sent to a second Gaddafi family operation. An additional $2,100,000 was sent to “other entities.” To top it off, Gaddafi’s youngest son — a military commander now hell-bent on crushing his countrymen — recently received a U.S. government-funded internship to work in the United States.  The State Department is denying it, but Gaddafi Jr.’s employers insist the government knew about it.

Interesting, ain’t it?

Rep. Sherman has been ahead of the Libya curve for a while. In September 2009, he cosigned a letter to President Obama urging the withdrawal of request for the taxpayers’ money destined for Gaddafi’s pockets. On October 8, 2009, Sherman spoke with U.S. Ambassador to Libya Gene Cretz, expressing his concern about the subsidization of such a monstrous killer. Cretz strongly defended government policy. So later that month, Sherman spoke with the White House Office of Legislative Affairs about his concerns. On October 28, 2009, Sherman questioned U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for the Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs Jeffrey D. Feltman — a very serious person and strong diplomat — and was able to get the administration to change its policy.

“Some people [in the government] thought it was a great idea to give money to organizations controlled by the Gaddafi family,” Rep. Sherman told me. But what about private lobbying firms that didn’t register with the government before working with Gaddafi? “If they didn’t, it would be an interesting revelation,” he said. “I would hate to think U.S. policy was influenced by those who were deliberating violating our laws.”

That’s a romantic thought.