Why Libya & Not Iraq? Some Thoughts from Ctr. American Progress

[otohara]

Not surprising it's about the oil and Prez. Cheney

WHY LIBYA AND NOT IRAQ?: President Bush has repeatedly told Americans that Saddam Hussein could not be trusted to live up to statements that he would disarm and allow UN inspectors into Iraq (which he did before the war). Yet, the Administration is now telling Americans that we can trust Ghadafi – a man with a similar record of repression, aggression, and disdain for international law, not to mention the fact that while Saddam never attacked the U.S., Ghadafi masterminded the killing of 270 people aboard Pan Am 103. On Friday, two days shy of the 15th anniversary of the airliner bombing, Bush thanked Ghadafi for "his commitment to disclose and dismantle all WMD in his country" – yet failed to explain the disparity between the policy towards Saddam and the Libyan leader.

LIBYA
Oil Questions

Maybe one reason for Cheney's differing postures is the expected Libyan oil bonanza. Cheney has long lobbied on behalf of the oil industry to lift sanctions on Libya since their creation. In 1996, the Journal of Commerce reported that Cheney lashed out at the U.S. government on foreign soil – a tactic conservatives have historically attacked. On a visit to Abu Dhabi, Cheney criticized U.S. sanctions on Libya saying, ''There seems to be an assumption that somehow we know what's best for everybody else and that we are going to use our economic clout to get everybody else to live the way we would like." While many oil CEOs were loathe to attack the U.S. sanctions – especially while visiting foreign nations - Cheney was not. As the Journal of Commerce reported on 5/6/96, "Cheney, Halliburton's chief executive, has publicly slammed the sanctions while others have not."

CHENEY'S OIL MOTIVES, PART 2: In May of 1997, Cheney criticized the Congress for tightening sanctions on Libya, and specifically said the oil industry had a right to do business in countries with deadly WMD. As Oil and Gas Journal reported, "Cheney said oil and gas companies must explore where the reserves are, and that means doing business in countries that may have policies that the U.S. does not like." Cheney said, "The long-term horizon of the oil industry is at odds with the short term nature of politics." The next year, Cheney ratcheted up his campaign, once again criticizing the U.S. security policy on foreign soil. According the Malaysian News Agency reported, "Cheney hit out as his government for imposing economic sanctions like the Iran-Libya Sanctions Act." He told the state news agency on a visit there that U.S. sanctions on Libya are "ineffective, did not provide the desire results and are a bad policy."

OTHER OIL MOTIVES: World Markets Analysis newsletter reports that the Libya deal coincides with the expiration of a 50-year lease signed between U.S. oil companies and the Libyan regime. Specifically, the Oasis Group (which includes Marathon and ConocoPhillips – both major political campaign contributors to the Administration) leased the Waha oil fields in Libya, but have been blocked from doing business there since sanctions were imposed in 1986. With the lease now expiring, "Libya has made veiled suggestions that it could re-tender the fields to European oil companies, arousing anger in the Bush administration." As a ConocoPhillips spokesperson confirmed to the WSJ, "our return to active participation in the Waha oil field area remains dependent upon further authorization from the U.S. government."



http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=8473