Mohamed Eljahmi writes:
It is ironic and heartbreaking that the Bush administration says it cares for freedom, yet the State Department quietly suggests that courageous reformers should stage apologies to dictators. With Washington offering wholesale concessions to Tripoli, Gaddafi has little incentive to improve human rights. Absent pressure, Gaddafi understands that he has a free pass to rule Libya as a private fiefdom.
More here.
I was awakened this morning by a call from a friend informing me that Jeane Kirkpatrick had died. Ambassador Kirkpatrick, until fairly recently, was a scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, where I interned last year, and her office was only a few steps away from my bay on the 11th floor. She later went on to help found the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies.
Jeane would make a point of stopping for a chat every time she passed my bay at AEI, and we had many fascinating conversations about foreign policy, and I was constantly struck by her powerful mind, on which, mercifully, age was not taking its toll.
Being a somewhat bumptious sort, I would try to tease out her views on the issues facing us today—at the time, it was the floundering Iraq mission—and it was clear that her contributions deserved a more public airing. Fortunately, prior to her death, Jeane had finished writing a new book on foreign policy. Though I have not yet had the pleasure to read it (it will be published shortly), I am told by those whose judgment I trust that it is excellent.
I remember one particular conversation with Jeane during which, and this
was the Tory in me speaking, I quizzed her about her role in the Falklands crisis, which had received unfavorable reviews
in Margaret Thatcher's memoirs Downing Street Years. Jeane displayed her
characteristic graciousness, explaining the basis for her skepticism at being
too supportive of
Jeane explained that she was worried that an embarrassment of the Argentinean government over the Falklands might lead to its replacement by a communist one. Jeane's thinking flowed from the powerful, and powerfully American traditions of the Monroe Doctrine, as well as her own thesis in Dictatorships and Double Standards, which foreign policy thinkers today, especially those specializing in the Middle East, are I think admonished to read. (A link to the original essay is here, and its book form here).
In vivid detail, Jeane explained that hindsight had vindicated Lady Thatcher's decision, not her own. Yet, in this concession, Jeane's graciousness and honor came through, and I came to see that any sensible policymaker in her place would have had the same fears as her, and would probably have come to the same decision: I, with all my sympathies for the Anglosphere and the old order, certainly would have.
Jeane then spoke to me about the profound ambiguity of foreign policy idealism that animated her Dictatorships and Double Standards thesis, subtly calling attention to a particular weakness in my own foreign policy thinking. I would say that if there is one essay that those who are called neoconservatives should read, it is Dictatorships and Double Standards.
Ultimately, difficult policy decisions cannot be entirely based on ex ante normative ideals, but prudential concerns, animated by history. Fortunately, this underscores the need for powerfully smart, and idealistic, statesmen, of which Jeane Kirkpatrick surely was one. Withal, Jeane's contribution to U.S. foreign policy was very significant, and her death is serious and in many ways sad, but she leaves behind many friends, a goodly number of acolytes, and a very, very significant legacy. May she rest in peace.
The Washington Post reports that the case of imprisoned Libyan democracy activist Fathi Eljahmi, chronicled often here, is getting renewed attention:
Human rights activists and Western diplomats are increasingly concerned about the welfare of Fathi al-Jahmi, a leading Libyan dissident awaiting a possible death sentence while being held in solitary confinement in Libya, and who is known to have several life-threatening health conditions for which he is receiving little or no medical care. He is charged with having an unauthorized meeting two years ago with a foreign official -- believed to be a U.S. diplomat -- and campaigners are pushing the Bush administration to do more to secure his release.
Let's hope they are successful. The rest is here.
Mohamed Eljahmi writes:
The United States' engaging Gadhafi discredits the war on terror. If Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh can be executed for his crime, why has [Libyan dictator Moammar]Gadhafi escaped justice for his role in the explosion of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, in 1988? The billions of dollars Gadhafi promised in compensation is a pittance compared with the payments U.S. oil companies now make to the Libyan dictator for the right to pump oil in Libya.
What message does this send to Middle Eastern dictators? That terrorism is a reasonable tactic because oil money can always buy reconciliation?
Gadhafi's flirtation with violence continues. He mocks our democratic system, stirs hatred, and oppresses his people. In a speech Aug. 31, he urged his followers to commit violence and carnage: "You have to be ready to annihilate your enemies, because your enemy has no mercy for you." Saif, his son and probable successor, has talked about terrorism as a tactic of statecraft.
More here.
This New Yorker story on Libya, while accurate in many respects, was soft on Muammar Gaddafi's son, and heir apparent, Saif.
Momahed Eljahmi set the record straight with the following letter to the editor (published in the current edition):
LIBYA's DISSIDENTS
Andrew Solomon accurately depicts Libya as a police state where Colonel Muammar Qaddafi controls all levers of power, but there is little hope that his son, Saif, will actually see through the reforms he purports to champion ("Circle of Fire," May 8th). Saif's self-described human-rights organization is funded by the state, and his human-rights record speaks for itself; his description of terrorism as "tactics" could hardly be termed a renunciation.
More space in Solomon's piece might have been devoted to those Libyan dissidents who are imprisoned or were killed because they advocated for justice and spoke the truth-such as some twelve hundred political prisoners, who were executed in June, 1996, at the Abu Sleem prison, and the journalist Daif al-Ghazal, whose mutilated body was found in Benghazi in June, 2005, and whose death still has not been investigated.
Mohamed Eljahmi, brother of Libyan dissident Fathi Eljahmi imprisoned by Qadhafi for speaking out in favor of democratic reforms, expressed his disappointment -- and concern -- about the decision to normalize relations with Libya:
It is unfortunate that the restoration of full diplomatic relations occurred while my brother Fathi, who is the leading democratic reformer in Libya, remains in prison. Given Qadhafi’s history, the U.S. is making a mistake by taking him at face value. In a recent New Yorker article, Qadhafi’s son did not renounce terrorism but rather said, 'We used terrorism as tactic for bargaining.' It has to be concluded that if he perceived Libya and America (or anyone else) to be in conflict, terrorism against civilians would be a legitimate tactic.
Mohamed is the author of several articles on Libya's human rights violations and the plight of his brother, and are worth reading today:
True To His Terrorist Ways, CBS News, April 13, 2006;
Bad Decision 101, National Review Online, March 20, 2006;
The People vs. Qadhafi, National Review Online, March 16, 2006;
Libya and the U.S.: Qadhafi Unrepentant, Middle East Forum, Winter 2006.
Mohamed Eljahmi writes with an update on his brother Fathi, the Libyan dissident imprisoned for speaking out in favor of democracy. This is the first contact the family has had in some time:
Fathi was visited yesterday by his oldest son and three of his daughters. The visit was an hour long and restricted to personal topics. It has raised Fathi's morale, "Now that I saw you all, I feel at peace."
According to Fathi "They are saying that I am mentally sick and are exerting stress via isolation. They want to pacify me but I am sticking to principles." He has not taken medications in over a week. The excuse is the person who gives him medication is traveling and there is no medication available to dispense.
He is allowed access only to Libyan TV and news. The Quran is the only book he is allowed to have. He feels it is possible the Libyan regime would strip him off of his citizenship and kick him out of the country.
Senator Biden issued the following statement on Libyan dissident Fathi Eljahmi:
It is absolutely despicable that Mr. Eljahmi languishes in isolation in a Libyan jail, cut off from his family and without access to proper medical treatment, for having the courage to speak truth to power. I call again upon the Libyan government to release Fathi Eljahmi immediately and unconditionally.
In accepting responsibility for the Pan Am 103 tragedy and renouncing their weapons of mass destruction programs, the Libyans have taken important steps to rejoin the international community. I think it is important to underscore to the Libyan government that this progress - including in Libya's relationship with the U.S. -- will not continue so long as Libya flagrantly flouts international human rights standards.
The press release is here.
"Beginning on March 22, Columbia University's School of International and Public Affairs will host a conference entitled 'The Prospect for Democracy: A-Libyan-American Dialogue.' On the second and final day of the conference, Libyan strongman Muammar al-Qadhafi is to address the participants by video conference. He is slated to speak about his views on the prospect of democracy in Libya. Among the participants will be Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs David Welch. The conference is being cosponsored by Columbia, the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, and the Libyan regime."
Mohamed Eljahmi has more here in today's NRO.
Also, see his column last week on Qadhafi's image makeover, which we highlighted here.
In this NRO piece, Mohamed Eljahmi draws the curtains on Qadhafi's Libya ... it's not what some would have us believe:
More than two years after the U.S. government began its rapprochement, how goes life in Libya? At first appearance, some may think Libyan strongman Muammar Qadhafi has reformed. Last week, the State Department released its annual "Country Reports on Human Rights Practices." As pejorative as was the description of Libya, the report still puts too much of a fine patina on the Libyan regime. It inaccurately said that the Libyan security forces are under civilian control. They are not. They are under the control of Libyan military ruler, Col. Muammar Qadhafi as is every facet of Libyan political and economic life.
Qadhafi has sought to improve his image. On March 2, 2006, for example, he released 130 prisoners. This was an empty gesture. In the riots that followed the February 17 cartoon protests, Qadhafi rounded up scores of new prisoners. Political dissidents — my brother, Fathi, among them — have spent years in prison for the crime of demanding freedom of speech and multiparty elections.
Qadhafi is weak. There is no freedom of association in Libya. He staged the cartoon protests in front of the Italian consulate in Benghazi to rally populist support and extort concessions from a Europe too willing to self-flagellate and assume guilt. But something went wrong: The rally went awry. State-security officials and plain-clothed members of the Revolutionary Committees shot and killed 11 people. In the following three days, rioters burned government buildings, police cars, and branches of the Revolutionary Committees. Chaos grew as violence spread to the coastal cities of Tobruq and Derna. The Libyan government called in Special Forces and units of commandoes to take control and Benghazi was put under an unannounced state of martial law. ...
In a March 2, 2006, speech, Qadhafi said the riots occurred because the Libyans are angry with the Italians. He demanded Italy pay compensation for its past occupation of Libya. In the same speech, Qadhafi hailed his al-Jamahiriya "state of the masses" and condemned representative democracy, constitutions and free press. He argued that elections would only bring chaos. Many Arab dictators use the same strategy of fear. But the truth is inescapable. There is yearning for an end to the totalitarian state. Georgia has its Rose Revolution and Ukraine its Orange Revolution. In Benghazi, they now speak of the Vagabond's Revolution.
Read the full article here.
Mohamed has worked tirelessly for the release of his brother Fathi, a human rights and democracy activist, from Qadhafi's jails. Fathi was imprisoned for speaking out in favor of freedom of speech in 2002, and despite a brief release in 2004, has languished out of reach of family and friends ever since. FDD has been proud to help his cause:
Read Claudia Rosett's profiles of Fathi Eljahmi are here and here.
The Committee on the Present Danger, which FDD helped revive in 2004, sent a letter to Qadhafi requesting a meeting with Fathi and medical treatment for his life-threatening diabetes. A press release on the result his here. A a supportive editorial from the Wall Street Journal is here.
