John Kerry's stance on Libya

Libya: The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) is responsible for inspections of nuclear facilities in Libya. Over the course of the last 2 years Libya has been on a trajectory towards renouncing it's programs to develop Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD). Recently, the Bush administration has made movements towards normalization of relations with Libya. Most importantly, the Bush administration has lifted economic sanctions on Libya under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) and the Iran-Libya Sanctions Act (ILSA). This has been touted as a Bush administration success story as part of its counter-proliferation policy.

John Kerry: A Kerry/Edwards administration wouldn't necessarily have a different approach to relations with Libya than the Bush Administration, but would view that policy as part of a more consistent approach to dealing with the threats posed by WMD. The Kerry/Edwards platform states that, "Today, we face three great challenges above all others - First, to win the global war against terror; Second, to stop the spread of nuclear, biological and chemical weapons; Third, to promote democracy, freedom, and opportunity around the world, starting by winning the peace in Iraq."

Quotation "Libya's agreement to terminate their weapons of mass destructions program is an important step forward in addressing the great security challenge of our time, proliferation. It is particularly important that it will be done within the international non-proliferation treaty regime and using the IAEA, the bases of international law and multilateral cooperation and verification. After all, if anyone has any illusions about the true character of Qaddafi and the importance of vigilance in holding him to his word, they need only remember the victims of Pan Am 103 and their families who have paid the price for Qaddafi's past brutality.

Ironically, this significant advance represents a complete U-turn in the Bush Administration's overall foreign policy. An Administration that scorns multilateralism and boasts about a rigid doctrine of military preemption has almost in spite of itself demonstrated the enormous potential for improving our national security through diplomacy. If the President can put aside his go it alone unilateralism to engage with a longtime enemy like Qaddafi, why are the ideologues in this Administration so hesitant to negotiate with North Korea to end their nuclear weapons programs? Why not rally the United Nations and NATO to forge a new cooperative effort to combat proliferation around the globe?"

Assessment of the Proposal:

This section of the brief requires a little departure from format. Primarily, Kerry would engage the debate over Libya's proliferation of WMD only in response to the Bush claim of a success based upon his policy on Libya.. These are some quotations intended to refute Bush's claims on Libya.

The Washington Post reported on October 1, 2004 that , "In a fierce debate over nuclear proliferation, Bush asserted: "Libya has disarmed. The A.Q. Khan network has been brought to justice." He was referring to a nuclear smuggling ring based in Pakistan. But many experts also credit the patient diplomacy started in the Clinton administration for persuading Libya to cooperate. Moreover, Khan, a national hero in Pakistan, was pardoned by President Pervez Musharraf, and not a single person involved in his network has been prosecuted anywhere. Yesterday [Sept. 30, 2004], in fact, the International Atomic Energy Agency complained that it had been prevented from interviewing Khan."

(Source: The Washington Post, October 1, 2004, p.lexis)

Secondly, Michael Hirsh & John Barry reveal in a recent story in Newsweek, "…in fact, the British played the lead role in the negotiations. And the talks succeeded only after the British managed to sideline the Bush administration's top arms-control official, John Bolton, NEWSWEEK has learned. Under Secretary of State Bolton, a hard-liner, pursued Bush's basic approach of "not rewarding bad behavior" by refusing to lift sanctions against Libya. But after a tense session in London, the British complained that Bolton was obstructing talks. Washington agreed to keep Bolton at home."

(Source: Newsweek, October 11, 2004, p.34)

Comparison: Both candidates espouse the benefits of dialogue and multilateralism when it comes to Libya. The difference comes in the timing of this dialogue, and how this dialogue is a sign of an overall strategy towards dealing with the threat of WMD. A Kerry-Edwards administration favors a policy where the carrot comes before the stick. John Kerry and John Edwards would pursue a consistent policy of engagement and multilateral arms control backed by the strength of the U.S. military. Their argument is that this is the best way to dismantle multi-national arms smuggling networks and preventing the proliferation of WMD. This is coupled with the specifics of their policies towards Iran & North Korea and their approach to preemptive military action outlined under their National Security Strategy (NSS).

Link To Bush's Libya Issue Brief

Sources

Davis, Douglas (2004). A Syrian Bomb?. The Jerusalem Post. September 10, 2004. p.14. [Lexis-Nexis].

Hirsh, Michael. Barry, John (2004). Madmen, Rogues, & Nukes. Newsweek. October 11, 2004. p.34. [Lexis-Nexis]

Kerr, Paul (2004). Libya Pledges Military Trade Curbs, but Details are Fuzzy. Arms Control Today. June 2004. Retrieved October 12, 2004.

Kerr, Paul (2004). U.S. Lifts Remaining Economic Sanctions Against Libya. Arms Control Today. October 2004. Retrieved October 12, 2004.

Kerry, John (2004). Press Release on Weapons of Mass Destruction. Retrieved on October 12, 2004.

Kerry, John (2003). Statement of John Kerry on Libya's Dismantling Weapons of Mass Destruction. Press Release December 20, 2003. Retrieved on October 12, 2004.

Kimball, Daryl (2004). Reality Check: Libya and Iran. Arms Control Today. Jan./Feb. 2004. Retrieved October 12, 2004.