[/caption]
For the first time in eight months, the American flag was raised over the US embassy in Tripoli last month. One day earlier, on 21 September, Ambassador Gene Cretz returned to Libya’s capital after having been recalled to Washington in December 2010 for consultations in the wake of a WikiLeaks release that made public classified diplomatic cables from 2009, in which the ambassador had expressed his personal opinions of Libya’s ousted leader, Muammar Qadhafi. Soon after Ambassador Cretz left the country, Libyans opposed to Qadhafi’s rule launched a rebellion in the coastal town of Benghazi, and with NATO military support, managed to overthrow their leader of 42 years.
Ambassador Cretz has returned to Libya at a time when the National Transitional Council (NTC) is still negotiating to form a new executive committee after having been dissolved upon the unexplained killing of NTC military chief, Abdel Fattah Younes. Following the death of Muammar Qadhafi, the NTC intends to activate a recently developed road map for a new constitution and elections within the following 20 months.
President George W. Bush nominated Gene Cretz as US ambassador to Libya in 2007—after a 36-year hiatus in which the office was left vacant due to Qadhafi’s support of international terrorism, in addition to his pursuit of a nuclear weapons program. Beginning in 1999, the increasingly isolated Libyan leader began to make amends with the international community. In 1988, he handed over the two men believed to have been responsible for killing 270 civilians on board the Pan Am Flight 103 that exploded over Lockerbie, Scotland. Five years later, Libya accepted legal responsibility for the bombing, and agreed to compensate the families for their losses. Soon after, the president announced that Libya would turn in its weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles.
Originally from New York, Ambassador Cretz has served the US all over the world, including Pakistan, Syria, Egypt and Israel. From 11 July 2007 to 20 November, the ambassador served as the Near Eastern Affairs Bureau’s Deputy Assistant Secretary for Egyptian, Israeli-Palestinian, Jordanian, Lebanese and Syrian Affairs while awaiting Senate confirmation for his post as US ambassador to Libya.
In this interview with The Majalla, Ambassador Cretz provides his analysis of the current situation in Libya; he discusses US security concerns in Libya and its bordering countries; and he explains America’s role in Libya as the country emerges from dictatorship.
The Majalla: What was your initial reaction to the mounting threats against Qadhafi’s rule?
It was one of surprise. We knew that there was raging opposition to Qadhafi throughout the country, but I am not sure that any of us expected that the Libyan people would rise up like this and take his place.
Q: What is your assessment of the situation in Libya now, and how will it affect its neighbors, Algeria and Egypt?
I am hoping that Libya will serve as a model, an example, for others. It went through a cataclysmic rebellion; there was a lot of bloodshed and a complete change of the social and political system. Hopefully Libya will in the future stand as an island of stability in this region where the revolutions, for example in Tunisia and Egypt, are not yet solidified.
Q: What sort of security concerns does the US have in Libya at the moment, and how does it intend to address these concerns? For example, is there an Islamist threat?
One of the major security threats is the continuing presence of Muammar Qadhafi and his two sons, Muatassim and Saif Al-Islam, along with the loyalists in the areas of Sirte, Bani Walid and Sabha, who represent a threat to the Libyan people’s ability to get moving toward a new body politic and a new country.
The Islamist threat is something that I think no one can predict right now. Will Al-Qaeda in the Maghreb and Al-Qaeda in general try to take advantage of the chaos? There have been some indications that they will, but I think by and large they will not be a major threat. We hope that the Islamists who have fought alongside their Libyan brothers, when they take to the political scene, will be as moderate as they claim that they want to be.
We are worried about obviously the question of the Manpads [Man-Portable Air-Defense Systems] that have disappeared from various stockpiles in Libya. And we are worried about the continued porous borders between Libya and its African neighbors.
So on the security side, there are a number of things to be worried about. We, along with our international partners, hope to support the new Libyan authority as they take measures to begin to minimize these various threats. It’s not easy; they have quite a challenge ahead of them. But, I think with the right attitude and the backing of the international community, I think that they will be successful in countering these threats.
Q: What do you expect America’s role in Libya to be as things move forward?
I expect, number one, that we will establish a new, very strong bilateral relationship with the Libyan government, and re-establish our very strong ties to the Libyan people. Number two, I think that we will, in cooperation and under the UN umbrella, see what kinds of projects and programs that we think that we would be able to contribute to, just as others in the international community are doing. And three, to support the Libyan authorities as they move forward into this brave new challenge.
Q: What lessons can be learned from US intervention in Libya? Has it been successful in your opinion?
I think clearly the lesson that can be learned, like the president and the secretary have said, we have entered a new era here, and you have to apply what is called ‘smart power’—that is to understand as best you can the circumstances on the ground in any one situation, and then use the diplomatic, economic, political and military tools that are at your disposal. And I think that in this one, given the exact circumstances on the ground, given the attitudes and the position of the international community and the call from the Arab world to help, I think that we got it right. And if there is any lesson to be learned it is that the good application of smart power can have a good ending.
Q: With this in mind, what does the US intend to do with regards to the other Arab countries currently experiencing popular uprisings, i.e. Syria and Yemen?
I think that, like I’ve said and the secretary has said several times, you can’t apply a cookie cutter approach to these problems. Each of them may have similar roots; the basis of the opposition cause in each country may be similar, but all of the other circumstances in each country differ widely. So I think that the best thing that we can do at this particular point is to examine each of the circumstances and then to take the same approach we did toward Libya, with our international partners, and apply those tools that can bring about the kind of result that we think would be in line with the wishes of the people of those countries.
Q: Rising food prices and high unemployment, and to a lesser extent, political discontent, have caused the uprisings in the Middle East. Is democracy the answer?
Well, look, it’s our view that democracy can encompass a lot of different kinds of institutions, but I think at the root of it is a people free to express their views. Are they free to conduct their economic life and their social life? And are they guaranteed rights by their government, human rights; and are they able to allow for the development of a civil society.
So I don’t think that we have to stick to one particular definition of democracy as to what should be the favoured outcome, but I think that we have a pretty good definition of the different things that would constitute a democratic nation. And I think that those are attributes that the international community can support worldwide. It doesn’t have to be American democracy; it doesn’t have to be British democracy, or French democracy, but it has to contain various elements, which at the end of the day people have to be able to express their views and have freedom to live their lives.
Q: How is America’s role in the region is changing?
We have always had a very important role to play throughout the region, and I think we will continue to do that. We have interests in the region as much as any other country does, and I don’t think that there will be a lot of change with respect to American presence in the region. But, like I said, I think that we will take a more analytical view of what the circumstances are in a particular country, and then try to shape our particular interests using the particular tools that we have at our disposal.
Q: Can you elaborate on this changing role, and what it means for US policy in the Middle East, i.e. its relationship with Saudi Arabia and Israel, Iran and Syria?
Saudi Arabia is an ally of ours. We have a very strong relationship. We will continue to have that relationship. Israel certainly is one of our strong partners. We will continue to be very much engaged in trying to help the parties negotiate a permanent and lasting peace between them, not only between Israel and the Palestinians but between Israel and the Arab world at large.
Egypt is a key ally of ours. Obviously, we’ve had a change in leadership there. We have to adapt to how that leadership wants to deal with us. And in countries like Libya and Tunisia, there have been fairly radical changes in those countries. But I think at the end of the day, we have interests in these countries, and I think that those countries very much want to maintain a good relationship with the United States. We will continue to bring to bear our values, our economic interests, our political interests, and this is a two way street. Those countries have relationships with us because they also have self-interests at stake in having a relationship with the United States.
