No harm done, maybe some good

The State Department has let it be known that Assistant Secretary Jeffrey Feltman met with Libyan government (as in Gaddafi) representatives in Tunisia over the weekend to underline that Gaddafi must go. Gaddafi and Co. are suggesting that this is the beginning of a negotiation.

I certainly hope that isn’t really so. Sure there are things that might be negotiated–like where in the desert Gaddafi can pitch his tent, or which mode of transport he’ll use to go to Sudan, where President Bashir, also indicted by the International Criminal Court, can welcome him. But from the way the information was leaked it is clear the State Department understands perfectly well that Gaddafi’s leaving power is a sine qua non.

The only thing that makes me scratch my head about this is that Ambassador Gene Cretz was present. If we have recognized the National Transitional Council as the legitimate authority in Libya, as we did on Friday, he should be getting himself to Benghazi as quickly as possible and shunning contact with the Gaddafi regime, until it is ready to get out of Tripoli.  It might have been better given the diplomatic signal intended if Cretz had not been there.

Others have raised the question of why Derek Chollet, the National Security Council’s strategic planning director, was there rather than dealing with more important issues than Libya, like relations with the BRICs (Brazil, Russia, India and China).  This is just the latest example of how the urgent overtakes the merely important.  But if Chollet can help straighten out policy towards Libya, I’m all for it. The BRICs will be around for a long time after Gaddafi is gone.

We’ve been less than decisive from the first on Libya and it hasn’t helped:  clarity and forcefulness from the United States still count for a lot around the the world, including in Libya.  So if the message was clear and forceful, I imagine no harm was done, and maybe a bit of good.