Foreign policies of the world bad boys: Libya and Venezuela

With the release of Abdel Baset al-Megrahi, who was convicted of the 1988 Lockerbie Bombing, has reflected a broader international “coming out” for Libya. It is as if, like the Al-Megrahi, Libya has served its time as a terrorist-funding pariah state, and now sufficiently punished for its crimes, the global community can accept a rehabilitated ex-con into their fold.

Yet, Libya has had a difficult relationship with the world since Muammar al-Gaddafi seized power in 1969 with his unique brand of “Islamic Socialism”. The international ostracisation peaked in the 1980s, with a string of terrorist incidents ranging from targeting foreign air carriers, to bombing a disco in Berlin. The UN, as well as the US and EU, established a strict series of sanctions to formalise the regimes isolation.

But after the admission of culpability, the sanctions were quickly removed, which, in tern, broad rapidly improved relations. Nicholas Sarkozy was one of the first world leaders to court the Libyan leader, with France and Libya releasing the following joint statement in 2007 which aims to:

“affirm their desire to give new momentum to bilateral relations, and to build a strategic partnership between the two countries,”

The UK Government has recently admitted to arms sales worth £9.4 in 2009 so far, adding to £14.4 million contracts for the whole of 2008.

Although Venezuela has never held the same notoriety as Libya, it is also an oil-rich nation with a maverick reputation. After characteristically bold comments by Hugo Chavez that Venezuela is seeking to support Iran’s nuclear programme, the UN threatened that punitive action may be taken for flouting a Security Council Resolution. The US has also frozen foreign bank accounts of close allies to the Venezuelan president for supposed terrorist links.

The way these two outsider states have dealt with the Western powers attempted containment, however, has been markedly different.

Chavez has returned to his home in Venezuela after an 11-country tour of the world, including Belarus, Iran, and Libya amongst others black-balled states. The official reason for this shuttle diplomacy was principally to strike new oil deals and re-equip an aging army, but the mission also sought to forge new ties in a burgeoning global anti-American movement.

Chavez, with Fidel Castro of Cuba and Evo Morales of Bolivia, founded the Bolivarian Alternative for the Americas (ALBA) in an attempt to find a Latin American alternative to Washington Consensus neo-liberalism.

Venezuela is keen to promote bilateral, social schemes, such as the internationally recognised El Sistema, a Children and Youth Orchestras of Venezuela, and with oil-based trade programme, such as the oil-for-doctors scheme with Cuba.

A lot of Venezuela’s success is due to the charisma and canny ideological manoeuvrings of the president. Chavez has channelled and united much anti-American sentiment, which has grown rapidly under the controversial stewardship of George W. Bush. Whether these feelings have seen their high-water mark, with Barack Obama using a more conciliatory approach, it remains to be seen whether Chavez can carry forward serious geopolitical momentum.

Libya, on the other hand, differs from the Venezuelan foreign policy in two crucial ways. Firstly, it tends not to conduct its overseas relations by grandstanding through the media. Although a controversial and rather eccentric, Colonel Gaddafi does not match Chavez’s speechifying rants. The Libyan leader has had quarrels with the Italian Government, and has also called for Israel to be “pushed into the sea” he has moderated his views and comments on both these matters, and now prefers to operate behind the scenes.

Secondly, instead of rejecting the Western powers, Libya has directly enticed European powers to take advantage of Libyan oil reserves. Libya is a key stepping stone for illegal immigrants on their way from West Africa to Europe, and now the EU is providing direct assistance to secure Libya’s extensive desert borders. Direct bilateral relations over technical matters have softened the tone, and Libya is enjoying the foreign direct investment that normalised relations bring.

It is important to remember, though, that Libya is still a repressive regime that regularly subject to international condemnation. Whereas, Venezuela, no matter how flawed, is still a democracy. Chavez’s stronger moral mandate allows him to indulge in visionary multi-lateral schemes, yet Gaddafi is struggling for basic recognition. But, nevertheless, there is a sense that the two countries are moving in opposite directions in relation to their respective foreign policies.

Libya is courting its powerful neighbours, and rejecting its historic dubious associations, whereas Venezuela is rejecting its neighbourhood superpower and embarking on new alliances with international rebels. Gaddafi’s conservative strategy of wooing the EU seems reasonably successful, showing hard results immediately. Whether Chavez’s high-risk gambit of uniting the diverse enemies of American capitalism can hold together, is another matter.