The United States restored diplomatic relations with Libya on Monday. Good. Sticks, like the bombs Ronald Reagan dropped on Tripoli and Benghazi, can work. Carrots, like the dimplomatic recognition the Bush Administration awarded, can work too. By awarding this carrot, the Bush administration gives notice to other outlaw regimes: you can come home again. Time won't tell whether the stick in Iraq or the carrot in Libya proves more effective in reigning in rogue regimes. But proponents of one approach over the other certainly will tell which method proved more effective.
"Time won't tell whether the stick in Iraq or the carrot in Libya proves more effective in reigning in rogue regimes. But proponents of one approach over the other certainly will tell which method proved more effective."
I'm not sure what that means, Dan. Could you clarify?
Good.
Perhaps the next will be Cuba. Thereby reducing the strangle hold the expatriates have on the government of Florida.
Ben: Iraq and Libya shared so many characteristics, but were ultimately dealt with so differently, so in the future, when rogue states mend their ways, the proponents of the "stick" approach will undoubtedly say, "See, our invasion of Iraq made this happen," whereas the proponents of the "carrot" approach will say, "See, the example of allowing Libya to reenter the global community made this happen." In other words, partisans twist events to butress preexisting arguments.
I think the timing is excellent, given the stand-still with Iran. It's an important gesture, especially as we consider sidelining the UNSC.
It's great for US business, actually. There's a ton of money in Lybia, and oil recovery costs are extraordinarily low.
On Cuba, perhaps the "strangle hold" that Castro has on his people, would be a better area of focus. Those people suffer daily at the hands of that bastard.
Homer...What if Castro were sitting on a huge oil deposit? How long, do you think, would it take us to "Normalize" relations with him? Remembering that capitalism operates almost by definition, on the basis of what is expedient, and like natural selection, everything in economics is wide open to question on ethical grounds.
"Ben: Iraq and Libya shared so many characteristics, but were ultimately dealt with so differently, so in the future, when rogue states mend their ways, the proponents of the "stick" approach will undoubtedly say, "See, our invasion of Iraq made this happen," whereas the proponents of the "carrot" approach will say, "See, the example of allowing Libya to reenter the global community made this happen." In other words, partisans twist events to butress preexisting arguments."
Oh, okay. Yea, I definitly agree.
As for the actual event itself I think it was good. Rewarding Libya so publically puts additional pressure on Iran, which is seen more and more as the truly rogue regime that it is. And obviously it will be great for business and trade, which will benefit the people of both the US and Libya.
Guido, he IS sitting on a huge oil deposit.
In fact, a number of US and international oil executives met in Mexico City in February to discuss how best to extract the oil sitting just off the coast of Cuba (in its terroritorial waters). The US Government, invoking the provisions of the Cuban Assets Controls Regulations (see 31 CFR 515), actually forced the Sheraton in Mexico City to evict all Cubans that were staying at the hotel for the meeting. The reason being that, Sheraton, as a foreign subsidiary of a US company, is prohibited from conducting any financial transactions with nationals of Cuba, or providing any services to the same.
Now don't you think that if the US Government were interested in their oil they would have looked the other way (at least according to your argument about moral relativity when oil is involved)? Instead, they took the strictest possible interpretation of their regulations, and thereby put all US oil companies on notice: the Cuban Embargo still stands and will be enforced.
Go figure.
