Paralleling
the swift and fundamental domestic transformations Qadhafi initiated upon
coming to power in 1969 were equally radical and controversial foreign
policy changes. King Idris had been proWestern , quiescent if not passive,
and scarcely interested in panArab issues. Qadhafi, in contrast, was markedly
anti-Western, highly activist, and a strong advocate of Arab unity. Although
Qadhafi's internal policies could be ignored or tolerated by the rest of
the world, regardless of their radicalism, his foreign policies elicited
strong resentment and widespread condemnation from many quarters. Even
the so-called "progressive" or revolutionary regimes in Algeria, Iraq,
and Syria that supported some of Qadhafi's policies opposed his maladroit
diplomacy, rhetorical excess, and provocative tactics.
Allegations
of Qadhafi's involvement in subversive activities were numerous. Over the
years, Libya has been accused of subversion by several Arab countries,
including Egypt, Sudan, Tunisia, Morocco, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia. For
example, Libyan agents reportedly planned on several occasions to disrupt
the pilgrimage at Mecca in Saudi Arabia. And for many years Libya supported
the mostly Christian rebels in southern Sudan, who are led by John Garang,
as against the central government in Khartoum. Many observers linked Libya's
lack of restraint in foreign affairs with its oil wealth, which paid for
foreign adventures while keeping the domestic population content.
By disregarding
the rules of the international political game, Libya became so ostracized
and isolated that when the United States bombed Libyan cities in April
1986, only a few countries condemned the action strongly. Potential friends
in the Arab world were already alienated by the constantly changing pattern
of Libyan alliances.
Nevertheless,
Libya was subject to certain practical limitations. Its oil revenues were
dependent on the world market and subject to inflationary pressures. Although
well armed, Libya's military was undermanned, unable in most cases to support
foreign policy initiatives by force. Libyan foreign policy was not so erratic
and disjointed as it appeared, however. Instead, it was consistent with,
and in large part based on, the initially proclaimed ideals of the Revolution
and the developments that followed.
Libyan foreign
policy grew from the historical legacy of colonial domination, Nasser's
philosophy, and most important, the creation of Israel. Qadhafi's concept
of foreign relations has been determined to a large extent by his implacable
hatred of Israel and his desire to destroy it. The policy of eradicating
Israel either shapes or takes precedence over his ideology. For example,
Qadhafi advocates Arab unity not only for ideological reasons, but because
of his conviction that a unified Arab nation would be capable of defeating
Israel militarily.
Qadhafi's worldwide
support of revolutionary and insurgent movements evolved in part from the
sponsorship and funding he provided to Palestinian organizations that fought
against Israel. Moreover, Qadhafi's antipathy toward imperialism derives
less from Libya's struggle against Italian colonialism than from the perceived
creation of Israel by the United States and European powers. And, although
Qadhafi espouses nonalignment, he has advocated a close Arab relationship
with the Soviet Union as a means of obtaining arms to defeat Israel and
excoriated the United States because of its support of Israel. Libyan foreign
policy is not, however, dictated entirely by opposition to Israel. Libya's
activism in Africa and the Mediterranean basin is motivated by a desire
to be a regional power. In the 1980s, Libya's reckless and adventurous
intervention in the Third World was driven by Qadhafi's desire to disseminate
his Third Universal Theory and his personal aspirations for worldwide recognition.