by Simona Ross

According to Search for Common Ground, 1.6 million people die annually due to violent conflict. In Syria, over 130,000 innocent civilians have already lost their lives in an ongoing civil war. By comparison, the recent Libyan civil war caused between 10,000 and 30,000 deaths.

Does U.S. Foreign Policy Serve the People? Institutional Corruption Promoted U.S. Military Engagement in Libya

The difference in death tolls may be due to the swift intervention by the United Nations; specifically, strong military support from the United States. In early 2011, the U.S. government began taking an active role in resolving the conflict in Libya. Then, in March 2011, U.S. President Barack Obama ordered the deployment of U.S. military operations to enforce a U.N.-sanctioned no-fly zone. Given the horrific violence unfolding in the region, why hasn’t the U.S. responded similarly to human loss during the conflict in Syria? While the resolution to intervene in Libya may have been based on security intelligence, there is reason to believe that institutional corruption played a central role in the final decision.

Lawrence Jacobs and Benjamin Page conducted a study on actors influencing U.S. foreign policy. The study revealed that the public has little influence on U.S. foreign policy, whereas corporations hold the greatest power to shape decisions on foreign affairs. In fact, Jacobs and Page emphasized that when there is a shift in opinion in the business community, members of Congress change their stand on that particular issue in the same direction. As recent evidence, U.S. military operations in Libya demonstrate how corporate interest and U.S. foreign policy are intertwined.

In contrast to Syria, the Democratic Republic of Congo, and other conflict-ridden countries, Libya benefits from significant foreign direct investment in their oil production. Oil Companies that had large financial investments in Libya include ExxonMobil, Marathon Oil, BP, ConocoPhillips, Hess Corporation, Chevron, and Occidental Petroleum. In 2011, the oil industry spent $150 million on lobbying efforts, with ExxonMobil, Marathon Oil, BP, ConocoPhillips, Chevron, and Occidental Petroleum as the top spenders. All of the above-mentioned oil companies have also been the top clients lobbying on Libyan issues.

There is little doubt that backing from the U.N. Security Council and NATO aided the decision to undertake military intervention in Libya or that President Obama unilaterally decided to deploy U.S military forces. Nevertheless, President Obama enjoyed strong support from many members of Congress—support inevitably needed to authorize military action after 60 days, as enforced by the 1973 War Powers Act. Several members of Congress publicly advocated for an advisory resolution, which outlined operations for a no-fly zone in Libya. The resolution eventually passed the Senate. Members of Congress who drafted and promoted the resolution included: then-Sen. John Kerry, Sen. John McCain, Sen. Carl Levin, Sen. Dianne Feinstein, Sen. Lindsey Graham, Sen. John Hoeven and Sen. Joseph Lieberman. To further advocate for military engagement in Libya, Kerry also published an article in the Wall Street Journal titled “Libya and the Just Use of American Force.” But while their support may have been merely strategic, these members of Congress share a great personal interest in Libya’s political stability.



For example, Secretary of State John Kerry has invested heavily in oil companies like ConocoPhillips, ExxonMobil, and BP—all of which were operating or had immediate plans to operate in Libya. In 2007, BP signed a $900 million deal for future oil extractions in Libya—a deal that marked the largest exploration commitment ever by BP at the time. However, as the civil war spread, foreign investments like this became increasingly vulnerable to disruption. Indeed, rising conflict hampered exploration in many regions, and the unexpected downturn cost ConocoPhillips an estimated loss of over $100 million.

Sen. John McCain is the top recipient of campaign contributions from the oil and gas industry, which is one of the largest spenders on campaign contributions and lobbying efforts. In 2012, John McCain received some of the highest campaign contributions from Chevron, Hess Corporation, Marathon Oil, ConocoPhillips, and Occidental Petroleum. Harvard Law Professor Lawrence Lessig argues that lobbyists tend to target politicians that already share a belief system with their clients but merely attempt to influence their priorities.1

Other recipients of hefty campaign contributions are Sen. Lindsey Graham and Sen. John Hoeven, who both received generous donations from Hess Corporation and Marathon Oil. Sen. Dianne Feinstein and other members of Congress that voted for intervention in Libya received substantial campaign contributions from Marathon Oil’s Political Action Committee.

Marathon Oil is worth highlighting not only because of its large campaign contributions to all of the above-mentioned Congress members, but also because it is the most active corporation lobbying on Libyan issues.

Marathon Oil had a great stake in the political situation in Libya. Between 2009 and 2010 sales of crude oil to the Libyan National Oil Company accounted for 13 percent of Marathon Oil’s annual revenue. In 2010, Marathon Oil’s investment in Libya was approximately $760 million, and the company had ambitions to increase drilling by 2011. By December 2010, Marathon Oil had already issued a 10-K Form stating that continued conflict in Libya could cause their revenues and margins to decline and limit their future growth prospects. By 2011, halted productions began to impact Marathon Oil’s revenues, even while the company continued to cover maintenance costs for their facilities.

Besides oil companies and human rights groups, defense contractors were the main clients mentioning Libya in their lobbying efforts, with Halliburton and Boeing among the top clients. In 2010 alone, the defense industry spent over $138.8 million on federal-level lobbying. Their lobbying efforts proved successful. Members of Congress voted against budget cuts for the defense sector, expressing concern over reduced defense spending during active military engagement in Libya.

Meanwhile, Sen. John McCain, Sen. Carl Levin, Sen. Dianne Feinstein, and Sen. Lindsey Graham received campaign contributions from the leading defense contractors Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, General Dynamics, Boeing, and BAE Systems.

Further, President Obama, who confirmed U.S. support for military involvement in Libya, received substantial campaign contributions from the oil and defense industries. Anthony Gregory, who studies the influence of Wall Street and Banks on U.S. foreign policy, argues that Obama’s reliance on military contractors and Arab oil explains his engagement in Libya. Gregory found that the U.S. Federal Reserve provided the central bank of Libya with $26 billion of almost interest free emergency loans between 2007 and 2010. At the same time, the central bank was the only business exempt from U.S. sanctions against Libya.

Obama’s advocacy for U.S. military engagement paid off. During the 2012 presidential election cycle, Obama was the top recipient of contributions from individuals affiliated with the defense sector, noting his military engagement in Libya as one of the reasons for their support.

Pro-Israel lobbying groups and think tanks were also actors that shared a stake in the Libya intervention. At the time, Libya posed no imminent security threat to the U.S. Yet it is no secret that the relationship between Israel and the Gaddafi regime were strained. In 2012, NorPAC, a political action committee working to strengthen U.S.-Israel relations, spent over $16 billion dollars on lobbying and on campaign contributions. Sen. Carl Levin was among the primary beneficiaries of NorPAC’s support.

With regard to think tanks, Scholar Darius Nazemroaya claims that the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) was also actively engaged in shaping U.S. foreign policy towards Libya. NED was among the first institutions publicly stating the need for a humanitarian intervention in Libya. According to Nazemroaya, NED provided financial resources to organizations promoting regime change in Libya. Moreover, NED directors allegedly included Libyan activists listed as terrorists by the U.S. Department of State.

Lastly, Sen. Joseph Lieberman benefited from his support for military engagement in Libya through his lobbying firm Kasowitz Benson Torres & Friedman. The firm recently signed a lobbying contract with Basit Igtet, a Libyan politician running for office. During the 2011 revolution, Igtet was a key opponent of the Gaddafi regime.

The decision to support military operations in Libya may have been based on a set of strategic factors; but the disturbing truth is that U.S. foreign policy is not guided by idealistic values promoting democracy, peace, and human rights.

This is not to suggest that the U.S. should not have played a central role in the Libya intervention—quite the opposite. The moment has come where “Never Again,” as was pledged after Cambodia and Rwanda, must transcend rhetoric and materialize into action for Syria. The key question is whether institutional corruption provides a concept that can help explain the motives for military intervention or non-intervention, and whether foreign policy decisions dictated by humanitarian needs would have a positive impact on the outcome of such interventions.

As Kofi Annan put it, “while humanitarian intervention is a moral and strategic imperative when the alternative is genocide or gross violations of human rights, military action pursued for narrow purposes without global legitimacy or foresight about the consequences (…) can be as destructive as the evils it purports to confront.”2

The events surrounding the military operations in Libya demonstrate a range of failures in the U.S. political system. However, it remains difficult to determine the greatest tragedy highlighted by these events. Is it that American citizens express no interest in U.S. foreign policy, that interest groups take advantage of the political system, or that the political system makes politicians dependent on financial contributions?

1. Lawrence Lessig, Republic, Lost: How Money Corrupts Congress—And a Plan to Stop It (Twelve, 2011).

2. Kofi Annan, Interventions (Penguin, 2012), xii.