It has been more than 40 years since the socialist-nationalist-Islamic revolution in Libya, which brought to power the eccentric colonel Muammar Gaddafi. Since then the country has sank into the arbitrary rule of a small circle close to the leader. As many other states who take pride in their "rule by the people for the people", the North African country also subdued to harsh and authoritarian practices. Just to mention a few instances, political association is punished with long prison sentences or even capital punishment, while peaceful protests against the government result in forced disappearance. Female victims of abuse and violence are detained in prison-like rehabilitation centers. On top of that the country suffers trade and arms embargos because of its blunt and intimidating anti-Western policies, including sponsored terrorist attacks.
Recently the undemocratic regime in Libya has shown some willingness to change and restored diplomatic relations with US and other countries. The UN also lifted the trade embargo after Libya took the responsibility for the Lockerbie terrorist attack. But how much can a sworn despot really change? Does admitting after 10 years that you ordered the murder of over 200 innocent people reconcile you with the international community? Or it is the cynical package deal for lives, military trade agreements and lucrative oil contracts that does so?
Let's not be deluded so easily - Muammar Gaddafi is still the same despotic leader who wrote the Green Book of political inspirations for his nation 40 years ago. He only sometimes puts on sheep's clothing in international negotiations. Sometimes.
Last week he embarrassed Switzerland one more time byfailing to alllow two Swiss citizens and former detainees leave the country. They had been detained with no charges for about a year as a response to the arrest of Gaddafi's son in Switzerland last summer. He was then charged with physical assault and later released on bail - a normal situation in a country with respect for human rights and the rule of law. The Libyan leader however called this a provocation and demanded that Switzerland's political leadership overrule the independent judiciary. The Swiss president had to apologize for this recently, but it was not enough and the Swiss were only released from prison, but not granted exit visas.
We should not forget how last week the Lockerbie bomber al-Megrahi was welcomed in Libya as a hero, after having been sentenced for the Lockerbie terrorist act in 1988. By the time Gaddafi took the responsibility for the deadly blast, he was committing another terrorist act. Between 1999 and 2007 five Bulgarian nurses and a Palestinian doctor were detained, tortured and twice sentenced to death for supposedly deliberately starting an HIV epidemic. Although numerous international HIV experts proved that the epidemic had started due to poor sanitation in hospitals and before the convicts even arrived to the country, Libya only released them after gaining international trade concessions.
So the morals: authoritarians do not change easily. After 40 years Gaddafi keeps on tantalizing the world with his cheap tricks. And he even dares blackmail democratic countries to abandon their principles. This does not deserve trade contracts and lifting sanctions, but rather loud condemnation.
Ivan Kalburov holds an MA in International Relations from CEU, Budapest. He wrties a regualr blog at http://criticae.wordpress.com/.
- 5
September 14, 2009
Member deleted
A decade ago, that question would have seemed a dead end. But, as was mentioned above, there has been a push for greater and more open ties with the West from Gaddafi as of late and in analyzing that shift we might be able to understand better how best to broker change.
There are two basic arguments for why Gaddafi has chosen to don the sheep's clothing more often lately. The first is that he desires a more prominent role in the International Community, most likely for economic reasons, but not entirely without prestigious intentions as well, particularly evident in his attempts to promote Pan-Africanism. The second argument is that the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003 opened his eyes to the possibility of a similar fate for Libya.
While I think that the latter could very well have provided a spark for the change, the former is much more likely the cause, in my opinion. Working from that assumption, we need to figure out the balance of 'stick' to 'carrot' that the International Community ought to adopt to move Libya in the right direction.
While I absolutely agree that Gaddafi is still very much a Wolf, I don't think that a rollback on economic incentives, etc., would be a plausible path to effective change in Libya. Much more likely, I think that using Gaddafi's desire for both wealth and prestige as a lever for increased concessions with respect to Human Rights is the best course.
When you consider the situation, Libya actually stands out as a promising test-case for multilateral diplomacy, particularly as it becomes more and more diplomatically entwined with the US, EU and Africa. Those relationships, when fostered, could act as the perfect bargaining chip to exact change without coercion or bellicose threats - neither of which seemed to have worked in the past with Libya. The more Libya feels a part of the International Community, the more it will want to adhere to the standards that its neighbors have adopted and hold sacred.
In full disclosure, I hate the idea of coddling Gaddafi. I think he's the worst kind of African ruler and has cost his country and its people dearly. However, to try to force a change in Gaddafi's actions through anything other than incentives seems, at least to me, an ideal but hopeless endeavor. While condemning Gaddafi for his actions may well give us a sense of righteousness, I just don't see it helping the Libyan people.