Qaddafi Cames in From the Cold Brian Whitaker

Aljazeerah Info Center needs your support

to continue providing you with this free service

Send donations by check to: Al-Jazeerah Info Center, P.O. Box 724, Dalton, GA 30722-0724, USA.

or through PayPal, using credit cards or bank transfers

About the time that United States and Britain went to war to remove the alleged threat from weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, they secretly embarked on another project to achieve the same goal in Libya, but by a very different route — that of quiet diplomacy.

The success of the efforts in Libya is a particular triumph for Tony Blair, but it also raises many questions about the course of action adopted in Iraq, and whether the methods that have worked with Tripoli might not have also succeeded eventually in Baghdad.

The Iraqi and Libyan leaders had both proved difficult to deal with — President Reagan once described Col. Muammar Qaddafi as “a mad dog” — but British officials have often cited the value of patience and persistence in their relations with Libya, leading after many years to a resolution of the Lockerbie dispute.

It seems obvious to suggest that the military pressures that were applied to Iraq in the run-up to the war may have helped to focus the minds in Col. Qaddafi’s tent, but this cannot be the whole explanation.

Relations with Libya began to thaw much earlier, with the compromise proposal on Lockerbie, which was to conduct a trial of the bombing suspects under Scottish law but outside the UK.

Another factor, rarely mentioned, is that the colonel’s passion for developing relations with Africa has not been a huge success economically and has caused some disaffection among Libyans. As a result, while the leader is continuing to pursue his visionary African interests, the Libyan government has been turning its attention much more toward relations with Europe and ultimately the US, where more serious economic benefits are to be had.

Details are still sketchy, but last night Libya said it was encouraged by the agreement on the Lockerbie case to try to normalize relations, primarily by opening up talks on weapons of mass destruction, which were of major concern to the West.

In a statement, the Libyans lifted the lid on the extraordinary diplomatic legwork that led to Friday night’s deal. Tony Blair apparently put pressure on Col. Qaddafi through letters and personal envoys to persuade him of the sense in collaboration. The carrots dangled in front of the colonel included economic incentives, the chance to obtain conventional weaponry and the possibility of welcoming Libyan youth to study in Western universities.

The Libyans opened up their programs to international experts who labeled some of them “dual use” and possibly a precursor to military use.

Their new position on weapons of mass destruction was agreed, according to Friday night’s statement, in September — which means that the discussions were taking place in parallel with talks on compensation for the Lockerbie victims.

The resolution of that issue led to the lifting of UN sanctions against Libya in the same month, though separate American sanctions, which Libya is eager to see lifted, remain in place.

Libya designed its compensation offer to put pressure on the US to lift sanctions. Under the deal, an initial $4m would be paid for each victim once UN sanctions were ended, and that would be followed by a further $4m if the US lifted its sanctions and by $2m if it dropped Libya from its list of states that sponsor terrorism.

Libya also set a deadline for the Americans, saying the offer of extra compensation would lapse if Washington did not end its sanctions within eight months. The US, however, has shown little interest in ending them so far, and Friday’s announcement may have been seen in Tripoli as a way of nudging Washington toward doing so.

David Mepham, associate director of the Institute for Public Policy Research thinktank, said Friday night: “This announcement is highly significant and welcome. But it should not be allowed to obscure the conspicuous failure to uncover weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, the declared justification for war.

“Tackling the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction requires a stronger commitment to multinational arms control in the Middle East and elsewhere.” The Liberal Democrat foreign affairs spokesman, Menzies Campbell, said: “This is a success for diplomacy. It is one gained through multilateral negotiation and doesn’t depend on the use of force of arms.”