VOL. XLVII
No 01
The Political Scene (5 January 2004)
An otherwise uneventful festive season has been enlivened by Libya’s decision to renounce its attempts to acquire weapons of mass destruction.
Libya Decides To Come In From The Cold
Proponents of the doctrine of preemption in both the US and the UK have sought to use Libya’s decision – announced on 19 December – to renounce its programs to develop weapons of mass destruction (WMD) to vindicate the invasion of Iraq. In the words of British Defense Minister Geoff Hoon on 21 December, “we showed after Saddam Husain failed to cooperate with the UN that we meant business and Libya, and I hope other countries, will draw that lesson.” (Former British Foreign Secretary Robin Cook, no fan of the invasion of Iraq, put it somewhat differently when he replied that “I find it rich and comical that we should use an agreement with a country we did not invade – which did have WMD – as justification for invading a country that doesn’t have WMD.”) It is, of course, possible that the invasion of Iraq played a part in Libyan leader Mu’ammar al-Qadhafi’s decision, but there are a number of factors to suggest that, if so, it was not a major one. For one thing, with what they have on their plate in Afghanistan and Iraq, it does not look as if the Americans are in any position to take military action against a third country at this point. For another, the Libyan leader opened negotiations with the US and UK in March, before the fate of Saddam Husain and his regime was settled. And for a third, no-one appeared to be losing much sleep over Libyan WMD (such as they are) in the first place.
The Libyan announcement on 19 December threw little light on the reasons behind the decision. In it, Libya admitted that it had “tried to develop its defensive capabilities when its calls to make the Middle East and Africa zones exempt from all WMD went unheeded” and declared that it had now “formally decided of its own free will to renounce all these substances, equipment and programs and to become a country free of WMD,” adding that “Libya affirms its commitment to all conventions, including the additional protocol to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, and declares itself ready to welcome any international inspection mission.” Col Qadhafi said on the same day “Libya will henceforth lead countries working towards ridding the world of WMD” and will play “a key role in building a world free of terrorism, of all these weapons, a world at peace and in development.”
British Prime Minister Tony Blair on the same day described the Libyan decision as “courageous and historic.” The Americans, unsurprisingly, were more cautious. According to President Bush, also on 19 December, “Libya has begun the process of rejoining the community of nations. And Col Qadhafi knows the way forward. Libya should carry out the commitments announced today. Libya should also fully engage in the war against terror.” However he added that “as the Libyan government takes these essential steps and demonstrates its seriousness, its good faith will be returned. Libya can regain a secure and respected place among nations, and over time, achieve far better relations with the US…Should Libya pursue internal reform, America will be ready to help it build a more free and prosperous country.” A similar wait-and-see note was sounded by State Department spokesman Adam Ereli on 21 December when he said that “we’re looking to Libya to get out of the terrorism game and get out of the WMD game. They have made some very important and noteworthy statements regarding their intention to do so. It is a long process. We need to make sure that there is follow through on these commitments. As there is follow through, we are willing to discuss with them the issue of improved bilateral relations, but we’re not there yet.” Assuming that Col Qadhafi does follow through – and there is little reason to believe that he will not – it looks very much as if the Americans will be obliged to lift their sanctions on Libya, although the administration may face congressional opposition to doing so. But even a Congress that is pathologically allergic to Arab regimes must surely realize that American policy toward “rogue” states will lack all coherence if Libya were to continue to be punished rather than rewarded for renouncing its WMD.
Charles Snow