Get a Widget for this title
RSS FeedIs Libya ready to lead the UN Security Council?
Results so far:
| No | 77% | 17 votes | Total: 22 votes | |
| Yes | 23% | 5 votes |
No
Write now
Print
Invite a writer™
Add to FavoritesOn the question whether Libya was ready to become a temporary member of the 15-nation UN Security Council, I would say that on balance the answer is no. I have come to that conclusion reluctantly. I would very much have preferred the answer to have been yes.
Often mentioned in the same breath as Iran, Syria and North Korea, Libya (aka The Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya) was until recently a pariah state, long accused of being deeply involved in international terrorism. This has changed somewhat over the last few years. In December 2003 Libya publicly renounced its programmes to develop weapons of mass destruction and since then there has been, generally speaking, a thaw in Libya's relations with the West, with European and American energy companies now competing to do business there. In addition to the WMD declaration in 2003 the Libyans have made a number of careful statements in recent times, for instance accepting that Libyan officials were behind the 1988 Lockerbie bombing, and taking "general responsibility" for the shooting of British policewoman Yvonne Fletcher in 1984.
So has the leopard changed its spots? Is Libya now a respectable nation, ready to don the mantle of world policeman? Unfortunately, I think not yet. Not entirely.
The shadow of the past still hangs heavily over the relations between Libya and the West. I can still recall vividly the TV footage of aircraft debris from Pan Am Flight 103 scattered over what had been a peaceful Scottish town, and the image of WPC Fletcher's body lying on the ground in St. James's Square. Was Ali Mohmed al Megrahi (currently serving time in Greenock Prison in Scotland) acting alone when he downed Pan Am Flight 103 and killed 270 innocent people? Was he responsible at all? And if not, who was? Who machine-gunned Yvonne Fletcher? Who bombed a French UTA airliner (Flight 772) over Niger in 1989, killing 170? With all these cases, there has been a frustrating lack of clarity and closure. No-one to this day knows exactly who authorised, planned or carried out these crimes.
The word that comes most readily to my mind, when I think about Libya's public statements in recent years is "expediency". Libya has plentiful reserves of oil and gas. It wants to sell these to the West, and the West wants to buy them from Libya. In this light, the Libyan government attitude resembles that of a prisoner trying hard to convince a parole board that he is a reformed character and deserving of a change in status (in this case, a parole board willing to do deals.) Except that the mask slips from time to time. In an interview broadcast in 2004, prime minister at the time Shukri Ghanem stated that Libya was not actually responsible for the Lockerbie atrocity or the Fletcher murder but admitted responsibility only to gain "peace" and an end to UN sanctions. In other words, "We said we were sorry, but we didn't mean it, really."
And then there is the very recent and bizarre case of the five Bulgarian nurses and the Palestinian doctor accused of infecting Libyan children with HIV. Gaddafi's son Saif Al Islam has admitted on Al Jazeera that the children were actually HIV positive before the health workers arrived, but this did not stop the Libyan authorities from torturing confessions out of the foreigners with electric shocks. No country on Earth has a spotless human rights record, but even so, could this really be a nation ready to assume the responsibility of maintaining peace and security throughout the world? Somehow, I think not.
Maybe in decades to come, when Libya is no longer ruled by its current president for life Moammar Gaddafi and his numerous family members, things really will be different. My hope is that the increased oil wealth will eventually bring with it prosperity, stability and a foreign policy that does not involve smuggling explosives into the holds of airliners.
However, recent developments have tended to reinforce my admittedly rather negative view. This month (January 2008) the Libyan ambassador to the UN (and temporary President of the UN Security Council), Giadalla Ettalhi, allegedly did his best to resist adopting UN statements criticising Hezbollah if it continued to launch rocket attacks on Israel, and Sudan (a Libyan ally) for assaulting a UN peacekeeping convoy in West Darfur. It has to be said that this sort of UN pronouncement generally seems to have little effect on the homicidal Hezbollah or the genocidal Sudanese. Even so, if this account is true, it does not bode well for the remaining months of the Libyan membership.
Learn more about this author, Alex Cull.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.
Yes
Why not? Libya is a member in good standing of the UN and it has aimed to regain a position of respect and influence within the family of nations, since disavowing terrorism and the possible development of nuclear arms, after the American invasion of Iraq. In fact, Libya paid restitution to the families of persons killed in the Lockerbie bombing, without directly acknowledging responsibility. Colonel Khadaffi has exercised great restraint on the global stage for many years, despite an earlier propensity to grandstand at seemingly every opportunity and flaunt his radical views. Has he mellowed with age?
Libya is a sovereign state and it is no longer accused of sponsoring terrorism. If Libya is to be punished in perpetuity for its earlier radicalism, what incentive would there be to attract other countries with similarly radical views to moderate their positions? Why shouldn't it be possible to regain respectability? If Libya can help to craft resolutions to the world's problems, such as Israeli/Palestinian Peace, genocide in Darfur, anarchy in Somalia, exploitation of child labor in Congolese cobalt mines, etc. Recently, Libya has shown a willingness to cooperate with others to confront international problems and a temporary position on the UN Security Council could be a natural outgrowth of that. Why not?
Does America agree with everything that Libya does or says? Of course not. A position on the UN Security Council does not imply that. What it does imply is that the country has influence and resources which could be useful to the Security Council in pursuing its business. If all its members have common views and positions on international issues, the council is less likely to be able to craft innovative and creative resolutions to the many problems that vex the world. Certainly, Libya has contacts and credibility with some countries which America does not. Libya'a assumption of a greater role at the UN might just make a real difference, where others have failed. Why not give them a try? They would not have a veto, but America and other permanent Security Council members would still have veto rights.
Should historical radicalism disqualify Libya from the Security Council? If so, then Russia and China should never have gotten their permanent seats there. At this point, should Libya's probable role in Lockerbie preclude it from joining the Security Council? If so, then why shouldn't Iran feel that way about the US due to the fact that we shot one of their civilian airliners out of the air several years ago? At some point, by-gones must be allowed to pass and given that Lockerbie occurred 19 years ago, I believe that time has come, just as it has with Iran and the 1976 Tehran hostage crisis. If we continually live in the past, we cannot turn the page and move forward. Israel certainly did turn the page in concluding peace treaties with Egypt (and Jordan) and it would be well served to do that again with the Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese and Libya might just be able to help broker agreements.
Besides, Libya has substantial oil reserves and it could possibly sponsor more Arab Muslim charity to raise the economic growth rates in the many areas of the Middle East where people live in poverty. In fact, Libya might be able to serve roles in both the Mid-East and Africa, given its location. Given America's "War on Terror", which some Muslims feel persecute them unfairly, we need as many methods of communication as possible with Muslim-dominated countries. In particular, America could use help in developing smoother, more peaceful relations with Syria, Iran and other groups with substantial political power, like Hezbollah and Hamas. Let's remember that war must be truly the last resort.
It is about time that America engaged with every nation on earth, directly or indirectly. America is generally recognized as the most powerful nation, yet that does not mean that we are all-powerful or always get what we want. In order to create an ever more peaceful world, it requires that America be willing to cooperate with many others in many ways and sometimes that includes working with countries that we don't particularly like. Why not let Libya see what it can do with a temporary seat on the UN Security Council? The worst that can happen is that we use our veto, but the upside potential is considerable indeed.
Learn more about this author, Robert C. Sage.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.
Difference of opinion? Debate now.
- Politics in the Middle & Near East
- Will the Iraq parliament's proposed oil law help reduce tensions between sectarian groups in Iraq?
- Should the US have freed up millions in aid to Palestinians in the face of a civil war there?
- Should Shimon Peres remain president of Israel or should a new leader take charge?
- Should Israel allow Gazans, fleeing Hamas rule, passage to sanctuary in the West Bank?
- Is the Taliban taking back Afghanistan?
- Is Iran already at war with the US?
