by Robert C. Sage

Created on: February 03, 2008

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

• 1
• 2
• Next Page >>