Gaddafi's perestroika

Are Muammer Gaddafi's recent admissions of past mistakes a Libyan version of perestroika, asks Mohamed Sid-Ahmed

---

Shortly after seizing power in September 1969, Muammar Gaddafi, then a 29-year old colonel in the Libyan army, flew to Cairo for talks with his hero Gamal Abdel-Nasser. During his stay, he met a number of Egyptian intellectuals, and I remember a heated debate I had with the new Libyan leader at one such meeting. Held on the premises of Al-Ahram newspaper, this was the first of several encounters I was to have with Gaddafi in the early years of his rule. In the middle of the discussion, Chief Editor Mohamed Heikal suddenly pointed a finger in my direction. Introducing me as a member of the political left and an admirer of the Soviet Union, he invited Gaddafi to hear what I had to say. But no sooner had I begun to talk than I was interrupted by the Libyan leader, who launched a violent diatribe against the Soviets and all who supported them. The gist of what I had been trying to say, and which so angered Gaddafi, was that Libya's political isolation on the global stage could distort the new Libyan regime's worldview and tempt it to place the two superpowers on an equal footing, which would be an over simplification of a far more complex reality.

Actually, Gaddafi was, and continues to be, intrigued by the issue of superpowerdom and how much freedom of manoeuvre was available to the states of the world in their dealings with the great powers. In a breach with conventional political practice, he tried to build his power base on altogether different foundations from those established in the world system. Apart from the monarchies, all the Arab regimes that emerged after independence took the form of republics -- except for Libya. Gaddafi invented a new system he called Gamahiriya (the regime of the masses) and not Gumhouriya (Republic). He also invented a new ideology, allegedly neither capitalist nor communist, but based on popular committees which can have been inspired (in form not in content) by Mao's Little Red Book. In the Gaddafi system however, the guidebook was green, not red.

Today the Libyan leader is spearheading a campaign to rid the world of weapons of mass destruction. Setting himself up as the spokesman of a worldwide peace movement, he is calling on all nations, including the United States and China, to relinquish their weapons of mass destruction and replace them with "weapons of mass construction"! He appealed in particular to Syria, Iran and North Korea to give up their WMDs, eliciting a wry response from Syrian Foreign Minister Farouk Al- Shara who said that while Damascus welcomed Libya's move to destroy its WMDs, Syria could not follow suit for the simple reason that it had no such weapons!

In the mid-1980s, Gaddafi's policies were the complete antipode of what he is preaching today. At the time, he supported a wide variety of radical movements throughout the world, including the Baader-Meinhof group in Germany, the Red Brigades in Italy, the Shining Path in Peru, the Tupameros in Uruguay, the Abu Sayyaf movement in he Philippines, Japan's Red Army, the IRA in Northern Ireland and all the movements that raised the slogan of national liberation in Africa, Asia and Latin America. When his detractors accused him of not distinguishing between terrorist groups and national liberation movements, he responded that if he were to adopt their definition of things, Nelson Mandela would be one of the greatest terrorists in history!

Twenty years on, the one-time enfant terrible of international politics has suddenly come to be regarded by the West as a statesman worthy of respect and support. This week, days after holding separate meetings with Tony Blair and Silvio Berlusconi, both of whom had until recently considered him a pariah, he visited Brussels, the administrative capital of the EU for talks with top officials, notably EU Commissioner Romano Prodi. The visit, which marks his first venture outside the geographical boundaries of Africa and the Middle East in 15 years, consecrates his new status as a reputable member of the international community. In an address he delivered to the Belgian Parliament, Gaddafi urged Europe to assert its influence to avoid the "law of the jungle" in world affairs and said Libya could become a bridge between Africa and Europe for the sake of peace and cooperation. He also addressed the issue of terrorism and spoke of the reasons that drive people to commit terrorist acts: "When you are targeted, you are liable to put belts around your body, to set car bombs...to defend the family."

Various explanations have been given for Gaddafi's sudden U-turn, which has earned Libya a lifting of UN economic sanctions and ended its political isolation. It remains to be seen whether this new line reflects a real change in his strategic thinking or whether it is only a tactical move dictated by new global realities. The freedom of manoeuvre he once enjoyed is no longer possible in the post-9/11 world, where terrorism and WMDs in the hands of "rogue" states have replaced the Soviet Union, in the eyes of the West, as the main foe at the global level.

Some see Gaddafi's announcement that he was abandoning efforts to develop WMDs as a pre-emptive move to avoid the fate of Saddam Hussein. Others believe the U-turn was dictated by economic considerations. The Libyan treasury, which has paid out billions of dollars to the families of passengers killed in the Pan-Am plane which crashed over Lockerbie and in a French carrier over Niger, needs to be replenished, and one way is by ending the economic sanctions that have been imposed on Libya. Gaddafi's new status as a "friend" of the West has already accomplished this aim.

But can Gaddafi's recent actions be attributed only to opportunistic motives? Another factor that must be taken into account is his ideological aspirations. Libya's income reaches 20 billion dollars every year. The population of the country is sparse and much of it is unhospitable desert. With their oil and gas fortunes, Libyans could live very comfortably without having to be exposed to crisis situations because of ideological ambitions. But Gaddafi does not see himself as a head of state, but rather as a man with a mission. Unfortunately, Libya is not the best place from which to accomplish such a mission. Nasser was Gaddafi's hero. But it seems that circumstances are forcing Gaddafi to follow the pattern set by his one-time nemesis, Sadat, rather than that of his hero, Nasser.

It could not have occurred to Gaddafi, or to many other people for that matter, that the Soviet Union would collapse the way it did, that the bipolar world order would disappear and that the secrets of the socialist regimes would be exposed to the whole world, including activities -- on both sides of the confrontation line -- which ignored the rule of law and could easily be attributed to terrorism.

Gaddafi did well to openly recognise that crimes had been committed, within the strategy applied, and that acts of terrorism had been allowed in the name of fighting for liberation. The very fact that compensation was paid to the victims of the two air crashes -- the American and the French planes -- is a tacit admission that Libya assumed responsibility for the two crimes. In private, Gaddafi has admitted that "weapons of mass destruction do not strengthen security, but only impede economic development." But it is necessary to take openness, sincerity and transparency still further. Gaddafi's public repentance for some of his past actions does not qualify as genuine self-criticism with no possible future retreat. So far, it cannot be said that the Libyan regime has relinquished its previous misguided practices altogether. So far, it cannot be said that Gaddafi's current policies are totally devoid of manoeuvring. Actually, Gaddafi's conduct has contributed to get Bush and Blair out of a fix, and has proved that both parties could benefit from a compromise.

An open and frank debate would pave the way towards finding answers to a number of critical questions. Are we witnessing the beginning of the end of terrorism -- a recognition that it leads nowhere? Has dealing with terrorists become acceptable? Should people who admit their past mistakes, like Gorbatchev did with perestroika, or who renounce terrorist behaviour, as Gaddafi is now doing, be rewarded and eventually restore their place in the world community of nations?

Gaddafi did not remain long an opponent of the Soviet Union. He quickly discovered that the Soviets gave him a "cover" in his fight against imperialism. This proved that the two superpowers had never been on an equal footing. With the collapse of the Soviet Union, democracy moved to the forefront. Making a distinction between liberation and terrorism has become more imperative than ever.