The best reward for our role in deposing Muammar Gaddafi would be stability in the North African state.
Black gold: despite the lure of Libya's vast oil reserves, Malcolm Rifkind says Britain's main role must be to help get life back to normal Photo: GETTY
By Malcolm Rifkind
8:20PM BST 30 Aug 2011
First came the rebellion: now for the reckoning. Even though the dust has yet to settle on the streets of Tripoli, a lengthy shopping list is already being drawn up by British commentators, outlining what the new authorities can do for us, given all that we’ve done for them.
First, could we please have the Lockerbie bomber back, so that he can be returned to the comforts of Barlinnie prison in Glasgow? And can we have an assurance that if Gaddafi is captured, he’ll be sent to the International Criminal Court (ICC), not put up against a wall and shot? And that the killers of WPc Yvonne Fletcher will be brought to justice? And that British companies will get a juicy share of the contracts, once the oil starts flowing again?
All of these demands are perfectly understandable. They are also – at the very least – grossly premature. For the Libyans, the absolute priorities (apart from an end to the actual fighting) are clean water, medical supplies, functioning electricity and adequate food. To be fair, these are also the priorities of David Cameron and his Government. After that come efficient government, effective security and the creation of a stable, pluralist political system and an independent judiciary.
Even if it were a good idea to distract the fledgling government by demanding a return on our investment, some of the items on the agenda are not so simple as they seem. For example, Mr Megrahi did not escape from Britain. He was sent home two years ago by the Scottish government, on the grounds that he was terminally ill. That was a foolish and misguided decision, which has caused great offence to the relatives of those killed, and damaged our relations with the United States. But realising it was a mistake is not the same thing as admitting it, or being able to reverse it. It is now reported that Megrahi is in a coma: without wishing to sound harsh, his demise might be the only way to resolve the issue.
The unresolved case of WPc Yvonne Fletcher is very different. As The Daily Telegraph has reported, a diplomat called Abdulmagid Salah Ameri is believed to have been responsible for her murder, shooting her from within the Libyan Embassy in London in 1984. His extradition to the United Kingdom, once prima facie evidence is presented to a Libyan court, is not only essential, but would also demonstrate that the rule of law now prevails. To refuse to extradite him, or any accomplices, would not just be deeply resented in Britain, but would seriously damage the new Libya’s reputation.
Related Articles
Libya: rebels give ultimatum to loyalists to surrender by Saturday - 30 Aug 2011
Libyan 'behind Yvonne Fletcher's killing' found dead - 30 Aug 2011
Britain holds talks with rebels over Yvonne Fletcher investigation - 30 Aug 2011
Where is Colonel Gaddafi? - 27 Aug 2011
Foreign Office working to reopen British Embassy in Libya - 29 Aug 2011
Libya: Algeria braces itself for terrorist attacks following arrival of Gaddafi family - 30 Aug 2011
As for what should happen if and when Gaddafi is captured, that is straightforward. Although the ICC has issued an indictment for war crimes, it is entirely reasonable for the Libyan government and people to try him in his homeland, where the vast majority of his crimes were committed. What the Libyans will have to show, however, is that he will be given a fair trial, in humane conditions, with proper legal representation and rights of appeal. The question of punishment is also for the Libyans. We do not use the death penalty; nor does the ICC. But it must be for the Libyans to decide, in framing their new penal code, whether they will.
It is in the desire for business contracts, however, that the demand for a quid pro quo is most naked. A Western thirst for oil in the Middle East is as predictable as the sand: it was, in part, the explanation for Tony Blair’s naive and ill-fated attempts to cuddle up to Gaddafi. Yet British oil companies should not expect – or receive – any exceptional favours. Whether they win contracts should depend on the skill of their negotiators and the attractiveness of their tenders, not on the prior contribution of the RAF to Libya’s liberation. Any other consideration is corruption by another name. It may be that the new government will end up corrupt, but we should certainly not encourage it.
The obvious question, then, is why did we go into Libya in the first place? It is, of course, true that Britain’s – and Nato’s – participation was not out of selfless altruism, or for purely humanitarian reasons. But it was not, as is so often implied in the Middle East, because of the lure of oil.
No, our self-interest lay in the fact that Libya is Europe’s neighbour. As long as it was ruled by a tyrant, it appeared stable – but, like next-door Egypt and Tunisia, was a breeding ground for political turmoil, terrorist recruitment and a potential flood of refugees across the Mediterranean. If these countries can develop stable, friendly governments with the consent of their own people, then Europe – and Britain – will benefit significantly. That is the most important reward for our efforts that we can hope to receive.
On Thursday, David Cameron will be in Paris with Nicolas Sarkozy, co-chairing a conference on aid to Libya. Because that country is oil-rich, with a small population, there will be no need for major funding once the pipelines are flowing again. The main emphasis must be on helping getting life in Tripoli back to normal, and identifying the best practical support that will be needed to create a stable state.
At the risk of sounding like the Mayor of London, it is an apt moment to cite Pliny: “Ex Africa semper aliquid novi.” When he remarked that there was always something new out of Africa, it was probably Libya that he was referring to. It is welcome news that something new – something better – might be coming into being there today.
Sir Malcolm Rifkind is MP for Kensington, and a former Defence Secretary and Foreign Secretary
______________
What do you think ?
Các anh chị nghĩ thế nào, có ý kiến, nhận xét, phê bình gì qua bài viết "The new Libya needs Britain to give, not take" ? của Sir Malcolm Rifkind ?
Chân thành cám ơn Quý Anh Chị ghé thăm "conbenho Nguyễn Hoài Trang Blog"
Xin được lắng nghe ý kiến chia sẻ của Quý Anh Chị trực tiếp tại Diễn Đàn Paltalk: 1Latdo Tapdoan Vietgian CSVN Phanquoc Bannuoc .
Kính chúc Sức Khỏe Quý Anh Chị .
conbenho
Tiểu Muội quantu
Nguyễn Hoài Trang
31082011
___________
CSVN là TỘI ÁC
Bao che, dung dưỡng TỘI ÁC là đồng lõa với TỘI ÁC
No comments:
Post a Comment