Comment - Libyan Terrorism Rears Its Ugly Head
It is rather the outcome of an ambivalent and hypocritical attitude of western democratic governments and their institutions which allows them to do profitable business with ruthless regimes like that of Col Gaddafi's Jamahiriya.
In the last few years, Col. Muammar Gaddafi, in a systematic policy which he has not made any secret of, chased all opponents of his regime out of Libya and followed them around the world's capitals, killing and maiming them in an effort to silence those who disagree with his Green Book revolution.
In the process guns and bombs were exported to foreign capitals in utter contempt of the laws of the countries by Colonel Gaddafi's agents who end up taking refuge in diplomatic immunity.
A few years back when the United States of America took the unprecedented action to break off diplomatic relations with Libya the rest of the western democratic communities were too happy not only to cater for American citizens and interests in Libya but actually filled the trade vacuum created by America's departure. Today, Britain too has found it necessary to withdraw her diplomats from Tripoli and another member of the Western Alliance, Italy, agrees to look after British interests in Libya.
The British government in particular has always known about the Libyan connection to the IRA in the early seventies yet apart from mild diplomatic grumblings and wild protests, Libya continued to enjoy diplomatic status in London which enabled her to carry on its policy of destruction of human lives.
The question that comes to mind here is, why does Libya under the maverick Col. Gaddafi feel emboldened to indulge in international terrorism with impunity? The obvious answer is gleaned from the pieces of facts that have come to light in the British media since the tragic incident at the Libyan Peoples Bureau in London. Colonel Gaddafi must know how important Libya's trade with Britain is to the latter's economy. The £274 million trade will doubtless suffer, if any attempt was made to tamper with his policy.
Again, Gadaffi clearly enjoys the international publicity which accompanies such outrageous acts and knows that since he is reputed to be unpredictable and could therefore carry out reprisals against the 8,000 to 9,000 Britons and British interests, nobody would dare challenge his actions.
This view is supported by the fact that immediately after the announcement of the expulsion of Libyan diplomats was made, Libya gave a warning that it would cooperate with the IRA for the "liberation of Ireland . . . If the British government acts against the Libyans in Britain then the Libyan Revolutionary forces will help the IRA do the same in Britain", an article in Green March, organ of the Libyan Revolutionary Committee said.
The latest example of intolerance began with a demonstration by Libyans resident in the United Kingdom which started peacefully with placard-bearers in the heavily cordoned off square and a strong police presence to avoid direct confrontation, yet it ended tragically with the death of a young policewoman who was cut down by a sniper's hail of bullets while about ten demonstrators were seriously wounded.
Press reports so far indicate that Libya might have taken the action to mow down the demonstrators to show its disapproval of the British refusal to stop the demonstrations - a blatant contempt of the laws of another country.
Why does Libya think that in a democratic society like the United Kingdom where demonstrations are regarded as one of the basic freedoms for all individuals, a peaceful demonstration would be waived according to Gadaffi's request?
This magazine has had the occasion to point out in articles and editorial comments the rather unacceptable dichotomy of policy on the part of western democratic nations on such a regime which with the backing of oil money and support of others, engage in the destabilization of other countries in which it wants to export its type of revolution.
On the West African sub-region the hand of Col. Gaddafi has been seen in successful coup d'etats in Upper Volta and Ghana, a massive involvement in the Chad civil war and the continuous fomenting of unrest in others.
From a position of financial and military weakness these African countries are unable to stand up against Col. Gaddafi's aggression. But let the developed democratic community take note that if they do not take a firm action to stop Col. Gaddafi in his ambitions then there are bound to be more losses of innocent lives such as was the case of the young British policewoman and more Green Book inspired adventures against democratic governments in Africa.
