When do human rights matter?
Hands are very much in the news today. Much of the coverage of Tony Blair’s visit to Tripoli today has focussed on the fact that he shook hands with Muammar Gaddafi. Metaphorically, the Libyan leader’s hands drip with the blood of innocents. According to some, the British Prime Minister should have a bar of soap ready.
Some, especially on the British right, have been sharply critical of Blair’s visit to Libya. They are, so they say, appalled that Blair should meet a man whose name is synonymous with international terror and internal repression. In particular they point to the unfortunate timing of the visit. Having just attended a memorial service for the victims of Europe’s second worst terrorist attack, Blair went to Tripoli to break bread with the man responsible for the worst.
Opponents of his trip also point to Gaddafi’s support for the IRA in the 1980s. The three large arms shipments which reached Ireland had the effect of strengthening the hands of militarists in the republican movement. By sending so much weaponry, the Libyan leader encouraged those who wanted “one more heave” against the British. Gaddafi’s largesse helped mask the fact that the IRA’s “long war” strategy had failed. Minus these arms shipments, the Troubles may have ended sooner than they did.
These two factors, along with the murder of a British police officer outside the Libyan embassy in 1984, demonstrate that, yes, Gaddafi does have British blood on his hands. Those who lost loved ones are well within their rights in feeling bitter today. The rest of us, without these complex emotions, need to look at this matter dispassionately.
To begin with, this is far from the first occasion on which Blair has shook hands with people who may struggle to get past Saint Peter. He has met some of the world’s most vicious leaderrs without a whimper from the right. Hu Jintao of China is one of many unsavoury characters to get the red carpet treatment at Downing Street. Ariel Sharon, indicted for his part in the Sabra and Shatilla massacres by a Belgian court, is always welcome in London. The PM paid a visit to Syria in 2001 to meet Basher Assad, a man hardly likely to win “Humanitarian of the Year” anytime soon.
Secondly, who is this man Blair whose hands are so clean that they ought to be washed after coming in contact with those of Gaddafi? Is this the same Blair who marched his country to war in Iraq behind a litany of lies? Is this the same Blair whose air force dropped depleted uranium on Serb civilians? Their blood, and the blood of their as yet unborn deformed children, is on his hands. Perhaps Gaddafi brought a hand towel too.
Clearly, Blair's foreign policy is not based on preventing suffering. Back in 1997 Labour’s first Foreign Minister Robin Cook launched a new “ethical foreign policy” for Britain. Within weeks the policy had become a laughing stock, the phrase itself, a prime example of Orwellian double-speak. If it was “ethical” to sell Hawk air craft to the Indonesians to put down the rebellion in East Timor, then surely anything could be “ethical”.
It’s a shame because it all seemed like such a good idea at the time. A policy based on human rights and international justice rather than power and profit, what a noble ideal. Very quickly however the financial imperative took over. The need to sell arms and to buy oil was paramount. The meeting in Tripoli should be seen in this light. Today may or may not have been a good day for human rights in Libya, but it wil certainly be a good day for the oil and arms industries in the two countries.