Iraq, Palestine, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Lebanon – each in its own way has taken steps lately, some large, some small, toward joining the free world. But now Libya? Today’s Al-Hayat reports that Libya’s ruler, Mu’amar Qadafi, seems to have charted a new path in some ways, and reframed old predilictions on other issues. Coming off Libya’s renunciation of nuclear weapons and semi-normalization with the U.S. and Britain, this is potentially encouraging. The article, Qadafi Declares Reforms and Ends Hostility Between ‘African Libya’ and Israel, made the following points:

• The main point which was new was that normalization with Israel seems to be near: “‘If we are speaking as Libyans then we have no problem with the Israelis. But if we speak as Arabs and Muslims then we have a problem with them because they occupy Palestine, but even the Palestinians today have ended their differences with the Israelis and sit down with them.’” I think this is over-optimistic as far as that conflict is concerned, but it appears to reflect Qadafi’s desire to move on to more productive endeavors than fighting Israel.
• Qadafi declared the need for Libyans to be free in their political activities, including freedom of speech and association, “but within the framework of ‘the Third Universal Alternative,’…” This was to be expressed through local assemblies which are a more authentic form of democracy than the sham system of democracy by ballot box that exists elsewhere, and which he described as “‘an impeding idea.’” This idea of democracy by local assembly is not at all new, and is one of his three main ideas from back in the 1970s (socialism and Islam being the other two).
• Qadafi emphasized the need for “the reliability, transparency and clear legislation and secure environment which can ‘pull in investment and businesses which will garner us large returns.’” He also declared the need to reverse nationalization laws. I think here we are starting to see reality set in; socialism is out, capitalism is in.
• Emphasizing the need for Libya to wage war against terrorism, which Libya itself does not really face, Qadafi declared that the security services had been “marginalized” in Libya and that it was necessary to “‘review this sector Äof the stateÅ and reinforce it with power.’” Granted that Libya has never been as totalitarian as Baathist Iraq or Syria, this seems to be an attempt to make sure that state control doesn’t allow limited economic liberalization to get out of control and lead to people actually wanting to be able to vote. Like they do in Iraq.
• Qadafi criticized the United Nations, arguing that it had failed in its mission by not protecting small nations from powerful ones. He didn’t give any specific examples, but I’m sure that he was referring to the UN’s failure to prevent the Soviet invasion of Hungary in 1956. He suggested that power over world security be transferred from the Security Council to the General Assembly. This would mean that instead of only a small number of corrupt, authoritarian and anti-American regimes having a platform for styming U.S. foreign policy, a much larger number of corrupt, authoritarian and anti-American regimes would.
• And as suggested by the title of the article, Qadafi emphasized Libya’s “African” character, and encouraged Libyans to “further define a clear position on this issue.” This pan-Africanism is a fad that goes back to the early and mid-1990s when Qadafi gave up pan-Arabism and renamed his foreign ministry the “Ministry of African Affairs.” Basically, Qadafi recognized he wasn’t getting anywhere with the Arab world, and given Libya’s oil wealth, he thought that maybe he would be much more able to exert influence in African countries (such as Chad and the Sudan).

Contributed by Kirk H. Sowell at Window on the Arab World, and More!