Hello! Washington to reopen its embassy in Libya.

On Tuesday 16th May 2005, The New York Times article said that the Bush Administration announces its decision to reopen its embassy in Tripoli and strike Libya from its list of state-sponsored terrorists. Secretary of State Condolezza Rice said that Libya is an important model for the political changes necessary in countries like Iran and North Korea. More interestingly, senior US officials have the impression that Libyan leader, Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi, changed his ways after witnessing the fate of Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein. The State Department admits that for the past two years, Washington has maintained a small interest section in Tripoli. If the invasion of Iraq was a direct factor in the recent changes in Libyan behavior perhaps some good have been achieved. However, the Qaddafi regime has never truly feared the American might. Therefore, an alternative viewpoint is needed to explain the recent development within the Libyan government. More importantly, a causal observer should bear in mind that nothing on the international stage happens in a vacuum. Hence, a new interpretation may be in order.

The article summarizes Washington's relationship with Libya over the past quarter of a century starting with the withdrawal of the American ambassador from Tripoli in 1972 to the organized ransacking of the American Embassy in 1979 to the severing of all diplomatic ties in 1986 after suspected Libyan agents blew up a West Berlin discotheque. Libya then orchestrated a rather complex terrorist attack against Pan Am flight 103 in 1988, better known as the Lockerbie bombing, named after the small Scottish town where the wreckage of the Boeing 747 laid scattered. It should be noted that Pan Am never recovered from that attack. Everything seemed to have changed in 1999. Tripoli finally agreed to the extradition of the two accused agents for trial on the Lockerbie bombing in Scotland. Following the conviction of one of the agents, Libya took full responsibility for the Lockerbie bombing. At this point, changes happened rather quickly in the past four years. However, the New York Times fails to mention anything concerning the changes in Libyan behavior prior to 2004.

This suggest that Libya's fight with Washington was largely for its support for the Palestinian cause and not because its anti-West beliefs. The terrorist attacks on September 11th may have quickened Qaddafi's timetable to loose its image as a state-sponsor of terrorist. Qaddafi perhaps has no interest in associating himself or his government with the likes of the Taliban or their supporters. Thereby giving some credence to its fight against Washington in the 1970s, 80s, and 90s as one that was merely to support the Palestinian cause. The change in Palestinian and Israel relations during the Clinton Administration seems to support that theory. In fact, it has disappeared from our headlines. Given the timeline, senior Bush Administration officials may be wrong to attribute these changes to the invasion of Iraq, but rather the small inroads President Clinton made in his attempt to foster a true peace between the Palestinian and the Israelis. In addition, the CIA confirms that Libya has undertaken significant economic reforms in recent years, means that political reform was also inevitable. All of these events suggest that Libya recognizes that its need for the West is far greater than the West's need for Libya. Or Qaddafi had a very good crystal ball to time Libya's return to the international community to capitalize on the record high oil prices.

US Will Restore Diplomatic Links With the Libyans - The New York Times article on Tuesday 16th May 2005.

US Ties with Libya Restored - Los Angeles Times article on Tuesday 16th May 2005