(LIDO) Libya - The Struggle For Survival

LBYA: THE STRUGGLE FOR SURVIVAL
Also by Geoff Simons and published by Macmillan
CUBA: From Conquistador to Castro

IRAQ: From Sumer to Saddam
KOREA: The Search for Sovereignty
THE UNITED NATIONS: A Chronology of Conflict
UN MALAISE: Power, Problems and Realpolitik
THE SCOURGING OF IRAQ: Sanctions, Law and Natural Justice
Libya: The Struggle
for Survival
Geoff Simons
Foreword by
Tarn Dalyell, MP
Second Edition
MACMILLAN
©Geoff Simons 1993, 1996
Foreword © Tarn Dalyell, MP, 1993
All rights reserved. No reproduction, copy or transmission of

this publication may be made without written permission.
No paragraph of this publication may be reproduced, copied or
transmitted save with written permission or in accordance with
the provisions of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988,
or under the terms of any licence permitting limited copying
issued by the Copyright Licensing Agency, 90 Tottenham Court
Road, London WIP 9HE.
Any person who does any unauthorised act in relation to this
publication may be liable to criminal prosecution and civil
claims for damages.
Published by
MACMILLAN PRESS LTD
Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire RG21 6XS
and London
Companies and representatives
throughout the world
First edition 1993

Second edition 1996
ISBN 0-333-65470-6 hardcover

ISBN 0-333-65170-7 paperback
A catalogue record for this book is available

from the British Library.
10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
05 04 03 02 01 00 99 98 97 96
Printed in Great Britain by

Mackays of Chatham PLC
Chatham, Kent
What more can they do? They have imposed some kind of embargo on Libya
for 15 years. They have already bombed us, killed women and children. All
that is left for them now is to test their nuclear weapons on Libya.
Colonel Muammar al-Gaddafi, 1992
Third World countries such as Libya and Pakistan could become targets of
American strategic nuclear missiles under secret plans being drawn up by
the Pentagon.
The Sunday Times, 9 February 1992
Contents
Preface to the Second Edition xi
Foreword by Tarn Dalyell, MP xiii
Preface xvii
Acknowledgements xix
Maps xx
Introduction xxiii
PARTI LIBYA IN THE NEW WORLD ORDER 1
1 Lockerbie, Libya and the West 3

Outrages 3
Bombing Libya 5
The Vincennes Disaster 7
Lockerbie Investigation 8
Gulf Wars to New World Order 14
United States and Law 22
Attributing Guilt 30
Imposing Sanctions 51
New World Order? 67
Tightening the Noose 70
The Collapsed Case 77
PART II THE HISTORY OF LIBYA 89
2 The Libyan Past 91

Prehistory 91
The Phoenicians 92
The Greeks 93
The Romans 99
The Arabs 102
The Turks 103
vn
Vlll Contents
3 The Fourth Shore 110
Prelude to Invasion 110
1911 Invasion and Aftermath 114
Reconquest 120
Aftermath 133
Second World War 137
4 From Idris to Gaddafi 142

Towards Independence 142
Debate and Diplomacy 146
Constitution 152
Independence 154
Face of Monarchy 155
Towards the Coup 160
Muammar al-Gaddafi 170
Coup 176
Aftermath 179
5 The Oil Factor 182

Libyan Economy 182
Beginnings 189
The 1960s 193
Revolution and Aftermath 197
The Hammer Impact 201
Political Weapon 207
6 Libyan Revolution 209

Framework 209
Politics 214
Green Revolution 225
Economy 231
Democracy 240
Religion 244
Women 250
Armaments 254
PART III TERRORISM AND THE US RESPONSE 261
7 International Ambitions 263

Foreign Policy 263
Contents IX
Arab Unity 266

Exporting Revolution 280
Supporting Terrorism 281
Chad 286
Sudan 295
Western Sahara 297
Philippines 299
Irish Republican Army (IRA) 302
Libya Today 304
8 United States versus Gaddafi 310

The US and the Third World 310
First Libyan/US Conflict 314
Gaddafi and the US 316
US Support for Gaddafi 322
Targeting Gaddafi 324
Reagan, Terrorism and NATO 332
Operation El Dorado Canyon 334
The Continuing Campaign 346
Appendixes 348
1 Summary of Documents Issued to the United Nations by

US, UK and France to Record Charges Against and
Demands on Libya 348
2 UN Security Council Resolution 731 (1992) 350
3 First Report (S/23574) on Libyan Crisis by UN Secretary-
General Dr Boutros Boutros Ghali (11 February 1992) 352
4 Second Report (S/23672) on Libyan Crisis by UN Secretary-
General Dr Boutros Boutros Ghali (3 March 1992) 354
5 Arab League Resolution 5161 (22 March 1992) 361
8 UN Resolution on Independence of Libya (21 November 1949) 373
9 Proclamation of Libyan Republic on 1 September 1969 375
10 Telegram sent by Gaddafi to World Leaders at New Year, 1975 376
Notes 377
Bibliography 399
Index 403
Preface to the Second Edition
Today (mid-1995) economic and other UN sanctions on Libya - first

imposed in April 1992 - remain in place. These sanctions, which have
grown in severity over the three-year period, have already contributed to
substantial loss of life, damage to property and agricultural development,
and serious harm (in excess of $4 billion) to the Libyan economy. A White
House statement (23 December 1994) suggested that still stronger sanctions
were likely in the future.
The interpretation of UN sanctions policy has been harshly applied by
the UN Libyan sanctions committee: to the point, for example, that air
ambulances - desperately needed to fly critically ill patients for treatment
overseas - have been prohibited. This is one of the circumstances arising
out of US manipulation of the Security Council that has contributed to the
deaths of more than 2000 Libyans and others in the period over which
the sanctions have been in force. The six-year-old girl Safaa Abdel Rasoul
was one of the many Libyans, Egyptians and Palestinians who have died for
this reason.
Sanctions always strike at the most vulnerable: the young, the old, the
critically ill. Today US-sponsored sanctions, sometimes independently
applied and sometimes involving effective coercion of the Security Coun-
cil, are causing widespread starvation in Iraq (children dying at the rate of
100,000 a year), mounting fatalities in Libya, and growing disease and
malnutrition in Cuba.
The present book - in this edition including newly-publicised revelations
about the Lockerbie bombing outrage - indicates how the Gaddafi regime
in Libya, deemed by Washington to be unacceptable in the New World
Order, has been freshly targeted for destabilisation. This US policy, in
violation of international law and natural justice, is part of a wide-ranging
strategy. Libya is not the only victim.
GEOFF SIMONS
XI
Foreword
by Tam Dalyell, MP
Leptis Magna, an hour's drive from Tripoli, surpasses any set of monu-
ments in the Roman Empire, including Imperial Rome herself. Libya was
the breadbasket of that empire, and today's Libyans pointed out to me and
other British Members of the House of Commons visiting Libya in 1991
that their ancestors provided many of the best artists and craftsmen of
Ancient Rome.
It is one of the many strengths of Geoff Simons's scholarly and revealing
book that he shows that no Westerner can understand the present Libya
without understanding the past. He illuminates Italian colonialism and
Libya for those whose interest and knowledge have hitherto been confined
to El Alamein, the battles of the Eighth Army, Rommel and Montgomery.
For most of thefirsthalf of the twentieth century, the Libyan people had
been forced to wage war against successive colonial invaders - Turks,
Italians, Germans, French and British - with all the consequences for the
human lives and communities that this implies. Towns and cities, like
Tobruk, were razed to the ground: whole communities were deported for
incarceration in concentration camps; civilians and combatants alike were
tortured and bombed; their livestock slaughtered; the survivors were ra-
cially abused, exploited as forced labour, and reduced to penury.
How many people in Britain or America realise that for years after the
end of the Second World War Libya was littered with landmines and other
anti-personnel devices, making farming in Cyrenaica a hazardous enter-
prise? Simons points out that a paper presented by the Institute of Diplo-
matic Studies to a Geneva-based seminar on 'War Remnants in Libya'
(May 1981) emphasises that no less than sixty-eight per cent of all agricul-
tural land was mined. When I went to Libya in 1991, I met serious and
cultivated men who argued that the Second World War combatants -
Germany, Italy and Britain - should pay reparations for the hundreds of
Libyans killed and injured since the war by bombs and mines.
Nor have relations with the United States been any happier in recent
times. Geoff Simons displays an insight into the indifference among the
powerful men of Washington towards law when they wish to pursue their
own strategic interests. He sets out - in what Washington perceived as
propitious international circumstances - how the United States decided to
xiii
XIV Foreword
target the Libyan regime of Colonel Gaddafi. The widely suspected com-
plicity of Syria, a Gulf-War ally, and Iran in the Lockerbie bombing was to
be ignored. Libya, for raisons d'etat, was to be the sole publicly branded
culprit. For months the United States made no attempt whatever to observe
its obligations under the 1971 Montreal Convention: an agreement specifi-
cally designed to combat terrorist attacks on civilian aircraft. I agree with
Simons that all efforts at mediation and compromise - by Dr Boutros Ghali,
President Mubarak, the Arab League, the Maltese government, the Libyan
authorities themselves and others - have been routinely rejected by Wash-
ington and London, interested more in targeting Colonel Muammar Gaddafi
than in bringing the two accused men to court.
Lockerbie certainly was the biggest crime against Western civilians
since 1945. It was horrendous to visit Lockerbie. The police from the area
which I represent in the British House of Commons, and where I live, had
to take an active part, day after day, in the dreadful task of clearing up the
debris, human and material. On the other hand, I was no less shocked by
visiting the bedroom in Tripoli, where Colonel Gaddafi's sixteen-month-
old daughter, her pathetic toys scattered round the room, had been killed by
American bombers, flying from British bases in 1986.1 was equally horri-
fied by the results of the 1986 attack by American, British-based, bombers
on working-class housing areas of Benghazi.
Simons exposes the extent to which double-standards have been allowed
to prevail. Libya was a convenient, relatively weak, unpopular target, in
circumstances where similar criteria might have been applied to Jordanians
and Palestinians, Iranians and Syrians. Particularly, since it has been no
longer restrained by the power of the Soviet Union on the Security Council,
I believe the Americans have manipulated the United Nations to the point
of gross abuse, by making promises of financial help to malleable small
countries, rotating in their membership of the Security Council, thus obtain-
ing a majority for US policy.
The cause of justice should not be sacrificed on the altar of diplomatic
convenience. Simons shows how the United States has succeeded in defin-
ing for its own purposes the parameters of the Lockerbie question. There
was no longer any debate about who was responsible for the outrage:
whether the evidence, as formerly believed over a lengthy period, pointed to
Syrian and Iranian - as well as Libyan - involvement. The only issue was
how the US-dominated Security Council could be induced to tighten further
the noose around Libya.
Simons recognises the extent to which Libya itself has evolved, not least
in its attitude towards terrorism. Economic policy has discernibly shifted in
Foreword xv
the direction of liberalisation. There is an evident movement away from the
moral and practical help for dissident groups throughout the world, and
constructive steps have been taken through discussion and real initiatives to
improve relations with many other countries.
Allow me, finally, an unpopular opinion, which many ecologists would
dispute. I believe that in the twenty-first century, Colonel Gaddafi's govern-
ment will come to be seen as one of the most effective 'ecologically
imaginative' governments of the twentieth century. The Great Man-made
River Project might well turn out to be one of the soundest schemes ever
devised. I can only say that I was convinced by the engineers and scientists,
in the desert south of Benghazi, whom I saw working on the project in 1991.
Geoff Simons has performed a service to the English-speaking world
by writing the first serious and comprehensive assessment of the late
twentieth-century Libya available in the English language.
Preface
I came to write this book on Libya out of a growing interest in the countries
of the region, following the 1991 Gulf war. It seemed to me, and still does,
that a principal reason for the Gulf conflict was the requirement of the
United States that Gulf oil remain in compliant hands. In the event the US
was able to deploy massive military forces far from the United States
without any significant political constraint. This circumstance, at a time
when the Soviet Union was obligingly dissolving itself, was bound to
influence Washington's perception of the extent to which it could move
against recalcitrant states.
The world did not have to wait long. Apart from the unfinished busi-
ness of Saddam Hussein it soon became clear that Colonel Muammar
Gaddafi's Libya was high on the agenda for US attention, a priority much
stimulated by the needs of an unpopular President Bush in an election year.
So 1991/92 saw a rapid escalation of the pressure applied by the West to
Colonel Gaddafi.
We do not have to agree with any or all of the policies of the Libyan
government to question the amorality and political cynicism of the Western
consensus framed by Washington. It is useful on occasions to explore in an
independent spirit such matters as how the mass media work to manufacture
public political perceptions and how powerful nation-states might subvert
nominally supra-national institutions. More than one observer has remarked
that double standards are the principal currency of the New World Order.
There are issues here that relate to law, human rights, and the security of
small states that presume to disagree with powerful nations.
Libya is a vast country with a sparse population. Its land area is 1,759,540
sq. km. (679,180 sq. miles), much larger than Britain, France and Germany
combined; its population, at around 4.5 million, is less than half that of
London. Away from the coastal areas much of the land is desert and there
are few national resources - apart from some of the largest oil reserves in
the world.
It is oil, coupled with radical political leadership, that has enabled Libya
to work a social transformation and also to have a regional influence - for
good or ill - out of all proportion to the size of its population (Libya's two
main North African neighbours, Algeria and Egypt, have populations of
22 million and 50 million respectively). It is also oil that makes Libya of
continual interest to energy-hungry nations, especially the United States.
xvii
XV111 Preface
With the growth of national economies and the corresponding depletion of
energy resources this interest is bound to increase in the years to come.
GEOFF SIMONS
Acknowledgements
A few individuals have been very helpful and supportive during the time
I wrote this book. I am particularly grateful to Tam Dalyell (Labour MP for
Linlithgow, a tenacious man who works hard to expose the truth behind
political fa£ades), for writing the Foreword and for making available his
personal material on Libya; and to Harold Pinter for his enthusiastic support
for this book. I am also grateful to Martin Wattam (Librarian at the United
Nations Information Centre, London) for finding time to send me relevant
items; and to the staff of Manchester Central Library who, though having to
cope with severe and debilitating cut-backs, were always pleasant and
industrious in helping with research requests.
I am pleased to acknowledge permission to use two items of copyright
material: Figure 5.1 from Libya: The Experience of Oil by J. A. Allan
(published by Croom Helm, 1981); and Figure 6.1 from Libyan Politics,
Tribe and Revolution by John Davis (published by I. B. Tauris, 1987).
I appreciate also the efforts of Colette Simons for acquiring relevant
texts. Cornel Simons also helped in various ways.
As always I am grateful to my wife Chris for her various suggestions and
contributions, for her critical readings of the entire text, and for tolerating
my insistent arguments, often into the early hours when we should both
have been asleep.
xix
SYRIA / -'
Mediterranean Sea
LEBANON,^Damascus'' | R A Q
ISRAEL?^-/' V*
• Amman
Benghaz
Mcrsa JORDAN
ALGERIA SAUD
LIBYA ARABIA
EGYPT
MALI
Faya Largeau
Omdurman
Khartoum
CHAD
SUDAN
0 100 500 miles Ndjamena

800 km
Map 1 North Africa

Mediterranean Sea
•V. TUNISIA % / V V /
\
AlWatiya* Sidi
#
• •T^' Benghazi
o!r_, Tarhuna Misrata Obeidah
s Acroma
Musaad
Zuwaitina
D
esen Ajdabiya
Ras Lanuf
•Ghadames TRIPOLITANIA
Jaghbub
)
Marada
CYRENAICA
Sarir
Sebba 0
L
Al Birka FEZZAN
Kufrah
ALGERIA
> • •
NIGER
\ Aouzou Strip
r
\.
200 miles CHAD
300 km
Map 2 Libya
XXI
Introduction
Libya is widely perceived as a terrorist state, harbouring terrorists within its
borders and supporting terrorist groups around the world. The Libyan
leadership, headed by Colonel Muammar al-Gaddafi since 1969, has also
frequently sought to exploit political tensions in the region, to the point of
military intervention and encouraging attempted coups d'etat, in the inter-
ests of wider political objectives. For more than two decades Libya has
coexisted uneasily with its neighbours and in the wider world community,
unwilling to observe what most other nations claim to recognise as the
proper protocols of international behaviour. In such a context it has been
easy to dub Libya a 'pariah nation', led by a maverick trouble-maker, a
madman even, intent only on the use of violence to further his personal
political ambitions.
There is also another Libya, a vulnerable Third-World state, rich in oil
but without a broad-based economic infrastructure, a sparsely populated
nation that watches with trepidation the hostile moves of powerful countries
in a shrinking and energy-hungry world. Throughout most of its history
Libya has suffered as a conquered nation, as wave upon wave of in-
vaders swept across the deserts of North Africa. The Phoenicians, Greeks,
Romans, Turks, Italians, British - all for a time occupied the coastal
towns and the more accessible areas of the vast Libyan hinterland. All,
except the Arabs, departed but all left indelible marks on the national
culture. For most of the twentieth century Libya was a colony, forced to
suffer the humiliations and depradations wrought by foreigners. Even when
independent, under a fiercely nationalist leadership, it was helpless to resist
military attacks.
What may be termed the 'Libyan Question' can only be fully appreciated
by considering how the two Libyas have evolved over time: how on the one
hand a weak Third World nation, with perceptions shaped by remembered
pains brought by foreigners, continues to struggle for dignity and self-
sufficiency in a hostile world; and how, on the other, this particular oil-rich
state can be branded as responsible for violent outrages around the world. A
key consideration is the nature of the conflict between Libya (population:
4.5 million) and the United States (population: 240 million) in circum-
stances where the Soviet Union has collapsed and where the US, through
prodigious military power rather than secure economic strength, is uniquely
placed to influence the global political climate.
xxin
XXIV Introduction
This book considers the position of Libya in the 'New World Order'; in
particular, in the context of the Lockerbie bombing and of how through the
1980s there was a progressive worsening of US/Libyan relations. These
recent developments are set against a history of Libya: to indicate how the
temper of today's Libyan leadership is itself conditioned by such factors
as historical circumstance, Islamic conviction, pan-Arabic aspiration, and
sensitivity to the pressure of external colonial and neo-colonial ambitions.
One aim is to encourage an understanding of the Libyan Question that
goes beyond the facile ploys designed by powerful states to disguise their
hidden political agendas.
Part I (Chapter 1) suggests that analysis of the Lockerbie and UTA
terrorist outrages should be considered in the context of other relevant
events and developments. Thus the Lockerbie and UTA bombings are set
against the US bombing of Libya in 1986 and the shooting down of the
Iranian civil airliner by the USS Vincennes in 1988. Key aspects of the
Lockerbie enquiry are highlighted. The relevance of the recent Gulf wars to
the emergence of the US-defined New World Order is then considered,
followed by evidence of Washington's indifference to the requirements
of international law when perceived US interests are at stake.
The events leading to the decision to label Libya as the sole culprit for
the Lockerbie and UTA bombings are charted, contrasting this decision
with the earlier official statements that there was clear evidence of Syrian,
Iranian and Palestinian complicity. This chronology clearly suggests the
possibility of a US-inspired cover-up1 designed to deflect accusations away
from states with whom the US now wanted pragmatic political accom-
modations. The possibility of a multilayered cover-up gained further pub-
licity when the Pan Am insurers claimed that the US government was being
'deliberately evasive, if not deliberately untruthful' when it claimed to have
no information on how the bomb came to be on the aircraft.2 A profile is
also given of the events leading to the passing of the first UN sanctions
resolution (Resolution 748, see Appendix 6) on Libya, with emphasis on
how Washington pressured Security Council members to deliver the
necessary vote. Such events have led many observers to suggest that the
United Nations is today being divided and subverted in the interests of
international power politics.3
The limited sanctions had little impact. Libya's diplomatic connections
with several countries were reduced, with their airspace closed to Libyan
aircraft. Planes sent to Egypt, Tunisia, Malta and Switzerland were refused
permission to land and were turned back. Libya began ordering the ex-
pulsion of foreign diplomats in clear retaliation, notifying the mission heads
Introduction XXV
of France, Italy, Germany, Belgium, Japan, Sweden and Czechoslovakia

that 'within the framework of reciprocity' the numbers of their diplomats
would have to be reduced. Increasingly it became clear that 'the US and
Britain intend to maintain sanctions even if the Lockerbie suspects are
surrendered'.4 There was at the same time increasing speculation that the
initial, relatively mild sanctions were a prelude to an embargo on Libyan
oil sales and the launching of a unilateral US military strike.
Syria was soon indicating that it intended to defy the UN embargo on
flights to Libya, with Iraq also declaring that it would ignore the measures
stipulated by the UN Security Council. Syria's attempt to fly a plane to
Tripoli was blocked by other states refusing to grant overflying permission,5
but President Hafez al-Assad of Syria began a tour of the Gulf to muster
support for Libya. Said one diplomat in the Gulf, 'Assad's view is - today
Libya, tomorrow Syria.'6 In the Israeli-occupied Gaza strip and West Bank
at least twenty-eight Palestinians backing Colonel Gaddafi were shot and
wounded by Israeli troops, and the Palestinian leader Ahmed Jibril, at one
time himself accused by the West of involvement in the Lockerbie bomb-
ing, declared that his men were ready 'to champion the Libyan people'.
Russia, keen to support the US-inspired sanctions resolution, began
withdrawing some of its 3000 nationals in Libya, but most nationals -
including 10,000 Europeans - from other countries continued to work as
usual. The 5000 British nationals, according to reports, stayed cool in
Libya.7 Tiny Rowland, the Lonrho chief, felt obliged to defend his business
dealings with Libya ('I saw Colonel Gaddafi for several hours last week.
His views weren't unreasonable.. .'),8 and Paul Spicer, Lonrho joint deputy
chairman, strongly dismissed speculation that the company's assets might
be frozen in the United States because of Lonrho trade with Libya.9 Kate
Adie, the BBC reporter, was expelled from Libya for allegedly insulting
officials, and the leading British legal firm Peter Carter-Ruck and Partners,
having agreed to defend the two accused Libyans, wondered how in the
light of travel restrictions it would now be able to send specialists to Tripoli.
In his first interview since the passing of UN Resolution 748 and the
consequent implementation of sanctions Colonel Gaddafi appeared to be
hardening his attitude.10 He would not now, contrary to earlier assurances,
give information about his dealings with the IRA: 'If I give them such a
history of our connections, then they would use this information to accuse
me of specific crimes. It would create another problem such as the Lockerbie
accusations.' More importantly, given the supposed purpose of 748, he
reiterated his refusal to hand over the two Libyans accused of the Lockerbie
bombing. One problem is that one of the accused belongs to the Magaref
XXVI Introduction
tribe of Major Abdel Salem Jalloud, Gaddafi's fiery second-in-command.

According to the Libyans, to surrender the two men would not remove
sanctions but would be more likely to stimulate further Western demands.
The impasse, with various veiled threats continuing to be made by
Britain and the United States, was easy to comprehend. The US, having
mobilised the necessary Security Council majority (but not a consensus),
was obliged to stand firm, while Colonel Gaddafi saw no advantage in
surrendering the two men (the West was on record as saying that this
alone would not allow sanctions to be removed). The scene was set for a
temporary stalemate prior to an escalation, in one form or another, of the
conflict. Libya, with much experience of foreign encroachments on its
land and of foreign erosions of its natural sovereignty, thought it knew what
to expect. There were many lessons in history . . . .
Part II (Chapters 2-6) presents a history of Libya from the earliest times
to the present. The Italian depiction of Libya as Italy's 'Fourth Shore', and
the subsequent conquest (Chapter 3), signalled how Libya (and other Third-
World nations) were traditionally viewed by European colonial powers.
The struggle to independence and to republican status (Chapters 4 and 5)
have to be understood in the context of this history of oppression. Chapter 6
profiles some key aspects of the Libyan revolution, a multifaceted and
important phenomenon, however in the comfortable West we may choose
to criticise it for its limitations, its brutalities or its inherent contradictions.
In Part III a profile is given of another important outgrowth of the
Libyan revolution, foreign adventures including terrorism (Chapter 7), and
the US response (Chapter 8). Here there are immense difficulties in estab-
lishing exactly what terrorist outrages Libya has supported and what terror-
ist groups, despite its assurances to the contrary, it still supports. We cannot
rely on accusations from Washington: the US has been wrong in the past
(Chapter 8) and its disinformation campaigns have been exposed.11 Nor can
we rely on the copious accusations issuing from such interested organ-
isations as the Israeli Mossad, itself well aware of how propaganda can be
used to effect. However, we do not need to rely on the CIA and Israel to
tell us that Libya has supported terrorism. In recent interviews, Colonel
Gaddafi has admitted as much.12
The ethical problem for the West - distinct from its realpolitik successes
- is that the United States, manifestly keen to establish itself as a ubiquitous
judge and jury, has itself supported terrorists, death squads and violent
insurrections.13 This is one of the hard facts, uncongenial to the West, that
has to be faced before the nature of the Libyan Question can be more fully
comprehended. One purpose of the present book is to encourage this deeper
understanding.
Introduction xxvn
1. The likelihood of a cover-up over Lockerbie will surprise no one who consid-
ers how Washington withheld and misrepresented information about the
bombing of Cambodia, Operation Phoenix (for mass assassinations in Viet-
nam), Operations Mongoose and AM/LASH (for the assassination of Fidel
Castro and the destruction of the Cuban regime), the assassinations of the
Kennedys, Watergate, Irangate, BCCI, the 'friendly fire' deaths of nine
British soldiers in the 1991 Gulf war (104 inconsistencies in submitted
evidence, according to the legal representations at the Oxford, England,
hearings on 11 May 1992), and many other instances. We have now learned
from US congressman Henry Gonzalez how President Bush and his most
senior advisers ordered a cover-up to conceal their illegal support for Saddam
Hussein right up to the start of the Gulf war. This involved lying to Congress,
withholding information, and falsifying Commerce Department records (see
Simon Tisdall, 'Saddamgate and Mr Bush', The Guardian (London), 2-3
May 1992).
2. John Merritt, 'Bomb Victims Accuse Pan Am of Dirty Tricks', The Observer
(London), 26 April 1992; Leonard Doyle, 'US Intelligence Agencies to be
Criticised in Lockerbie Trial', The Independent (London), 27 April 1992;
Leonard Doyle, 'Lockerbie Trial Ruling Fuels US Cover-up Theory', The
Independent (London), 28 April 1992. It was also reported (The Sunday
Times, London, 10 May 1992) that the journalist David Leppard was being
taken to court by Pan Am to try to force him to hand over confidential
Lockerbie documents, but that 'British ministers want to prevent this because
Leppard's inquiries throw doubt on the view of Western governments that the
bombing was the work of Libya alone'.
3. David Hirst, 'How to Inflate a Demagogue', The Guardian (London),
15 April 1992; Leonard Doyle, 'Libyan Embargo Shatters the UN Consen-
sus', The Independent (London), 18 April 1992; Hameed Moolla, 'Interna-
tional Law's Limits' (letter), The Guardian (London), 18 April 1992; William
F. Pepper, 'Libya Ruling Undermines World Law' (letter), The Independent
(London), 18 April 1992; Adrian Hamilton, 'West Misuses UN in Crusade
Against Libya', The Observer (London), 19 April 1992.
4. David Hirst and Hella Pick, 'Libya Expels Diplomats as US and Britain Turn
Up Heat', The Guardian (London), 17 April 1992.
5. 'Syria Blocked in Attempt to Flout UN Sanctions', The Guardian (London),
21 April 1992.
6. 'Syrians Seek Aid for Libya on Sanctions', The Independent (London),
21 April 1992.
7. Phil Davison, 'Britons Stay Cool in Libya', Independent on Sunday
(London), 19 April 1992; David Hirst, 'Expatriates Remain Cool Amid the
Libyan Heat', The Guardian (London), 16 April 1992.
8. Tiny Rowland, 'Why I'm Doing Business with Gaddafi', The Observer
(London), 3 May 1992.
9. 'Lonrho Denies Blacklist Claim', The Observer (London), 3 May 1992.
10. Marie Colvin, 'Gadaffi Goes Back on his Promise to Reveal IRA Deals', The
Sunday Times (London), 10 May 1992.
11. Bob Woodward, Veil: The Secret Wars of the CIA, 1981-1987 (London:
Simon and Schuster, 1987).
12. Donald Trelford, interview with Muammar al-Gaddafi, The Observer
XXV111 Introduction
(London), 26 January 1992; Marie Colvin, interview with Muammar al-

Gaddafi, The Observer (London), 10 May 1992.
13. An exhaustive listing of the cases that have reached the public domain would
be lengthy and tedious. Here we need cite only the US support for, or
tolerance of: the military coups in Vietnam, Chile and Iran; the Indonesian
invasion of East Timor, the Israeli invasion of Lebanon, and the South
African invasion of Namibia; the death squads of Guatemala and El Salvador;
and the terrorists in Nicaragua, southern Africa and Afghanistan.
Parti
Libya in the
New World Order
1 Lockerbie, Libya and
the West
. . . the central lesson of World Order . . . we [the US] are the
masters, and you shine our shoes
Noam Chomsky, 1991
In 1991 the noose again began to tighten on Libya. The noose had been
there for almost two decades, the tension varying over the years according
to American whim and the vagaries of Libyan politics. Libya, under the
radical leadership of Muammar al-Gaddafi, had long been available for US
attention. In 1991 circumstances again conspired to bring Libya from the
back burner to the front, a transition that again concentrated independent
minds on the nature of international terrorism, the rule of law, and the
political pressures than can be exercised by powerful states.
With the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact, the 'democratisation' of
Eastern Europe and the collapse of the Soviet Union, the United States
rushed to proclaim itself winner of the Cold War. The second recent war
in the Gulf had demonstrated not only American military power but also
how the United Nations - created in 1945 'to save succeeding generations
from the scourge of war9 - could be induced to underwrite a massive
military conflict. The end of the Cold War did not herald a new age of
peace and tranquillity. The United States, seemingly still beset by sin on
all sides, resolved to chastise the enemies of virtue, from upstart Third
World nations to an alarmingly threatening superpower in the East. There
were fresh confrontations to endure, possibly new wars to fight.1 In such
a scenario it was inevitable that Libya's Colonel Gaddafi would soon be
given the attention Washington knew he deserved. His likely involvement
in at least two recent terrorist outrages was the the pretext, the excuse, or
the just cause.
OUTRAGES
At about 7.00 p.m. on 21 December 1988 a Pan American World Airways

jumbo jet, Flight PA 103, was flying six miles high over the Scottish
3
4 Libya: The Struggle for Survival
borders. The Boeing 747-121, Maid of the Seas, was travelling from
London's Heathrow airport to John F. Kennedy airport in New York. The
pilot, James MacQuarrie, and his co-pilot, Raymond Wagner, had switched
on the autopilot for what was intended to be a routine overnight flight. At
7.03 p.m. a small terrorist bomb exploded in the cargo hold, punching a
hole in the fuselage, and sending fragments of suitcase, clothing and other
debris into the void. The blast severed the plane's electrical power supply
and there was no chance to send even the start of a distress call. The early
reports, before the bomb explosion had been confirmed, could only note
that the Boeing had broken up so suddenly that no message could be sent,
and so dramatically that wreckage and human victims were scattered over
large areas of Lockerbie and the surrounding countryside. It was a second-
ary shock wave that was to cause the deaths of MacQuarrie, Wagner, the
other crew members and the 243 passengers. This secondary shock wave
burst a large jagged hole in the side of the aircraft, probably injuring some
passengers and signalling to others that the plane was starting to dis-
integrate. Fractures from the starburst hole spread rapidly in various direc-
tions, one fracture running for more than 40 feet along the fuselage. Within
seconds the skin panels were peeling backwards and the entire nose section
had fallen away. As the shattered aircraft plunged into a vertical dive the
engines were torn off and baggage and passengers were disgorged into the
freezing atmosphere. The wings, carrying more than 200,000 pounds of
aviation fuel, crashed at a speed of more than 200 miles per hour into
Sherwood Crescent, a small street adjoining the main A74 Glasgow-
England road. The blast registered 1.6 at a nearby seismic monitoring
station and the fireball was visible more than six miles away. Several
houses were vaporised by the explosion and others were gutted by fire.2
Most of the passengers on the Maid of the Seas were Americans, flying
home for Christmas reunions with their families. They included servicemen
and thirty-eight students from Syracuse University in New York state. It
soon emerged that US embassies had received a warning that a Pan Amer-
ican flight would be a terrorist target for a bomb. British MPs expressed
concern that the Heathrow authorities had not been told of the threat that
was known to US officials.
At 8.45 a.m. on 19 September 1989 a French DC-10 airliner, UTA 772,
left Brazzaville in the Congo; after a brief stopover in Chad, the plane flew
north across the Sahara. About forty-five minutes later, at just after one
o'clock, a terrorist bomb exploded, ripping the aircraft apart and killing all
the passengers and crew. Parts of the aircraft, fragments of the bomb and
the mutilated passengers were spewed over an area of 640 square kilo-
Lockerbie, Libya and the West 5
metres in the Niger Tenere desert. The cockpit was found more than five
kilometres from the fuselage. In the weeks that followed, French para-
troops, working in temperatures approaching 60 degrees Centigrade, were
to collect more than 85,000 pieces of aircraft debris for reassembly in an
aircraft hanger outside Paris. It was subsequently found that the bomb had
been placed on the aircraft at Brazzaville. The blowing up of UTA 772
was the worst terrorist outrage that France had suffered. In an ITN tele-
vision broadcast in December 1991 it was declared that the French author-
ities still did not know who had planted the bomb. At the same time efforts
were being made to convince the world that the Libyan government had
sole responsibility for the outrage.
The terrorist attacks on PA 103 and UTA 772 can be viewed as discrete
outrages unrelated to prior political events, horrendous onslaughts on inno-
cent human beings. However, such events do not occur in a political
vacuum, divorced from a range of other grievances. We do not need to
excuse gross acts of terrorism to remember that there are precedents to
such outrages, events that can well serve to motivate those with a thirst for
vengeance. Here we need only recall two such events: the 1986 bombing
of Libya and the shooting down in 1988 of the Iranian airbus.
BOMBING LIBYA*
On 15 April 1986 American aircraft, flying from bases in Britain and

carriers in the Mediterranean, bombed Tripoli and Benghazi. This was a
much heralded air attack: the previous evening an American television
correspondent had been informed by his Washington office that 'something
would happen that night or the next morning'.3 Similarly an American
reporter at the El Khebir Hotel in Tripoli was told by the foreign desk of
his newspaper that an air strike was imminent. Shortly before 2 a.m. thirteen
F-l 11 fighter bombers, having flown from the UK, and three radar jamming
aircraft roared over Tripoli; bombs and missiles hit the airport, the Aziziya
Barracks, and various civilian targets. Most of the air defence radar had
*The circumstances of the 1986 bombing of Tripoli and Benghazi are considered in Chapter
Eight. Particular attention is given to 'La Belle justification' to show how the United States is
sometimes prone to take drastic action on the basis of only slender evidence.
been rendered useless but a gunner at the Aziziya Barracks managed to hit
an F-l 11 that subsequently crashed in flames in the Mediterranean. Aircraft
from the Sixth Fleet - Hornet and Tomcat fighters, Corsair jets, Hawkeye
command planes and anti-radar prowlers - had already hit a number of
targets in Benghazi.
Washington had assured the British cabinet that only military and terror-
ist targets would be hit. Each aircraft weapons officer was to have a 'double
lock-on' - fixing the target with both infra-red night sight and Pave Track
radar - before he would release his bombs, but such precautions proved to
be inadequate. Soon journalists were being taken to see where bombs had
fallen in residential areas of Tripoli: private villas had suffered direct hits
and the front had been blasted out of an apartment building. The French
embassy had been badly damaged and the building next to it completely
destroyed. The journalists were shown civilian houses destroyed and
bodies in the ruins; a child's foot was seen sticking out of the rubble.4
Wounded people were shown in the central hospital, and bodies in the
central mortuary; a bucket contained the skin of two people.5
At first Washington, alarmed at the graphic television pictures that were
coming out of Libya, denied that the human carnage and damage to build-
ings had been caused by US bombs and missiles. Perhaps Libyan shells had
fallen back on the residential areas. Perhaps bombs had fallen off the wings
of American aircraft by accident. Perhaps the Libyans had deliberately
destroyed buildings and then blamed the Americans. Washington need not
have worried: its principal constituency, the American people, approved the
specific air strike and the general strategy. Polls showed a 77 per cent
approval rating, and President Reagan's foreign policy rating shot up in less
than a week from 51 per cent to 76 per cent. The White House switchboard
was flooded with congratulatory calls, and many Americans rang the Brit-
ish embassy to thank Prime Minister Thatcher for her complicity. There was
regret that Colonel Gaddafi had not been killed. Thus Daniel Pipes, of the
Foreign Research Institute in Philadelphia, commented that the next attack
on Libya 'should use massive force, anything in between is not effective'.6
Ted Kennedy opined that he was sure 'that all Americans will stand with the
President'; and The New York Times declared that 'even the most scrupu-
lous citizen can only approve and applaud the American attacks on Libya
. . . if there were such a thing as due process in the court of world opinion,
the United States has prosecuted and punished [Gaddafi] carefully, propor-
tionately - and justly'.7 President Reagan was merely reflecting the Amer-
ican consensus, fashioned by pliant media, when he declared that Colonel
Gaddafi was a 'flaky barbarian' and a 'mad dog'. Many Americans hoped
that there would be a chance to strike at Libya again.
THE VINCENNES DISASTER
On 3 July 1988 the US guided missile cruiser Vincennes mistakenly shot

down an Iranian airliner on a regular flight over the Gulf. A Standard
missile achieved a direct hit on the airbus, killing all 286 people on board.
The Vincennes had been engaged in a skirmish involving one of its heli-
copters and Iranian armed speedboats, and at first it was claimed that the
ship had shot down an attacking F-l4 Tomcat aircraft. Only later did the
Vincennes Captain Will Rogers admit what had happened whereupon
President Reagan, though 'saddened by this terrible tragedy' stated that the
Vincennes had taken the 'proper defensive action'. The Iranian Prime
Minister Mousavi declared that the United States would not be 'exempt
from the consequences'.
This was the first direct evidence that the high-technology Aegis missile
system was unable to distinguish between a Tomcat with a 64-fleet wing-
span and an airliner almost three times as big. Moreover, as Iran Air Flight
IR 655 approached the Vincennes the plane did not switch on the fire
control radar that would have confirmed its hostile intent. Captain Will
Rogers was confident that he was following standard procedure, as indeed
was Iran Air captain Mohsen Rezaeian. It has been suggested that IR 655's
rate of ascent was normal: in his last message to the Bandar Abbas control
tower Rezaeian said he was climbing to 14,000 feet. Yet the Americans
gave a conflicting version and repeatedly changed their story.7
The Americans first denied everything; then Admiral William Crowe, a
chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, admitted that the Vincennes had shot
down an Iranian airbus, claiming that it had been spotted at 7000 feet
descending towards the ship. This is now taken to be an absurd suggestion,
though it remains odd that an Iran Air captain should have been prepared to
fly a civilian airbus over a military confrontation. One suggestion is that the
Bandar Abbas control tower received warnings from the US ship but failed
to pass on the warnings to IR 655. Here an Iranian source has been quoted:
'The Americans issue warnings all the time. The Iranians think to them-
selves, "What right do the Americans have to give warnings to us in our
own territory? What right do they have to be there anyway?" ' 8
There was ambiguity about the information obtained by the Americans
and the actual messages that they claimed to have sent. At first they said that
they had received no information from the airbus, but then changed their
story to say that two messages had been received, one suggesting that the
plane was civilian and one suggesting it was military. Iran claimed that this
was impossible, an assertion supported by a Dubai source confirming that
Iran Air had recently ordered two replacement transponders for the airbus.
Significantly enough, another American warship in the Gulf, the John H
Sides, stated that it had picked up only the civilian signal. Captain Will
Rogers had the option of warning the airbus by radio. In fact both the
Vincennes and the John H Sides did this: seven times, in one version of the
American story; twelve times in another. Whatever the facts, the upshot was
that a $1 billion ship with an air defence system costing $500 million had
failed to detect a large civilian airliner at close range. A journalist in The
Observer noted that there had been 'no contrition from Washington. Not
one major newspaper or any television network has expressed outright
criticism of the Administration.'9 Opinion polls in the US showed an indif-
ference 'bordering on the callous and American allies have displayed a
restraint close to complicity'.10
Two years after the incident it emerged that the US case was even
weaker than originally thought, that in fact the USS Vincennes was in
Iranian territorial waters at the time.11 A British officer on board an Omani
navy vessel is on record as twice warning the American cruiser by radio that
it was within twelve miles of the Iranian coast. The soundtrack of a video
recorded on the morning of 3 July includes the words: 'Your actions are not
in accordance with the rights of passage. Please leave Iran's territorial
waters immediately.'12 The radio message, later repeated over the loud
speaker on the bridge of the Vincennes, was discovered by David Evans, a
former US Marine Lieutenant-Colonel and now the chief military corres-
pondent of The Chicago Tribune. The message helps to explain why the
American ship came under attack from Iranian gunboats and why the US
authorities have consistently refused to release detailed information about
the course and position of the Vincennes on the day in question. At the time
there were frenzied calls within Iran for reprisals against American targets,
one of a number of reasons why the West has until recently assumed a
degree of Iranian complicity in the bombing of Pan Am 103 over Lockerbie.
On 21 July 1992 Admiral William J. Crowe, Chairman of the Joint
Chiefs of Staff at the time of the Vincennes disaster, testified before the
House Armed Services committee in Washington that the Vincennes was in
Iranian waters when she shot down the airliner (New York Times, 22 July
1992). He also admitted that this information had been deliberately with-
held from the public.
LOCKERBIE INVESTIGATION
On 14 November 1991 the sister of one of the Pan Am 103 victims

responded to the synchronised statements by the US Justice Department and
the Lord Advocate for Scotland that two Libyan intelligence agents were
responsible for the Lockerbie bombing: Bonnie O'Connor of Long Island
asked, 'Does George Bush take us for fools?' Some press comment was
similarly sceptical.13 It is useful to recall, first in outline, some of the
pertinent post-Lockerbie events.
In March 1989 Paul Channon, then transport minister, lunched in the
Garrick Club with political correspondents from The Guardian, The
Mirror, Today, The Times, and The Glasgow Herald. Channon announced
off the record that the Lockerbie bombers had been identified, following
extensive investigations by the Lockerbie police, and that there would soon
be arrests. When the news duly appeared in the press there were careful
denials that the bombers had been tracked down, after which it was leaked
that Channon himself had been the source of the apparently false informa-
tion. Channon responded by denying this, 'was exposed as a liar and, after
a decent interval, sacked'.14 In the House of Commons Channon, questioned
by Neil Kinnock, made an effort to summarise the then current state of the
investigations.15 He stated that 'the evidence which had been secured so far
had not yet led to the identification of the person or persons responsible for
placing the bomb in baggage on'Pan Am Right 103'. Soon The Sunday
Times was running a detailed series of articles setting out what were deemed
to be the 'full facts' about the bombing (see below). Here it was claimed
that the bomb had been devised by the Iranians in revenge for the shooting
down of the Iran Air flight IR 655 by USS Vincennes. The Iranian govern-
ment had employed a gang of Palestinians who enjoyed the support of the
Syrian government. The bomb resembling a Toshiba cassette recorder, was
planted in a suitcase in Malta and thereby on a plane which went through
Frankfurt where the Pan Am flight began. The gang of Palestinian ex-
tremists was led by Ahmed Jibril, a notorious terrorist who at the time was
co-operating with the Syrian-backed Abu Nidal. The man 'identified' as
travelling to Malta to purchase clothes to put in the bomb suitcase was
named as Mohammed Abu Talb, a Palestinian terrorist then incarcerated
in a Swedish jail.
The volume of detailed information in the Sunday Times articles could
not have been accumulated without assistance from the Scottish police or
from Western intelligence sources. This suggested that Western govern-
ments had an interest in giving publicity to the then current findings of the
Lockerbie enquiry: these, in essence, implicated a group of extremist Pales-
tinians and the governments of two acknowledged 'terrorist states', namely
Iran and Syria. The question remained: if so much was known, why was
there no sign of an arrest? Today, in the light of the demands being made on
Libya, we may ask: why was there no pressure, possibly via the Security
Council, for Iran and Syria to extradite the named terrorists for trial in
Scotland or the United States? One possible answer emerged in The Wash-
ington Post where it was revealed that Margaret Thatcher and George Bush,
speaking on the telephone in mid-March 1989, had agreed to play down the
Lockerbie disaster even though their intelligence services had established
the Jibril/Nidal/Talb responsibility for the outrage.16 One possible reason
for this low-key approach was that the CIA, long connected with drug
trafficking,17 was at the time organising a drugs run through Frankfurt
airport in exchange for an Iranian commitment to free hostages, a deal
related to the Irangate arms-for-hostages agreement. It is also possible that
the West had an eye on the shifting political scene in the Middle East: it
would not be long before a pliant Syria and a quiescent Iran would be useful
to Washington in its onslaught on Iraq. Today in 1992 few independent
observers doubt that Syria and Iran have been eased out of the Lockerbie
picture because of their acquiescence in the 1991 Gulf war.
It is useful to remind ourselves of how sure the West was of Syrian,
Palestinian and Iranian complicity in the bombing of Pan Am 103 - in the
days before Lord Fraser, the Lord Advocate of Scotland, was required to
read out the 'results' of the police enquiry, results - now naming Libya as
sole culprit - that were totally at variance with the equally categorical
findings publicised only a short time before. In the House of Commons
Douglas Hurd, sensitive to the realpolitik of a post-Gulf-war Middle East,
went to some lengths to exculpate Iran and Syria, the acknowledged terror-
ist states that Paul Channon had so roundly condemned in March 1989. The
Sunday Times, having not long before revealed the full truth behind
Lockerbie, could not quite muster the energy for a full somersault: 'The
position of Iran and Syria remains obscure', it demurred.18
In November 1989 it was reported that fresh evidence had emerged
linking two Palestinian terrorists - Abu Talb, a member of the Popular
Front for the Liberation of Palestine-General Command (PFLP-GC), and
Marten Imandi - to the plot devised in Malta to plant the bomb on Pan Am
103.19 Talb, a known terrorist, was in Malta at the right time and 'surveil-
lance records' showed that he owned a brown Samsonite suitcase of the
same type that contained the bomb; he also visited premises in Frankfurt
where the bomb was almost certainly made. It was reported that the Scottish
police believed that a PFLP-GC member smuggled the bomb from West
Germany to Malta where it was placed in a suitcase and so conveyed onto
Pan Am 103. Imandi, like Talb, was linked to the bomb flat in Frankfurt. In
December two detectives from Lockerbie flew to Belgrade to question
friends and relatives of Mobdi Goben, a Palestinian with alleged bomb-
making expertise and a known member of the FPLP-GC, 'the group be-
lieved to have been paid millions of dollars by Iran to carry out the bombing
in revenge for the shooting down of an Iranian airliner over the Gulf in July
1988'.20 Goben was believed 'to have supplied material for the Lockerbie
bomb to Hafez Dalkamoni, 44, who leads the PFLP-GC s European net-
work'.21 (There was by now no discussion of possible US incompetence in
failing to alert the public to the bomb threat. In December 1988, before the
Lockerbie bombing, the US had been warned of a bomb threat to the Pan
American airline: 'One warning clearly specified that the terrorist plot
would involve a flight this month to the United States from Frankfurt,
where the doomed Pan Am Flight 103 originated. Both warnings were
phoned to US embassies and the Americans claimed that they told all the
necessary security organisations.'22 Officials at Heathrow and Frankfurt
denied that they were ever told, and no warnings were given to the public.)
In November 1989, claiming access to inside information, The Sunday
Times proudly published the 'full story' of the Lockerbie plot.23 This ac-
count of the plot, 'based on information pieced together by Western intel-
ligence and security sources':
names the principal bombers;

identifies who paid them;
exposes how they planted the bomb on board flight PA 103;
uncovers the extent to which the West German authorities bungled the
investigation.
The report declares (p. 1) that it is 'now known that seven key conspirators,
all members of . . . the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine-
General Command (PFLP-GC), are likely to be named in a Scottish police
report to Lord Fraser of Carmyllie, the Scottish Lord Advocate.' We are
told that:
Western intelligence is convinced that Iran paid millions of dollars to

Ahmed Jibril, the Damascus-based leader of the Palestinian faction, to
carry out the bombing . . . Jibril is thought to have ordered Hafez Kassem
Dalkamoni, the leader of the PFLP-GC s European terror network, to set
up the bombing team . . . Dalkamoni then recruited Marwan Khreesat, a
44-year-old Jordanian terrorist to make the bomb.
The report continues in this vein. We learn what the Lockerbie investigators
'now believe'; and what the significance is of 'new evidence'. In the
detailed reported (p. A15)24 we are told how suspicion first began to focus
on Ali Akbar Mohtashemi, an Iranian hard-liner thought to have paid
$2 million to the PFLP-GC to carry out the bombing (a photograph insert,
carrying the word 'Mastermind', depicts Ahmed Jibril, 'the man who, for
$2 million, ordered the bombing'). We also find that the terrorists might
have used the CIA-protected drugs channel to smuggle the bomb onto Pan
Am 103: a Pan Am report leaked to a congressman 'claimed that the bomb
was put on board Pan Am 103 in Frankfurt with the unwitting connivance
of CIA agents who were running a secret drugs-for-hostages operation'.
The investigators from Lockerbie further believed that the Jordanian terror-
ist Marwan Khreesat had made five Semtex bombs, 'including the one that
blew up Flight 103, and that he and the PFLP-GC had intended to bomb
five Western aircraft as part of the Iranian-sponsored revenge attacks'.
Khreesat's bomb, according to the Lockerbie investigators, was smug-
gled out of the Frankfurt flat by the known PFLP-GC terrorist Ramzi Diab,
carried in a radio cassette player to Vienna, and then smuggled into Malta
for subsequent handling by a PFLP-GC cell operating in a bakery. West
German intelligence had established that Talb and Dalkamoni had gone to
Malta to instruct the cell to place the bomb on board an Air Malta flight.
Baggage lists later showed that a bag had been transferred to Pan Am 103
from an Air Malta flight: ' . . . an unaccompanied bag, originating in Malta,
was in the cargo hold of Pan Am 103 when it exploded over Lockerbie'.
On 17 December 1989 it was reported that the Lockerbie police were
closing in 'on Lockerbie killers'.25 Officers leading the investigation had
informed their counterparts abroad that under Scottish law 'charges are now
possible against certain persons'. At the same time it was emphasised that
because of extradition difficulties, some of the suspects would have to be
tried abroad. Lord Fraser, the Lord Advocate of Scotland, was quoted:
While the ultimate purpose is the criminal prosecution of the individuals

who were responsible for it, the criminal prosecution need not necessar-
ily take place in this country. It could take place elsewhere. There could
be several trials in several countries.
Again the familiar list of suspects was rehearsed: the Palestinian Abu Talb
was a key suspect; the Jordanian Marwan Khreesat was thought to have
made the bomb; the Iranian interior minister Mohtashemi paid a vast sum -
this time $10 million(!) - for the bombing; and there was no doubt about
the involvement of the PFLP-GC. In the detailed accompanying report
(pp. A14-15), photographs of Khreesat, Dalkamoni, Jibril and Mohtashemi
are shown, and we are again informed about the beliefs of the Lockerbie
investigators: 'A detailed examination of the PFLP-GC cell in Germany
and its links to a cell in Malta and the suspected Palestinian terrorists in
Sweden has convinced the Scottish police that the conspirators will be
found among those groups' (my italics).
The possibility of Libyan involvement in the Lockerbie outrage has been
considered for some years. Clothing thought to be contained in the bomb
suitcase was purchased in a boutique in Sliema, Malta; the owner, Anthony
Gauci, described the buyer as a 'Libyan', a man who conversed in the
'Libyan' language.26 It may also be significant that the Libyan People's
Bureau in Malta was situated just a few hundred yards from Gauci's
boutique in Tower Road. The mysterious customer, whether Libyan or not,
was never identified; until, that is, the West decided to declare Libya's sole
involvement in the Lockerbie bombing.
Early in 1988 two men arrested in Senegal, West Africa, were found to
be carrying arms and explosives, including several blocks of TNT and nine
kilos of Semtex, and also nine time-delay detonators of a type later thought
to be used in the Lockerbie bomb. Vincent Cannistraro, the head of the
CIA's counter-terrorism centre who led the American investigation into the
bombing, suspected that the men were Libyan intelligence agents. They had
Lebanese passports but were thought to be Libyan nationals; in any event
they had been temporarily attached to the Libyan People's Bureau in Benin.
On 16 June 1988 they were released without charge, despite American
protests and suggestions that they were linked to the Abu Nidal group. One
suggestion for their release without charge was the rapprochement between
Senegal and Libya: American officials stated that, in order to secure the
release of the two men, Libyan agents had 'suborned' unnamed Senegalese
bureaucrats.27
Cannistraro has also claimed that when the German BKA (Bundesmat
fiir Verfassungsschutz) managed to close down Ahmed Jibril's European
network, Jibril sent a man to Libya to persuade Colonel Gaddafi to take
over the task of carrying out the bombing. The CIA claim to have corrob-
oration of the meeting held at the headquarters of the Libyan Intelligence
Service outside Tripoli; the meeting was supposedly attended by Major
Abdel Salem Jalloud, the former Libyan Prime Minister and for many years
Gaddafi's official second-in-command. This is taken to explain how the
known terrorist, the Damascus-based Ahmed Jibril, was able to carry out
the Lockerbie bombing even after his West German cell had been put out
of action. Cannistraro speculated on why Gaddafi may have had a motive
for helping Jibril carry out the terrorist act: 'He may have had the American
bombing of Tripoli in the back of his mind . . .'; but at the same time
Cannistraro was unwilling to rule out the complicity of other states apart
from Libya. He concluded: 'From an intelligence point of view this case has
been solved. There is a lot of evidence which puts this at the doorstep of the
Iranian government.'28 Various individuals and states were involved in the
Lockerbie bombing but 'The commissioning and the inspiration for the
bombing came from the Iranians. They commissioned an operation against
an American civilian airliner in revenge for the shooting down of the
Iranian airbus . . ,'29
David Leppard, deputy-editor of the Sunday Times 'Insight' team that
investigated the Lockerbie bombing, has himself drawn attention to the CIA
claim that it has evidence indicating that Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, the
president of Iran, knew of the decision to bomb the American airliner, 'and
supported it'.30 Cannistraro has commented that it was not 'a rogue de-
cision', and has pointed out that Akbar Rafsanjani was commander-in-chief
of the Iranian military at the time - in the summer of 1988 - when the
bombing was supposedly commissioned through the Iranian Revolutionary
Guard. The CIA has claimed also that soon after the Lockerbie bombing
Ahmed Jibril celebrated with champagne at his office in Damascus.
It is hard to avoid the conclusion that individuals and/or governments of
various states - Iran, Syria, Jordan and Libya - were involved in the
Lockerbie bombing. It is likely also that stateless Palestinians, associated
with various extremist groups enjoying the protection of particular coun-
tries, had some complicity in the plot. The West, for reasons that can be
conjectured, is now seeking to attribute the blame solely to Libya.
A batch of documents lodged with the United Nations - documents that
include the 'requests' made to the Libyan authorities by France, the United
Kingdom and the United States - record specific charges against Libyan
nationals, and 'request' that the Libyan authorities take specified actions.31
These documents, referenced in Security Council Resolution 731 (adopted
unanimously on 21 January 1992), are considered below (under 'Attribut-
ing Guilt'). First it is useful to draw attention to aspects of the supposed
New World Order, and to consider the relationship between international
law and the current US military hegemony.
GULF WARS TO NEW WORLD ORDER
The first (recent) Gulf war, the one between Iran and Iraq, lasted from
September 1980 to August 1988; it prepared the way for the 1991 Gulf war,
the one in which an anti-Iraq coalition of nations acted supposedly under the
auspices of the United Nations. The 1991 war- its prelude, perpetration and
immediate aftermath - coincided with the crumbling of the Soviet Union, a
circumstance which gave the United States immense power on a Security

Council that had witnessed one of its most formidable members, a former
friend of Iraq, virtually disappear. Colonel Gaddafi involved Libya in both
Gulf wars but only on the periphery, with little influence and with little
consequence.
From the earliest days of the first Gulf war Iran, like Iraq, was assisted
by a number of foreign states. While the Soviet Union, the United States
and other Western nations were happy to witness the escalating military
power of President Saddam Hussein as a bulwark against Iranian Islamic
fundamentalism, other states perceived the direct or tacit support for Iraq as
clear evidence of Soviet or Western imperialism in the region. In late-1980
arms and ammunition began to flow to Iran from such countries as Syria,
Libya and North Korea, a pattern that was to be sporadically maintained in
the years ahead. Many of the arms and much of the associated equipment
reached Iran, via Syria and Libya, from the Soviet Union, the Kremlin
having given permission for the onward shipment of Soviet-supplied arms
and ammunition.32 A Soviet army publication made it clear where Soviet
sympathies lay, despite Moscow's intermittent support for Saddam Hussein:
'The declared aims of the [Iraqi] military actions are being changed. At first
Iraq claimed the comparatively small area of 508 sq. km. . . . But now the
Iraqi press is publishing maps in which the whole province of Khuzistan,
called Arabistan in the Iraqi capital, is marked as Iraqi territory.'33 This
implied, at least to Moscow, that Iraq was enlarging its expansionist designs
with the encouragement of the United States. In such circumstances Libya
was quick to identify with what might be seen as the victim of American
imperialism.
In February 1981 the Riyadh-based Gulf Co-operation Council was
formed to co-ordinate internal security, arms procurement and the national
economies of the member states. A year later, Washington obtained Saudi
agreement for the formation of a joint Saudi/American Military Committee,
a deal which some GCC members had formerly resisted but which now
went through because of the perceived threat from Iran. The growing US
involvement in the area was signalled also by a Pentagon directive, issued
in March 1982, which declared that: 'Whatever the circumstances, we
should be prepared to introduce American forces into the region should it
appear [that our] security of access to the Persian Gulf oil is threatened.'34
Here, still confronted with an evidently strong Soviet Union, Washington
had little interest in piloting enabling resolutions through the UN Security
Council.
Iraq was excluded from the GCC. This incensed Saddam and he quickly
found other reasons why various Arab states should be condemned for their
failure to acknowledge the importance of his struggle against Iranian funda-
mentalism: 'Had it not been for Iraq and its army the Iranians would have
seized the entire Gulf. . .'35 Saddam considered that the aid he was receiv-
ing from Kuwait and Saudi Arabia was less than duty dictated, and he was
so infuriated by the 'traitor' and 'opportunist' states of Syria and Libya that
he severed diplomatic links with them in October 1980. At the same time
Colonel Gaddafi, admiring the Islamic revolution in Iran and believing with
some reason that Washington was supporting the Iraqi invasion, was urging
members of the Arab League to defend Iran against Western imperialism:
'Islamic duty dictates that we ally ourselves with the Muslims in Iran in this
crusade instead of fighting them on behalf of America.'36 With Syria and
Libya ranged against him, the Iraqi president found it difficult to argue
that he was fighting the Iranians on behalf of the entire Arab world.
Iran itself had made some effort to avoid undue dependence on either
the West or the Soviet bloc for its arms and ammunition. While it continued
to acquire military hardware from its Arab allies, Syria and Libya, and also
from such states as Cuba, North Korea and East Germany, it also had an
interest in obtaining equipment in the open market. The Iranian foreign
minister confirmed in February 1982 that Iran had made some purchases of
arms and ammunition from the Soviet Union, but Moscow was also keen to
maintain its links with Baghdad. It soon emerged that Iran's arms policy
was bearing fruit: in early 1984 Iraq lost the Majnoon Islands to Iran and
appeared to be at a disadvantage. GCC members attending an Arab League
meeting of foreign ministers called for all states to stop providing Iran with
arms and other equipment: Syria and Libya boycotted the conference,
resolving to continue observing their earlier (January 1983) joint communique
in which they condemned Iraq for its invasion of Iran and pledged support
for Iran against 'hostile forces'. It was clear at this time that Washington
was supporting Iraq. The American Secretary of State George Shultz met
Tariq Aziz, the Iraqi foreign minister, in October 1982 and in May 1983.
The US State Department still regarded Iraq - along with Libya, Cuba,
Syria and South Yemen - as one of the 'nations that support international
terrorism' but the Reagan administration was still prepared to sell sixty
helicopters to Iraq for 'agricultural use'. Washington also offered $460
million credit for the sale of 147,000 tonnes of American rice to Baghdad.
This was an important gesture to an Iraq beset by a severe economic crisis,
and it served to reassure many Arab and European governments of the
viability of the Iraqi regime.37
The US involvement in the first Gulf war continued to escalate through
the 1980s. This development was conditioned in part by the failure of Iraq
to achieve a decisive victory. An Iranian triumph was unthinkable to Wash-
ington and before long the Reagan administration was exploring ways of
helping Baghdad, short of a massive US military presence in the region. The
US National Security Council concluded in the autumn of 1983 that an Iraqi
defeat would be seen as a direct blow to American interests, whereupon the
National Security Adviser issued a directive outlining the diplomatic and
military steps that Washington could take to support Saddam Hussein. The
Pentagon drew up plans for A-10 warplanes to strike at Iranian tanks inside
Iraq, for the use of fragmentation bombs on Iranian troops, and for the
supply of air-defence weapons to enable Iraq to retain control of its air-
space.38 It was also decided that Iraq was no longer a terrorist state, a move
that opened the way for the supply of further US military equipment. An
American delegation visited six Gulf capitals to inform their rulers that an
Iraqi defeat would be against American interests. With Iraq no longer a
'terrorist state', Iran was added to the list. The US also passed on satellite
and other reconnaissance information on Iranian troop movements to Riyadh
for transfer on to Baghdad.
The increased US involvement in the Gulf through the 1980s was one of
the main reasons why Saddam Hussein was able to claim victory over Iran
in August 1988. An inconclusive 'war of the cities' (involving the use of
Scud missiles) and an equally unproductive 'war of the tankers' (leading to
Kuwaiti ships flying protective American flags) had been waged; there had
been a profligate waste of treasure and human life. The scene was set for the
Iraqi invasion of Kuwait in August 1990 and for the ensuing Gulf war of
1991.
Saddam Hussein emerged from the first Gulf war with a host of griev-
ances against his erstwhile Arab allies, Kuwait in particular. He claimed
that overproduction of OPEC quotas, leading to a loss of $1 billion a year
for Iraq, was an 'act of war'. War, Saddam pointed out, could be waged by
military means, by 'sending armies across frontiers, by acts of sabotage, by
killing people and by supporting coups d'etats, but war can also be waged
by economic means . . . and what is happening is war against Iraq.' Six
weeks after the important Jidda conference, held just prior to the August
invasion of Kuwait, Tariq Aziz issued a thirty-seven-page memorandum to
the secretary-general of the Arab League, specifically naming Kuwait and
the United Arab Emirates (UAE) as the two 'culprits' in the overproduction
of oil. Other Iraqi grievances concerned the Iraqi debt to Kuwait (since Iraq
had defended Kuwait the debt should be cancelled), oil pumped in excess
by Kuwait from the shared Rumeila field ('tantamount to an act of war'),
Kuwait's complicity with foreign powers (together conspiring to weaken
Iraq as a pro-Israeli policy), and Kuwait's refusal to negotiate with Iraq on
these and other matters.39
The subsequent invasion of Kuwait led to a prompt US response in

defence of Saudi Arabia, US mobilisation of 'consensus' in the United
Nations, the organisation of the anti-Iraq coalition of Arab and other states,
and to the 1991 Gulf war. The countries outside the anti-Iraq coalition
included Jordan, the Yemen, the Sudan, Tunisia, Algeria, Mauritania, and
Libya. All these states, with the exception of Libya, are desperately short of
foreign exchange and have gained nothing from so antagonising the United
States. In fact a number have been punished already: for example, aid to
Jordan has been blocked, ex-patriot Yemenis have been expelled in their
thousands from Saudi Arabia, and Libya - along with the surviving Saddam
Hussein - was soon singled out for special attention.
On the day of the invasion, 2 August, the Security Council condemned
the Iraqi action and within days US forces were arriving in the region. The
first Council resolution (660) called for Iraq's 'complete, immediate and
unconditional withdrawal'; later sanctions imposed a number of conditions
and obligations on UN member states, including comprehensive sanctions
on Iraq. The speedy Security Council response was matched by prompt
discussions between the Arab states, though they were unable to reach a
consensus: it was fortuitous that the Iraqi invasion had happened at a time
when the foreign ministers of the 45-member Islamic Conference Organ-
isation were meeting in Cairo. As soon as news arrived about the Iraqi
invasion the twenty-one Arab League ministers convened a special session,
with the Iraqi Sadoun Hamadi adopting an uncompromising stand. On
3 August the ministers passed a resolution by 14 to one (Iraq), but there
were five abstentions and the Libyan representative walked out. The reso-
lution - supported by Algeria, Bahrain, Egypt, Djibouti, Kuwait, Lebanon,
Morocco, Oman, Qatar, Somalia, Syria, Tunisia, United Arab Emirates, and
Saudi Arabia - included the words: 'We condemn the bloodshed and the
destruction of buildings [in Kuwait], and we call upon Iraq to immediately
and unconditionally withdraw its troops.'40 The abstainers were Jordan,
Sudan, Yemen, Mauritania, and the Palestine Liberation Organisation. On
later resolutions Algeria and Tunisia joined the earlier dissenters; and
Jordan, Sudan and Mauritania expressed strong reservations. Algeria and
Yemen formally abstained, and Tunisia absented itself; Libya - joined by
Iraq and the PLO - voted against. Already there was Arab resentment at the
influx of foreign troops into the area. The position of Libya on the Arab
League resolutions was one of the first signs of how Colonel Gaddafi was
thinking in the early stages of the 1990/91 Gulf crisis.
The seeming paradox of his support for Iraq - when earlier he had
supported Iran in the first Gulf war - was easy to comprehend. The Amer-
icans, arch-imperialists, were now hostile to Iraq: Saddam was the defender
of Islam and Arab land, and the course for the true believer was clear. Even
before the arrival of the foreign-troop contingents in Saudi Arabia there
were many pro-Saddam popular demonstrations in the region. Gaddafi,
with a populist touch and his own convictions, saw himself on the side of
the Arab masses against their corrupt US-backed rulers. He did not however
contemplate doing much about it.
In August there were many large demonstrations in support of Iraq and
Saddam Hussein - in the West Bank, Gaza, Jordan, Yemen, Sudan, Algeria,
Mauritania, Morocco, Tunisia, and Libya. Such protests were to continue
through the months ahead, to achieve a crescendo just before the start of the
land war in January 1991. President Gorbachev declared on Soviet tele-
vision on 17 January that military operations were about to begin, adding
that the Soviet Union would do everything in its power to limit the scale of
the conflict: 'We appealed to a number of influential countries, including
France, Britain, Germany, Italy and India [then a non-permanent member of
the Security Council] and most Arab states, to take steps to localise the
conflict and prevent it spreading.'41 Immediately anti-US demonstrations
took place in Algeria, Morocco, Mauritania, Tunisia, and Libya. A million
people staged demonstrations in Libya, a country with a population of 4.5
million: Gaddafi himself took part in the marches, at the same time appeal-
ing to the UN secretary-general to ensure that the military operations did not
go beyond the expelling of Iraq from Kuwait. The Yemeni government
called on the Security Council to 'put an end to the bloodshed and destruc-
tion'; and a statement from Amman declared that 'The Jordanian leader-
ship, government and people denounce the brutal aggression against an
Arab, Muslim country and people, who have always defended their Arab
brethren without hesitation.'42 Much of the Arab anger derived from the fact
that there had long been an Arab insistence in some quarters that an 'Arab
solution' be found to the Gulf crisis: Arab efforts to this end had been
brushed aside by the Western powers. As early as 1 September 1990 Libya
had unveiled a seven-point peace plan after consultation with Iraq, Jordan
and Sudan. The scheme, intended for implementation under joint UN-Arab
League supervision, included the following provisions:
1 Iraqi troops should withdraw from Kuwait and be replaced by UN

forces;
2 US and other international forces should pull out of Saudi Arabia and
be replaced by Arab and Muslim troops;
3 The UN embargo against Iraq should be lifted;
4 The disputed part of the Rumeila oilfield as well as Bubiyan and
Warba Islands should be ceded to Iraq;
5 The Kuwaiti people should be allowed to decide 'their own system';
6 Iraq and Kuwait should negotiate on matters of debt and compensa-
tion;
7 To prevent future transgressions against OPEC quotas there should be
a 'unified Arab oil policy' to be implemented 'forcibly'.43
It is obvious that the Libyan plan could have provided a basis for negotia-
tion, but in fact it was immediately rejected by Kuwait and Saudi Arabia
and criticised by the Western powers. The Kuwaiti Crown Prince Saad al
Sabah was particularly hostile to the idea of a plebiscite in Kuwait to
determine the type of government. The second Gulf war was destined to run
its brief but dreadful course.
Colonel Gaddafi had refused to join the anti-Iraq coalition but had also
criticised Saddam's poor judgement in thinking he would be able to annex
Kuwait without provoking a concerted Western response. The war had
exposed divisions in the Arab world, most of which had long been evident,
and demonstrated yet again that developed Western powers would always
be able to crush Third World upstarts, whatever the scale of their military
procurements. The Iraqis had hoped that the Cairo summit in August 1990
could be used to undermine Arab support for the Western machinations at
the UN. To some extent they were able to rely on the radical instincts of
Libya, Algeria and the PLO. But when Colonel Gaddafi, sitting with Libyan
and Palestinian officials in the lounge of the conference building, com-
mented that the conference was part of an 'imperialist conspiracy against
the Arab nation', President Mubarak responded with the words: 'Muammar,
if you think I would be party to such a conspiracy, as you say, then I would
long ago have sent a couple of armoured divisions to occupy Libya. I had
a hundred and one pretexts for doing so, as you know.' The Egyptian leader
then approached a speechless Gaddafi, placed a hand on his shoulder and
said, 'Come, I will buy you lunch.'44 The Libyan position was always a
minority one among the Arab states: the Iraqis could never rely on Gaddafi
to deliver a united Arab nation into their camp.
The United States emerged from the 1991 Gulf war in a triumphalist
spirit, having kicked the 'Vietnam syndrome' (Bush announced) and with
much talk of the New World Order.45 The manic phase soon passed: it was
discovered that the Kurds in the north of Iraq and the Shiites in the south
had been abandoned to persecution by a Saddam Hussein who was still in
power; the Kuwaiti regime was torturing innocent Palestinians and, though
re-installed at great cost, was no nearer to establishing the sorts of demo-
cratic structures that would have appealed to its Western protectors. There
was some movement on the Palestinian question though Israel, blithely able
to ignore the sorts of UN resolutions that had been so binding on Iraq, still
seemed prepared to thumb its nose at the United States: in February 1992
the Israelis went so far as to arrest members of the Palestinian delegation to
the peace talks, and to launch a tank invasion of the Lebanon, smashing
through UN barricades in the process. The New World Order was charac-
terised by a Middle East ravaged by war, a vast new lexicon of 'double
standards', and a United States increasingly perplexed about whether in fact
it had won either the Cold War or the Gulf War.
A central problem for the US was that Japan, long sheltering under the
US nuclear umbrella, had been able to devote its resources to industrial
development. Perhaps Japan, set to overtake the United States in the eco-
nomic stakes by the turn of the century, was the real winner of the Cold
War. So there was talk of the CIA girding itself to repulse the 'yellow
peril';46 of how a 'crippled Uncle Sam' was driven to shaking its fist 'at an
ungrateful world';47 and how perhaps the 'supercop USA is more tired than
Europe knows'.48 In such circumstances, confronted by an election year, it
was inevitable that there would be immense pressure on an American
president desperate to raise American morale and his own flagging ratings
in the opinion polls. Military action was a good bet - it had always revived
presidential fortunes in the past and it could be relied upon again - and here
there were several options. In late-1991 the campaign against Colonel
Gaddafi was systematically escalated (see below), and in early-1992 fresh
plans for bombing Iraq were reported.49
In the run-up to the American presidential election of 1992 it appeared
that Saddam Hussein and Muammar al-Gaddafi were receiving broadly
similar attention by American officials, pliant Western politicians, and
helpful media organisations. In March 1992 it was not yet clear whether the
plans would move fast enough to aid a troubled John Major seeking elec-
tion, but the Labour MP Bernie Grant had been sufficiently alarmed at the
possibility of a military attack to launch on 24 February his No Intervention
in Libya (NIL) campaign. The crucial task for the West was to go through
the proper diplomatic and legal motions: in particular, to involve the United
Nations and to thus demonstrate a commitment to due process. This had
worked - had it not? - with the Gulf crisis, and the game could be played
again.
UNITED STATES AND LAW
The depiction of the United States as a world 'policeman' (even one

perplexed and weary) is of immense propaganda significance. A policeman,
by definition, has a legitimate role: he is licensed to use force, to kill if
necessary. A punitive action against Gaddafi or Saddam Hussein50 by a
'policeman' would clearly be justified, part of a disinterested quest for
justice. It is useful to remember that in principle a policeman's licence is
issued by a superior legal authority that enjoys legitimacy through account-
ability and due process: if a policeman is ^//-appointed then he may be
indistinguishable from a bandit or a mercenary. In considering the relation-
ship of the United States to the UN in particular and to international law in
general, we need to consider the extent to which the United Nations pro-
vides legitimate sanction for the actions of the US beyond its shores. This
says something about how the United States has used the UN to organise
sanctions against Libya.
In fact it is hard to avoid the conclusion that Washington has tended to
regard treaty obligations and international law with indifference, useful
only if they could be cynically exploited. Noam Chomsky, the world-
famous academic and dissident, has commented that the US has always
regarded diplomacy and international law 'as an annoying encumbrance,
unless they can be used to advantage against an enemy'.51 It is also useful
to record that the United States was manifestly antipathetic to the UN until
the time of the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, at which time it was assumed by
Washington that a UN mandate would be useful in sanctioning a range of
actions that were in effect unilateral US initiatives. During the 1980s
Washington had characteristically cultivated a relative political isolation in
the United Nations, concerned mainly with a perceived self-interest that
often involved the protection of repressive client states. Thus in the thirty-
sixth UN session (1981-2) of the General Assembly, involving 134 resolu-
tions and decisions, the US voted with the majority only twenty-two times;
in the 1982-3 session it sided with the majority twenty-four times out of
158 votes; and in 1984-5 the US voted with the ninety-nine nations of the
non-aligned movement only 13 per cent of the time. The pattern was
maintained in subsequent years. Since 1970 Washington has voted to
block nearly seventy Security Council resolutions drafted to condemn, for
example: Israel's bombing of Lebanon, Israel's annexation of Arab lands,
the South African occupation of Namibia, the South African invasion of
Angola, the US mining of Nicaraguan ports, the US invasion of Grenada,
and the US invasion of Panama. For our purposes it is interesting to recall
that the United States was forced to use its veto to block a UN condemna-
tion of the American bombing of Libya in 1986.
In 1987, at a time when President Reagan was being applauded in the US
for negotiations with the Soviet Union, Washington felt obliged to oppose
disarmament resolutions in the UN General Assembly. A UN vote (154-1)
condemning the build-up of weapons in outer space saw no abstentions
and only the United States voting against. A similar vote of 135-1 against
developing weapons of mass destruction was opposed only by the US.
The UN General Assembly voted 143-2 for a comprehensive test ban, and
137-3 for a halt to all nuclear test explosions (here the US was supported
by Britain in one case and by France in two). At the same time the US was
alone in boycotting a UN disarmament conference in New York convened
to discuss how reductions in armaments might release funds to aid the Third
World. This followed Washington's sole opposition in a General Assembly
vote (124-1) urging the creation of a South Atlantic 'zone of peace'.
The enduring US antipathy to the culture of the United Nations is also
shown by Washington's failure to pay its legally binding fees for member-
ship. Thus at the time of the onset of the 1991 Gulf war the US owed the
United Nations no less than $451 million, $296 million for the general fund
and $155 million for approved peace-keeping operations. In September
1992 Washington owed the UN $757 million. Such debts, outstanding since
the time of President Reagan, suggest that Washington is less than wholly
committed to the smooth operation of the United Nations.
US manipulation and violation of the UN Charter and other international
agreements are well illustrated throughout the entire history of the United
Nations. The American involvement in the Korean war, nominally sanc-
tioned by the Security Council (claimed by the Soviet Union to be acting
illegally in its absence), in fact violated several provisions in the UN
Charter (in a nice rehearsal of the violations that were to occur during the
1991 Gulf war): in particular, the clear provisions of Article 47 that speci-
fies the establishment of a Military Staff Committee comprising the Chiefs
of Staff of the permanent members of the Security Council (see below). The
conduct of the Vietnam war further illustrates the predictable US indiffer-
ence to international law when Washington perceives that its interests are
under threat.
The US citing of UN Charter Article 51 to justify military intervention in
Vietnam was bogus (as were subsequent citings when Grenada and Panama
were invaded). The article specifies the inherent right of self-defence if an
armed attack occurs 'against a Member of the United Nations'. Yet even if
an armed attack against South Vietnam had been proved, Article 51 could
not be invoked since South Vietnam, not even in law an independent state,
was not a member of the UN. It is important to remember that the partition
of Vietnam defined in the 1954 Geneva Accords was not intended to
establish independent political entities (Article 6 of the Declaration em-
phasises that 'the military demarcation line is provisional and shall not in
any way be interpreted as constituting a political or territorial boundary').
Nor could the SEATO Treaty be cited to justify US intervention in
Vietnam. In fact, faced with the threat of a French veto, Washington did not
press for a formal SEATO commitment (even if this had been achieved it
would have been invalid since the SEATO Treaty was subordinate to the
UN Charter). In 1965, in a Memorandum of Law inserted into the Congres-
sional Record by Senators Wayne Morse and Ernest Gruening, the US
Lawyers Committee on American Policy Towards Vietnam concluded that
'the United States Government is in violation of its treaty obligations under
the United Nations Charter'.52 The Memorandum ends with a quotation
from President Franklin D. Roosevelt, making his last address to the Con-
gress and urging an end to 'the system of unilateral action . . . that has been
tried for centuries - and has always failed'.
The traditional attitude of Washington to the United Nations was further
illustrated by the efforts of Daniel Patrick Moynihan while he was UN
ambassador. In January 1976 he boasted to Henry Kissinger of how progress
had been made at the UN towards 'a basic policy goal, that of breaking up
the massive blocs of nations, mostly new nations, which for so long have
been arrayed against us in international forums and in diplomatic encoun-
ters generally'. In his memoirs Moynihan is happy to record his success in
undermining the UN reaction to the Indonesian invasion of East Timor and
to the Moroccan aggression in the Sahara, both aggressions supported by
the United States. In East Timor 60,000 people were killed within a few
weeks, a slaughter that was to rise to more than 200,000 - amounting to a
third of the indigenous population - through the 1980s; a 1991 massacre at
which Western journalists happened to be present exposed the plight of the
indigenous people and gave fresh publicity to the East Timor question.
Moynihan rejoices in his role of helping Washington to frustrate the UN
efforts: 'The United States wished things to turn out as they did, and worked
to bring this about. The Department of State desired that the United Nations
prove utterly ineffective in whatever measures it undertook. This task was
given to me, and I carried it forward with no inconsiderable success.'53
The Washington policy on East Timor was paralleled by the US funding
of terrorism in Central America. In 1986 the International Court of Justice
at the Hague adjudicated that the United States had breached its obligations
under international law, and demanded that it make reparations - for ex-
ample, for the mining of Nicaraguan harbours - and refrain from similar
actions in the future. The Nicaraguan Sandinista government claimed total
reparations of $17 billion for the destruction wrought by the United States
on one of the poorest countries in the world. The US response was to ignore
the legal ruling, declaring that the World Court was not entitled to rule on
American actions.* In September 1991, under pressure from Washington,
the pliant Chamorro government - itself installed through US-inspired
terror - dropped the World Court suit against the United States.
The US is sometimes overt in its manipulation of articles in the UN
Charter: thus UN ambassador Thomas Pickering on one occasion declared
that Article 51 could be invoked 'to defend our interests'55 - a significant
rewriting of the UN Charter. It is also important to note that Washington's
various bombings and invasions have not been referred by the US to the
Security Council for settlement, as required by Article 37 (1) of the Charter.
Instead the United States had always preferred the option of unilateral
action (see the discussion of Resolution 678 below). It is significant that
when unilateral US actions are taken against Charter provisions this often
leads to the violation of other treaty obligations. Thus the 1989 invasion of
Panama was a violation of the Charter of the Organisation of American
States (OAS), theHRio Treaty (Inter-American Treaty of Reciprocal Assist-
ance) of 1947, the Declaration of Montevideo (1933), and the Panama
Canal treaties (1977-8). The US invasion violated a dozen articles of the
OAS Charter (most notably, Articles 18-21): Article 18, for example,
forbids intervention by any 'State or group of States . . . for any reason
whatever, in the internal or external affairs of any other State'. The Rio
Treaty and the Panama Canal treaties contain similar prohibitions. In any
event, all such treaties are subordinate to the UN Charter, with Article 2 (4)
prohibiting 'the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or the
political independence of any state'.
The 1991 Gulf war has been advertised in the West as the supreme
example of the United Nations acting in the way that its founders intended,
moving resolutely and in concert to confront naked aggression. In fact
Washington, with the support of pliant Security Council permanent mem-
bers, manipulated the UN on the Gulf question through 1990-1, as it has
subsequently manipulated the Security Council on the Libyan question
through 1991-2.
*Of course, when in April 1992 the World Court gave a ruling that appeared to favour the
US, Washington was quick to applaud the verdict.
Soon after the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait on 2 August 1990 the United
States moved to organise an effective UN consensus, not in the General
Assembly, which was largely ignored, but in the all-important Security
Council. At the same time, inducements were offered to regional states —
Syria, Turkey, Israel, etc. - to encourage acceptance of the American
position: Syria was offered a free hand to extend its invasion of Lebanon;
Turkey, as a NATO member, was reassured on territorial and financial
matters; Israel was told there would be no 'linkage' of a settlement of the
Palestinian question with a solution to the Gulf problem; financial induce-
ments were offered to a crippled Soviet Union; and Egypt's $15 billion
debt to the US was waived. Thus by the use of threat and bribery in un-
precedented levels of politicking Bush, by telephone, and Baker, by foreign
travel, browbeat enough of a troubled world to achieve what could be
represented as an international consensus.
There followed a spate of more than a dozen UN resolutions on Iraq,
beginning with the initial response (Resolution 660) on 2 August 1990.
These resolutions merit scrutiny, not least because they illustrate how
nominal declarations can be selectively applied and interpreted according to
the whims and interests of powerful member states, especially the United
States. This is particularly important in considering Resolution 731 on
Libya, unanimously adopted on 21 January 1992. Three examples, taken
from the resolutions on Iraq, suffice to illustrate the point.
It is stipulated in UN Resolution 660 (3) that Iraq and Kuwait should
begin 'immediate intensive negotiations for the resolution of their differ-
ences'; and in Resolution 661 it is recorded that the Government of Kuwait
'has expressed its willingness to comply with 660'. Yet after the liberation
of Kuwait its reinstated government refused to contemplate discussions
with Iraq. No pressure was exercised by Washington on Kuwait to force
compliance with 660 (3). Instead the UN boundary commission, with US
agreement, was authorised to look at the disputed border between Kuwait
and Iraq - one of the questions that Kuwait and Iraq should have been made
to discuss under 660 (3) - with a view to stripping Iraq of part of its only
workable port at Umm Qasr and giving Kuwait several oil wells in the
disputed Rumeila field.55 This is a violation of Resolution 660 which could
only have occurred with US approval.
The violation was confirmed in August 1992 when the UN boundary
commission, under instruction from Washington, concluded its redrawing
of the frontiers between Iraq and Kuwait. This unilateral action, taken
without the legally stipulated reference to the Iraqi government, gave
Kuwait oil wells and land that were formerly Iraqi possessions, including
the southern portion of the city of Umm Qasr. (The confirmation of the
redrawn borders is also a violation of UN Resolution 687 (3) which speci-

fies that arrangements should be made with Iraq as well as with Kuwait in
demarcating the border.)
Resolution 661 (3c) nominally allowed Iraq to import medical supplies
and foodstuffs, yet throughout 1992 a de facto embargo on such materials
was maintained. The governments of the US and Britain, when pressed,
declared that there was no ban on the Iraqi importation of medicines and
food, but at the same time Iraqi overseas assets were frozen and oil sales
(despite one token offer) were massively restricted: Iraq is still denied the
revenues essential for the purchase of food and medical supplies in ad-
equate quantities. As long ago as 14 May 1991 Iraq declared that it was
desperate for access to its foreign assets to buy food for the following
months, but despite appeals from UNICEF and the World Health Organisa-
tion the United States blocked this and all subsequent requests. CIA chief
Robert Gates stated that any easing of sanctions 'will be considered only
when there is a new government in Iraq'; in the same vein Douglas Hurd,
UK Foreign Secretary, has insisted that a tight ring will be maintained
around Iraq until Saddam Hussein is overthrown. In these circumstances,
quite apart from the de facto ban on food and medicine, Iraq was massively
hampered in its efforts to rebuild its shattered infrastructure: the ruined
sewage treatment plants, hospitals and power stations. On 22 May 1991 a
health team from Harvard reported after a visit to Iraq that some 170,000
children under the age of five would die by 1992 as a result of sanctions.
In this way Washington has contrived a means of violating Resolution
661 (3c) while at the same time broadcasting an entirely different message.
It is also significant that other international agreements (for example, the
Geneva Convention) prohibit the denial of food to civilian populations in
time of war.
Resolution 678 (29 November 1990) deserves particular attention: this
was the so-called 'use of force' resolution. Here member states were author-
ised 'to use all necessary means to uphold and implement 660' (which
demands the withdrawal of Iraq from Kuwait). Even as it stands this
resolution was not unanimously supported by members of the UN Security
Council: China, as a permanent member, abstained, and Yemen and Cuba
- non-permanent members without a veto - voted against.
The first draft of 678 that Secretary James Baker submitted to Soviet
foreign minister Eduard Shevardnadze included the words 'use of force'.
Shevardnadze balked at this, saying that the Soviet Union could not accept
it; 'all necessary means' was accepted as a compromise despite Baker's
concern that these words were ambiguous.56 At one stage Baker backed
off from the compromise phrase, considering it too indefinite: 'the Bush
administration did not want a domestic debate on the meaning of a UN
resolution'.57
Thus it is clear that Baker did not regard 'force' as synonymous with 'all
necessary means'. He declared to Shevardnadze that he (Baker) would
speak to the Security Council to indicate that the US would interpret 'all
necessary means' to mean 'force'; and Shevardnadze concurred. But the
wording of the resolution still admitted the possibility of further interpreta-
tion: force could only be justified if it could be shown to be necessary, and
who was to decide? Resolution 678 was drafted specifically to give no
guidance on this. There was no reference to the role of the UN sanctions
committee, no requirement that the Security Council should meet again on
15 January (1991), the stipulated deadline, to decide what further action
was necessary.
This meant in effect that member states - in particular, the US - could do
whatever they wanted, whenever they wanted, after the deadline date for
Iraqi withdrawal; everyone was free to interpret 'necessary' as they chose.
In such a fashion, Washington, while professing commitment to the UN,
had thrown off all UN constraints. There was no longer any role for the
Security Council; the Secretary-General Perez de Cuellar no longer had any
part to play. The United States was free to take a unilateral decision on war.
It is even arguable that Resolution 678 was in direct violation of the UN
Charter. The Charter does not authorise member states to take unilateral
military action once the Security Council has resolved to use force. Instead,
according to Article 47(1), a Military Staff Committee comprising the
Chiefs of Staff of the permanent members of the Security Council is
required to advise and assist the Security Council 'on all questions relating
to the Security Council's military requirements'. Article 47(3) declares that
the Military Staff Committee shall be responsible under the Security Coun-
cil 'for the strategic direction of any armed forces'.
Such provisions clearly rule out any unilateral decision to use armed
forces, once the Security Council has been apprised of a crisis and issued
relevant resolutions. In particular, Resolution 678 cannot be interpreted as
authorising the United States to unilaterally resort to war whenever it felt
like it. On 14 January 1991 Lord Gifford and other lawyers issued a
statement emphasising that Resolution 678 'is not a blank cheque for the
United States to pursue its own ends by its own means . . . the ostensible
reason for it [this appalling military adventure] is itself a grave breach of the
international legal order'. Perez de Cuellar himself expressed distaste at the
deadline specified in 678 and was frequently irritated by statements from
President Bush. When Perez de Cuellar met Saddam Hussein on 13 January
1991 he urged the Iraqi president to 'deny the warmongers their opportu-
nity'. When Saddam commented that: 'These are American resolutions.
This is an American age. What the United States want at present is the thing
that is passed [678] and not what the Security Council wants', Perez de
Cuellar replied: 'I agree with you as much as the matter involves me.'58 The
1991 Gulf war was contrived, initiated and run by the United States,
exploiting the United Nations as a 'flag of convenience'.
There is also evidence that the US violated international law in its
prosecution of the Gulf war. Article 57 of the first Protocol of the Geneva
Convention stipulates that military targets in areas normally full of civilians
should not be attacked by day. Yet in Nasiriya, in southern Iraq, 100 people
crossing a bridge in the middle of one afternoon died when bombs were
dropped and cars, lorries and people fell into the Euphrates; similarly, at
Falluja, west of Baghdad, two bombs fell into the middle of a busy market
place, injuring hundreds, when two aircraft missed a nearby bridge. Five
months after the end of the war the Red Cross had obtained access to the
graves of only twenty-one Iraqis: in contravention of Article 17 of the
Geneva Convention, Washington had failed to provide even rough statistics
of the Iraqi death toll.59 The American military authorities refused to pro-
vide to the International Committee of the Red Cross information on the
scale of the Iraqi dead or on the location of the mass graves in which they
were buried. The Geneva Convention states that: 'parties to [a] conflict
shall ensure that burial or cremation of the dead, carried out individually as
far as circumstances permit, is preceded by a careful examination . . . of the
bodies, with a view to confirming death, establishing identity and enabling
a report to be made . . . they shall further ensure that the dead are honourably
interred . . . that their graves are respected . . . properly maintained and
marked so that they may always be found.' The Convention requires that
graves be registered and lists compiled, with the exact locations of the
graves specified 'together with particulars of the dead interred therein'. The
US military leadership ignored all these basic provisions: General Norman
Schwarzkopf himself declared that he was 'not in the business of body
counts', yet this is just what the Geneva Convention demands.
The allied bombing of food, agricultural and water-treatment facilities
were a violation of Article 54 of Protocol 1 (Geneva Convention) prohibit-
ing starvation as a means of warfare. The targeting of civilians, as with the
attack on the Ameriyya air raid shelter in which 300 to 400 people were
killed, was a similar violation of Protocol 1. Even if the shelter had been
used partly by military personnel the Convention requires that a warning
should have been given to allow the civilians to evacuate the building. A
report issued by the human rights group Middle East Watch, based in New
York, found that despite the much-vaunted technology available to the
allies the laws intended to govern the conduct of war were violated 'in
several respects, both in the selection of targets and in the means and
methods of attack'.60
This section has illustrated the US attitude to the United Nations in
particular and to international law in general. There is no intention here to
demonstrate a unique derogation of legal responsibility on the part of
successive American administrations: it would be easy to present a similar
catalogue of violations for other members of the United Nations, for other
permanent members of the Security Council. At the same time it should be
acknowledged that US derogations, deriving from the scale of American
military power, have often had global consequences: this is the perverse
de facto (but not de jure) privilege of a vast hegemonic power able to set
itself above international organisations. This should be borne in mind when
considering the orchestrated US campaign, through late 1991 and 1992, to
mobilise the UN Security Council against Libya.
ATTRIBUTING GUILT
At the end of the 1991 Gulf war the United States began to frame the
lineaments of the New World Order in general and the New Middle East
Order in particular. As always, countries were grata or non grata, sheep or
goats. But the categories altered in the light of the new considerations.
George Bush and James Baker had been prepared, in the interest of defeat-
ing Iraq, to converse with President Assad in Syria and even to agree a new
accord with the Iranian ayatollahs. The prosecution of the Gulf war, the
subsequent (largely abortive) Middle East peace conference and the steady
flow of released hostages from Beirut would have been impossible without
a relaxation of tensions between the US and Syria, and between the US and
Iran. It had well suited Washington to slide at least a couple of states from
the non grata to grata categories. The new situation was signalled in
various ways.
In March 1992 Sir John Moberly and the Royal Institute of International
Affairs held a two-day conference - partly financed by British Petroleum
and approved by the Foreign Offices of London and Tehran - entitled
'Britain and Iran in a Changing World'. The aim, it seems, is to improve
relations between the West and Iran with a view to expanded trade and other
contacts. The addresses at the conference said nothing about Iran's appall-
ing human rights record, nothing about Iran's massive recent arms procure-
ments, nothing about the 'death sentence' on Salman Rushdie, and nothing
whatever about possible Iranian complicity in the Lockerbie outrage. The
demand of the 'New Orders' - both regional and global - require that little
attention be given to such embarrassing topics.
Syria too, though still classified by the US as a 'terrorist state',61 evid-
ently deserves the protection of the United States because of President
Assad's compliance in the Gulf war. Thus Syria has been allowed to import
Scud-C surface-to-surface missiles from North Korea, weapons that one
day might be used against Israel. On the eve of the visit by US Secretary
of State James Baker in October 1991 to the Middle East to arrange the
peace conference, Washington warned Israel not to attack a North Korean
ship carrying missiles to Syria. The possibility of an Israeli strike against
the cargo ship Mopu had been discussed by President Assad and President
Mubarak, with Assad declaring that if an attack took place he would
immediately withdraw from the peace talks. North Korea, to the discom-
fiture of Israel, has sold a number of Scud-C missiles (improved versions of
the Soviet Scud-B), with a range of up to 600 miles, to both Syria and Iran.
Again, Washington is prepared to allow such arms build-ups in the light
of the new political situation.
In September 1991 it emerged that the West was keen to label Libya as
the sole perpetrator of the Lockerbie and UTA DC-10 outrages, despite
many earlier claims that there was evidence also of Syrian and Iranian
involvement. It was reported in France that the investigating Judge Jean
Louis Bruguiere had concluded after two years of painstaking work that the
attack on the UTA plane, en route from Brazzaville to Paris, had been
instigated and paid for by Libya.62 It was announced that the judge would
bring charges against Libya's deputy foreign minister Musa Kusa, the
deputy head of the Libyan secret service Abdallah Sanussi, and Abdallah
Elazrang, the then first counsellor of the Libyan embassy in Brazzaville.
One crucial claim was that the fuses used to blow up the UTA plane were
of exactly the same type as those used to explode the bomb on Pan Am 103
over Lockerbie.
The French enquiry had formerly found evidence to suggest Syria com-
plicity in the UTA bombing, with Libya at that time not regarded as a
leading suspect. There were clear signs that the Damascus-based Ahmed
Jibril, enjoying Syrian protection, had been involved in the bomb plot; and
when the French investigators received instructions from the presidential
palace to abandon the leads pointing to Syria, Patrick Quentin, a former
lawyer for the UTA relatives, resigned in disgust from the case. In an
interview broadcast on ITN in December 1991 he declared that the decision
was 'inexplicable and shocking', commenting on how the investigators had
now 'completely ceased all investigations tracing the route of the suitcase
[bomb] in question. Nevertheless there are still unanswered questions about
this . . . There are political pressures which are self-evident... even a judge
as strong and honest as Bruguiere cannot remain completely indifferent to
those pressures.' Bruguiere himself had suggested earlier that it had been a
struggle to obtain the co-operation of the French government in his invest-
igation, and that he had not ruled out the involvement of countries apart
from Libya in the UTA bombing. Similarly, one of Bruguiere's colleagues,
Xaviet Raufer of the French Institute of Criminology, had commented that
there could well be 'other groups and other countries'. There were clear
signs that Judge Bruguiere, a much respected investigator,63 was to some
extent in conflict with Paris and London who wanted to establish sole
Libyan involvement.
On 14 November 1991 Washington announced that two Libyan nation-
als were to be charged with complicity in the bombing of Pan Am 103 over
Lockerbie, a move that followed an assertion by CIA chief William Webster
that Syria was not involved and that proxies employed by the Iranian
government had carried out the plot.64 The report commented that 'there
have been suggestions, not least by Lockerbie relatives, that the United
States was covering up Syrian complicity to foster good relations with
Damascus'. The US acting Attorney-General had earlier commented that
he was very satisfied with the progress of the Lockerbie investigation. On
15 November there was public speculation about steps that might be taken
to make Libya yield up the two suspects, Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-
Megrahi and al Amin Khalifa Fhimah. The previous night President Bush
had declared that 'This is very serious business' and that he would be
contacting Prime Minister John Major and other leaders to co-ordinate
action. The White House spokesman Marlin Fitzwater stated: 'We are
considering international responses. We won't discuss the options.' He
refused to rule out the possibility of military action against Libya. (In May
1990 a presidential commission recommended that the US take military
action against proven terrorists and the states that protect them. US legisla-
tion empowers American officers to capture terrorist suspects and bring
them back to the US for trial.)
The UK Foreign Secretary Douglas Hurd called in the Commons for
Libya to surrender the two men for trial in the United Kingdom or the
United States for 'mass murder', commenting that 'the interests of justice
require no less. This fiendish act of wickedness cannot be passed over or
ignored.' Later, on BBC television, Libya's ambassador to France, Saeeb
Mujber, declared: 'Nobody surrenders his own nationals and this way
surrenders his sovereignty . . . This is a political thing. This is a lynching to
bring Libya to its knees.' And Lord Fraser, the Scottish Lord Advocate,
announced: 'In consultation with the United States Attorney-General, I
have come to the conclusion that there is sufficient evidence to justify
application to court for a warrant for the arrests of the named individuals';
the Procurator Fiscal in Dumfries at the same time lodged charges of con-
spiracy, murder, and contravention of the Aviation Security Act of 1982.
The investigation, we were assured, had been most thorough. The Chief
Constable of Dumfries, George Esson, stated that enquiries had been car-
ried out in seventy countries; no less than 15,000 statements had been taken;
and more than 20,000 names recorded on computer. The investigation had
so far cost more than £17 million. The conclusion was that al-Megrahi was
director of the Centre for Strategic Studies in Tripoli at the time of the
Lockerbie bombing, having also been a chief of airline security. Fhimah
had been a station officer with Libyan Arab Airlines in Malta. The two men
are accused of placing a suitcase containing a bomb on board an aircraft at
Malta's Luqa airport on 21 December 1988; the case was then allegedly
carried to Frankfurt and placed on a Pan Am flight for London Heathrow for
transfer to Pan Am Flight 103 for New York. The Libyans - and the
Libyans alone - were held to be responsible. The White House national
security advisor Brent Scowcroft had spoken to John Major, and Washing-
ton and London were in full agreement. Douglas Hurd stated that neither
Syria nor the PFLP-GC had been involved, and President Bush remarked:
'A lot of people thought it was Syrians. The Syrians took a bum rap on
this.'65 There was no mention of the Iranians.
It was also reported that the Israeli secret service, Mossad, had been
informed of the Western plans a month before the public statements, to
prepare the ground for a co-ordinated political and diplomatic action against
Libya. Ruling out Syrian and Iranian complicity in the bombing was widely
regarded as a signal that could help in the release of Western hostages,
including Terry Waite, and encourage the holding of the US-sponsored
peace talks on the Middle East.66 It was also reported that 'even within the
past few weeks, security services had been claiming that Iran had "com-
missioned" the bombing from the Syrian-backed terror group, the PFLP-
GC . . . but that, after West German police had "blown" the PFLP-GC cell,
its leader, Ahmed Jibril, had been forced to subcontract the bombing to
Libya.'67 Dr Jim Swire, whose daughter Flora died in the Lockerbie bomb-
ing, commented that 'a couple of Libyans are only likely to be small
minnows in a very large pond. What we want to know is why they did it and
who put them up to it.'68 In a similar vein the American Susan Cohen,
whose daughter Theodora died, declared: 'A lot more is needed than to
simply indict a couple of Libyans . . . I don't think this is adequate after
almost three years. They have only done this for political expediency. I
think that any involvement by Syria and Iran would not be brought to light
because all you have to do is look at George Bush's foreign policy.' Bonnie
O'Connor, of Long Island, whose brother John Ahern was killed, com-
mented that 'Indicting Libyans is only a convenience for George Bush's
Mid-east peace policy. Does George Bush take us for fools?' And Tom
Currie, whose aunt Jean Murray was killed in Sherwood Crescent, doubted
that 'only two men were responsible for the bombing'.69
On 16 November, it was revealed that Britain and the United States were
planning to call a worldwide trade embargo on Libya if Colonel Gaddafi
refused to forswear terrorism and to hand over the two suspect Libyans for
trial. There was talk of asking the European Community to back sanctions
and seeking support from the Group of Seven (G7) leading industrial
countries. It was suggested that an approach to the United Nations was
possible to secure the widest possible support for a trade embargo against
Libya: there was some speculation that China might use its veto on the
Security Council. The signs were that Washington would seek to impose
international sanctions on Libya, and then move to tougher action if these
did not work. The Americans were still refusing to rule out the possibility
of military action, though they refused to speculate in public as to what
form this might take. According to one quoted senior source, the US and
Britain had decided against the use of military force 'in the medium term',
and that the economic sanctions would begin with a ban on air flights to
Libya.70 The same source suggested that if a military strike were to be
launched the new available technology would prevent such an attack being
bungled, like the 1986 air strike that failed to assassinate Colonel Gaddafi.
The Pentagon was already developing contingency plans for a raid on Libya
- with the aim, no doubt, of killing its leader. Marlin Fitzwater was quoted:
'We're talking about the full range of matters that are available to countries
in terms of their authorities - diplomatic, civilian, military - across the
whole gamut.'71
The two accused Libyans, according to one report, boasted of their plan
to 'destroy America' just days before the Lockerbie bombing; they added
for good measure that Ronald Reagan was 'a stupid cowboy with no
brains'.72 A British businessman in Malta, a former military policeman,
described his encounter with the two Libyans to police investigating the
bombing. It was now being suggested that a ban on Libyan Arab Airlines
flights world wide would be quickly followed by the freezing of Libyan
assets. A State Department source declared: 'This man has got away with
too much for too long and this time we are determined to make him pay.'
The CIA was still prepared to state its conviction that both Syria and Iran
had a hand in the bombing but the White House was clearly determined to
focus the issue on Gaddafi and on him alone. In November 1991 a senior
Israeli official, Yigal Carmon, advisor on counterterrorism to Prime Minis-
ter Yitzhak Shamir, reaffirmed the Israeli belief that Ahmed Jibril's PFLP-
GC, backed by Syria, was implicated in the bombing of Pan Am 103.
Carmon commented that the Israelis never claimed to know the last link in
the chain but still insisted that Jibril had complicity in the crime. Another
Israeli official commented at the time that if Dalkamoni, working with the
Damascus-based PFLP-GC, was not involved 'and the two Libyans were
really the perpetrators, then this must be the coincidence of the century'.73
The Arab world, already sensitised to the slaughter of Moslems by the
Americans in the Gulf war, began to express doubts about the wisdom of a
further US attack on an Arab state. Washington, it appeared, was increas-
ingly eager to use a big stick against recalcitrant Arab states but was
prepared to tolerate for an indefinite period Israel's contempt for UN
resolutions aimed at curtailing its own territorial ambitions. President
Mubarak of Egypt expressed his anxieties at the escalating campaign against
Libya, reflecting the growing opinion that Libya had been selected for
attack because it was a small and 'safe' target: the Bush administration
could be seen to be acting decisively without incurring significant risks. The
London-based al-Quds al-Arabi newspaper contended that after all the
fingers of suspicion had so firmly pointed at Syria and Iran, to suddenly
point them at Libya as sole perpetrator was tantamount to 'hurling allega-
tions at will'.74 And again there was the possibility that the West was
deciding to deny Syrian and Iranian culpability as a way of securing the
release of Terry Waite and Thomas Sutherland: Libyan television com-
mented that 'Libya was meant to be the scapegoat in the deal to release
Western hostages'; and many Arab commentators were prepared to agree
that the release of the hostages was a 'reward' for Syria and Iran being so
conclusively cleared of the Lockerbie plot.
President Mubarak twice phoned President Bush to declare that any
military strike against Colonel Gaddafi would smash the peace process and
drastically damage the standing of the United States in the region. Mahfouz
al-Ansari, editor of the Cairo-based publication al-Gomhuriya and close to
Mubarak's chief political advisor Osama al-Baz, commented that any shots
fired at Gaddafi would ricochet against America's allies: 'You delivered
your blow [in the Gulf war], liberated Kuwait, and maintained legitimacy.
Everyone stood behind you and with you, although the punishment was
directed against a dear and brotherly country . . . this time around, if you try
to strike a blow or hand out punishment to another brother, to Libya, believe
me, you will then be punishing friends, more than you will be punishing the
colonel.'75 On the same newspaper the overtly pro-American chairman
Samir Ragab declared to President Bush that 'we can never accept that
Washington should be transformed into the heavy-handed policeman who
misuses his powers to the greatest extent'.76 Similarly the staunchly pro-
American Saudi newspaper al-Sharq al-Awsat chose to rebuke both
Britain and the US for hinting at military action before allowing due
legal process; and it supported Libya's call for the whole matter to be laid
before the International Court of Justice in the Hague. Hopefully, the
United States would see the issue as a legal and not a political matter, or
one had better 'pray to God to help the good-natured Libyan people, who
may find themselves paying yet again for something of which they are
completely innocent'.77
At the end of November 1991, long before any 'enabling' resolution had
been agreed in the Security Council, the West was putting the finishing
touches to a package of sanctions to be used against Libya if Colonel
Gaddafi refused to hand over the two suspect nationals. Again there was
press speculation about the likelihood of 'all necessary means' being used
against Libya to ensure compliance with Western demands.78 A British
diplomat hinted that sanctions might even begin before the issue had been
brought to the United Nations, that the UN might be invoked if a spate of
unilateral actions by the West failed to achieve the desired results. An initial
step would be for the UN to approve any sanctions already introduced by
Britain, the US and other states: this would have the effect of extending the
sanctions policy on a worldwide basis. Later a Security Council resolution
akin to 678 (on Iraq) might be introduced - and agreed in a pliant Security
Council - to authorise 'all necessary means' to be used to punish Libya for
failure to accede to Western demands. This schedule, according to the
British diplomat, was 'not only possible but even likely if the Libyans do
not conform . . . Still, we want to avoid a naked threat at this stage. Every
Arab government knows that Gaddafi has been nothing but trouble since he
took over; but Libya is also part of the Arab nation so it is difficult to cut it
out from the rest.'79
On 27 November Britain and the United States demanded that Colonel
Gaddafi accept full criminal and financial liability for the Lockerbie bomb-
ing. If he failed to do so he would face unspecified economic sanctions
within a matter of weeks, and the possibility of military action had not been
ruled out. At the same time France issued similar warnings over the bomb-
ing of the UTA airliner. Now the US, Britain and France were urging Libya
to purge itself of terrorist crimes and 'promptly, by concrete actions, prove
its renunciation of terrorism'. Libya was required to take 'complete respons-
ibility for the actions of Libyan officials' and to surrender the accused men,
to 'disclose all it knows of the crime . . . and allow full access to all
witnesses, documents and material evidence, including the remaining
timers, and that it pay appropriate compensation'. With no sign that Libya
would accede to such demands, the West continued to threaten unspecified
sanctions and refused to rule out the possibility of harsher measures. By
now the Libyan authorities had appointed a judge to investigate the Western
allegations. On 28 November Colonel Gaddafi made a surprise visit to
President Mubarak for talks, a day after the US, Britain and France had
demanded the surrender of the two accused Libyans. It was also significant
that over the previous week Libya sent envoys to Egypt, Syria, Iran and
Lebanon in an apparent effort to generate opposition to the gradually
escalating Western campaign. It was reported that Egypt was working to
prevent a military attack against its neighbour, an official declaring that
'We are trying to find a way to allow the Americans to be satisfied and for
the Libyans not to suffer.'80 A British official was quoted as saying that
Libya would be required to comply within weeks, while a statement by the
Libyan foreign ministry said that Judge Ahmed Taher al-Zawi, charged to
investigate the Lockerbie accusations, had asked Britain and the US to let
him see relevant documents. The statement, carried by the Libyan news
agency Jana, reiterated Libya's rejection of 'all forms of terrorism and
terrorist attacks that target civilians. Libya... has not and will not be linked
to any group .. . that carries out such an inhuman act, because Libya itself
was a victim of terrorism', referring to the US bombing of Tripoli and
Benghazi in 1986.
In early December 1991 reports appeared that US aircraft were already
carrying out practice bombing exercises ready for an attack on Libya.81 The
exercises were said to involve F-l 11 fighter-bombers engaged in 'live'
attacks on Garbh, an uninhabited island off Cleit Dhubh, four miles from
the north-west tip of Scotland. The island, near Cape Wrath, was used for
bombing practice shortly before the 1986 strike against Libya. James Tytler,
keeper of the Cape Wrath lighthouse, observed: 'They have been practising
bombing up here all week. The weather has been foul, with the occasional
gale force winds. But not even that has stopped the planes.' The US planes
flew to Garbh from the US Air Force base at Lakenheath, Suffolk, being
refuelled in mid-air by KC10 tankers based at nearby RAF Mildenhall. The
headquarters of the US Air Force at Mildenhall refused to confirm or deny
the exercises, with an official at the Pentagon stating that any plans would
be purely on a 'contingency basis'. (Britain has no formal powers to prevent
any command from President Bush urging the planes into action, but no
doubt there would be 'consultations' with the British government.) By
December a Washington poll was putting approval for President Bush at
46 per cent, the lowest since he took office.
On 4 December the Libyan authorities arrested the two accused men,
declaring that a Libyan investigation would be carried out into the Lockerbie
allegations. (At the same time the UK Foreign Office minister Douglas
Hogg acknowledged that Gaddafi had agreed to disclose his earlier connec-
tions with the IRA.) Libya's intelligence chief Colonel Youssef Abdel-
Qadir al-Dabari was still maintaining the innocence of the two men: 'The
two Libyan persons linked by the American and British judiciary to the Pan
American plane bombing in 1988 are in custody. The real criminal is now
free.' Colonel al-Dabari confirmed that the two would not be extradited to
face charges in Britain or the United States. The Saudi newspaper al-Sharq
al-Awsat quoted al-Dabari as saying that there is no legal basis 'for saying
that the investigation has to take place where the incident happened'. It was
also confirmed that the four Libyans wanted by the French authorities for
the bombing of the UTA airliner had also been arrested. Douglas Hogg,
visiting North Africa to whip up anti-Libyan sentiment, was quoted as
saying: 'It does seem as if the intelligence services of Libya were respons-
ible for what happened... and if it is a form of state crime you cannot really
expect the victims to accept that the state responsible should be playing a
significant part in investigating or in trying those that are charged with the
events.'82 He added that he was anxious to persuade our friends to persuade
Colonel Gaddafi, 'a worried man', what must happen.
By now it was clear that some sort of stalemate was developing. Colonel
Gaddafi, seeking to adopt a conciliatory pose, had refrained from calling
mass demonstrations in the streets of Tripoli or from resorting to revolu-
tionary rhetoric, as he might have done in earlier years. Instead he promised
to investigate the allegations, again renounced terrorism, and made an offer
- quickly and predictably dismissed by Douglas Hogg - to disclose what
he knew of the IRA and to close down the terrorist training camps in Libya.
He had moreover communicated extensively in North Africa and beyond,
seeking to win suitable friends and protectors. The Libyan ambassador to
France repeated that there would be no extradition of the accused Libyans
but promised that Libya would grant 'full co-operation and assistance' to
any investigators from London or Washington who wished to travel to
Libya: 'That we have appointed a judge and arrested some men does not
represent a retreat, but a step forward'; if the men were proved guilty, they
would be punished 'twice, since they would have also betrayed Libya as
well as committing a criminal act'.83
The West was unimpressed. The US, Britain and France continued to
threaten sanctions, and to hint at the possibility of military action. The
French foreign minister Roland Dumas commented in an interview pub-
lished on 6 December that there would be 'no limits' to the retaliation that
would be meted out to the Libyan government if it was found responsible
for the UTA bombing. Colonel Gaddafi had promised to break off relations
with organisations 'described in the past as movements of liberation but
have turned into terrorist movements', and had even claimed that he had
intervened at one point to stop Terry Waite being killed by his Lebanese
kidnappers. None of this did anything to alter the resolution of the West;
Douglas Hogg's contribution was to declare that 'what has been made plain
is that we are determined'.
The two accused men were soon denying their complicity in the Lockerbie
bombing: Pierre Salinger reported his conversations* with the two men and
with Colonel Gaddafi.84 The Libyan foreign minister Ibrahim Beshari also
invited Salinger to visit Rabta, the plant which the CIA had identified as a
chemical warfare site, and the Al Qalah camp, claimed by the Americans to
be the terrorist training base for Abu Nidal. Megrahi, one of the accused,
produced his passport which supposedly showed that he had arrived in
Malta on the day the indictment stated he had bought the clothes that were
subsequently put in the suitcase bomb; but he denied any involvement in the
bombing, saying that he could not have gone to Malta with a false passport
and under a false name as he was too well known there (Salinger: 'Megrahi's
answers . . . were not always convincing'). Fhimah, the second suspect, also
denied any connection with Libyan intelligence, claiming that in fact his
family had been seen as belonging to an anti-Gaddafi movement so he
would never have been allowed into any intelligence organisations. He
admitted being in Malta on the critical days but denied all involvement in
the bomb plot (Salinger: 'I found Mr Fhimah a simple man, and it was hard
to believe that he had been involved in a terrorist case'). Both the accused
declared that they would be happy to talk to Scottish or American invest-
igators, just as Ibrahim Beshari stated that Western investigators would be
welcome in Libya and that the Libyan judge would like to have sight of the
US and Scottish evidence so that he could conduct a solid interrogation of
the two men. Beshari emphasised that the Libyan judicial system had been
set up by the British in the 1950s and was independent of the government.
Salinger then visited Rabta ('One of the company executives walking with
us said it would be impossible to produce poisonous gas in the plant . . .
there were no glass-enclosed areas or any de-contamination sections') and
Al Qalah ('clearly not a terrorist camp, but a Palestinian refugee camp').
*In March 1992 Scotland Yard, spurning all Gaddafi's invitations to visit Libya, issued a
subpoena against Pierre Salinger, demanding that he hand over all his interview records. The
Western authorities could have interviewed the men themselves.
Pierre Salinger met Gaddafi in a tent surrounded by camels and security

men. The Colonel started in anger when the question of the Pan Am
bombing was raised, and he commented that 'our country has become a
victim of terror - particularly from the United States. Libya is becoming a
bottle of Pepsi Cola. They shake it, shake it, until it explodes.' He added
that he was angry about the Lockerbie accusations, 'but I am satisfied that
things are moving according to law. I am satisfied that there is a legal way
to deal with this'; and he contrasted Reagan's attack on Libya with Bush's
handling of the Gulf war ('Bush went to the world. He got UN resolutions.
He got allies. Reagan did not say he was going to take his own decision').
On 6 December the UK government expressed dismay at the emerging
Arab League support for Colonel Gaddafi on the Lockerbie question. In
Cairo the League had called on the United Nations to join Libya in studying
the Western charges of Libyan complicity in the outrage, a move which
prompted the British foreign secretary Douglas Hurd to write to the League
Secretary-General Esmat Abdel Maguid: 'I cannot understand how, in these
circumstances, the Arab League thinks it right to express its solidarity with
Libya.'85 A day later Ahmed al-Taher al-Zawi, the investigating judge
appointed by the Libyans, declared that the two men would face the death
penalty if they were convicted in a Libyan court, and he reiterated the
Libyan position that the accused Libyans could not be tried elsewhere.
Beshari, visiting Dakar for an Islamic summit, told journalists that it would
be an infringement of Libyan sovereignty to hand over the two men: 'The
Libyan judicial authorities will try them. If they are guilty they will be
punished. If they are not guilty they will be found innocent.' London was
quick to reject Beshari's comments.
The Libyan judge continued his investigations, despite Western hostility
to his efforts, and on 9 December suggested that his enquiries could widen
to include other individuals. In an interview at his Tripoli office Zawi stated
that the investigation was proceeding step by step and it could not be said
how long the enquiries would take ('If they prove guilty, investigation will
extend to other quarters and people if necessary. But so far we cannot say
they are guilty'). Zawi had asked the British and US authorities to issue an
order allowing him to study the findings that led to the accusations but all
suggestions were rejected, with a repeat of the demand that the two men be
handed over without delay. On 12 December Dr James Swire, whose
daughter Flora died at Lockerbie, handed a sealed letter to the Scottish Lord
Advocate from Libyan judges, following his (Swire's) five-day visit to
Tripoli: Swire had met Gaddafi, Muhammed Aljadi, the head of the Libyan
supreme court, and Ahmed Zawi, the investigating judge (Swire, on his
meeting with Colonel Gaddafi: 'We talked about our daughters. I lost Flora
and he had lost his 16-month old daughter Hannah in the American bomb-
ing raids in 1986. Both of the deaths were caused by indiscriminate vio-
lence. He accepted a photograph of Flora to put in the room where Hannah
died'). There was American anger at the Swire visit. Bert Ammerman, the
president of the American families group, accused Dr Swire of 'shotgun
behaviour' and declared that the visit would damage relations between the
British and American families. Ammerman had been pleased that the
Lockerbie issue had been raised from a criminal matter onto the political
stage, and he claimed that the Libyans were doing no more than manipulat-
ing a private individual 'who is hardly astute in the ways of the world'.86
There can be little doubt that Colonel Gaddafi welcomed the Swire visit, if
only to give him a communication route to the Lord Advocate, the man who
had issued warrants for the two accused men. Gaddafi was obviously
seeking to create an impression of compliance, without being prepared to
agree the West's main demand. He had already instructed the Libyan people
not to demonstrate over the Lockerbie charges, Libyan television declaring
that he 'appealed to the masses to stay put and carry out their normal daily
life, affirming that he was close to them if necessary'.87
On 14 December it was reported that the Libyan authorities intended to
send investigators to Malta to search for evidence implicating the two
accused men.88 It was suggested that, in the absence of British co-operation,
the Libyans would have to carry out their own investigations. A spokesman
for the Crown Office in Edinburgh dismissed the Libyan intention to try the
men in their own country as a 'calculated absurdity', noting that nothing
less than the handing over of the two men would suffice. The West knew
that Gaddafi would be unwilling to do this, as would any state, particularly
in the absence of an extradition treaty. It can only be presumed that Britain
and America, clearly liaising carefully at every stage of the escalation,
had a schedule mapped out, a coherent set of steps designed to increase
the pressure of Libya and to inflate the issue to massive international
proportions.
The next step was to involve the United Nations. It was disclosed on
19 December that the United States, Britain and France were planning to
ask the Security Council to impose a ban on all air traffic to and from Libya.
Senior diplomatic sources confirmed that suitable action would be taken as
soon as Britain took over the presidency of the Security Council on 1
January.89 It was conceded that firm action against a 'terrorist state' would
help both George Bush and John Major in an election year, and that such a
move would be facilitated by the fact that both Cuba and Yemen, both
perceived as anti-Western, would be off the Security Council in the New
Year. At the same time there was still some anxiety about the possibility of
a Chinese veto on mandatory sanctions. A series of documents (Appen-
dix 1), which would come to form the basis of the subsequent UN resolu-
tion, were then lodged with the UN Secretary-General. In essence these
recorded the charges against the identified Libyan nationals and drew
attention to the demands made on Libya on 27 November 1991, in particu-
lar that the Government of Libya must:
surrender for trial all those charged with the crime; and accept respons-
ibility for the actions of Libyan officials;
disclose all it knows of this crime, including the names of all those
responsible, and allow full access to all witnesses, documents and other
material evidence, including all the remaining timers;
pay appropriate compensation.
The document (referenced S/23308) concluded: 'We expect Libya to com-

ply promptly and in full.'
On 27 December Colonel Gaddafi declared, in an interview broadcast on
ITN, that Britain and the US could send independent judges to Tripoli to
handle the case of the two accused men, but again refused to hand the two
men over. In a separate interview the foreign minister Beshari declared that
Libya was willing to send judges to Washington, London and Paris to
discuss the case. Gaddafi suggested that the two Libyans would not get a
fair trial abroad but expressed doubts that Bush and Major would launch
further air strikes against Libya: 'They are different from both Reagan and
Thatcher, and I don't think they would commit such injustices.' Comment-
ing on his previous support for the IRA, Gaddafi remarked that they were
committing acts of terrorism 'which we reject. We do not want a war
between the Protestants and Catholics.' Beshari also revealed that judges of
the Tripoli high court had sent messages to their counterparts in Scotland,
France and the United States, and he urged that the Western judges should
study the transcripts of the Libyan investigation of the two men. He ob-
served that the case 'does not threaten international peace and security', so
there was no reason to involve the Security Council ('It is a political and
legal case that can be solved peacefully'); and Beshari added that the
foreign ministers of the five-nation Arab Maghreb Union - Libya, Algeria,
Tunisia, Morocco and Mauritania - intended to meet in January to agree
'the broad lines of an initiative aimed at solving the Lockerbie crisis'.90
The West rejected all the offers of co-operation made by Gaddafi and
Beshari. Joe Snyder, a US State Department spokesman, told a regular press
briefing: 'Libya must surrender for trial all those charged with the crime
related to Pan Am 103. The United States and the United Kingdom have
jurisdiction in this case. We expect Libya to comply promptly and in full.'
He also remarked that the US, Britain and France were discussing how best
to retaliate against Libya, though no decision had yet been reached.
On 1 January 1992 the UK Foreign Secretary Douglas Hurd outlined the
issues that he expected would dominate Britain's foreign policy agenda in
the months ahead.91 In this account he stated:
We are taking the Lockerbie bombing before the Security Council. We

cannot have confidence in Libyan promises to try the alleged perpetra-
tors, since they are alleged to be Libyan intelligence officers. We con-
sider it entirely reasonable to insist on our demands that Libya should
hand over the accused men for trial, accept responsibility for the attacks
on the Pan Am flight and a French airliner, and provide information on
all aid provided to terrorist groups.*
Two days later the Libyan authorities announced that they might not be able
to pay foreign companies or workers, or to contribute to international
organisations, because of US financial sanctions on the country. At the
same time Britain, France and the United States told the new UN Secretary-
General Boutros Boutros Ghali of their plans to force Libyan co-operation
over the terrorist accusations. It was declared that there would be a Security
Council resolution requiring Libya to comply with the Western demands for
extradition; and that if Libya failed to comply the Security Council would
be asked to impose sanctions. However, there were some signs that the
Western parties to the dispute would not have things all their own way:
France had already objected to using the G7 machinery for punitive pur-
poses, Japan had expressed doubts about the use of further sanctions against
Libya, and other countries - for example, Italy - were worried at the
possible loss of trade. Moreover, there were doubts that Arab and African
countries would observe UN sanctions, even if they were demanded in a
Security Council resolution; it was noted that the Arab League had already
expressed support for the Libyan position.
*The prejudging of Libyan guilt was never more clearly signalled. Libya is expected to
accept responsibility for the Lockerbie bombing before a trial has even taken place. It is not
difficult to see how the Libyan government might be inclined to doubt the objectivity - in this
matter - of the Western courts.
Colonel Gaddafi, in an evident attempt to forestall sanctions, then launched
an appeal to the international community, writing to the United Nations to
urge the convening of a General Assembly session to find a way to elimin-
ate 'terrorism, acts of violence and other grave issues of concern to all
nations'. This letter, seeming to Western eyes an eccentric document, was
presented to the Secretary-General by foreign minister Beshari: it urged the
elimination of all the world's naval fleets, the liquidation of all the world's
overseas military bases, and compensation to be paid to all people who were
ever colonised. This was not all. The document also recommended an
'international irrigation system to prevent the flow of rivers, rain, snow and
ice into the seas and oceans and their diversion to the land'. Moreover, the
General Assembly should adopt 'a resolute approach' to curing cancer,
AIDS, malaria and polio; and world attention must be directed to the
problems of Northern Ireland, Palestine, Kurdistan, Kashmir and Cyprus.
This Libyan initiative was widely seen as a rather clumsy attempt to divert
attention from the Lockerbie issue. At the same time Libya was complain-
ing to the International Air Transport Association about an alleged intrusion
by planes from the US Sixth Fleet in the Mediterranean into the Tripoli
flight information area, with the Libyan news agency Jana calling the
incident 'a clear violation of the Civil Aviation Convention signed in
Chicago in 1944': officials speaking for the US Navy denied the allegation.
A few days later, on 13 January, Douglas Hurd was again demanding
international support in dealing with the Libyan question: 'Since Libya has
still not responded we will work for a Security Council resolution calling
on Libya to comply with our demands. Further action may be needed if
Libya does not then respond . . . The Libyan response has been totally
inadequate.'92
On 20 January the Labour MPs Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow) and Bernie
Grant (Tottenham), speaking in an adjournment debate in the Commons,
managed to highlight crucial aspects of the Lockerbie investigation. Dalyell
drew attention to part of a report submitted by the Lockerbie police to the
Scottish Lord Advocate, Lord Fraser. This report is cited to suggest that the
Lockerbie police suspected a Syrian involvement in the outrage, and it
concludes with the words:
There can be little doubt that Marwan Abdel Razzaq Mufti Khreesat is
the bomb-maker for the PFLP-GC, that he was brought to West Ger-
many for that express purpose and there is a possibility that he prepared
the IED [Improvised Explosive Device] which destroyed PA 103. As
such he should not be at liberty but should be closely questioned regard-
ing his activities with a view to tracing his associates in the attack.
Douglas Hurd had commented on 14 November that 'there was no evidence
about the involvement of other Governments'. Had the Foreign Secretary,
Dalyell asked, been shown that document by the Scottish police? And what
of the 'substantial information, still relevant, pointing to the involvement of
an Iranian and Syrian-based organisation'? Why had the Foreign Secretary
'been so categorical in ruling out the involvement of other parties when
Lord Fraser, the Lord Advocate, had gone out of his way not to rule out the
involvement of other states?' Dalyell then quoted from David Leppard's
book On the Trail of Terror, already cited, to indicate CIA knowledge of
Iranian complicity; commented that 'Libya is being used as a sole whipping
boy when there was an alliance of elements from Iran, Syria and Libya'; and
quoted from a powerful editorial in The Sunday Times (24 November
1991):
Maybe it has been necessary to be nice to Iran and Syria to secure the
release of the remaining hostages in Beirut. It must be more than coinci-
dence that both countries were officially cleared of any Lockerbie in-
volvement just a few days before Terry Waite and Thomas Sutherland
were at last released. Our joy at their freedom should be tempered by the
shame of the cost: the relatives of the victims of the Lockerbie bomb
must now come to terms with the fact that most of those behind the
murder of their loved ones are going to get away with it. The cause of
justice is being sacrificed on the altar of diplomatic convenience. We
will live to regret it.
Tam Dalyell also highlighted a lead article in Tribune (17 January 1992)
in which Ian Williams, the paper's UN correspondent, comments on specu-
lation 'in the United Nations that John Major and George Bush are looking
to fight their 1992 election campaigns on the back of military action against
Libya'.94 Here it is suggested that even pro-Western Arab diplomats are
worried by what they perceive as the 'Iraq syndrome' developing in the
Security Council - 'in which support for one seemingly unexceptionable
resolution is then used to conscript support for another'. For those who
remember that Syria was prime suspect in the Lockerbie bombing, Libya's
protestations are seen to 'have some merit'.95 Ian Williams comments: 'One
can imagine the reaction of the White House if Nicaragua had tried to
extradite Oliver North for his admitted terrorist actions against the Sandinista
Government. It is not necessary to be an admirer of the Gaddafi regime to
suspect that double standards are rapidly becoming the accepted reserve
currency of the New World Order.'96
Bernie Grant, speaking in the adjournment debate, focused on the legal
aspects of the Lockerbie accusations, emphasising President Bush's insist-
ence on the need for legality, international law and respect for a nation's
sovereignty. 'Under which international convention or agreement' is the
minister [Douglas Hogg] acting? Grant emphasised that under the 1971
Montreal Convention, the convention for the suppression of unlawful acts
against the safety of civil aviation, unless there is an extradition treaty in
force, Libya 'is entitled, indeed obliged, to try the offenders under her own
domestic law'. Since there is no extradition treaty between Britain and
Libya, Article 7 of the Montreal Convention applies:
The Contracting State in the territory of which the alleged offender is

found shall, if it does not extradite him, be obliged, without exception
whatsoever and whether or not the offence was committed in its territ-
ory, to submit the case to its competent authorities for the purpose of
prosecution. Those authorities shall take their decision in the same
manner as in the case of any ordinary offence of a serious nature under
the law of that State.
It is also significant that Article 14 of the Convention states that:
Any dispute between two or more Contracting States concerning the

interpretation or application of this Convention which cannot be settled
through negotiation, shall, at the request of one of them, be submitted to
arbitration. If within six months from the date of the request for arbitra-
tion the Parties are unable to agree on the organisation of the arbitration,
any one of those Parties may refer the dispute to the International Court
of Justice by request in conformity with the Statute of the Court.
Both Britain and Libya are signatories to the Montreal Convention. For
Britain, in these circumstances, to demand extradition of suspects from
Libya would be a violation of the Convention; if, moreover, Britain disputes
this interpretation of the Convention then Article 14 stipulates a course of
action. Britain has not chosen to observe the Convention, preferring to
threaten sanctions and to hint at the possibility of military action. Libya, by
contrast, 'has acted in accordance with its own domestic law and with
international law by appointing a High Court judge who is carrying out an
investigation into the charges levelled against the two Libyan citizens'.
Why is the British government not permitting police officers or other
officials to work with the Libyans in their efforts to deal with the matter, 'as
international law both permits and demands that they do, especially as the
articles in the Libyan criminal procedure code, which prohibits the handing
over of the men without proper evidence, were set up by the British in
1973'?
Grant also emphasised the little-publicised fact that the Maltese govern-
ment, working alongside the Scottish police and the FBI, have come to very
different conclusions. The Maltese authorities have suggested that the evid-
ence to support a Maltese connection 'is, at best, very feeble': there is no
evidence to support the UK/US assertion that the bomb originated in Malta,
and without such evidence the entire case against the accused Libyans
collapses (Grant: 'The Maltese government's views could not be reconciled
with the views of the United States and the United Kingdom governments,
despite visits to Malta by the Minister of State, the deputy Attorney-General
of the United States and the Lord Advocate'). It is suggested that the
Maltese government is satisfied that the Libyan authorities are acting prop-
erly under international law 'by investigating the charges laid against the
two Libyans and by refusing to extradite them'. Finally Bernie Grant
emphasised the appalling consequences that would flow from further milit-
ary action against Libya.
Douglas Hogg, replying to Dalyell and Grant in the adjournment debate,
had no stomach for presenting a defence of the UK/US case. Of the contri-
butions made by the hon. Members for Linlithgow and Tottenham, Hogg
commented: 'Both went into the events in considerable detail. I have no
intention of doing so.'
Tam Dalyell had succeeded in gaining publicity for the likelihood of a
Syrian involvement in the Lockerbie bombing,97 and Bernie Grant had
highlighted the importance of current legal provisions, being ignored by the
British and the Americans in their approach to the Lockerbie case. It was
not difficult to find support for the legal interpretation that suggested that
the Libyan authorities were acting properly in the face of threats, and a nice
disregard for legal procedure, on the part of London and Washington. Thus
a correspondent to The Guardian (21 December 1991) commented that in
the absence of an extradition treaty with Libya, 'it is hard to fathom why the
US and Britain should have entertained the expectation that Libya would
hand over its citizens on the basis of evidence whose provenance can only
have been from (not disinterested) intelligence agencies and against what
now seems to be a pretty empty threat'. The same point is made by Marc
Weller, research fellow in international law at St Catherine's College,
Cambridge, in an article on the legal aspects of Lockerbie.98 Here it is stated
that the US and British demands for the surrender of the two Libyan
nationals 'appear to violate international procedures on extradition . . . In
the absence of an extradition treaty, the 1971 Montreal Convention applies
. . . So far, Libya has followed the procedure to the letter... even if the two
alleged offenders are handed over, the episode will smack of the application
of power politics in disregard of legal procedure.'
On 20 January the UN Security Council unanimously adopted a resolu-
tion (Appendix 2) calling on Libya to observe the earlier demands made by
the United States, the United Kingdom and France. It was reported that the
US, Britain and France were considering 'how much of a role to give the
UN Secretary-General, Boutros Boutros Ghali, as the events unfold'.99
Again, a supposed UN initiative was to be run by the Western powers.
Weller commented that the legal defect in the US/UK approach had 'not
been healed by the UN Security Council's support for the demands'; more-
over, the Security Council 'is not the right forum to make retrospective
decisions of a legal nature'.100 The passing of the new resolution (731)
represented a further step in the escalation of pressure on Libya. The US
ambassador to the United Nations, Thomas Pickering, commented: 'If
further action should be necessary, we are convinced that the Council is
ready to face up to its full responsibilities.'101 Western diplomats declared
that selective sanctions against Libya would be sought in 'a matter of
weeks' if Libya still refused to hand over the two men.
A few days later Colonel Gaddafi again declared that he was willing to
renounce international terrorism and to consider outside inspection of
Libya's alleged chemical and nuclear weapons sites. To an emissary sent
from the UN Secretary-General he said that he was under no legal obliga-
tion to surrender the two Libyan suspects and he challenged the British and
the Americans to produce the evidence, adding: 'The truth is they don't
have it.' Gaddafi had invited British and US lawyers to attend the Libyan
enquiry and to interrogate the accused, and he had welcomed representa-
tives of the victims' families. The possibility of transferring the enquiry to
a 'neutral forum' such as the International Court of Justice in the Hague was
being considered, and it was suggested that Libya might be prepared to put
substantial funds into escrow in an overseas account to pay compensation
and damages if any Libyan liability over Lockerbie was established in the
courts. At the same time Iranian President Rafsanjani was reported as
supporting Libya's recommendation that an international tribunal be al-
lowed to investigate the bombings of the US and French airliners.102 Gaddafi
himself continued to advertise his willingness to co-operate with interna-
tional organisations. On 3 February the International Atomic Energy Agency
(IAEA) announced that Libya would allow inspection of any sites rumoured
to be involved in the development of nuclear weapons. When the IAEA
director Hans Blix visited the only site already declared under Libya's
safeguards agreement with the agency, the Soviet-built Tajura research
reactor outside Tripoli was found to be lying idle. It had been shut down
since June the previous year, with spare parts no longer available and most
of the Soviet scientists gone home.
On 11 February the Libyan authorities moved quickly to deny a report
that the two accused Libyans had disappeared and may have been executed.
The Washington Post had quoted Vincent Cannistraro, the former CIA
counter-terrorist chief, as saying that Libya had planned to announce the
disappearance of the two men to suggest that they might have been kid-
napped. Some sources suggested that the statement might have been part of
a US disinformation campaign against Colonel Gaddafi: 'the execution
claim was bound to cause sufficient dismay among Libyan agents for them
to defect'.103 The investigating judge Ahmed al-Zawi denied the Post report
and invited anyone to visit Libya to see the two men, and even a Libyan
opposition source said that the Post story appeared to be 'yet another part of
the psychological warfare against Gaddafi by the Americans'.104 Stephen
Mitchell, a British lawyer advising the Libyans' lawyer Ibrahim Legwell on
the extradition aspects of the case confirmed that the men were alive and
well: T saw them in the office of their lawyer . . . The two accused were
brought pursuant to an order of the . . . investigating judge of the Libyan
Supreme Court... I am absolutely satisfied . . . they are the people who are
the accused.'105 In London the visiting US Vice-President Dan Quayle
continued to make threats, saying that 'Gaddafi had better realise we are
serious' and adding that 'you just have to look in the past to see that we have
the political will to make these kinds of requests happen'.106
A sudden move by Libya on 12 February seemed to take the Western
powers by surprise: the Libyan authorities announced that France would be
allowed to question the four senior intelligence officials accused of bomb-
ing the UTA airliner. France, Britain and the United States held urgent
consultations in New York to agree a common response. The next day there
were even suggestions that Colonel Gaddafi might surrender the two ac-
cused men if the necessary safeguards could be guaranteed. Lord Trefgarne,
after discussing the Lockerbie issue with Colonel Gaddafi, said that the
Libyan authorities had wanted talks with the Scottish legal authorities to
request assurances about a fair trial if the two men were handed over.
Trefgarne, a former Foreign Office minister, declared: 'They are prepared
in principle to hand them over but they need proper assurances about the
safeguards these men will enjoy when the time comes. What they want to
do . . . is have a dialogue with the Scottish legal authorities to try and
ascertain whether these safeguards exist.'107 He suggested that the matter
would not be resolved by 'megaphone diplomacy' and declared that the
Libyans expected the UN Security Council to move to sanctions, 'maybe
even worse'. Douglas Hurd moved speedily to veto the Libyan suggestions,
insisting that the issue could only be handled under the terms of the existing
Security Council resolution (731).
On 15 February the official Libyan news agency Jana announced that the
two accused Libyans would appear at a public hearing before Judge Ahmed
al-Zawi, while the UK Foreign Office issued a statement saying that Brit-
ain, the US and France would be consulting other members of the Security
Council about the steps to be taken to force Libyan compliance. A Foreign
Office spokesman insisted that nothing had been ruled out, again encourag-
ing speculation that 'even military action' was being considered.108 US
officials declared that the US, Britain and France would push for a manda-
tory sanctions resolution by the end of the month. On 18 February, follow-
ing the earlier Libyan promises, the two accused men appeared in a court-
room in Tripoli amid tight security. The men arrived in a convoy of five
police cars and were escorted up the steps of the court building by men
armed with Kalashnikovs. Once in the courtroom the men were not given
the opportunity to answer questions but Megrahi told the assembled foreign
Press: 'I just want to say we are not guilty.' Zawi emphasised that judicial
proceedings could only begin if the West co-operated with Libya in provid-
ing evidence to support the accusations. The authorities in Scotland and the
United States had refused to offer any evidence but Zawi did not rule out the
possibility in the right circumstances of a trial of the accused by a neutral
international court. Again he declared that if the men were tried in Libya
and found guilty they would face the death penalty. However, the main
point was the lack of help from the Scottish and US authorities: Zawi
insisted he had requested evidence from witnesses, the plane's black box
and other sources but had been denied any assistance in his enquiries.
The United States quickly dismissed the proceedings as a travesty of
justice, the State Department spokesman Richard Boucher announcing:
'We don't put much faith or credence in what a Libyan judge might say. We
think that a Libyan investigation or a hearing is a travesty of justice,
amounts to nothing more than another attempt by Libya to delay and to
evade its responsibility.'109 The next day it was announced that UN envoy
Vasily Safronchuk would convey a letter, a 'kind of ultimatum', from the
UN Secretary-General Boutros Boutros Ghali to the Libyan government.
The scene was set for a further escalation of the pressure on the Gaddafi
regime.
All the signs were that the Western campaign was doing no more than
consolidating Colonel Gaddafi's hold on power. Senior diplomats in Tripoli
were commenting that the West's failure to produce evidence of the guilt of
the two accused men was convincing ordinary Libyans that the Lockerbie
bombing was being used as an excuse to target the country as a whole. One
diplomat said: 'Up to November and December, people were very critical of
the government, but now their mood has changed. Now they think that the
Americans want to get rid of Gaddafi and gain control of Libyan oil.'110 The
ordinary Libyans feel 'that the campaign against them is unjust', but the
atmosphere in Tripoli was more relaxed than three months earlier when
many felt that a US air strike was imminent. In November and December
some Tripoli residents moved out into the desert to avoid the expected
American bombing, those that remained stockpiling food at home, 'so there
was a sudden shortage of flour and sugar in the shops'.111 American press
reports suggested that the Libyans were preparing to withstand economic
blockade or military attack, but diplomats in Tripoli have said that they are
mystified by such reports. In February 1992 there was little sign in Libya
of such preparations.
The situation was that the two accused men were still in custody. Judge
Ahmed el-Tahir al-Zawi had declared that he would quit the case because
of the West's failure to produce requested evidence and because there were
signs that Colonel Gaddafi was trying to sidestep the Libyan judiciary to do
a deal with the US, the UK and France. In February 1992 a report from the
Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO) provided fresh evidence of Iranian
involvement in the Lockerbie bombing, deepening 'the controversy of why
the Scottish police and the American FBI changed their minds after claim-
ing for 18 months that the bombing was committed by members of Ahmed
JibriVs group, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine-General
Command, under the umbrella of Iran and Syria'.112 Abu Sharif, the polit-
ical adviser to PLO chairman Yasser Arafat, claimed that the PLO had
'gathered very accurate and sensitive information related to the Lockerbie
affair', and that this information 'points clearly to the involvement of
Middle East parties, not Libya, in this crime'.113 The 80-page report details
the meetings between Jibril, Ali Akbar Mohtashemi, the former Iranian
interior minister, and other Iranians to discuss the planned outrage. The
report 'includes the most specific evidence yet of Iran's role in the bomb-
ing'.114
The West, interested above all in its hidden agenda, moved to secure
its mandatory sanctions resolution from the UN Security Council. Again
Libya - and Libya alone - was to be held solely responsible.
IMPOSING SANCTIONS
The United States had succeeded in defining for its own purposes the
parameters of the Lockerbie question. There was no longer any debate
about who was responsible for the outrage; whether the evidence, as for-
merly believed over a lengthy period, pointed to Syrian and Iranian - as

well as Libyan - involvement. The only issue was how the US-dominated
Security Council could be induced to tighten further the noose around
Libya. The overt purpose was to force the Libyan authorities to yield up
the two Libyan suspects for fair trial in Scotland or the United States, but
the West was already assuming their guilt and in any case the surrender of
the two men was not the only demand stipulated in Resolution 731 (see
Appendix 2). It was already clear that if Washington achieved a mandatory
sanctions resolution in the Security Council this would afford a permanent
pressure on Libya: even if the two Libyan suspects were surrendered to the
West for trial Washington would be free to veto any attempts to terminate
the sanctions resolution until Libya had complied with any or all of further
US demands.
On 25 February the Egyptian president, Hosni Mubarak, arrived in Paris
to discuss the Lockerbie issue with President Mitterrand. Colonel Gaddafi
had already declared that he wanted the United Nations to create a me-
chanism to allow the two suspects to be tried by a neutral body if the
evidence against them was provided to Libya. There was speculation that
the Mubarak initiative was intended to enable the two men to be tried in
such a neutral country, though it is hard to imagine that Colonel Gaddafi
would have seen France, one of the sponsors of Resolution 731, as a
suitable candidate. At the same time it was obvious that Gaddafi feared a
further US military attack and was keen to conciliate Washington, if this
could be achieved without totally abnegating Libyan rights. Thus in an
interview in a French daily newspaper he declared: 'We immediately pro-
tested and proclaimed our innocence. But very quickly we understood that
we were confronted by virtual state terrorism and that the Americans
wouldn't hesitate to launch a massive military operation. An armed con-
frontation would crush us. We are aware of the danger. That's why we
prefer to play the card of conciliation and justice, rather than of defiance.'115
The Libyan minister of justice, Ibrahim Mohammed Bakkar, had visited
Cairo prior to Mubarak's talks with Mitterrand and it was reported that Paris
and Tripoli had made some progress in working out a judicial compro-
mise.116 Mubarak denied that he was mediating but commented, after his
talks with Mitterrand, that he was involved in steps 'with the hope of
reaching a just and positive solution which would be welcome'.117
At the end of February American and British government sources re-
leased a story that Colonel Gaddafi had ordered his agents to kill a 'super-
grass' defector, Abdu Maged Jiacha, said to have information that would
incriminate the two Libyan suspects. It was declared that a senior Libyan
intelligence officer had travelled to the Netherlands in an effort to locate
Jiacha but that the defector had been taken into the federal witness protec-
tion programme and was living on the US west coast. One unnamed source
commented: 'There are very senior people in Tripoli who are hell bent on
getting him. If they can get him back from America they'll be able to shut
him up.'118 As with any information from interested sources it is difficult
to know what to make of this story. What is clear is that Washington was
keen to bolster its case following criticism that it had conveniently ignored
evidence of Syrian and Iranian complicity in the Lockerbie outrage.119
And the view was also emerging that US intransigence was unhelpful to
Western interests. Some diplomats in Tripoli have insisted that Washington
and London are deliberately ignoring the changes in Libya in order to
target Gaddafi but that this policy risks fostering hardline Islamic funda-
mentalists instead of the Western-oriented pragmatists that may be pre-
ferred.120 President Mubarak would hardly welcome a fundamentalist
resurgence in an adjoining state; and the Russians have suggested that a
fundamentalist Libya might give a fresh impetus to Iran's efforts to subvert
the 15 million Muslims in the southern republics of the Commonwealth
of Independent States.
On 1 March the Libyan foreign minister, Ibrahim Beshari, announced
after a meeting with the Russian foreign minister, Andrei Kozyrev, in Cairo
that Libya was willing to hand over the two Libyan suspects to a neutral
country for trial: 'Libya is ready to hand over the two suspects for trial in
front of a neutral court in any neutral country and hopes that the UN
Security Council will not make any resolutions against Libya.'121 Kozyrev
commented that 'the best thing would be to hand over the suspects to the
UN Secretary-General without any conditions and for him to take further
action himself. At the same time the Libyan Supreme Court judge, Ahmed
al-Zawi, asked to be removed from his role in leading the investigation into
the Western charges. According to Libya's official news agency Jana he
gave nine reasons why he was unable to conduct a proper investigation,
including 'lack of co-operation by the authorities in the US, the United
Kingdom and Scotland'.
The Secretary to the Libyan Arab People's Bureau in Paris, Saad Muhber,
reported in the Western press and elsewhere, gave reasons why Libya could
not extradite its own nationals and made various suggestions 'to get out of
this impasse'.122 He commented that the relevant law dated to 1953 and was
British-inspired as the then colonial power; that the two accused Libyans
could not expect a fair trial in the US or the UK as they had already been
judged guilty by the media and government authorities; that there were
other saddening 'cases of prejudgment' (the Birmingham Six, the Tottenham
Three and others); and that the accused might be subjected to 'torturous
methods'* in order 'to force them to accept responsibility of whatever the
two countries wish to throw at our door'. Muhber then proposed that the
Montreal Convention of 1971 should be implemented, 'otherwise why did
we all adopt it?'; that perhaps an independent commission could carry out
an independent investigation, the results of which would be binding on all
the concerned countries; that if strong evidence of guilt is established then
the Libyan authorities would bring the accused to an open trial 'in the
presence of lawyers of the concerned governments, families of the victims,
UN representatives and human rights groups'; and that the independent
commission could have access to the accused in a neutral country provided
that their 'accommodation, safety and their availability only to the commis-
sion' could be guaranteed. It is then remarked that if the West refuses all the
compromises and alternatives that are offered it is clearly seeking not
justice 'but a pretext for the repetition of the earlier 1986 Anglo-American
aggression . . .'. In fact the West was now making it clear that no compro-
mises or discussions would be tolerated, that the Western demands must be
fully implemented without delay.
In early March the terms of the draft UN resolution imposing sanctions
on Libya became clear: a package of economic, military and diplomatic
measures were being drawn up by the US, Britain and France to mark,
according to one Arab commentator, 'the beginning of the siege of Libya'.
The draft resolution, not yet enacted, included a ban on civil air links, a
banning of arms sales and the scaling down of diplomatic representation.
Colonel Gaddafi continued to adopt a conciliatory posture to discourage the
passing of the mandatory resolution in the Security Council. Having already
proclaimed Libyan innocence in the Lockerbie outrage he told the General
People's Congress in Tripoli that 'any relationship with the IRA must be
severed' (in any case the Provisional IRA had been supported only because
of the Western bombing raids on Tripoli and Benghazi). There were signs
also that Gaddafi had agreed in discussion with the UN Under-Secretary-
General, Vasily Safronchuk, that he would hand over the two suspects to
the United States if Washington promised to normalise relations with Libya
(which clearly would be unacceptable to the US); and it was even reported
that Gaddafi was prepared to hand over the two men to the Islamic Devel-
opment Bank.123 There were also some signs in the international community
that the Western policy on Libya was beginning to arouse disquiet. King
*I myself confess to a knee-jerk reaction against the idea of 'torturous methods' being used
in Britain but then recalled the pictures of the beaten faces of the Birmingham Six when they
were brought before an English court.
Hassan of Morocco, for example, the only Arab member of the Security
Council, declared that he would find it difficult to vote for the projected
sanctions resolution or to apply sanctions unless there was proof of Libyan
involvement in the Lockerbie bombing. And the West continued to show
great reluctance to offer such proof. It was becoming increasingly clear that
Washington was experiencing unexpected difficulties in mobilising the
international community for a prolonged siege of Libya ('The UK and US
have both become alarmed by the success of Col Gaddafi's conciliatory
tactics'124).
The UN Secretary-General, Boutros Boutros Ghali, in a report (see
Appendix 4) that 'irritated London and Washington',125 conceded that there
had been 'a certain evolution' in Libya's position and that this should be
acknowledged before punitive measures were adopted against Tripoli. This
suggested that Gaddafi had made some concessions when visited by UN
Under-Secretary-General Safronchuk, and that this would make it more
difficult for Washington to muster enough support in the Security Council
for a tough resolution. Colonel Gaddafi was also hoping that his appeal to
the International Court of Justice would put a further brake on US plans for
the targeting of Libya, but at the same time was taking what measures he
could to protect the Libyan economy. On 5 March it was reported that Libya
had shifted between $2 billion and $3 billion of its overseas assets from
Europe to banks in the Middle East.126 Between March and September 1991
Libya had already halved its deposits in British banks, to £781 million, and
substantial liquid assets were also removed from other European centres. A
London banker commented that Libya 'feels it has some sympathy among
other Arab countries and the obvious place to put the money is with banks
in the Gulf region'. In a parallel move to protect its assets Libya was now
demanding payment for its oil exports, wherever possible, in Swiss francs
rather than dollars, so reducing the number of transactions that must be
cleared through US banks. The US authorities have traditionally exploited
the clearance procedures to block dealings that they regard as undesirable,
and the Libyans no doubt well remember how $2 billion of Libyan assets
were frozen in the US in 1986 in retaliation for Libya's alleged terrorist
attacks in Rome and Vienna.
The suspicion continued to grow that President Bush was considering a
fresh military strike against Iraq or Libya to boost his popularity in an
election year.127 It was acknowledged that the planned sanctions resolution
would have only limited effect: it would be unlikely to achieve the hand-
over of the two suspects and even less likely to topple Gaddafi. An option
for a further resolution, beyond the immediate projected sanctions, would
be for an international ban on Libyan oil. There could be no doubt that such
a ban would cripple the Libyan economy and probably destabilise the
regime. Thus Mehdi Varzi, an oil specialist at Kleinwort Benson, has been
quoted: 'If Libyan oil is excluded from Europe then they are in deep
trouble.' Libya uses oil revenues to pay for food imports which amount to
as much as a fifth of all imports; and the regime uses its oil wealth to
purchase the loyalty of clan and tribal leaders without whose support
Gaddafi, operating in a traditional tribal society, could not survive. How-
ever, an oil ban would also hit various Western importers who may in
consequence be reluctant to support such extreme measures. In such cir-
cumstances Washington may again be tempted to take military action.
On 6 March the International Court of Justice scheduled hearings for
26 March on Libya's request for an emergency ruling to halt any possible
American or British military action. There were many signs that Gaddafi
was increasingly worried by the possibility of Western military strikes
against Libya, not least because he himself would be a principal target.
Mohammed Heikal, a distinguished Arab commentator and for years a
confidant of President Nasser, has observed: 'See what Gaddafi is doing.
He is acting like a threatened mouse. The lesson of the devastation of Iraq
is there for everybody to see. I have many responsible Libyans coming to
see me in Cairo, saying: "What can we do to appease them?" They were
even ready to take the two men to the UN, to give them to poor Boutros
Ghali and Boutros Ghali would not touch them.' According to Heikal,
Colonel Gaddafi sent a message to Mubarak in February, saying: T am
going to leave it [Libya] all to you and I am coming to Egypt as a private
citizen.'128 It was now increasingly obvious that the projected sanctions
resolution would be passed in the Security Council within a matter of days
and that, once passed, the United States would be able to veto any move to
rescind it. Soon a further step towards the siege of Libya would be taken.
As the UN Security Council moved inexorably towards the imposition of
mandatory sanctions, Britain and the US advised their nationals to leave
Libya. On 17 March Britain advised its nationals in Libya to 'consider
carefully whether they need to remain in the country'. Such nationals were
urged to leave while it was still possible, since many Libyan entry and exit
visas are endorsed for travel 'by air only' - and there was about to be a ban
on all civil air flights. The British Foreign Office also set about discourag-
ing people from travelling to Libya. It was now being announced that
Britain, France and the United States had finally achieved formal agreement
with the other Security Council members (Russia and China) on the word-
ing of the draft resolution (it was soon to emerge that China, unenthusiastic
about mandatory sanctions, had been threatened by Washington with dire
economic consequences if it vetoed the resolution). The resolution had been
drafted under Chapter VII of the UN Charter, which demands observance
by all UN members, but again it was clear that not all members were in
favour of the draft resolution. It was surmised that neighbouring countries,
such as Morocco and Egypt, might be reluctant to cut air links or to
withdraw their diplomats from Tripoli. At this stage the idea of imposing a
ban on Libyan oil exports had already been floated at the United Nations
but Italy and Germany, both dependent on Libyan oil, had resisted the
idea.129 It was still the case that an eventual military strike was a possibility.
Prime Minister John Major, in an interview for The Times in London,
commented that the sanctions resolution would precede the use of force.130
It was clear that the military option was still open.
Now other countries (Germany, Austria, Switzerland and Denmark)
were joining the US, France and Britain in urging their nationals to leave
Libya before being stranded there. Libya itself, while seemingly posing no
threat to foreign nationals, remained keen to publicise what it perceived as
the injustice of a Security Council run by a few Western nations. Jana, the
official Libyan press agency, even went so far as to declare that the Islamic
states were considering a mass withdrawal from the United Nations.131 The
Jana editor for Islamic affairs accused the West of monopolising the UN
and turning it into an anti-Islamic Christian organisation: 'The Islamic
states are considering withdrawing en bloc from the United Nations to form
a new United Nations, especially when injustice reached an unbearable
level. The Islamic countries and the Muslim peoples cannot tolerate any
more the Western countries' insults to Islam and Muslims and their arrog-
ance towards Libya, the small Muslim country.' This statement, from a
transparently interested source, can be viewed with scepticism, but it sig-
nalled what was becoming increasingly obvious, that Colonel Gaddafi
could look to a measure of support in the Arab world and in the wider
Muslim community.
On 20 March there were fresh signs of a possible breakthrough: North
African diplomats claimed that Gaddafi, under pressure from Tunisia and
Morocco, might be moving to hand over the two men to the UN Secretary-
General, Boutros Boutros Ghali, a possibility that had been discussed and
discounted on earlier occasions. It was reported that the Arab states were
working on such a solution and that the Libyan leader had already agreed in
principle to hand over the two suspects to allow Dr Boutros Ghali to decide
what to do next. No reaction from the UN was reported and the Western
powers were predictably sceptical. A British Foreign Office spokesman
commented that 'the US and Britain are not interested in principles, but
only in facts', suggesting that this was yet another attempt by Gaddafi to
ignore the legitimate UN demands. However, a few days later a Reuter
report in Cairo stated that the UN Secretary-General had told the Arab
League Secretary-General, Esmet Abdel Maguid, that Libya could hand the
two men over to Maguid, after which they could be handed over to 'the
proper authorities'.132 It was further reported that if the Libyan authorities
were prepared to agree to such an anangement Dr Boutros Ghali would ask
the Security Council to issue a formal proposal along these lines. At the
same time the Arab League issued a resolution calling on the Security
Council to 'avoid adopting economic, military or diplomatic measures
against Libya' and to 'resolve the conflict between that country and the
United States, Britain and France by negotiation and mediation' (see Ap-
pendix 5). This important resolution, agreed by the 21-member body, also
called on the Security Council to 'wait until the International Court of
Justice rules upon the issue'. Again it was clear that support for Gaddafi
was growing in the Arab world and that this manifest fact would serve as an
irritation to the Western powers.
Libya then announced that it would give up the two men to the Arab
League. The Libyan ambassador to the United Nations, Ahmed al-Houderi,
declared that he was able 'to confirm that the decision had been taken to
hand the men over to the Arab League', emphasising that this 'was not just
rumour' but that he could not say what would happen to the two men
afterwards ('That is up to the Arab League').133 Even now the position was
unclear. Some reports suggested that the Arab League was reluctant to take
charge of the two men and there was pressure on Gaddafi to deliver them
directly to the United Nations. It was clear that Boutros Ghali had an
interest in preventing the imposition of sanctions on Libya but equally clear
that Britain and the United States would tolerate no compromise on the
demands laid out in Resolution 731. Thus a British official was prepared to
express 'full confidence' in Dr Boutros Ghali, at the same time emphasising
that he 'was at no stage empowered to negotiate for the extradition of the
two Libyans'. The French ambassador to the UN, Jean Bernard Merimee,
declared that the Libyan willingness to hand over the two suspects to the
Arab League 'is a sign of progress', though the three Western powers were
still pressing Libya to hand over the men within a matter of days. On
24 March it was reported that China had announced publicly that it would
not support the projected sanctions resolution.135
It soon became clear that, whatever Libyan officials had said, it was
unlikely that the two suspects would be handed over to the Arab League or
to the United Nations. According to the British ambassador to the UN, Sir
David Hannay, the UN Secretary-General had asked Libya to confirm in
writing its willingness to deliver the two men, but there were no signs that
the Libyan authorities were prepared to put their offer in writing. Again
Libyan procrastination was feeding the general mood of disbelief among
Western diplomats. Diego Arria of Venezuela, the President of the Security
Council during March, commented to reporters: 'Today is an important day
. . . we got information that they would be delivered today from the Arab
League representative.' However, whatever the expectations nothing tran-
spired and an early passing of the mandatory sanctions resolution seemed
likely. At the same time there was growing unease about the stringency of
the proposed sanctions: in one report, China, Morocco, India and Zimba-
bwe were 'expressing quiet fury' at the prospect.136 That some of Libya's
neighbours had already stated that they would not observe sanctions would
moreover have the consequence that UN authority would be damaged.
On 25 March Libya declared that it would only hand over the two
suspects on condition that they were not then delivered to Britain or the
United States. It was now stated by Gaddafi's second-in-command, Abdel
Salem Jalloud, that announcements by the Libyan UN ambassador had been
'inaccurate', a statement that hardened Western suspicions that Gaddafi
was simply playing for time.137 Now Britain, the US and France were
renewing their efforts to secure the sanctions resolution, convinced by the
new developments that there had never been any real prospect that Gaddafi
would comply with the demands expressed in Resolution 731. On 26 March
a Libyan representative, pressing the Libyan case before the International
Court of Justice, declared that Libya would never give in to 'illegal and
arbitrary blackmail' by Britain and the United States, and urged the sixteen
judges on the World Court to rule that Britain and the US be barred from
taking military action against Libya.* Britain, who took the trouble to send
Alan Rodger QC for the British delegation, commented that the World
Court had no jurisdiction in the case and that there was no way that Libya
could be trusted to try the suspects in its own courts. Rodger had com-
mented that Libya is wriggling and twisting the law and that Tripoli would
'say anything, however inconsistent, which may help postpone the day
when it will have to accept responsibilities for its actions. That I fear is the
true purpose of this court hearing.' Against this view the Libyan representa-
tive, Mohammed Sharaf al-Faitouri, declared that Libya was not respons-
ible 'directly or indirectly for the hideous crime in which it is alleged to be
implicated'. There was, he claimed, no reason to surrender the suspects
because 'the accusers have at no time agreed to supply copies of evidence
•Pamela Dix, of the UK Families Right 103 Group representing relatives of Lockerbie
victims and a supporter of the UK 'No Intervention in Libya' campaign, stated: 'We do not
want to see any military action against Libya' (The Socialist, 11-24 March 1992).
they claim to possess.' Faitouri also reminded the court that in 1986 force
was used against Libya 'without the slightest justification', subsequent
investigations having absolved Libya of any responsibility for the alleged
involvement in the attacks in Europe.138 Tripoli argues that the World Court
had jurisdiction because Britain and the US are in breach of the 1971
Montreal Convention, an agreement signed by all parties to counter terrorist
acts against civil aircraft. It was now clear however that whatever the court
findings London and Washington were resolved to achieve the sanctions
resolution.
It was now emerging that, as a nice rerun of the US threats and induce-
ments designed to achieve 'international consensus' at the time of the 1990/
91 Gulf crisis, Washington was threatening any nations inclined to oppose
the passing of the sanctions resolution. In these circumstances China was a
key player. Of the five permanent Security Council members three were the
architects of the draft resolution, Russia - desperate for US support to
prevent internal economic collapse - could be relied upon, and China had
declared publicly that it would not support the new mandatory resolution.
The United States responded by telling China that if it vetoed the resolution
it would risk losing its Most Favoured Nation status, a move that would
deprive China of billions of dollars in trade with the US.* Other countries
on the Security Council (such as Morocco, Zimbabwe, Venezuela, Hun-
gary, India, Ecuador and Cape Verde), all without the power of veto, were
openly said by diplomats to be frightened of upsetting the United States.139
By the end of March it was clear that the sanctions resolution would
be passed in the Security Council. On 29 March the Arab League called
on the United Nations to delay the plans for imposing sanctions on Libya,
with mediators from seven Arab countries agreeing to send a message to
Dr Boutros Ghali requesting that the Security Council defer its action. Now
it was widely recognised that the efforts of the Arab League and of the
UN Secretary-General himself would not be able to delay further the pass-
ing of the mandatory resolution. In the event the resolution - Resolution
748 (1992) - was passed on 31 March, giving Colonel Gaddafi until the end
of Ramadan on 15 April to hand over the two accused men (see Appendix
6). The resolution was passed by a vote of ten in favour with none against
and five abstentions (China, Cape Verde, India, Morocco and Zimbabwe).
Ahmed al-Houderi, the Libyan ambassador, noted that Libya had reaffirmed
its readiness to co-operate with the Council in a manner that would not
*This UN version of jury tampering is what passes for 'skilful diplomacy' in today's
Security Council.
damage Libyan sovereignty or violate international law. The current im-
passe, he claimed, was due to a rejection of all attempts to achieve a neutral
and fair investigation; and he expressed concern that the ground was being
prepared for further action against Libya.
Now it emerged that Libya was apparently delaying the issue of exit
visas to foreign nationals wishing to leave the country, and soon the idea
was being floated in the Western media that a new 'human shield' situation,
akin to that orchestrated by Saddam Hussein in Iraq, was being created in
Libya. However, the Libyan authorities, no doubt disappointing some of the
more voracious Western journalists, stated that it had no intention of pre-
venting anyone leaving Libya if they wished: Colonel Gaddafi, it appeared,
was not in the business of hostage taking. Prime Minister John Major was
said to have reacted angrily to the possibility that exit visas might be
refused, declaring that this was 'intolerable . . . We shall watch the situation
and make sure the security of our people is absolute and they can get out.'
The matter soon dropped out of the news, suggesting that it was a non-issue;
but perhaps it had been enough to tar Gaddafi, albeit briefly, with the
Saddam brush. The important measure was the passing of the new UN
resolution, and again there were reports of how China had been pressured
not to veto the move: 'the US is understood to have leaned heavily on
Peking by threatening to withdraw its most-favoured trading partner status
. . . Other Third World countries on the Council had their arms twisted in
similar fashion.'140
The Libyan authorities continued to take measures to help the country
ride out the sanctions that would be imposed on 15 April. Funds continued
to be transferred from West European banks to Geneva and Gulf states, and
there was evidence that the central Libyan bank was withholding letters of
credit, except for key imports such as food, and that this was having an
impact on local business. Bankers stated that Libya was spending money
stockpiling food and medicine, though there appeared to be little extra
traffic through the port of Tripoli. Again it was felt unlikely that Egypt
would try to close its lengthy land border with Libya, and more than one
observer noted that it would be easier to feed Libya than it had been to feed
Iraq, again encouraging the perception that Gaddafi and Saddam Hussein
were being viewed by the West in similar terms. It was also clear that
foreign nationals, despite advice from their governments, were not rushing
to leave Libya. The South Korean authorities, with some 10,000 workers in
Libya, had not even suggested that Koreans return home. The sanctions
specified in Resolution 748 were increasingly seen as largely symbolic,
unlikely to topple Gaddafi but signalling Western hostility and the possibil-
ity of sterner measures in the future.
On 1 April Colonel Gaddafi threatened to halt oil sales and to sever

business ties with all countries that imposed UN sanctions against Libya.
Speaking to the Italian periodical Europeo he declared: 'The embargo does
not frighten us. Whoever does not support the cause of my people will have
nothing: no oil and no business.' It was easy to discount such rhetoric:
nothing, short of military action, would damage Libya more than a curtail-
ment of its oil sales. Gaddafi's statement followed a speedy US refusal to
allow the Libyan leader to visit President Bush to discuss the Lockerbie
issue, and the UN decision to send Vladimir Petrovsky, UN Under-
Secretary-General for Political Affairs, to Tripoli for talks. On 2 April
Colonel Gaddafi broadcast a message on Tripoli radio, warning that 'war-
planes will come to us from beyond the seas'; hours later Libyan protesters
launched attacks on various foreign embassies in Tripoli.
In one attack about two hundred protesters forced their way into the
Venezuelan embassy, destroying equipment, files and living quarters; vehi-
cles outside were set on fire. At the UN the Libyan ambassador, Ahmed al-
Houderi, commented that the violence was directed not at Venezuela but at
the Security Council, an observation that was unlikely to win friends. The
Council commented predictably that any attempt to link the attacks with
actions taken by the Council was 'extremely serious and totally unaccept-
able', and it demanded that Libya make full compensation to Venezuela.
The protesters had also burned US and British flags outside the Belgian and
Italian embassies, broken windows at the Austrian embassy, and attacked
the Russian and French embassies. Protestors at the Indian and Moroccan
embassies came armed with flowers, a reward for countries that had refused
to vote for the crucial Resolution 748. A Western diplomat remarked that
'in Libya it is sometimes very difficult to tell what is a spontaneous demon-
stration and what is orchestrated by the government, though not necessarily
by Gaddafi himself. In an interview with The Independent newspaper the
Libyan UN ambassador, in a marked shift of emphasis from his earlier
statements, declared that the protests were 'the work of an angry mob and
it's now under control... We used tear gas to break up the demonstrations,
which we normally never use. It's just unfortunate that things got out
of hand, but it's under control now.'
There were growing signs that Western intransigence, the refusal to
present relevant evidence or to discuss the matter with Tripoli, was stimu-
lating Libyan militancy. A senior European ambassador in Tripoli observed
that 'if Gaddafi decides the Americans want his head - and there is no room
for compromise - then he will fight it out. .. In November and December
people were at first very critical of the government . . . After the UN
resolution on sanctions, the mood changed. They feel they are all now under
pressure. They think the Americans want to get rid of Muammar Gaddafi
and impose control on Libyan oil.'141 It seemed that Colonel Gaddafi could
rely on more Arab support than Saddam Hussein was able to muster over
the Gulf crisis: there was still the persistent suspicion that Iran was impli-
cated in the Lockerbie outrage, and there was growing Arab unease about a
new Middle East order that seemed to be nothing more than a fresh wave of
American imperialism. Thus Atef al-Ghomari, writing in the semi-official
Egyptian daily al-Ahram, remarked that the current 'anti-terrorist campaign
by the US is aimed less at combating terrorism than redrawing the map of
the region'. When, on 4 April, Vladimir Petrovsky arrived in Tripoli to
discuss the escalating crisis it is likely that the Libyan authorities had few
illusions about the course of events that the United States had set in train.
Armed troops and police were deployed around the threatened embassy
buildings, and a Western diplomat observed that 'everything is back to
normal and is quiet. The police are being very co-operative.' It was also
reported that a small exodus of Britons and other nationalities had begun
and that there were no problems in obtaining exit visas. At the same time the
Imam of the Moulay Mohammad mosque in Tripoli declared in a sermon
broadcast live on television that the lives of diplomats representing coun-
tries that voted for sanctions were in danger: 'We demand that their embas-
sies be closed, their companies nationalised and all the citizens belonging to
these states be evacuated. We warn them that their lives are in danger.'142
Colonel Gaddafi himself was quite content to characterise the crisis in
religious terms. He noted that the accused men could be tried in an Arab
country or in a friendly country: 'that would be fine. But they want them
tried in a Christian country. After finishing with Communism, the Christian
crusaders have turned against the Muslims . . . The Crusader enemy is
coming to each Libyan home.'143 Even Arab states, he declared, who sup-
ported the West against Saddam Hussein, are uneasy at the aggressive
posture adopted by the United States, arguing that 'America is playing
policeman, gang leader, judge and prison warder all at once.'144
In early April Yasser Arafat, with some advisors, rushed to Libya to
discuss how resistance to the pressure being put on Gaddafi might be
organised. Unfortunately the Libyan leader had a prior engagement: Arafat
was told that Gaddafi had 'gone to the desert to talk to his God and take
direction from Him'. On 7 April Arafat, suffering his own desert storm,
disappeared over the Libyan desert, his plane forced to crashland. The PLO
leader was found relatively unscathed some hours later, and the story was
put about that the US had provided satellite data to enable the crashed plane
to be found; however Margaret Tutwiler, a spokeswoman for the US State
Department, commented that 'we did absolutely nothing. Nothing.'145 Cap-
tain Adnan Beleidy of the Palestine Liberation Army, the PLO's military
wing, declared that a Libyan air force plane had spotted the survivors -
some crew members were killed - at dawn. Subsequent television pictures
showed Colonel Gaddafi talked to Yasser Arafat in a hospital bed, and there
was talk of a new bond between Libya and the PLO: again, observers noted,
Arafat was choosing to back a loser. Western commentators were habitually
keen to depict Colonel Gaddafi as a loser or as unstable and reckless. Soon
also it was being strongly implied that the Libyan leader was a dangerous
force - the 'mad dog' signalled by President Reagan in 1986 - that had to
be dealt with. Thus at this timely moment it was claimed that Colonel
Gaddafi, like Saddam Hussein, had a thirst for weapons of mass destruction
that had to be countered: for example, the Sunday Times Insight team was
soon on the job telling how Gaddafi was building a 'huge poison gas
arsenal'146 - as if Britain and the USrighteouslyrefrained from developing
and deploying weapons of awesome destructive power.
On 7 April the UN envoy, Vladimir Petrovsky, arrived in Tripoli to be
confronted by demonstrators that blocked his motorcade and chanted 'to
hell with America and Britain', and by some three hundred angry youths
pushing to get into his hotel. Tear gas was used to break up the demonstra-
tions and Petrovsky later began 'frank, serious and businesslike' talks with
officials at the Libyan foreign ministry. There was no sign of a break-
through. Petrovsky then travelled to Geneva to brief Dr Boutros Ghali. It
now seemed that nothing could prevent the implementation of Resolution
748, demanding the imposition of sanctions, on 15 April. However, the
World Court still had to adjudicate, its decision scheduled for 14 April, and
Colonel Gaddafi was about to offer a further compromise solution to the
crisis.
The Maltese government then issued a statement saying that: 'Malta has
acceded to a request for the two suspects to be tried in Malta, provided that
all parties to the dispute are in agreement and consistent with Malta's
obligations under the UN Charter.' It was announced that the Maltese
foreign minister, Professor Guido de Marco, had received a letter from his
Libyan counterpart informing him that the two men had asked to be tried in
Malta. The Maltese Prime Minister, Dr Edward Fenech-Adami, commented
that Malta had a judicial system 'of which we have been extremely proud
. . . Our laws will give all the guarantees one can think of for any democratic
country.'147 Washington quickly dismissed the offer as unacceptable.
On 14 April the International Court of Justice in The Hague ruled by
eleven votes to five against granting Libya a temporary restraining order
against Britain and America, declaring that it had no power to prevent the
UN Security Council enacting sanctions against Libya. Mr Shigeru Oda, the
vice-president of the International Court, declared that the vote ruled on the
competence of the court to issue the protective injunction. It was also
emphasised that the five judges in the minority did not necessarily endorse
Libya's claim to international protection, but believed that the court was
underestimating its powers in this particular case.148 The United States had
resisted all efforts to delay the passing of Resolution 748 until after the
World Court had ruled, so putting the court in an immensely difficult
position. Whatever the justice of the Libyan case it was hard to imagine that
the court, a UN body, would rule against the UN Security Council. We can
speculate that if the sanctions resolution was scheduled for a vote but not
yet passed then the court ruling might have been different. By pushing for
an early vote on the resolution, and by threatening China with dire con-
sequences if it used its veto, Washington had put the World Court under
immense pressure. In such circumstances the court was bound to rule,
observing Article 103 of the UN Charter, that the demands of a Security
Council resolution should take precedence over the requirements of the
Montreal Convention. However, such speculations are largely academic:
Washington had already declared, before the court adjudication, that what-
ever the judges ruled the sanctions would be implemented on 15 April. The
United States was quite prepared to ignore the ruling of the World Court, as
it did when ruled against over its treatment of Nicaragua; but when the court
seemingly supported the US against Libya Washington was quick to ap-
plaud the verdict. This is the grim Catch 22 confronting any Third World
country in conflict with a hegemonic United States.
The unexpectedly moderate stand of Colonel Gaddafi on the Lockerbie
issue, his evident search for a legal solution and his declared willingness to
hand over the two accused men to a neutral state had clearly caused the
West some problems. Many observers saw Britain and the United States,
rather than Libya, as the intransigent parties to the disputes. Thus in Cairo
the normally pro-American newspaper Al-Ahram commented that the har-
assment and punishment of a small country like Libya on the strength of
unsubstantiated charges put America's 'allies and friends in the region' in
an extremely 'embarrassing' position. It was reported that Egypt would
help Libya cope with the effects of UN sanctions, while at the same time
Cairo would officially support the new resolution.149 Libyan Arab Airlines
organised extra flights between Cairo and Tripoli before Libya's official
day of mourning on 14 April for the victims of the US bombing raids on
Libya in 1986, and the Egyptian authorities began reviewing measures to
provide increased land transport between Libya and Egypt. The national
carrier, EgyptAir, and Libyan Arab Airlines agreed to co-ordinate air flights
with a bus shuttle service over the border.
It was widely assumed that the sanctions, as specified in Resolution 748,
would not achieve their objectives. A ban on civilian air travel would act as
an irritation rather than a serious impediment; a ban on arms sales would
have little effect on a trade that was in any case often clandestine or on a
country that was already massively armed; and a scaling down of diplo-
matic activity would represent only a degree of political isolation rather
than a mechanism for forcing Colonel Gaddafi's compliance with UN
demands. The main significance of 748 was that it represented the first
stage of what many observers thought would be an escalating process, a
planned strategy that was intended to lead to the crippling of the Libyan
economy and the toppling of the Libyan leader.
On 15 April 1992, as expected, the mandatory sanctions came into
effect. Italian fighter aircraft were scrambled to turn back a Libyan passen-
ger aircraft, and Tunisia and Egypt refused to grant permission for Libyan
planes to land. The US informed the Libyan mission at the United Nations
that it would have to reduce its staff from twelve diplomats to nine, the
Libyan deputy chief of mission being one of the expelled staff members.
France, Japan, Sweden and Belgium announced that they would expel a
number of diplomats, and Switzerland declared that it would curb arms
sales. Russia, with an eye on much-needed American aid, said that it would
withdraw hundreds of its military experts training the Libyan armed forces,
providing the UN would agree to special exit flights. Libya immediately
threatened to take 'reciprocal measures' against any countries that expelled
its diplomats, with Libyan radio attacking the sanctions as 'the continuation
of a war by the imperialist states against other peoples and an attempt to
force them to submit to hegemony'; Libyans, an official statement declared,
would 'kneel to no one but Allah'. The scene was set for a protracted - and
escalating - struggle: Article 13 of Resolution 748 stipulates that 'the
Security Council shall every 120 days, or sooner should the situation so
require, review the measures imposed'.
The situation was that - in what Washington perceived as propitious
international circumstances - the United States had again decided to target
the Libyan regime of Colonel Gaddafi. The widely suspected complicity of
Syria and Iran in the Lockerbie bombing was to be ignored, Libya to be the
sole publicly branded culprit. For months the US had made no attempt
whatever to observe its obligations under the 1971 Montreal Convention, an
agreement specifically designed to combat terrorist attacks on civilian air-
craft. All efforts at mediation and compromise - by Dr Boutros Ghali,
President Mubarak, the Arab League, the Maltese government, the Libyan
authorities themselves and others - had been routinely rejected by Wash-
ington and London, interested more in targeting Colonel Muammar Gaddafi
than in bringing the two accused men to justice.
Few observers believed that the two Libyans could have had a fair trial
in America or Britain. Thus the English lawyer Geoffrey Robertson com-
mented that a trial by jury in Scotland or the United States would be
'objectionable', and that the prosecution case was 'almost as convincing as
the original cases against the Birmingham Six and the Guildford Four'.150
Similarly Dr Marc Weller, a legal research fellow at the University of
Cambridge, a lecturer in the law of the United Nations, castigated what he
saw as the 'double standards' being perpetrated at the UN by the British and
US authorities.151 Moreover the guilt of the two accused men, and of
Colonel Gaddafi himself, has been assumed and frequently proclaimed in
the Western media - for example, The Independent said of Colonel Gaddafi:
'Clearly he played a role in the Lockerbie bombing'152 - rendering any trial
of the men in Britain or the US a travesty of justice. The US-orchestrated
campaign against Libya has little to do with fair trials for accused men,
more to do with a programmed hidden agenda that is not hard to fathom.
On 16 April 1992 the US State Department declared that the United
States would not end sanctions, even if the two men were surrendered for
trial. It also announced that the US would maintain a worldwide economic
offensive against Libya.
NEW WORLD ORDER?
The imposition of sanctions on Libya, with frequent threats of worse to

come, graphically illustrated the character of the post-Cold War world.
Throughout 1992 it became increasingly clear that Washington, supported
by at least one supine ally, would act through the United Nations only if the
requisite pressures could be brought to bear on other members of the
Security Council. If not, then the United States would not shrink from
taking unilateral action: British foreign secretary Douglas Hurd was quite
happy to admit that the air exclusion zone on southern Iraq, for example,
was not sanctioned by UN resolutions.153 Unilateral US action was widely
perceived as particularly likely if the cynical calculations of presidential
advisors in an election year judged such action to be useful.
The pressure on Libya was maintained despite accumulating evidence
that the US posture was factually flawed and legally indefensible. Worse, it
was increasingly clear that Washington, in its cavalier pursuit of a favourite
bete noire, had gravely damaged the integrity of the United Nations. In June
1992 the Spanish police arrested a Syrian national, Monzer al-Kassar,
suspected of involvement in the Lockerbie bombing - highlighting yet
again the possible complicity of states other than Libya in the 1988 out-
rage.154 At the same time the German public prosecutor Volker Rath an-
nounced, in a statement that received little publicity, that Germany would
be suspending its legal proceedings against the two Libyan suspects as there
was insufficient evidence of their involvement.155
The Libyan authorities themselves were making efforts, short of surren-
dering the two men, to meet the Western demands. In May 1992 the Libyan
news agency Jana stated that links with terrorist groups were being ter-
minated and that any UN committee was free to visit Libya to ascertain
that there were no terrorist camps on Libyan territory (an offer repeated in
July). In June Libyan officials provided information to the British author-
ities about earlier Libyan support for IRA terrorists; British officials com-
mented that Libya did provide 'most of the answers they promised.'156 Such
developments failed to impress Washington; and, this being so, the British
government carefully refrained from applauding Libya's obvious efforts to
improve relations (the information supplied was 'incomplete and unsatis-
factory', decided Prime Minister John Major).
While these events were in progress the United States was taking steps
to circumvent the inconvenient terms of extradition law. How insolent of
weaker nations, in the absence of an extradition treaty, to refuse to surrender
people whom Washington may wish to bring to court! Why not abolish
extradition controls at a stroke? On 15 June 1992 the Supreme Court in
Washington ruled that US agents were legally entitled to kidnap foreign
nationals abroad and return them to the United States for prosecution.157
Dissenting judge, Justice John Paul Stevens, called this 'a monstrous de-
cision'. However, he should not have been surprised at the Supreme Court
ruling: the policy on Libya, if nothing else, has provided ample evidence
of Washington's contempt for international law when it is perceived to
threaten US interests.
In April 1992 Professor Francis A. Boyle, professor of International Law
at the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, prepared a Memorandum
of Law on the US/Libyan dispute over the Lockerbie bombing allega-
tions.158 He examines Libya's liabilities under the terms of the 1971 Mon-
treal Convention, the pertinent legal framework for confronting terrorist
acts against civil aircraft. It is enough to quote briefly from the detailed
document:
. . . Libya has fully discharged its obligations . . . there is no obligation

whatever for Libya to extradite its two nationals to either the United
States or the United Kingdom . . .
. . . both the United States and the United Kingdom have effectively
violated most of the provisions of the Montreal Convention.
. . . the United States government has admitted that it will pay no
attention whatsoever to its obligations mandating the peaceful resolution
of international disputes as required by UN Charter articles 2(3) and
33(*).
The United States government has purposely and illegally made it im-
possible for there to be a pacific settlement of this dispute . . .
In the same vein, Marc Weller, Research Fellow in International Law at

St Catharine's College, Cambridge, England, has written a detailed analysis
of the US/Libya dispute.159 He concludes that at the levels of both Libyan
state responsibility and the responsibility of two individuals, Libya has
responded 'in accordance with international legal requirements'. To secure
the UN resolutions the claimant states 'had to expend considerable political
capital and goodwill in the Security Council, bullying fellow members to
obtain the necessary votes, and enraging many non-members of the Council
who keenly observed this spectacle ...' The US and UK governments 'may
well have contributed to, or brought about, an abuse of rights by the
Security Council'.
It may now be necessary, in Weller's judgement, for the International
Court to seek a judicial review of decisions of the Security Council 'if the
constitutional system of the UN Charter is to recover from the blow it has
suffered in this episode'.
On 20 June 1992 Jana reported from Assawani in Libya that a depot
storing fireworks and explosives had accidentally blown up. A health min-
istry official was quoted as saying that the wounded could not be flown
abroad for treatment because of the UN-imposed air embargo and 'this led
to an increase in the number of dead'. Two months later, on 12 August, the
UN Security Council decided to retain the sanctions imposed on Libya; and
the following week a senior UN envoy threatened harsher measures to
come.
On 2 September 1992 Colonel Muammar Gaddafi appealed to the United
States to begin direct talks to resolve their differences. Washington made no
response. On 15 October Douglas Hurd, addressing the Council for the
Advancement of Arab-British understanding in London, declared that un-
less the Libyan government agreed to hand over the suspects, 'there is
nothing really to talk about'. The sanctions would remain in place.
TIGHTENING THE NOOSE
The scene was now set for a prolonged confrontation between the Gaddafi
regime and the US-dominated Security Council. Despite the obvious doubts
expressed by UN Secretary-General Boutros Ghali, Washington had suc-
ceeded in pushing through Resolution 748 (Appendix 6) to impose the first
tranche of United Nations sanctions against Libya. The Gaddafi regime
would make various suggestions to resolve the crisis, but Washington
would not be interested. Now it seemed obvious that even if the two Libyan
suspects were extradited for trial in the West the sanctions would remain in
place. In exploiting its dominance of the Security Council, the United States
was less interested in combating international terrorism than in tightening
the noose around what Washington perceived as an unacceptable Arab
regime; one, moreover, that enjoyed access to vast reserves of oil. It would
not be long before Washington launched a fresh wave of diplomatic cajolery
and blackmail to tighten the sanctions regime.
In November 1992 Colonel Gaddafi claimed that sanctions had already
cost Libya $2.5 billion, and that the unavailability of spare parts for Libyan
aircraft was endangering lives. He commented further that 'disaster is going
to befall businesses', and that traders and others might wish to emigrate
to Chad, Egypt and elsewhere. At the same time he proposed a scheme
whereby some $5 billion of oil wealth - around $10,000 per Libyan family
- would be distributed. Thus in a statement to the General People's Con-
gress Gaddafi declared: 'This is direct distribution of oil wealth to all
Libyans. Every Libyan family will have the right to its share.' The subse-
quent implementation of the idea was uncertain: it was, Western observers
were keen to emphasise, no more than a typical Gaddafi wheeze.160 None
of this had much to do with resolving the sanctions issue. Washington,
continuing to ignore the terms of the 1971 Montreal Convention (to which
it is a signatory), remained obdurate; the Libyan authorities continued to
maintain that they were under no legal obligation to surrender the two
suspects; and few commentators were prepared to predict early answers
to the questions surrounding the Lockerbie bombing.
Four years had passed since the tenorist outrage, and the relatives of the
victims continued to press for effective action. In December 1992, on the
fourth anniversary of the explosion, the relatives handed in a petition at
10 Downing Street (London), demanding a full public inquiry into the
disaster. Dr Jim Swire, speaking for the families, said: 'We are repeatedly
frustrated in our continuing quest for truth and justice'; while in Washing-
ton president-elect Bill Clinton was signalling his willingness to press the
United Nations to extend the sanctions against Libya.
On 22 December a Libyan Boeing 727, flying from Benghazi to Tripoli,
reportedly collided with a Libyan plane; all 158 people on the civil aircraft
were killed. Now there were fresh charges that the UN sanctions, possibly
affecting aircraft reliability, had contributed to the fatalities. In London the
Labour Member of Parliament Tam Dalyell urged the British government
to allow aircraft parts into Libya as a gesture of goodwill: 'Many Britons
who work in engineering companies in Libya fly the Benghazi-Tripoli
route.' But there was no real prospect of any relaxation of the sanctions
regime. Quite the contrary. After reports161 that Libya was attempting to
develop a poison gas capability, the US Secretary of State Warren Christopher
announced that the United States was consulting with its allies about how
to intensify sanctions. Before a Senate subcommittee Christopher said on
30 March 1993: 'I think the time has come to stiffen the embargo against
Libya and one of the things we want to talk about is an oil embargo.' But
now Washington faced problems. France, Germany and Italy - big import-
ers of Libyan oil - were unwilling to support the new US ploy; and even
London, normally supine under US pressure, seemed reluctant to encourage
a ban on Libyan oil sales. Washington's proposals were put on hold: if
sanctions were to be strengthened, a different approach would be needed.
Colonel Gaddafi was by now no longer insisting that the two Libyan
suspects be tried in Libya: the Montreal Convention entitled him to make
such a demand but in proposing various compromises he had demonstrated
his flexibility. By mid-1993 Gaddafi had agreed to release the two men
for trial in Egypt, Malta and elsewhere or to the Arab League or The Hague:
all these suggestions had been rejected by a Washington more interested in
undermining the Gaddafi regime than in bringing the alleged tenorists to
court. On 26 June Gaddafi made a fresh offer, promising to surrender
the two suspects to the American politician Jesse Jackson, provided that
Jackson promised not to take them to Britain or the United States. Said
Gaddafi: 'All the world trusts you. The two people can go with you to
anywhere other than America or Britain. They are afraid of America and
England'; and he added for good measure that John Major was 'a good man
who has bad luck', and that President Clinton was 'like a star out of the
darkness of the western hemisphere'. The new proposal was speedily re-
jected: Washington would not agree to the two Libyans being escorted by
Jesse Jackson for trial anywhere outside the US or Britain, and Gaddafi's
clumsy attempts at ingratiation were ignored.
The Libyan regime was now taking various measures to limit the damage
inflicted by sanctions. Serbian aircraft technicians were reportedly helping
Libya maintain its Boeing aircraft, in a breach of the UN embargoes against
both Libya and Serbia,162 and Gaddafi had apparently succeeded in taking
control of the Athens-based Arab Hellenic Bank (AHB)163 - a move deemed
likely to limit the impact of possible financial sanctions in the future. And
in July 1993 Libya succeeded in recruiting the US State Department's
senior lawyer under Ronald Reagan, Abe Sofaer, to represent Libya's
interests in return for a retainer of $500,000. In response to criticism Sofaer
emphasised that he would not compromise his values: he remained 'strongly
against tenorism' and continued 'to support Israel strongly'. Such moves
did nothing but encourage the West to press for a tightening of the sanctions
regime. In mid-August the US, Britain and France gave Libya a fresh
deadline of 1 October: the suspects would be handed over by that date or
Libya would face additional sanctions. Furthermore, Washington had
moved to overturn Gaddafi's control of the Arab Hellenic Bank (AHB). The
deal had been agreed but Washington moved in, days before legal com-
pletion, to muscle the Greek government into blocking the final stage of
the transaction.164
In further efforts to undermine support for sanctions, Gaddafi was now
taking various initiatives: offering to pay compensation to Libyan Jews
whose property had been confiscated; offering compensation to the Lockerbie
families (while still disclaiming any responsibility for the bombing); and
even hinting that he might surrender the two Libyans for trial in Scotland or
the United States if the West were prepared to offer diplomatic recognition
to Tripoli. None of these initiatives bore fruit: the West's deadline of
1 October remained in place, even though it had been proposed without any
reference to the Security Council. In late August there were hints that the
two suspects might be handed over for trial in Scotland: the Libyans were
now reportedly anxious to explore what form such a trial might take. At the
same time Washington intensified its efforts at the UN for a fresh sanctions
resolution to put flesh on the bones of the West's unilateral threats against
the Gaddafi regime. So far, it seemed, 'the Western powers' were doing no
more than 'talking loudly and carrying a pitifully small stick'.165
In early September 1993 an Edinburgh solicitor, Alastair Duff, con-
firmed that he had been hired to defend the two Libyans; again the prospect
of a Scottish trial loomed large. The Foreign Office had provided assur-
ances about how the two men would be treated in Barlinnie prison, Glas-
gow, while awaiting trial; and promises that the suspects would receive a
fair trial. A Libyan lawyer, Ibrahim Legwell, had travelled to Edinburgh to
discuss the procedures that might be adopted. However, these develop-
ments did nothing to discourage Washington from pressing for a further
sanctions resolution in the Security Council. On 13 September the draft of
a new resolution was leaked in New York: Libyan financial assets abroad
would be frozen, and the sale of some oil-related equipment would be
banned. Then Ibrahim Legwell proposed that a trial in Switzerland might be
a possibility, at the same time suggesting that detailed negotiations would
be necessary to explore the options. Washington was quick to denounce
such talk as procrastination and on 27 September President Clinton used
his maiden address to the UN General Assembly to promise tough new
sanctions on Libya if the two suspects were not handed over within the
next few days.
On 1 October the United States, Britain and France formally introduced
their new sanctions resolution to the Security Council. Now the Libyan
Foreign Minister, Omar al-Muntasser, was declaring that Libya was com-
mitted to the surrender of the two men: it was 'only a matter of time' but he
refused to set a date. There seemed little doubt that Libya was simply
playing for time. A diplomat close to the negotiations commented that UN
members would want to hear from the Secretary-General before reaching a
verdict on the new resolution; but by now few observers doubted that a new
tranche of sanctions would soon be in place. On 5 October Dr Legwell
announced that the suspects would 'decide whether they should stay in
Libya or travel overseas for a fair trial' after meeting their legal advisors (by
now including lawyers from Scotland, England, Libya, Germany, Switzer-
land, Malta and the United States). The men were 'under strong pressure' to
decide before new sanctions were imposed; but it seemed increasingly
unlikely that they would be willing to leave Libya.
The UN Secretary-General then reported (6 October) that no progress
had been made with Libya on setting a date for the surrender of the two
suspects. The US, Britain and France announced that they would press for
the new sanctions resolution, whereupon Colonel Gaddafi declared to his
people: 'Once again confrontation is on the horizon. They are beating the
drums of crusader war, but they will not terrorise us and, in return, we must
beat the drums of confrontation and terrorise them.' Now the lawyers
representing the two Libyans were commenting on what they perceived as
legal obstacles to a trial in Scotland or the United States; and a statement
confirming this judgement was made at the United Nations -just one hour
before the deadline for a Council vote on the new sanctions resolution.
There was now no impediment to the passing of the resolution. The Russian
government had complained that if Libya's financial assets overseas were
to be frozen Russia might not be able to recover the $4 billion it was owed
by Libya. So in early November, as part of an obvious joint campaign,
President Clinton, Prime Minister John Major and the French premier
Edouard Balladur all wrote separately to Boris Yeltsin, urging him not to
veto further sanctions on Libya. Clinton made it plain that 'further US aid
[to Russia] would be prejudiced should it [Russia] obstruct' the proposed
package of sanctions.166 The western powers had argued that it was not their
business to turn a UN sanctions decision into an aid package, but by
threatening Yeltsin with financial consequences if he refused to comply
they succeeded in bringing Russia on board. In the event a fresh package
of sanctions, as specified in Resolution 883 (Appendix 7), achieved an
adequate majority vote in the UN Security Council: eleven voted in favour
with none against (there were four abstentions: China, Djibouti, Morocco
and Pakistan). The new resolution, passed on 11 November 1993, repre-
sented a further blow against the Libyan economy.
Washington had not succeeded in blocking Libyan oil sales but the new
resolution was clearly intended to hit Libyan oil refining and exports.
Paragraph 5 of the resolution (see Appendix 7) prohibits the exporting to
Libya of a wide range of equipment (listed in the Annex to 883):
- Pumps of medium or large capacity (capacity equal to or larger than
350 cubic metres per hour);
- Gas turbines and electric motors (used with the pumps for transport-
ing crude oil and natural gas);
- Loading buoys, single point moorings, flexible hoses and anchor
chains (all used in crude oil export terminals);
- Large loading pumps, boosting pumps, pipe inspection tools, pipe
cleaning devices and large-capacity metering equipment (categories
of equipment 'not specifically designed for use on crude oil export
terminals but which . . . can be used for this purpose');
- Boilers, furnaces, fractionation columns, catalytic reactors and pre-
pared catalysts (all used for oil refining);
- Spare parts (for all the listed items).
This meant that Libya's revenue from oil sales would not be blocked but
Libya's capacity to produce and export oil products would be progressively
crippled. The United States preference was to stop Libya deriving revenue
from its most vital natural resource, to thereby cause the collapse of the
Libyan economy, and thus to achieve the overthrow of the Gaddafi regime.
But Washington's clear preference had been stymied by the unwillingness
of various European powers to agree an oil embargo that would seriously
affect their own energy-hungry economies. Washington was forced to settle
for measures that would only become effective, if at all, in the long term.
At the same time the Western media worked to disguise the far-reaching
potential of Resolution 883. President Clinton had welcomed the new
Security Council decision, with White House spokeswoman Dee Dee Myers
declaring in a written statement that the US government 'is determined to
see the mass murderers responsible brought to justice'; but the word was
spread that the new measures were not really striking at the heart of the
problem. Already the ground was being prepared for sterner measures yet
to come: the ultimate US goal of a block on all Libyan oil sales.
It is possible to speculate also on another aspect of the new tranche of
sanctions. Paragraph III of the appended Annex to Resolution 883 bans the
export to Libya of equipment not specifically designed for use in the oil
industry but which 'can be used for this purpose' (see fourth item in the
above list). This meant that a wide range of equipment that Libya might
wish to import for non-oil sectors of its economy would fall within the
scope of 883. Thus the West was now in a position to block the import of
much-needed equipment for Libya's agricultural, industrial and other
projects; in particular, for the development of the Great Man-made River
Project (p. 228), the heart of Gaddafi's plan for Libyan food self-
sufficiency.* This possibility was confirmed in a letter (18 January 1994)
from the British foreign minister Douglas Hogg to Labour MP Tam
Dalyell (following an enquiry of mine): 'It is likely that the very large
water pumps and other items conforming to the specifications in Section 3
[of the 883 Annex] would be prohibited from being exported to Libya
without a licence from the Department of Trade and Industry' (my italics).
Notwithstanding Hogg's assurance that applications for licences would be
considered 'on a case by case basis, if appropriate consulting the Libyan
Sanctions Committee', it now seemed clear that Washington had contrived
a means - through the mechanism of the far-reaching Resolution 883 - to
hit not only the Libyan oil industry but also its plans for large-scale agri-
cultural development. In one plausible long-term scenario, Libya would be
progressively less able to import food, because an oil industry starved of
vital new equipment would necessarily yield diminishing revenues; and
less able to achieve food self-sufficiency because of the unavailability of
equipment essential for large agricultural development projects (in particu-
lar, the Great Man-made River Project). The idea that Washington might
consider the use of starvation against the Libyan people (in violation of
Geneva Convention Protocol I, Article 54) will surprise no-one who has
considered the systematic US attempts to use starvation as a political
weapon against Cuba and Iraq.
Libya responded to the new Security Council resolution by closing its
borders with Egypt and Tunisia for three days in protest, and by denouncing
*In March 1994 the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) issued a report stating
that Libya was one of the few countries that had managed to achieve food self-sufficiency.
Later in the same year the JANA News Bulletin (15 September 1994) reported that sanctions
were adversely affecting agricultural production 'as it is now very difficult to get fertilisers,
pesticides and farm equipment'.
what it rightly perceived as hostile Western policies. The Libyan Foreign
Ministry expressed 'its displeasure and deep regret' at the new UN sanc-
tions and reaffirmed 'the serious and sincere will of Libya to reach a
solution to this artificial crisis as soon as possible'. While some Western
observers were playing down the weight of the new sanctions measures,
others were emphasising that there could well be more to come. Thus
Mehdi Varzi of Kleinwort Benson Securities commented: 'This won't hurt
their output today, but the US is sending a warning to the Libyans that if
these sanctions don't work, the next lot are really going to affect their oil
industry.'167
Throughout this period there were various signs that the Gaddafi regime
was facing problems. Reports of an uprising were denounced by Colonel
Gaddafi as 'blatant lies and a fabrication of British intelligence designed to
demoralise the Libyan people';168 but there appeared to be evidence of
unrest in Libya, a signal of 'widespread dissatisfaction . . . exacerbated by
the worsening economic climate caused in part by the UN sanctions .. .'.169
In any event the rebellion, whether or not its scale had been exaggerated
by the Western media, had been contained, though few observers doubted
that serious problems remained. In January 1994, according to a Reuter
report from Sirte in Libya, the government had cut its budget forecast for
1994 by several billions of dollars because of difficulties caused by UN
sanctions. The Libyan premier Abouzid Omar Dourdah, acknowledging the
scale of the budget reduction, provided implicit evidence that the sanctions
regime was biting.
In February it became clear that the families of the Lockerbie victims
had won their appeal against the bankrupt Pan Am airline, so opening the
way for up to $750 million in compensation to be paid out by the insurers.
The New York federal appeal court had ruled that Pan Am had been guilty
not only of negligence but also of wilful misconduct in failing to ensure
adequate security. Peter Watson, the secretary of the Lockerbie Air Disaster
Group, commented that now it would be possible to arrange damages cases.
Dr Jim Swire expressed relief that at last 'someone had been found guilty
of something'; for too long he had 'seen a succession of people walking
past like Pontius Pilate, washing their hands'. There now seemed a real
possibility that financial compensation would be offered, though to the
Lockerbie families this was a secondary consideration. When, in August
1994, President Gaddafi offered to pay $2 million to each of the American
Lockerbie families, the proposal was quickly denounced as 'blood money'.
Said Aphrodite Tsairis, chairwoman of the Victims of Pan Am Flight 103
group: 'He's hoping to buy off the families in exchange for dropping all
the charges, which is totally unacceptable. You can't buy justice.' And in
the same spirit Dr Jim Swire, noting that he had not received a similar offer,
said that no compensation would be accepted 'which interfered with the
process of bringing those responsible to justice'.170
Today (mid-1995), more than six years after the Lockerbie bombing
outrage, the vital question of justice remains unresolved. The US-contrived
sanctions against Libya remain in place, with growing evidence of their
impact (not least some thousands of needless fatalities caused by the
Security Council decision to prohibit the use of Libyan air ambulances). By
now the case against Libya - accused of being the sole perpetrator of the
bombing - had collapsed in shambles. From the beginning it had been
obvious that Washington, with pliant British and French support, was
pursuing a political rather than a legal agenda. Relevant international law
(Montreal Convention, extradition law, etc.) had been ignored. There had
been frequent hints at the possible use of force (in violation of Article 2, (3)
and (4) of the UN Charter) against Libya, already granted (by UN General
Assembly resolution 41/38) the right to compensation for the 1986 bombing
of Tripoli and Benghazi. In this context it is important to note how succes-
sive revelations and exposes have combined to undermine the Western case
against Libya.
THE COLLAPSED CASE
The case that Libya was solely responsible for the Lockerbie bombing was
never strong, and it became progressively weaker over time. It was now
widely perceived that the US bombing raids on Tripoli and Benghazi in
April 1986 - an obvious attempt to assassinate President Gaddafi - were
based on cynical political calculations: the pretext, the alleged Libyan
complicity in the Berlin bar bombing (see pages 341-3), was empty. In the
same way, in dismissing evidence of Syrian and Iranian complicity in the
Lockerbie outrage (Bush: 'The Syrians took a bum rap on this'), Libya was
again targeted in the absence of compelling evidence. Few independent
commentators were prepared to suggest sole Libyan culpability. Thus A. M.
Rosenthal, writing in the New York Times, said: 'Among those I have talked
to over the past years, I have found none who believed that Libya alone paid
for, planned and carried out the crime - exactly none.' Similarly, Pierre
Salinger of ABC News, after his visit to Tripoli in December 1991, seemed
equally unconvinced that the outrage was Libya's sole responsibility. In
early 1992 Donald Trelford, then editor of The Observer in London, inter-
viewed Gaddafi and then challenged Britain and the United States to
produce evidence against the Libyans: 'The truth is, they don't have it.'
This was a view that became increasingly widespread over the months and
years that followed. Thus, writing in late 1993, the journalist Marie Colvin,
commented that no serious attempt was being made to catch the real
criminals: 'Few who have investigated the case think these men,
Abdelbaset al-Megrahi and Al Amin Khalifa Fhimah, initiated or planned
the operation'; and she quoted Susan Cohen, whose daughter was killed at
Lockerbie: 'It's like trying the hit man and ignoring the person who paid
him to pull the trigger. Nobody thinks that these two guys sat in a cafe and
decided to bomb an aeroplane.'171
In November 1993 it was reported that Tiny Rowland, via the Metropole
Hotels group (two-thirds owned by Lonrho, one-third by the Libyan
Finance Company), was funding a documentary film expected to claim
that Libya was not responsible for the Lockerbie bombing. Now the evid-
ence was clearly suggesting that the Western case against Libya was
fabricated. Even the flimsy threads of evidence allegedly linking the two
Libyans to the bombing were beginning to evaporate. Thus Edwin Bollier,
managing director of a small electronics firm in Zurich, having testified that
he supplied electronic timers (of the type used to trigger the Lockerbie
bomb) to Libya, later changed his story: after re-examining his records, he
discovered that some of his Zero series timers had been supplied to the East
German defence department in Berlin, where the Stasi secret police was
known to have extensive contacts with the Jibril tenorist group in Frankfurt
(shortly after the Lockerbie bombing Ahmed Jibril was heard to boast in
Damascus: 'The Americans will never know how I did it').172 In these
shifting circumstances Dr Jim Swire commented: 'The whole Lockerbie
scenario is a hypocrisy created for international convenience. It's a deliber-
ate way of preventing the relatives getting to the truth.' In the same vein,
Lester Coleman, a CIA agent for eight years (and on whose revelations
much of Donald Goddard's The Trail of the Octopus113 was based), has
claimed that the US government itself is implicated in the Lockerbie bomb-
ing: 'No one knows what is really going on. If they ever did, it would make
Watergate look like Alice In Wonderland.'174
In a BBC televised interview (21 December 1993), Vincent Cannistraro,
formerly running CIA disinformation campaigns against Gaddafi and then
put in charge of the Lockerbie investigation, suggested that in fact Libya did
not order the bombing. Now even he, abundantly equipped with anti-Libya
credentials, was prepared to argue that Iran had ordered the attack after the
USS Vincennes shot down the Iranian Airbus in July 1988 (see pp. 7-8).
Iranian officials, declared Cannistraro, had commissioned Ahmed Jibril's
Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine - General Command (PFLP-
GC) to build the bomb. By now other facts, some long known, were
beginning to receive wide publicity. Warnings had been received that
Pan Am flights were to be targeted by terrorists, even to the point that
Flight 103 itself seemed to be in danger: particular individuals, not least
South Africa's Foreign Minister Pik Botha and some colleagues, withdrew
their reservations for 103 at the last minute; and either cancelled their trips
or took other flights. Perhaps, suggested one correspondent, South Africa
was implicated: Bernt Carlsson, UN Commissioner for Namibia, was on the
flight to New York to attend the signing ceremony for Namibia's Independ-
ence Agreement. If Pik Botha et al., on the inside intelligence track, had
known of the threat to Flight 103, why was Carlsson not warned? The plot
had thickened by the month. If Libya were a player in the perpetration of
the Lockerbie outrage, it was not the only one. Why were the British and
US governments so reluctant to present their evidence of Libyan culpability
(as they were obliged to do under the terms of the Montreal Convention),
and so bitterly opposed to a full public inquiry? Pamela Dix, secretary of
the British Families Flight 103, commented (of the British government):
'We know they have lied to us about Iraq and about Northern Ireland . . .
What is to stop them lying to us about Lockerbie?'
On 4 January 1994 Edwin Bollier claimed that the recovered timer*
should be examined by an independent authority: having scrutinised the
photographic evidence, Bollier declared himself '70 per cent certain' that
his product had not been used to trigger the Lockerbie explosion. Various
observers have remarked that the electronic item itself seems to have been
remarkably elusive: Bollier himself was not allowed to see the product
fragment, asked instead to make an identification from a colour photograph.
Now he was suggesting that the picture cast doubts on claims that the item
was part of the 'improvised explosive device' planted on board the Pan Am
aircraft. At the same time Sir Teddy Taylor, a British Tory Member of
Parliament, while acknowledging that the British government 'does not
want a row with Syria or Iran', claimed to have discovered 'new and
disturbing information' that suggested the involvement of Syrian terrorists
in the Lockerbie outrage.
The relatives of the Lockerbie victims continued to criticise the attitude
of the British government to constructive Libyan proposals. The Libyan
*Even the finding of the microchip timer fragment raised many questions. The searchers had
allegedly discovered a tiny electronic item in hundreds of acres of rough terrain, much of it
forested. When Bollier and others asked to see the item they were refused permission. Where
was it? Who was responsible for holding it in safe keeping? Did it even exist? If so, was it
indisputably part of a timer mechanism?
authorities had repeatedly offered to release the suspects for trial outside
Britain or the United States - which they were not obligated to do under
international law - and Britain and the US had rejected all such proposals.
In January Robert Black, an Edinburgh University law professor, proposed
a plan that had Libyan approval: a Scottish prosecutor would present the
case against the two men before a panel of judges in the International Court
of Justice in The Hague. The proposal was practical. Said Rob Siekmann,
for the Asser Institute of International Law: 'If states and international
organisations agree, they can do anything. If the countries involved re-
quested the UN Secretary-General to create an ad hoc tribunal for the trial,
he could ask the Security Council to do so but it would have to be something
new - like the Yugoslav war crimes tribunal.' When the British government
predictably rejected the new proposal, Dr Jim Swire commented:
Britain, as a member of the United Nations Security Council, voted to set

up the Yugoslav war crimes tribunal. Five years after the biggest mass
murder in British criminal history, they will not agree to similar plans to
try the accused . . . If there was an ounce of political will, the new
proposals would have been implemented. The Government has aban-
doned the victims and their relatives.175
Professor Robert Black remarked that the Government's rejection was

disappointing: 'It is the British government which is blocking progress.
They do not appear to want a trial.'176
Now there was mounting alarm in some circles that the Rowland-
sponsored documentary, in part funded from Libyan sources, would further
undermine the contrived Western case against Libya. In April, with the
film almost completed, a spokesman for the British Channel 4 network for
which it was being produced, commented that the controversy would be
considered very closely; a week later, Channel 4 announced that it would
not be screening the film. Allan Francovitch, the film's producer, related
that he had been told that five CIA agents (two in London, the others in
Cyprus and elsewhere) had been sent to discredit the production. He alleged
also that telephones in his London offices had been tapped and that staff
cars had been sabotaged. A researcher working in Europe was said to
have narrowly escaped an attempt to force his vehicle into the path of an
oncoming truck.177 A Channel 4 spokesman was not prepared to say why
the film had been rejected without first being seen.
In June 1994 another event undermined yet further the tottering Western
case against Libya. Yussef Shaaban, a Palestinian follower of the Abu Nidal
tenorist group, declared in a Beirut court that he had been involved in the
Lockerbie bombing: 'I personally blew up the Lockerbie plane. I've told
the investigating magistrate about it before, but my confession wasn't
documented. I say it again now.'178 Shaaban, with two others, was being
tried for the assassination of Naeb Imran, a Jordanian diplomat. London
peremptorily rejected the confession, if such it was, commenting that 'there
is a case to be answered in a court in Scotland or the US involving two
Libyans'. Similarly, President Clinton, who had resolved to stop at nothing
to bring the Lockerbie 'mass murderers' to justice, showed no interest in the
Beirut proceedings. The Western agenda had long been plain enough: to
point the finger of accusation at Libya, and Libya alone, whatever unhelpful
testimonies and facts might emerge. This was never more clearly shown
than in the official response to the Francovitch film, now titled The Maltese
Double Cross. Having been banned from Channel 4 screens, the film was
scheduled for showing at the London Film Festival - but then withdrawn
after (according to The Independent) a CIA agent had made threats to the
Festival's organisers. Francovitch commented that this was one of many
attempts to block the showing of the film.
On 16 November, following the efforts of British MP Tam Dalyell, the
film was shown in the House of Commons to more than 100 Members of
Parliament, journalists and relatives of the victims. Before the screening,
Dr Jim Swire charged that the intelligence organisations of Germany,
Britain and the United States were accomplices before the fact to the murder
of the Lockerbie victims, and that thereafter they conjointly and severally
conspired to pervert the course of justice. A report in The Guardian
(16 November) confirmed that the Lockerbie families had welcomed the
screening of the film. Said the Reverend John Mosey, from one of the
Lockerbie families: 'Francovitch did what the government should have
done, and that is initiate a proper enquiry.'
The film itself, a most thorough piece of work, pulls together many of
the details and questions already publicised in a more fragmented fashion
elsewhere. It is difficult to see how any honest and sane person could
continue, after seeing this impressive documentary, to maintain the charge
of sole Libyan culpability. Early in the film Martin Cadman, father of
Lockerbie victim William Cadman, relates his meeting at the US Embassy
in London with the presidential Commission on Aviation Security and
Terrorism. One Commission member said to Cadman:
Your government and ours know exactly what happened, but they're
never going to tell.
The damning Francovitch indictment highlights most of the issues that

need to be addressed in any attempt to understand the Lockerbie disaster:
the prior warnings of likely attacks on Pan Am Flight 103, the speedy
arrival of droves of Americans in Lockerbie acting independently of the
official police investigation, the tampering with the bodies of the victims,
the unreliable identification of one of the Libyan suspects in Malta,
evidence implicating Syria and Iran, the likelihood that the bomb was
planted at Frankfurt (not Malta), PFLP-GC links to Lockerbie-type
bombs, the hidden US agenda requiring Syrian and Iranian support in the
release of hostages and support for the Gulf war coalition, efforts to plant
evidence, the involvement of self-acknowledged anti-Libya 'dirty tricks'
specialists, the seeming unavailability of the alleged timer fragment,
evidence of a CIA/DEA drug run through Frankfurt, the involvement
of Colonel Oliver North in a 'dirty tricks' initiative, and so on and so
forth . . .
It was now clear, to anyone who bothered to notice, that the case against
Libya had collapsed - yet the US-dominated Security Council remained
obdurate in its support for continued punitive sanctions against the Gaddafi
regime. Already many legal experts had been prepared to question the US
violation of the Montreal Convention and the doubtful status of UN sanc-
tions imposed in this context. Now the calls were mounting for an end to
such attempts to undermine the Libyan economy. Thus in November 1994
a committee of experts in international law* re-affirmed the need to lift
the sanctions imposed on Libya, emphasising that the dispute should be
regarded as a legal issue and not a political matter, and urging the need
for a response to the Libyan proposals supported by the Arab League, the
Non-Aligned Movement, the Islamic Conference Organisation and the
Organisation of African Unity. On 17 December 1993, in the same spirit,
the American lawyers Franc Robeno and John May had filed an affidavit
in the Columbian district court demanding the dropping of charges against
the two Libyan nationals. The lawyers had emphasised that the American
Justice Department had refused to supply Libya with the records of their
investigations (as they were legally obligated to do), had violated the
Montreal Convention, and was motivated by political rather than legal
considerations.
•Committee members included: Dr Hans Kocheler, a Professor of International Law and the
President of the International Progress Organisation; Mohammed Arif, a Professor at Kingston
University; Dr Torkai Atof, Professor of International Relations at Ankara University;
Dr Court Abert from Austria; and Dr Francis Boya, Professor of International Law at the
University of Alunion.
Now there was a widespread suspicion (assumption perhaps) that the US

and British governments were involved in a cover-up, bitterly opposed to a
full enquiry that might reveal a disreputable conspiracy of lies, intelligence
subterfuge and political manoeuvres. Said one observer, 'a giant step would
be taken if the British and American authorities came clean . . .\ 179 More-
over, what at one stage had seemed 'to be an open and shut case is
becoming anything but'.180 Now it was also being reported that Michael
Mansfield, a leading British civil rights lawyer, was planning legal moves
to force public scrutiny of the British and American involvement in the
Lockerbie bombing. Mansfield, it was noted, believed that the British and
US governments were involved in a cover-up.181 On 18 January 1995 a
message supported by some thousands of Venezuelan professors and stu-
dents was sent to the UN Secretary-General to denounce the sanctions
imposed on Libya. It was noted that the sanctions, by resulting in a shortage
of vaccines and other medical supplies, were endangering the lives of the
most vulnerable: children, the sick and the elderly. The message made
reference to how the Security Council had been manipulated for political
purposes, and urged the Secretary-General to find a peaceful and just
solution to the problem.182
On 23 January yet another revelation contributed to the collapse of the
Western case against Libya. A declassified report from the US National
Security Agency (NSA) declared that Ali Akbar Mohtashemi, a former
Iranian interior minister, had paid $10 million 'to bomb Pan Am Flight 103
. . . in retaliation for the US shoot-down [by the Vincennes] of the Iranian
airbus'. Now we had gone full circle. Immediately after the Lockerbie
bombing, the British press were proclaiming that the outrage had been
carried out by a Palestinian gang, based in Syria and funded by the Iranians.
Then the demands of realpolitik required the fingering of Libya - but the
accusation, in violation of international law, had never been made to stick.
Now the newly-released NSA document was again suggesting what many
observers had suspected all along: that Iran was a principal culprit. In
response to this fresh revelation Tam Dalyell declared: 7 cannot believe
that the highest echelons of the British government did not know of the
existence of these documents. How can they continue sanctions against
Libya in the light of this information?'
In yet another expose, the BBC radio File on Four documentary
(24 January 1995), it was revealed that crucial eye-witness evidence was
weak and confused. Thus when interviewed by British detectives, Tony
Gauci, the Maltese shop-owner who had allegedly sold clothes to the
Libyan suspect Abdelbaset Ali Al-Megrahi, repeatedly described the pur-
chaser as around 6ft tall and about 50 years of age, whereas Megrahi is
5ft 8in tall and was 36 in 1988. Gauci also testified that it was raining on the
day that the clothes were bought, but meteorological records showed that it
had not rained on the day in question. It was clear that the testimony on
identification and date would collapse under court interrogation. Yet again
it seemed clear that the case against the two Libyans was fatally flawed.
After the File on Four broadcast and the other revelations, the consensus
was undeniable - excluding those with a covert political agenda - that the
indictments against the two Libyans 'contain a significant error', and that
'leaked documents seriously weakened' the Western case against Libya.183
Now even newspapers and journals that might once have preferred a
different emphasis were being forced to admit the flaws in the anti-Libya
charges. Thus The Independent in London felt obliged to concede in
editorial comment: 'For the first time, hard evidence has begun to emerge
that the case against the two Libyans is not as strong as investigators have
claimed . . . leaked documents from Washington have blamed Iran,
not Libya, for the terrorist attack . . . ministers owe it to the memory of the
270 innocent people who died in the bombing to find a way through the
current impasse.'184 On the same day the indefatigable Tam Dalyell, having
given the Foreign Office 26 hours' notice, raised a host of questions in a
further Adjournment debate in the House of Commons. The details cannot
be explored here but it is worth quoting from Dalyell and Foreign Secretary
Douglas Hurd's response to indicate on the one hand the serious disquiet
felt by a leading activist in the case and on the other the banal performance
of the British minister most responsible for bringing the Lockerbie issue
to a just conclusion:
Dalyell: . . . Considering two Libyans have been indicted on the basis

of circumstantial evidence, would the Foreign Secretary acknowledge
contrary circumstantial evidence set out in recent days by Allan
Francovitch, Con Coughlin and John Arlidge, and in their seminal, if
derided book, Trail of the Octopus by Don Goddard and Lester Coleman?
. . . is the Foreign Secretary at ease, in the light of the 'File on Four'
programme, in respect of the pivotal witness, Toni Gauci, clothing
shopkeeper from Malta?
If the Foreign Secretary is so sure about the Malta connection, how does
he explain that Air Malta won an out-of-court settlement against
Granada and The Independent, neither of which could substantiate its
story of Maltese involvement?
Is the Foreign Secretary any more at ease in respect of another crucial
witness, Edwin Bollier? Did he not sign a statement to the effect that his
timing device had been sold only to the Libyans? But does not interro-
gation of Bollier's control reveal that that was a lie, as he had sold the
same device to the Stasi? . . .
And what, asked Dalyell, of US intelligence claims that Mohtashemi had

paid the Al Abas and Abu Nidal terrorist groups $10 million 'in cash and
gold to bomb Pan Am Flight 103 ...'? Was Cannistraro, who had admitted
running campaigns to topple the Gaddafi regime, to be trusted when he
supplied anti-Libya information? How reliable was the witness Abdu Maged
Jiacha, who had been placed in the US federal witness protection pro-
gramme and also given a reward of $4 million? Were drugs [signalling a
DEA drug run] found in the debris at Lockerbie? Why had so many
Americans been seen 'messing around' with the evidence? Was it not the
case that the German authorities had refused to join the US and UK indict-
ment because of 'lack of evidence'? Had there been instructions for the
allegations of Syrian and Iranian involvement to be investigated? If not,
why not? Were investigations now continuing in the light of 'new leads'
and 'potential evidence which go counter to the allegations narrated in the
petition or which appear to cast doubt thereon?'. The Lockerbie relatives,
concluded Dalyell, 'want to know exactly why US personnel were with-
drawn from Flight 103, and exactly what US Government officials knew
which was not made available to the youngsters going to their death'.
In response to this most detailed and important contribution, Foreign
Secretary Douglas Hurd offered nothing but banal self-justification. He
acknowledged that Dalyell had given him plenty of time, 'but he has asked
many detailed questions' (none of which should have surprised Hurd in the
light of recent publicity). It was important 'to deal plainly and to lay to rest
certain suspicions and accusations which have arisen
Hurd: . . . The Lockerbie investigation has been the most extensive ever
carried out into one crime in Britain. On the basis of that criminal
investigation and the vast amount of evidence uncovered, my noble and
learned Friend the then Lord Advocate sought and was granted warrants
for the anest of two Libyan nationals . . . I must stress the total independ-
ence from Government of the investigation of the Lord Advocate in his
responsibility for criminal prosecutions . . . There is no place in the
matter for diplomatic or political considerations . . . Neither the Foreign
Office nor any agency for which I am responsible has attempted to steer
the Lockerbie investigation or to shield any individual or state who may
have been responsible . . . It is for the prosecuting authorities and,
ultimately, we hope, for the courts, not the Government, to weigh the
evidence . . . It is not for me to weigh or ponder the evidence . . . The

investigation remains open. If anyone has any new information . . . he
or she should give it to the police without delay . . ,185
That was that. None of Dalyell's specific questions had been addressed. The
British government, like its US counterpart, had made no effort to adjust
to the many revelations and exposes of recent months. Hurd said nothing
that he could not just as easily have said four or five years before.
The Adjournment debate continued with various Members of Parliament
(notably Sir Teddy Taylor, Alex Salmond and Sir David Steel) trying to
press Douglas Hurd for further comment. Hurd could not say why Bollier
had been denied permission to see the timing device that he was alleged to
have manufactured (Hurd said he would 'inquire into that aspect of the
case'). Moreover, consideration of particular theories, the testimony of
Edwin Bollier and other matters would have to await a trial (Hurd: 'Those
are matters which . . . we hope, a jury will consider'). The released NSA
document was, Hurd declared, a 'dud'; and he was 'assured that no DEA
chiefs in Europe were recalled to Washington in the wake of the Lockerbie
disaster'. And no drugs, only 'a small quantity of cannabis', had been
found at the Lockerbie site. The two Libyans had been indicted, and 'the
case stands'. A trial would not be possible at The Hague, as the Libyan
authorities had suggested, because, commented Hurd, legislation in Britain
would be required and in any case he saw no grounds for saying that the
'instruments of justice in Scotland' would be inadequate for the purpose.*
The many important questions had not been answered; or even, in most
cases, properly addressed. Moreover, the Adjournment debate had exposed
what was at best a serious failure of communication between the Scottish
police and the British government or at worst an element of black propa-
ganda designed to disseminate falsehoods. Thus it is important to record the
case of David Fieldhouse, the police surgeon with 19 years' experience
dealing with 20,000 victims of accidents or disasters. At Lockerbie he had
been responsible for issuing 59 death certificates, with the location of each
body marked on a map. He was later astonished to learn that the Scottish
*This is of course an absurd observation. The US and UK governments were and remain
keen to disparage Libyan courts as unlikely to provide a fair trial, despite the relevant
protective clauses in the Montreal Convention; though seemingly oblivious to the doubts that
many observers have that the accused Libyans would be able to receive fair trials in accusing
states that had already frequently proclaimed their guilt as 'mass murderers' (on 1 January
1992 Douglas Hurd himself had declared that 'we consider it entirely reasonable to insist on
our demands that Libya should . . . accept responsibility for the attacks on the Pan Am flight
and a French airliner . . .').
police had details on only 58 of these bodies. In his speech to open the
Adjournment debate Tam Dalyell included the question:
Why has the Crown Office not talked properly to Dr David Fieldhouse,
the distinguished Bradford police surgeon, especially to correlate his
body count with its count?
In reply, Douglas Hurd declared:
The hon. Gentleman asked about Mr David Fieldhouse. My understand-

ing is that he has been interviewed several times by the Scottish
police . . .
Witnessing this reply from the Commons public gallery, David Fieldhouse
'could not believe his ears'.186 He continues to insist that he has never been
interviewed by police about the body he labelled 'DCF 12', about which the
police claim to have no knowledge. Fieldhouse commented in a written
report submitted to the Dumfries and Galloway police in April 1989: 'I am
absolutely certain that the body coded DCF 12 was in the field, east of
Shawhill Farm.' Either, in his view, there had been an inexplicable lapse
in record-keeping or attempts had been made to conceal the body of
someone who should not have been travelling on Pan Am 103.187 This
remains, to Fieldhouse and other observers, 'an unresolved issue'. It is,
of course, one of many.
The inconsistencies, the lies, the new revelations, the fresh exposes - all
had combined to shatter the Western case against Libya. Now there were
mounting calls for a lifting of sanctions. How could it be justified to
continue punishing a country for what had been exposed as transparently
political reasons? The bulk of the Arab world, the Organisation of African
Unity, and many voices in the West were now urging the Security Council
to revise its policy on UN sanctions. Thus Dr Esmat Abdel Maguid, the
Secretary-General of the Arab League, declared the need for the Council
to re-examine its posture on sanctions; the Russian newspaper Pravda
(8 February 1995) urged the lifting of the unfair sanctions on Libya; and
in Britain even a former member of the government, the former Scottish
Office minister Allan Stewart, was urging the British government to review
the evidence relating to the Lockerbie issue.188 Now there was mounting
concern 'in the Scottish legal profession, reaching into the Crown Office
. . . that the destruction of Pan Am Flight 103 . . . may not have been the
work of Libya, but of Syrians or Palestinians, operating at the behest of
Iranians in revenge for the Gulf Airbus attack'.189 Said Stewart: There has
been an accepted view. There is new evidence that this view may not be
correct. There is a clear need to look at the current impasse in the light of
all the evidence.M90
By mid-1995 there had been no substantial change in the attitude of the
US and British governments to the Lockerbie question. It seemed clear that
they would continue to lie and to defy international law - in the face of
mounting opposition around the world - in their efforts to justify the on-
going punitive sanctions against the Libyan people.
Part II
The History of Libya

2 The Libyan Past
PREHISTORY
A vague area known as Libya existed long before the Arab incursions and
long before the birth of Islam: the Arabs, only one of many invading groups,
were to bring the word of the Prophet to an ancient and recalcitrant people.
The term 'Libya', of Egyptian origin and derived from the Berber tribes
known as the Lebu, was used in antiquity to denote all of North Africa west
of Egypt. The ancient Greeks referced to Libye, and in AD 300 the Roman
emperor Diocletian created the provinces of Libya Superior and Libya
Inferior in northern Cyrenaica. The earliest signs of human life on the
Libyan coastal plain, and in the Saharan wastes to the south, are dated to
around 8000 BC. In some areas of Fezzan - with Tripolitania and Cyrenaica,
one of the three great regions of historical (and modern) Libya - there is a
profusion of prehistoric rock art, with paintings and carvings of animals
today only found in tropical Africa but once sought by Libyan hunters.
Thousands of primitive pictures can today still be seen at around two
dozen sites: most in Fezzan, to the north in Brak, in the Brak/Murzuk/Sebha
triangle, and in the Acacus and Tibesi mountains. There is one rock-art
site in Cyrenaica, near to the borders of Egypt and Sudan, and at least four
in the Gebel of Tripolitania. In 1850 the German explorer Heinrich Barth
first drew attention to the significance of the ancient rock art, though it
was not extensively studied until the twentieth century: Professor Fabrizio
Mori, for instance, spent more than ten years (1950s/1960s) studying the
paintings and carvings in the Acacus. The ancient artists used sharpened
flints to work on smooth rock surfaces: in what was to become the largest
desert in the world they drew clear pictures of elephants, giraffes, croco-
diles, rhinoceroses and many other creatures. There was water in abundance
for the hippopotami and for the trees whose fossils have been found in
parts of the desert where trees no longer grow. The findings suggest that by
the end of the Old Stone Age, about 10,000 years ago, the Libyans were a
brown-skinned, black-haired race, one group among many ancestors of
the modern inhabitants of North Africa. One anthropological authority,
Gustave Glotz, writing early in the twentieth century, comments that in
prehistoric times there was 'a Mediterranean race, with a long head, an oval
face, short stature, dark skin, and wavy black hair. In Europe the Iberians
and the Ligurians belonged to this type, and in Africa the Libyans and the
Egyptians.'1
91
The region became increasingly dry and barren as a result of climatic
changes at the end of the last Ice Age. Many of the animals retreated to the
south, or were marooned in the shrinking islands of vegetation in the desert.
A few species today cluster around the oases but these too face extinction.
The ostrich survived for many centuries after other species had disappeared:
it flourished as late as Roman times but it is not since 1914 that the last wild
ostrich was seen in Libya. And it was inevitable that the shifting climatic
changes would also affect human populations. The artists no longer drew
pictures of cattle as the herds disappeared, as the hardier goat and camel
eventually replaced the cow. And there were also frequent human incur-
sions that disrupted established patterns and added to the gene pool.
The region of Libya served in antiquity as a convenient crossroads
between Europe, Africa and the Middle East. Before the twelfth century
BC the wide-ranging Phoenicians had established links with many of the
coastal towns of North Africa, including the settlements that were to be-
come Tripoli: for many centuries slaves and other forms of merchandise
were fed from Central Africa through Libya to the sea. The Berbers, often
seen as the original Libyans, probably came from Southwest Asia around
3000 BC and were in their turn pushed back by the Phoenicians who
increasingly dominated coastal trade and sought to establish colonies of
their own. One invasion included fair-haired, blue-eyed people and it has
been suggested that these 'white Caucasians', living in North Africa, were
the race that the Greeks called 'Libyans'.2 Early documentation of Libyan
history can be dated to the time of the Egyptian Old Kingdom (2700-2200
BC) when Berber tribes (the 'Lebu' or 'Rebu' in Egyptian inscriptions)
raided east of the Nile Valley. The repeated skirmishes eventually led to the
subjugation of the Lebu by the Egyptians during the time of the Middle
Kingdom (2200-1700 BC) but in 950 BC a Berber officer in the Egyp-
tian forces seized power in a palace coup and thereafter ruled Egypt as
Pharoah Shishonk I. It is likely that Libyan Berbers served as his succes-
sors during the twenty-second and twenty-third dynasties of Egypt (950-
720 BC).
THE PHOENICIANS
The Phoenicians, great merchants and sailors, cautiously journeyed across

the Mediterranean, never willingly losing sight of land. Reluctant to travel
at night, they often beached their craft at convenient points on the North
African coast, and so became one of the first peoples to establish settle-
The Libyan Past 93
ments in Libya. They originally came from the region of what is today the
Lebanon: by 1000 BC they had established extensive trading networks
throughout the eastern Mediterranean. In due course they sailed westwards
to the Balearics and Spain, keen to trade in ores, spices and other produce.
The early North African settlements, like the many Phoenician outposts
elsewhere, were often little more than useful provisioning stations, strong
bases overlooking a safe anchorage.
Carthage, which was to become the centre of a line of Phoenician trading
posts and colonies that spread across North Africa, was originally estab-
lished as an ancient city-state in 814 BC by emigrants from Tyre. It rose
to prominence in the sixth century BC and established an effective hege-
mony over Sardinia, Malta, the Balearic Islands and much of North Africa.
Trading posts were built at the Phoenician Ui'at (later Tripoli) and at the
Phoenician Lpqy (later Leptis Magna), and it is suggested that the town
of Sirte, about two hundred miles to the east, may have been established by
the Phoenicians.3 The Tripolitanian town of Sabratha was originally a
Phoenician trading post and here as elsewhere the primitive Berber tribes-
men were significantly influenced by the incursions of a more sophisticated
culture. The Phoenicians had developed an intensive agriculture on the
terraced hills of the Lebanon, and their knowledge had impressive applica-
tion on the broad coastal plains of North Africa: they are said to have
introduced the olive, the vine, the peach and the fig to the region.
The city of Tyre, whose people had helped to found Carthage, was
sacked by Alexander the Great in 332 BC Carthage, which by then had
developed a vast Phoenician hinterland, continued the traditions of the
original Phoenicia for a further two centuries, until in due course it was
sacked by the Romans. When Carthage collapsed in 146 BC, Tripoli (from
the Greek tripolis, meaning the three ancient cities of Sabratha, Oea and
Leptis Magna) became a Roman colony.
THE GREEKS
Cyrenaica had been colonised by the Greek states from the time of the
seventh century BC: over a period of two centuries Cyrene and four other
cities (the Pentopolis) had been established. One of these, Berenice, later
became known as Benghazi. But like many invaders the Greeks never
managed to establish total control over the broad area today known as
Libya. For example, the region of Fezzan, away from the coastal towns, was
loosely controlled by the Garamantes tribe from about 1000 BC. The early
Greeks were enthusiastic travellers, and Cyrenaica was a convenient option
for settlement and colonisation. It was only 250 miles from the Peloponnese
and 200 miles from Crete, and its fertile highlands rose in tiers from the
coast, beckoning the traveller in search of a pleasant land. By the end of the
sixth century the cities of Cyrenaica had developed into important trading
centres, linked to other Greek cities on the Meditenanean. The trade routes
ran southwest to Murzuk and southeast to the Siwa Oasis, with the bulk of
Cyrene's wealth coming from the fertile highlands of northern Cyrenaica:
within a century the Greeks had made the region famous for its agricultural
produce, having introduced new crops and developed a thriving trade in
barley, corn, olive oil, apples, saffron and essence of roses. Great herds of
sheep and cattle were supported and Cyrenaica was said by the ancients to
be 'abounding in fleeces' and 'a breeder of flocks'. One product, the
Silphion plant, was of particular value: it served as an excellent cattle
fodder and also as a medicine, used to treat the ailments of people, animals
and trees. This mysterious plant is now extinct.
Eight Greek kings ruled the province around Cyrene until it became a
republic in 400 BC, but there were frequent incursions by other military
powers. The whole of Cyrenaica had been subjugated by the Persian
Cambyses in 525 BC after he had conquered the Greeks in Egypt. Alexan-
der the Great reached Cyrene in 331 BC and the Greek population of the
city was said to have cheered and presented him with war-horses. When
Alexander died in Babylon in 323 BC his vast empire was divided between
his Macedonian generals. Ptolemy was given Egypt and Cyrenaica. The
whole area had seen, and continued to witness, a procession of conquerors,
infusing many disparate cultural elements and rendering Cyrene a supreme
artistic and intellectual focus of the ancient world.
The Greek historian Herodotus, born around 480 BC at Halicarnassus
on the south-west coast of Asia Minor, visited Egypt, Mesopotamia, Pales-
tine, Russia and North Africa. In The Histories he describes how the
Carthaginians, on their account, traded with a race of men 'who live in a
part of Libya beyond the Pillars of Heracles'.4 They arrange their goods
along the beach and raise a smoke, whereupon the Libyans come down to
the beach, place gold on the ground, and then move off to a distance. The
Carthaginians inspect the gold and, if satisfied, collect it and go away; but
if they think the offering to be inadequate they go back aboard their ships
and wait. The Libyans are then expected to offer more until there is agree-
ment ('There is perfect honesty on both sides; the Carthaginians never
touch the gold until it equals in value what they have offered for sale, and
the natives never touch the goods until the gold has been taken away').
The Libyan Past 95
Herodotus describes the geography of the area ('On the Libyan side of
Egypt there is another range of hills where the pyramids stand'), noting how
the soil of Libya is reddish and sandy, 'while in Arabia and Syria it has a
larger proportion of stone and clay'. He remarks on how the frontiers of
Egypt form the 'true boundary' between Asia and Libya, and describes the
attitudes and behaviour of the people. We learn that the inhabitants of
Marea and Apis, on the Libyan frontier, objected to certain religious ob-
servances, especially the prohibition against eating the flesh of cows. They
presented their case at the shrine of Ammon, saying that they were in no
way bound by Egyptian custom as they were not Egyptians at all, but
Libyans; but the oracle ruled against their plea. And Herodotus also ob-
serves that there are not many wild animals in Egypt, 'in spite of the fact
that it borders on Libya' - so supporting what the ancient rock art has
already told us, that there was once a prolific Libyan fauna. Such animals
as do exist in Egypt - whether they are wild or tame - are held to be sacred.
We also learn that the Egyptians, for health's sake, purged themselves on
a regular basis - every month for three successive days - with emetics and
clysters, in the belief that all diseases come from the food we eat. The
policy, it seems, was sound: 'next to the Libyans they are the healthiest
people in the world'. Herodotus also records the tribute paid during the
Persian occupation: Egypt, together with the Libyans on the border and the
towns of Cyrene and Barca, were required to pay 700 talents, in addition to
the revenue from the fish in Lake Moeris and 120,000 bushels of corn for
the Persian troops and their auxiliaries stationed at Memphis. And it is
suggested that the hot climate of Libya is liable to affect the growth of
cattle. Thus a line in Homer's Odyssey - Libya, where horns grow quickly
on the foreheads of lambs - is deemed 'a sensible remark, indicating that a
hot climate favours the rapid growth of horns; whereas in severe cold cattle
do not grow them at all, or hardly at all'.
The Phoenicians, Herodotus observes (Book Four of The Histories),
sailing from the Arabian gulf, are apt to put in at some convenient place on
the Libyan coast, to sow a patch of ground, and to wait for next year's
harvest. Then they put to sea again and after various travels arrive at Egypt.
We are surprised to find that such travels provided evidence that Libya 'is
washed on all sides by the sea except where it joins Asia', a circumstance
first suggested by the Phoenician sailors and later by the Carthaginians.
Another tale concerns the Greek Polymnestus and his mistress Phronima
who gave birth to a son who lisped and stammered. It is said that the son
was called 'Battus' (meaning 'king' in the Libyan language of the day) by
the priestess at Delphi since she knew that he was to become a king in
Libya. When he consulted the oracle about his defective speech he was
answered, according to Herodotus, by the lines:
O Battus, for a voice you come; but the lord Apollo

Sends you to Libya, nurse of flocks, to build a city.
When Battus failed to heed this invocation he experienced various dis-

tresses on the island of Thera. His compatriots also encountered nothing but
ill luck and when they journeyed to Delphi for advice were told that their
fortunes would only improve if they joined with Battus to found a settle-
ment at Cyrene in Libya.
Thus a party of men in due course sailed for Libya in two fifty-oared
galleys. They reached the Libyan coast but, uncertain how to proceed,
returned to Thera, whereupon the islanders threw missiles at them in the
harbour to force them to try again. The men returned to Libya but settled on
the island of Platea off the coast, but when their fortunes had not improved
after two years they again asked the Delphic oracle for advice, whereupon
they were urged to found a settlement on the mainland. They then journeyed
via Platea to the mainland to settle at Aziris where they lived for six years
until the native Libyans urged them to establish a settlement in a better
place. The Libyans timed the subsequent travel so that Battus and his men
would pass through the fine region of Irasa in the dark, so that the inter-
lopers would not see it. In such a fashion Battus came to the site of what
was to be Cyrene, the place where the Libyan guides urged him to settle,
'for here there is a hole in the sky'.
Battus ruled Cyrene for forty years, during which time the population of
the town did not increase. However, during the rule of its third king, Battus
the Fortunate, the Delphic oracle urged native Greeks to join the settlement.
Land grants were offered to new settlers, and the oracle declared that
'whosoever came to delightful Libya after the land was parcelled out,
should one day rue it'. The population of Cyrene increased dramatically,
leading in due course to conflict with the swrounding territories. The
Libyan king Adicran, resenting his loss of land and the domineering atti-
tudes of the Cyreneans, asked for the help of the Egyptian king Apries who
sent a force against Cyrene. Unaccustomed to the methods of Greek fight-
ing, the Egyptians were defeated, and in consequence Apries had to face a
rebellion amongst his own people.
Arcesilaus, a son of Battus the Fortunate, quarrelled with his brothers
and forced them to move to another part of the country where they founded
Barca as a new settlement. In a subsequent battle between the Libyans and
The Libyan Past 97
the Cyreneans, the Libyans won a great victory slaughtering as many as
seven thousand heavily armed men. Arcesilaus, perhaps in consequence,
fell ill and was duly strangled by his brother Learchus who in turn was
killed by Erixo, the wife of Arcesilaus. A son of Arcesilaus, a new Battus,
assumed the lordship of Cyrene, whereupon the troubled Cyreneans again
sought advice from the oracle. They were advised to seek help from a man
in Mantinea in Arcadia. In due course a certain Demonax, with a high
reputation amongst the citizens of Mantinea, was invited to suggest how the
disordered situation in Cyrene could be improved. Demonax proceeded to
Cyrene and introduced various measures: the population was divided into
three sections or tribes, one comprising the emigrants from Thera, one the
people from the Peloponnese and Crete, and the third of people from the
islands. He assigned Battus certain lands and priestly offices but also
assigned unprecedented powers to the people in general. The arrangements
were maintained through the lifetime of Battus but his son, a new Arcesilaus,
came to demand the restoration of his full ancestral rights, causing further
civil strife.
The new Arcesilaus was defeated and fled to Samos, his mother seeking
refuge in Salamis on Cyprus. Arcesilaus set about creating a fresh army in
Samos, and then journeyed to Delphi to tap the wisdom of the oracle. The
priestess declared that Apollo would grant him power over Cyrene 'over a
period of eight generations under four rulers named Battus and four named
Arcesilaus; but he advises you to make no attempt to keep your power
beyond that period. As for yourself, when you return to your country, be
gentle. If you find the oven full of jars, do not bake them but send them
away down-wind. But if you do heat the oven, enter not the land surrounded
by water, for otherwise you will die, and the best of the bulls with you.'
Whatever was to be made of this, Arcesilaus was sufficiently encouraged to
return to Cyrene and to regain supreme power. Alas, contrary to the words
of the oracle he drove his political opponents into exile; those that fell into
his hands he sent to their deaths in Cyprus. Some shut themselves in a high
tower, whereupon Arcesilaus stacked wood around the base and burnt them
alive. Too late, he realised that this was what the oracle had warned him
against. When he was seen walking in Barca some of the local people, in
concert with exiles from Cyrene, killed him and also his father-in-law
Alazir. When his mother Pheretima heard of her son's death she fled to
Egypt and threw herself on the mercy of Aryandes. He put all the forces of
Egypt at her disposal and, when the inhabitants of Cyrene claimed that they
were all equally responsible for the death of Arcesilaus, the Egyptian forces
marched to subjugate all of Libya.
Herodotus also describes the many tribes of Libya: for example, the
Adyrmachidae who live like the Egyptians but dress like the rest of the
Libyans. The long-haired women wear a bronze ring on each leg and when
they catch a bug on their bodies they bite it before throwing it away. The
Giligamae are conspicuous among the Libyans for their use of four-horse
chariots, just as the Nasamones are known for catching locusts which they
dry in the sun and then grind up fine. As with the Massagetae, wives are
used in common: when a man wants to lie with a woman, he erects a
symbolic pole to indicate his intentions. In taking an oath they lay their
hands on the tombs of their countrymen with a good reputation for integrity
and valour; to achieve accurate divinations they sleep, after praying, on the
graves of their ancestors; and in making a compact, each drinks from the
other's hand or licks up dust from the ground.
The Garamantes of Fezzan are said to possess no weapons of war, and do
not know how to defend themselves; here, where wild beasts live, the
people seek no contact with other tribes. The Macae wear their hair in a
crest, shaving each side of the head and growing the hair long in the middle.
Part of their land is the densely-wooded Hill of the Graces. Unlike the
Garamantes they are equipped for war; ostrich skins are used for shields.
The women of the Gindanes wear leather bands around their ankles to
signal the number of their lovers, and the women with the greatest number
of bands enjoy the highest reputations. Within the territory of the Gindanes
live the Lotophagi, a tribe that lives on the fruit of the lotus, eating it as an
essential food and also making wine from it.
The Machlyes and the Auses live on the shores of a lagoon, with the river
Triton forming the boundary between them. The Machlyes grow their hair
on the back of their heads, the Auses on the front. At an annual festival in
honour of Athene the girls divide themselves into two groups and fight with
sticks and stones, an immemorial rite by which they pay due obeisance to
their native deity: if a girl dies it is proof she was not a virgin. The best
looking girl, in a suit of Greek armour and a Corinthian helmet, is driven
round the lagoon as a prelude to the conflict. As with other Libyan tribes,
the women are held as common property: there are no married couples and
sexual congress is a casual matter. A fully grown child is deemed to belong
to the man it most resembles.
To the west of the river Triton live the Maxyes tribe, where the hair is
allowed to grow on the right side of the head and shaved on the left. The
Maxyes stain their bodies red and claim descent from the men of Troy.
Again we find evidence of abundant fauna. Eastern Libya 'abounds with
forest and animal life': there are huge snakes, lions, elephants, bears, asps
and horned assess, 'not to mention dog-headed men, headless men with
The Libyan Past 99
eyes in their breasts (I don't vouch for this, but merely repeat what the
Libyans say), wild men and wild women, and a great many other creatures
by no means of a fabulous kind' (Herodotus). In the country of the nomads
there are white-rump antelopes, gazelles, deer, asses that can do without
water ('they do not drink') and a huge antelope as big as an ox whose horns
are used to make the curved sides of lyres. And the territory of the nomads
also contains foxes, hyaenas, hedgehogs, rams, jackals, panthers, croco-
diles, ostriches and small snakes equipped with a horn; there are weasels
and three kinds of mice. So much for the abundant Libyan fauna: Herodotus
has made his account 'as full and accurate as my extensive inquiries
permit'.
The Zaueces, like the Machlyes, favour the idea of the warrior woman:
the drivers of the war-chariots are invariably female. Their neighbours, the
Gyzantes, enjoy honey, paint themselves red, and eat from their abundant
supply of monkeys. And on the near-by island of Cyrauis the girls dip
feathers smeared with pitch into the mud to bring up gold dust (T merely
record the cunent story, without guaranteeing the truth of it'). Herodotus
himself has seen how pitch is retrieved from the water of a lake: thus in
Zacynthus myrtle is tied to the end of a pole which is then thrust to the
bottom of the water to bring up the pitch. This is then poured into a trench
and finally into jars ('In view of all this, the account of what happens in
the island of Libya may quite possibly be true').
Herodotus suggests that Libya is inhabited by four races, two indigenous
and two not. The Libyans in the north and the Ethiopians in the south are the
true indigenous peoples, the immigrants being the Phoenicians and the
Greeks. He also acknowledges the impact of the Persians, about whom the
Libyans 'cared nothing'. The waves of colonial incursion are a perennial
theme in Libyan history.
THE ROMANS
The Romans conquered much of the region in 74 BC and ruled it as a

province. The Greek influence persisted however and Cyrene remained a
centre of Hellenic culture, producing wine, wool, grain and herbs, and also
such scholars as the geographer Eratosthenes and the epigrammatist
Callimachus (remembered not least for his remark, 'A big book is a big
bore'). Much of Cyrenaica was dominated by the Greeks for some 1200
years, from 600 BC to AD 600. The Romans were forced to fight periodic
battles with the Fezzan Garamantes, already encountered, who proved
themselves a redoubtable foe. They had developed a form of mechanised

warfare with their battle chariots, and had commanded a vast desert king-
dom from as early as 1000 BC. There remains little evidence of their rule
apart from the extant inscriptions in tifinagh, a geometrical alphabet still
used by the Tuaregs of the Sahara. Herodotus remarked that the Garamantes
were 'an exceedingly great nation who sow the earth they have laid on the
salt'. The sparse archeological sites suggest that the Garamantes had a
Neolithic culture dating to the first millenium BC.5
Some researchers have argued that the Garamantes had kinship with the
Tuaregs, while others have proposed Berber connections. Their control of
Fezzan gave them influence over the ancient trade routes: from their capital
at Gerama they were able to control the desert caravans moving from
Ghadames to the Niger River, eastwards to Egypt and beyond, and west-
ward to the region that is today Mauritania.6 The Romans were never able
to subjugate totally the kingdom of the Garamantes and elements of their
rule were encountered by the invading Arabs as late as the seventh century
AD.7 And the impact of Rome on northern Africa was, to some degree,
reciprocated, not least by the emergence of a Libyan emperor.
Septimus Severus, a native of Leptis Magna, rose to rule as Roman
emperor from 193 to 211 during the 400-year period when both Cyrenaica
and Tripolitania were governed as Roman provinces. He and his wife Julia
Domna were heads of the state pagan religion. When Emperor Constantine
converted to Christianity his head appeared on coins in Sabratha, and thus
a Christian impact was felt for a time in Libya and other parts of North
Africa. But the hold of the new religion on this area was never secure and
it was further weakened by its decisive split from Judaism. During the first
Roman pogrom against the Jews in Palestine (63 BC to AD 135) many
Jews had fled to settle in North Africa. In Cyrene the king-messiah Lukus
Andreas led a revolt in AD 115 that spread into Egypt, which was soon
followed by a revolt led by the Jewish Simon Bar Kochba against the
Roman Emperor Hadrian. In neither case did Christianity offer support to
the rebels, and the two faiths drifted further apart. Jewish scholars brought
Talmudic texts to North Africa, weakening further the isolated Christian
communities that were in any case increasingly infected by heresies that
eroded the security of the dogma. One of the most significant blows against
Christianity in Cyrenaica was the turbulent Monophysite heresy, a bloody
conflict over whether Christ was human or divine. And when in AD 395
the Roman Empire was divided into eastern and western halves a fresh
chasm was created between Greek Cyrenaica and Latin Tripolitania, dilut-
ing further the weakened integrity of the Christian faith.
The Libyan Past 101
To the Romans the Meditenanean was Mare Nostrum ('Our Sea') and on
the southern shore Roman Tripolitania developed over two centuries until
the collapse of the empire. Augustus put Africa under the rule of a pro-
consul sited in the rebuilt city of Carthage; and a new military force, the
Legio III Augusta, was created to police the region. For nearly three cen-
turies this legion, generally comprising around five thousand men, was the
manifest sign of Roman power from the Sirtica to the Atlantic. Various
expeditions were launched against recalcitrant tribes. For example, when
the Spanish-born proconsul of Africa L. Cornelius Balbus marched first to
Ghadames, an important Garamantean trade centre 250 miles from the
coast, and then to the Garamantean capital of Gerama, the expedition was
hailed as a great victory and Balbus was granted a triumph. But the
Garamantes were not completely subdued and further campaigns against
them were launched. They were a mysterious race and little is known about
them beyond what is recorded in Herodotus and Pliny: the first-century
geographer Strabo comments that 'For the most part the nations of Libya
are unknown.' One Roman expedition reached 'the land of the Ethiopians',
and another marched south until it reached 'Agysimba' in the Sudan. The
Roman conquest of Northern Libya was completed in AD 85-6 when they
overcame the Nasamonians, a great Tripolitanian tribe that was driven into
the desert. After this event the emperor Domitian declared that the
Nasamonians no longer existed.
The Romans had developed a successful agricultural economy, helped
by Saharan trade, throughout Tripolitania. In the early days of the empire
Berber peasants worked smallholdings but eventually they were forced off
the land by the large landowners and state-controlled organisations.8 An
urban elite, including Romanised Afro-Phoenicians and other elements, had
evolved but following the dissolution of the empire were unable to consol-
idate their hold. In 429 the Vandals entered North Africa from Spain and
established a kingdom with its capital at the site of Carthage, but the new
order was overthrown by the Byzantine general Belisarius in 533, an event
which led to a brief period of Byzantine rule. For a time the indigenous
Berber tribes were relatively free of the weight of colonial conquest: they
reverted to their traditional nomadic pastoralism, and in the fifth and sixth
centuries formed the great Berber confederation of the Zenata, a group not
averse to augmenting its economy resources by systematic pillage.9 How-
ever, the Berbers were not to enjoy their independence for long. The most
influential incursion of them all, the Arab conquest, began in the seventh
century.
THE ARABS
In 642 Omar Ibn al-As led Arab Muslims to conquer Cyrenaica and the
sweep continued across North Africa. Gerama, the long-secure capital of
the Garamantes, fell to the Arabs in 663. The Berbers struggled to maintain
areas of rebellion but in due course accepted Islam though remaining hostile
to the Arabs. There was a certain appeal about the clear certainties of
monotheistic Islam, in contrast to all the confusing mix of sects and deities
brought to North Africa by the Phoenicians, the Greeks and the Romans.
Here, it seemed, was a direct route to God that the North Africans had rarely
encountered in the competing faiths of Christianity and Judaism.10 The
seventh-century invasion was a herald of what was to follow: the first
incursion established a colonial base and had an indelible impact on the
whole of North Africa, but larger Arab invasions of the region were to
follow.
The Egyptian Fatimid dynasty, established in 910, extended its control
over the whole area of Tripolitania, but in 1049 the Berbers revolted against
the Shia Fatimids in order to reinstate Sunni orthodoxy. In a dramatic move
that was to transform the character of North Africa the Fatimid caliph sent
two Arab tribes, the Beni Hilal and the Beni Salim who had both settled in
the Nile Valley, into North Africa to crush the rebellion. This great incur-
sion comprised not only warriors but entire social groups: no less than
200,000 families moved into the region of Tripolitania over the period of
only a few months, and in this fashion was the eventual character of Libya
as an Arab nation determined. The radical change in the culture of North
Africa was one of the most important historical transformations.
Before the time of the Arab conquests of the seventh century there was
a sense in which Egypt, Syria and North Africa were 'Western' countries.11
In all these areas, and in Greece and Italy, the same official languages had
been used; there was a common cunency and unrestricted travel across
national borders was largely guaranteed. When Rome under Constantine
adopted Christianity there were strenuous efforts, albeit unsuccessful, to
spread the new religion throughout the empire. Thus North Africa and many
other regions had been shaped by the predominant influence of a thousand
years of Graeco-Roman culture. But as Islam evolved from roots that were
contiguous to Christianity the whole region became split between the pres-
sures of competing ideologies. The Mediterranean, well controlled by the
Romans, had been free of naval battles for centuries; following the Arab
conquest the Meditenanean was split horizontally into two halves, with
Syria and North Africa together forming a front facing France, Italy and
Greece.
The Libyan Past 103
The rival Berber dynasties of the Almoravids and the Almohads rose to
power in the eleventh and twelfth centuries. In 1160 the Almohads extended
their control to Tripolitania, with Cyrenaica continuing to maintain its ties
with Egypt for several centuries. The Beni Hilal and the Beni Salim tribes
had continued to consolidate their influence in the whole of Libya, though
their fortunes varied from one region to another. The Beni Hilal had jour-
neyed westward into Tripolitania while the Beni Salim had settled in
Cyrenaica. The Arab penetration was slowest in the southern Fezzan, and
for a while trade continued to be controlled by the Berber tribes. Fezzan
prospered through Saharan trade, with large cities supporting baths, mosques,
markets and scholarship; attracting poets, lawyers and holy men; and invit-
ing caravans from every region. The states of Kanem and Bornu exploited
the trade route from Lake Chad to the coastal towns of Libya.12 Thus
Tripoli, inviting the traffic from the African interior through Fezzan, be-
came one of the great mediaeval Mediterranean ports. This complex trade
system was to be disrupted by the French and British penetration of the
region when, for reasons of imperialist requirement, commerce was di-
verted from the Sahara to the Atlantic.
Saladin conquered much of the region in the twelfth century: by the time
he made his triumphal entry into Damascus in 1192 he was ruler of an
empire stretching from Barca in North Africa to Mosul and Erbil in Kurdistan.
At that time he was said by the contemporary Arab historian Ibn al Athir to
be contemplating expanding into Iraq and Persia, but he died, aged fifty-
seven, in Damascus in 1193. The Mamluks continued to rule the area until
the Turks conquered Egypt in 1510, at which time Cyrenaica too came
under Ottoman control. At the same time Spain captured Tripoli and even-
tually handed it over for administration by the Knights of St John of Malta.
It was not until 1551 that the Turks drove out the Knights and brought
Tripoli to join most of the rest of Libya under Ottoman control. The
Turkish control of Libya was to be maintained, through many vagaries,
until the time of the Italian conquest in 1911.
THE TURKS
Sicilian Normans captured Tripoli in 1146, nearly half a century after the
fall of Jerusalem to the Crusaders. The Arabs had taken Sicily in the ninth
century but by 1087 the Normans had conquered it, and for a brief period
the island saw a unique Norman/Arab culture. In 1158 the Norman garrison
at Tripoli was massacred with the rise of anti-Christian feeling throughout
the region. Further incursions, by the Portuguese the Spanish and others,
occuned in various parts of Cyrenaica and Tripolitania until a large part
of the area was brought under the rough control of the Turks.
The Ottoman Turks gained power in Anatolia in the fourteenth and
fifteenth centuries, taking Constantinople in 1453. They had conquered
Egypt by 1517 and corsair captains were seizing other parts of North Africa
for the Sultan. In 1513 the corsair Khair al-Din, one of the two brothers
known to Europe as Barbarossa, conquered the island of Jerba and four
years later took Algiers. It was clear that the growing Turkish power would
soon dominate the whole region. Tripoli still gave some protection to
Christian shopping in the Mediterranean but its position was becoming
increasingly fragile. The Knights of St John inspected the defences of
Tripoli in 1524, and six years later the city was handed over to the Order,
by now under pressure from Pope Clement VII to defend a city regarded by
the emperor Charles V as 'one of the two eyes of Christendom'. All efforts
were futile and in 1551 Tripoli, seen as 'a Christian oasis in a barbaric
desert', fell to the Turks.
From the middle of the sixteenth century Libya, as a province of the
Ottoman empire, was ruled by a Turkish Bey supported by officials and
Janissaries, the Turkish mercenary military caste. However, the Turkish
rule in North Africa was often far from complete and practical authority was
frequently exercised by military leaders and pirate captains rather than by
the Sultan's officials. Thus in 1711 power was seized by the Karamanli, a
grouping founded from a mix of Berber, Arab and Janissary, and effective
authority was exercised by this faction for 125 years. The Karamanli dy-
nasty extended its control to much of Cyrenaica and Fezzan, so establishing
the shape of the Libyan state which in modern times the Western powers
were to claim as their own invention. The traditional trade routes were
maintained under the Karamanli, where Bedouin and other tribes controlled
the traffic and supplied logistic support for the caravans.
The Ottomans maintained large garrisons in the provincial cities of
Libya and the other regions under their nominal control. Within twenty or
thirty miles of the major cities the farmers were heavily taxed, and in
consequence often encouraged to move into other areas: far from the cities
the distant tribes could not be effectively taxed, though tolls may be de-
manded by local tribal chiefs. Every few years the Turks, with their merce-
nary support, would march into the tribal territories to demonstrate the
hegemony of the Sultan. If the troops avoided ambush they would destroy
villages, slaughter the local people, and seize crops and livestock. On
occasions a local chief would act as a mediator and bribes would often be
placed to placate military leaders and provincial governors. Alternatively
The Libyan Past 105
tribe would be set against tribe or junior members of ruling families would
be 'recognised' by the Turkish officials to sow the seeds of internal tribal
discord. Terror was another frequent means of intimidation: a local tribal
leader would be captured, loaded with chains, and despatched to Istanbul
for summary execution. Such methods, not uncommon among later colonial
administrations around the world, had their predictable effects. The tribes
resisted, by guile and by force, wherever they could; the Ottomons were
constantly faced by hostile and recalcitrant populace, inevitably unco-
operative and always ready to exact a price, in both men and treasure, on the
colonial authorities. There were, however, few dreams of Arab nationhood
in the occupied territories.
The Turks used two separate security forces - the city police and the
rural gendarmerie - in their efforts to maintain order. The gendarmerie
accompanied the tax collectors and dealt with rural disorders; the officers
were often Arabs who had found it convenient to absorb aspects of Turkish
culture. This again represented the familiar colonial ploy of employing
natives to police difficult indigenous peoples. The approach was simple and
direct: as soon as members of the gendarmerie entered a village (for ex-
ample, to investigate a local crime), they would seize people at random and
beat them into providing information. At the same time it was assumed that
the villagers would prepare a feast for their new guests. In such circum-
stances it was the police sergeant rather than the distant sultan who was the
effective ruler of the local villages.
The Arabs in the cities were more susceptible to the impact of Turkish
culture: the state schools taught in Turkish, causing many Arabs to be more
fluent in the imposed language than in their own. Moreover successful
Arabs, merchants and scholars, had a pragmatic interest in law and order;
so they came to regard the lawless rural Arabs as an alien element, outsiders
with whom they could no longer identify. Again, the familiar colonial
stratagem: weakening a nation by dividing it against itself. At the same time
it has been pointed out that until the time of the seventeenth century the
Ottomans were better administrators than were the colonial Europeans:
thus Christian villagers in southern Greece chose Turkish rule against that
of the Venetians, and some Christian villages in Hungary preferred Turkish
government to that of their own countrymen.13
The Ottoman empire became increasingly ineffectual throughout the
nineteenth century. There were growing tensions within the Turkish admin-
istration, making it difficult to retain the qualified loyalty of conquered
lands. In 1835, following the fall of Algiers to the French and the revolt by
Mohammed Ali in Egypt, the Turks found it necessary to secure Tripoli to
prevent further losses of land that was nominally part of the Empire. A
religious revival, under the threat of the French guns, was taking hold in
Algeria and was to radically shape the course of Libyan history. At the heart
of the revival was Sheikh Muhammad Ibn Ali al-Sanussi, born in the Berber
region of Mazouma in western Algeria and one of the key founders of the
Sanussiya religious order. To strengthen Islam against the encroachments
of the Christian Europeans he founded a series of religious lodges (zawiyas)
designed to provide accommodation for travellers, religious instruction and
even trading facilities. The first lodge, a veritable monastery, was estab-
lished in Mecca, with others soon following across North Africa; the first
zawiya in Libya was built at Beyda.
The founder of the order, known as the Grand Sanussi, was born in the
1780s of a family with impeccable religious credentials: descent was claimed
from the Prophet's daughter, Fatima. He first studied in Fez where he came
into contact with the religious fraternities of Morocco, after which he
travelled with his disciples through the Sahara, Tunisia, Tripolitania and
Cyrenaica, preaching a return to the true religion of the Prophet. One of the
earliest zawiyas was built in 1843 at Gebel Akhdar in Cyrenaica, a well-
chosen location. In contrast to other parts of the region, Cyrenaica was a
political vacuum; Tunisia was experiencing internal turmoil and Algeria
was being taken over by the French. Furthermore, it was evident that
Cyrenaica 'provided an outlet to Central Africa, an area which the Grand
Sanussi must have thought of as a possible field of expansion'.14 The
grandson of the Grand Sanussi, Sayyid Amir Mohammed Idris became
leader of the order in 1916 and later became King of Libya.
The Sanussi, as Sunni or orthodox Moslems, are one of the principle
orders of Islam. They insist of conformity to what are taken to be the
original teachings of the Prophet, a stern approach to faith and morals that
is as well suited to the traditional Bedouin of Cyrenaica as it was to the
Arabian Bedouins of the seventh century. The Sanussi are also part of
Sufism, a creed which 'appealed to the popular imagination because it
supplied men with spiritual satisfaction and vitality as against therigidityof
the law and its teaching'.15 At the same time it was now unknown for
tribesmen to exploit the Sanussi name, undertaking kidnappings or theft in
the name of the religious order. Thus European travellers in Libya and
elsewhere became acquainted with what they perceived as Sanussi fanatics.
But the true Sanussi, though devout, were far from fanatical: they were not
supposed to beg or to practise asceticism but to work for a living. There was
a general prohibition on the extreme aspects of Sufi mysticism - self-
flagellation, dancing to distraction, dervish-type whirling and such like.
Instead the Sanussi were expected to live simple lives, showing charity to
their neighbours and practising an uncomplicated piety at all times.
The Libyan Past 107
The Order impressed the nomadic Bedouin more than it did the relatively
sophisticated townspeople. The anthropologist Evans-Pritchard remarks
that 'The Order poured its vitality southwards along the trade routes to the
interior of Africa, into the Fezzan and the various regions (then) called the
French Sahara and French Equatorial Africa.'16 The focus of the Order and
the seat of its Islamic University were established at Jahgub, an oasis on one
of the trade routes from the coast to the Sahara. The oasis zawiyas attracted
scholars, the prophets and holy men, the cultivators of the land, and the
traders who, in addition to their other activities, exploited the slave traffic.
The inhabitants of the zawiyas often worked as guides to the slave holders,
providing transport and escorting the caravans along sections of the trade
routes. Many of the pious Sanussi were themselves slave traders, seeing
their devoutness as no barrier to the traffic in human bodies; indeed the
reverse was true - 'the holier the person, the more he charges'.17 The
Sanussi also benefited from the customs dues paid by the caravans at the
various centres on the trade routes.
There was often conflict between the Sanussi organisation and the French
as they expanded their colonial ambitions: at the beginning of the twentieth
century the Sanussi, in alliance with other African groups, were fighting a
jihad against the invading French armies. The second master of the Sanussi
Order, Muhammed el-Mahdi, led a further Islamic revival and soon found
himself in conflict with the French incursions. By 1867 as many as fifty
zawiyas had been established on the Barca plateau in Cyrenaica; and by
1897 a lodge had been built in the north of Chad, near to the Libyan border.
When this region, Bir Allali, was conquered by the French, Muhammed el-
Mahdi was killed. In 1902 a certain French officer Gentil Lamotte, an
Arabist, was constrained to observe: 'Islam had brought immense progress
to all of the Central African populations, but it is a serious danger for us:
never will a Muslim accept, without serious reservation, Christian domina-
tion, and this truth appears more certain because, in the center of Africa, the
influence of the Sheikh al-Mahdi ibn Sanussi is considerable.'18 Many of
the townsmen of Cyrenaica found it helpful to their advancement to belong
to the Order, and thus in much of urban Libya could be found rich and
successful citizens who were pleased to see themselves as part of the
Sanussi organisation. The Sanussi were astute enough to exploit the Turkish
presence when it was convenient, and to resist it at other times. The British
had gathered intelligence reports suggesting that a Sanussi revolt against
Turkish rule was developing in the years before the Italian invasion.
The Turks had for long been struggling to retain their grip on the Empire.
By the middle of the nineteenth century they had deposed the last of the
Karamanlis and re-established direct rule by the sultan. But as well as the
French threat from Algeria there was growing Arab resistance to the Turk-
ish occupation. In the interior of Libya the Arabs were led by Abdel Jalil
Seif al-Nasr, chief of the Awlad Slaiman tribe, who had gradually assumed
control over Fezzan during the time of the Karamanli war with the US Navy
(Chapter Eight). Then Abdel Jalil moved to organise the tribes of Tripolitania
and Sirte against the Turks: one of these tribes was the al-Gaddafa which
was to produce the parents of Muammar al-Gaddafi. However, the Arabs
were eventually subdued by the Turkish general Ahmed Pasha who, in
time-honoured fashion, destroyed the villages, killed the inhabitants and
stole produce and animals. The Libyan Arabs were not yet in control of
their own land: in fact they would be forced to suffer a further colonial
occupation, the most devastating of them all, before Libya could succeed
in emerging as an independent nation.
In summary, a region known in antiquity as Libya (the land of the Libu,

Libye to the Greeks) was populated by numerous peoples and was at the
heart of pivotal historical events. Libyans contested land with the ancient
Egyptians and with the warriors of many other nations: the Pharoah Ramases
III of the twentieth dynasty (twelfth century B.C.) even used Libyan merce-
naries, with Greeks and Nubians, to form the backbone of his army.19 Wave
after wave of invaders were variously accommodated, resisted, and made
to pay a heavy price in men and treasure. Over all the tumultuous centuries
the Libyans were never totally subjugated: whether the invaders came from
the sea or marched on Libya from the North African deserts they always
encountered a resourceful stiff-necked people, favoured by a difficult
terrain and a stubborn nature that made secure conquest an impractical
ambition.
The Greek historian Herodotus of Halicarnassus travelled widely in the
area and talked to many others who had ventured into the reaches of Fezzan,
Cyrenaica and Tripolitania. For a time he lived in Athens or on Athenian
territory as one of the original colonists to Thurioi in 444 B.C. We have
seen how, with his lively Ionian mind, he was keen to record details of
geography, local fauna and flora, the appearance and habits of native
peoples. His aim, as he explained, was 'to save that which has occurred
from passing out of men's memory by lapse of time, and from oblivion the
great and marvellous deeds of Greeks and barbarians alike, and especially
the reason for their going to war with one another'.
He is not always reliable: sometimes what he relates is manifestly untrue
('It is my business to tell what was told to me, but not necessarily to believe
The Libyan Past 109
it'), but still he conveys a wealth of impressions and beliefs, a rich web of
what could be deemed credible to the ancient mind. There is reason to think
that on the whole he was, while not infallible, a reliable witness. Thus the
celebrated historian H. J. Rose observes of Herodotus, the 'Father of
History': 'No historian is freer from the guilt of deception, or from con-
cealment of his own ignorance or uncertainty.'20 It is from Herodotus that
we learn most of what it was like to be a Libyan in antiquity.
The Libyan tribes encountered in Herodotus and in the works of later
writers together represent a rich cultural soil that was further mulched by
the endless invasions that chased each other over the centuries - Phoenicians,
Egyptians, Greeks, Romans, Turks, French, Italians, Germans, British. The
Americans bombarded the coastal towns in the nineteenth century; the Axis
powers and the Allied forces ravaged Cyrenaica and Tripolitania in the
twentieth. The history of Libya is in part a bloody chronicle of slaughter and
destruction at the hand of the foreigner. But the frequent depradations were
in due course to serve as midwife to an independent nation: the tough and
durable Libyans had been pregnant with independence over all the troubled
centuries. First they had to survive the most oppressive colonialism of
them all.
3 The Fourth Shore
Italy, sensing the growing colonial impotence of the Ottomans, invaded
Libya in 1911 and thus consigned it to Italian occupation for three decades.
Had Italy been content, had it not been seduced by the illusion of further
rich pickings in the Second World War, Libya would probably have re-
mained an Italian territory for longer than it did. As it was, Italy's ambition
hastened the colonial collapse: after a brief neocolonial interregnum, Libya
became independent.
PRELUDE TO INVASION
In 1838 Giuseppe Mazzini, the Italian revolutionary and political writer,

who worked for a united Italy under a republican government, declared that
'North Africa must belong to Italy'. Tunisia was the tip of Africa nearest to
Sicily and this was the region that had been Rome's first African colony.
Again, in the second half of the nineteenth century, Italians moved to settle
in Tunisia until, by 1881, they had built a community of some 25,000
immigrants. In August 1863 the Turin publication Opinione observed: 'If
Egypt, and with it the Suez Canal, falls to the British, if Tunis falls to the
French, and if Austria expands from Dalmatia into Albania, etc., we will
soon find ourselves without a breathing space in the dead centre of the
Meditenanean.' Already Italy felt squeezed by the competing pressures of
the colonial powers and when, despite a twenty-year agreement signed by
Italy in 1868, the Bey recognised the protectorate of France in Tunisia, Italy
felt impelled to join the colonial 'scramble' for Africa. In the 1880s the
Italian Prime Minister Francesco Crispi, who had aided Garibaldi in the
conquest of Sicily, was talking of converting the sea between Sicily and
the two Sirtic Gulfs into 'almost an Italian strait'. Crispi proclaimed the
strategic importance of Libya and emphasised how Italian interests would
be threatened if it fell into the hands of any of the other European powers.
When the French began talking of the Meditenanean as a 'French Lake',
there was fresh talk in Italy of 'Mare Nostrum': in due course the Italians
would attempt to justify their invasion of Libya as an effort to counter the
colonial ambitions of France and other powers in the Meditenanean. Mus-
solini was to reflect the view of most Italians when he said: 'for others the
Meditenanean is just a route, for us it is life itself.
110
The Fourth Shore 111
In the 1880s Italy began a policy of 'peaceful penetration': the required
breathing space was to be obtained through purchase rather than through
naked conquest. Italian trade had extended to all the main Libyan ports by
the end of the 1880s and schools were opened in Libya to spread Italian
language and culture; the great Banco di Roma was urged in 1905 to begin
an 'economic penetration' of the land. The bank opened the first branch in
Tripoli in 1907 and then others in Benghazi and other Libyan towns. New
businesses were financed and controlling interests were acquired in ship-
ping and in many sectors of the export trade: cereals, wool, ivory, sponges
and ostrich feathers. Expeditions to prospect for minerals in Tripolitania
were funded, and within a few years the Banco di Roma controlled much of
the domestic and foreign trade of Libya: all this, despite the hostility of the
Turkish authorities. But there were restrictions on the Italian acquisition of
land, the key to effective settlement. The Italians had long known the value
of Libyan land and pressures were mounting for a more effective colonisa-
tion of the North African territories. The German explorer Rohlfs had
observed in 1879 that land in Cyrenaica was so green that it reminded him
of Italy: 'To me the possession of Tunis is not worth one-tenth that of
Tripoli.' And in 1884 the Italian explorer Manfredo Camperio had proposed
that Cyrenaica was well suited for the settling of Italian farming colonies.1
The British were securely established in Egypt, as were the French in
Algeria, Tunisia and extensive tracts south of Libya. Moreover the diplo-
matic stage had been prepared by various agreements and understandings
with the other colonial powers: for example, an Anglo-French convention
in 1899 recognised that Italy had a legitimate sphere of influence in
Tripolitania; and in 1909 Czar Nicholas of Russia resolved not to oppose
Italian expansionist plans. Popular songs were written in Italy to celebrate
Tripoli, bel suolo di amore ('Tripoli, fair land of love') and romantic
paintings conveyed the seductive charm of the shore across the seas. At the
same time there was academic and political opposition to the growing
prospect of a full-blooded invasion of the Libyan mainland. Leone Caetani,
a distinguished Italian scholar on Islam, declared himself opposed to a
military expedition,2 as did Gaetano Salvemini, conscious of 'the harm that
this wave of nationalism might cause Italy'.3 Such doubts however had little
impact against Italian nationalism and colonialism strongly supported by a
virtually unanimous press campaign.4 And the Roman Catholic Church was
not averse to bolstering the 'missionary' and 'crusading' spirit.5 Italians
were being told, with increasing fervour, that emigration was servile, 'but
to conquer colonies is a worthy task for a free and noble people'.6
Giovanni Giolitti (1841-1928), prime minister of three Italian govern-
ments between 1903 and 1914, had a paramount influence during this
period. Seen as one of the 'parliamentary dictators', he maintained a major-

ity in parliament by bribing deputies from the south. He refused to use
traditional violence to quell industrial strikes and made a number of other
concessions to groups of workers whose support he needed, but at the same
time he abandoned the peasants to the great landowners whose interests he
favoured. It is easy to see Giolitti as an arch pragmatist. When he leaned to
the political Left it was a calculated ploy, often designed to balance one
faction against another; and when he launched the Libyan war to satisfy
the nationalist Right he also perceived that this move would help to unite
the country under a common banner.
When Giolitti first took power the development of the Italian economy
largely depended upon foreign capital. Universal manhood suffrage was not
to be applied until 1913, and early in the twentieth century parliamentary
politics was mainly a matter of deals and accommodations between minis-
ters, prefects, individual deputies and grand electors. Local notables were
able to exert pressure in various ways to control political affairs, a circum-
stance that is far from dead in the practical realpolitik of modern Italy.
Giolitti himself manipulated Catholic, socialist and other factions to main-
tain a viable political machine but he constantly undenated the nationalists,
the forerunners of the future Italian fascists, who were already agitating
for colonial adventurism. There were cunently various stimuli to Italian
nationalism.
There was a nostalgic upsurge in inedentism, in recollection of the
Italian party formed in 1878 to capture or recapture for Italy various territ-
ories claimed on language or other grounds; a new philosophy of national-
istic violence, developed by Action Franqaise, was being imported; and
there were international developments that were affecting Italian sensitiv-
ities. The other European powers were pressing for land and influence:
France and Britain threatened to thwart Italian ambitions in the Mediter-
ranean, and in 1908 Austria had formally annexed the Turkish region of
Bosnia-Hercegovina without reference to other interested nations. The
Austrian move suggested to Italy that it should be paid compensation in
view of the doctrine invented by the Italian historian Cesare Balbo to the
effect that the Hapsburg empire should expand into the Balkans to enable
Italy to move into Lombardy and Venetia. The Italian nationalists, though
a minority on the Right, had powerful and wealthy friends. Their pro-
paganda was extensive in the press and not unrelated in impact to the
patriotic works of such artists as the poet Carducci and the composer Verdi.
It could be calculated that a foreign war - to gain a territory long viewed as
well within the legitimate sphere of Italian influence - would serve to
secure a government under threat from both Left and Right. Giolitti, with
little taste for colonial adventures, planned the Libyan war as a purely
political move, designed - like many wars - to divert attention from domes-
tic troubles.
There were suspicions that the French would move towards Tripoli. The
Italians had acquiesced in the British exercise of control over Egypt, and
expected Britain to show a similar restraint when Italy flexed its colonialist
muscles. Italian anxieties about France were exacerbated by the French
attack on Morocco since it was assumed that once France had secured its
control over Morocco she would be hostile to any Italian attempt to grab
Libya. Turkey had predictably complained about the Anglo-French agree-
ments on zones of influence south of Tripoli, and the Italian government
was quick to voice similar objections. In 1902 the Italians managed to gain
a promise of French indifference to any Italian adventure in Libya in
exchange for recognition of the French position in Morocco; and in the
same year Italy won a guarantee from Austria and Germany that it would
be allowed freedom of action in Tripoli. The ground was being prepared for
invasion.
In April 1902 a left-wing deputy in the Italian parliament noted that
Tripoli was 'necessary to the existence of Italy', and another deputy argued
that a military occupation would enhance the value of Italian-controlled
Eritrea by facilitating a new trade route between the Meditenanean and the
Red Sea.7 Italy obtained yet more guarantees at the 1906 Algeciras Confer-
ence, by which time it was emerging that even the United States had an
interest in Libya. The Jewish Territorial Organisation despatched a com-
mission to Cyrenaica in 1908 to consider the possibility of establishing a
Jewish homeland under Turkish protection: some thought at that time that
Israel would be planted in North Africa. In May 1910 agreement was
reached between Turkish and Franco/Tunisian commissions on a new fron-
tier that seemingly expanded Tunisia at the expense of Libya, while in 1911
France placated the Germans by sunendering a slice of its Congo territory
to the German colony of Kamerun.
These developments, plus the requirement for a diversion from domestic
problems, convinced the Italian government that it was time to act. Despite
their economic penetration of North Africa effective Italian control had
been limited for some time to the dry and infertile coastline of Eritrea and
Somalia. It was time to assert a more effective Italian colonial presence in
the region: if Italy failed to act now the chance would be lost. It has been
argued that Italy's Libyan war produced a series of upheavals 'that were to
lead to Sarajevo'.8
1911 INVASION AND AFTERMATH
The plans for the invasion of Libya, drawn up by Giolitti and the Chief of
the General Staff, General Pollio, were completed by the end of August
1911. Early in September Ibrahim Pasha, the Turkish governor of Tripoli,
returned to Constantinople to report on the Italian preparations for war.
Turkey could do little since troops had been recently sent from Tripoli to
quell a revolt in Yemen, but a cargo ship, the Derna - carrying 20,000
rifles, two million rounds of ammunition, and a quantity of mountain guns
for trustworthy Libyans - was sent from Turkey. While the ship was still
in transit the Italian government declared that it would regard the sending
of war material to Tripoli a serious threat to the status quo in the region. On
28 September Italy issued an ultimatum, announcing that the shipping of
arms to Tripoli was a 'manifestly hostile act' and that the Italian community
in Tripoli was in danger. It further declared that Italy intended to extend
Italian jurisdiction over the Ottoman provinces in North Africa: the stated
intention was the military occupation of Tripolitania and Cyrenaica, and
Turkey was told to state, within twenty-four hours, that there would be no
objection to the Italian plan. If the Ottoman Porte refused to relinquish
sovereignty then Italy would have no option but to use force. The Ottoman
authorities protested but offered what was intended as a conciliatory reply.
This was deemed by Italy to be unsatisfactory and Giolitti announced that
the nation was about to fulfil unafatalita storica, a historic destiny.
The Italians launched a sea-borne invasion on 3 October. Italian troops
landed at Tripoli, Benghazi, Derna, Tobruk and Khums; and there was
immediate fighting with Ottoman forces. The Turkish garrison in Tripolitania
was unwilling to capitulate but resolved instead to wage a war of resistance.
The commanders, including General Ishaq Pasha, withdrew south and es-
tablished a camp from which they hoped to launch a counter-attack. Turkey
itself also took what steps it could to organise resistance to the Italian
invasion. Two senior Turkish generals, Enver Pasha and Ali Fethi Bey,
were given responsibilities in the new situation, as was Mustafa Kemal —
already a member of the revolutionary faction 'Committee of Union and
Progress' - who later emerged as Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, the influential
leader of modern Turkey. Mustafa Kemal journeyed to Libya from the east,
only to find that the British had closed the Egyptian frontier. He then took
the train westward from Alexandria and, aided by Bedouin garb, was
allowed to pass by an Egyptian officer who hated all the Christian imperi-
alists, Italian as well as British. Kemal was soon promoted to major and
given a command. Jihad was declared and the Arab tribes rallied to support
their Turkish masters, now seen as warriors of the same faith, fighting to
resist the Christian invasion.The Italians tried to bolster their own forces by
employing Muslim troops from their territory in Eritrea, but these were seen
as traitors to Islam, stimulating still further the joint Turkish/Libyan resist-
ance to the alien incursion.
Atfirstthe Italians made little progress inland. A fresh sea-borne landing
was attempted at Misrata, but the results were indecisive and the Italians
were beaten at Rumeila. Despite their setbacks, the Italians proclaimed a
great victory and formally announced the annexation of Tripolitania and
Cyrenaica: 'If any nation of Europe has the right of possession or protector-
ate in this land, that nation is Italy.'9 Some local leaderships on the coast
favoured collaboration with the Italian invaders: thus the merchant families,
such as the Muntassers of Misrata and the Ben Zikris of Tripoli, calculated
that conciliation would allow the continuation of normal trade. But other
important leaders - for instance, Farhat Bey, a judge from Zawiyah, and
Suleyman al-Baruni of the Ibadi Berbers, both in the Ottoman parliament -
appealed for volunteers to join the Turkish forces. The Italian advance was
slow but soon it was aided by Turkish reverses in the Balkans: after defeat
in the Balkan war Turkey signed a peace in 1912 with its European oppo-
nents, including Italy. One of the key provisions was that the Turkish sultan
relinquish all rights in Libya, though there was no requirement for a recog-
nition of Italian sovereignty in the region. The Libyan Arabs were granted
'administrative autonomy', though this was never implemented. After the
signing of the peace in November in Lausanne, Switzerland, the Ottoman
forces were withdrawn and the Libyans were left to resist the Italian incur-
sions as best they could. The Turks continued to supply their Libyan allies
with guns, ammunition and other provisions but most of the Arab resistance
factions in Tripolitania were subjugated by the time the First World War
began in 1914. In Cyrenaica the Sanussi leader Ahmed al-Sharif assumed
command of surviving Sanussi cells in Tripolitania and Fezzan, and a
Libyan counter-attack drove the Italians back to their coastal garrisons in
Tripoli, Horns, Zuara and the Cyrenaican ports.
Soon after the 1911 invasion the Italians began to establish agricultural
settlements, many of which were later abandoned following Libyan resist-
ance. The Italian governors prepared reports to specify the forms of land
settlement that should be adopted: for example, the 1912 Bertolini Commis-
sion proposed privated (libertist) land settlement, whereas the 1913 Franchetti
Commission favoured a state scheme of land settlement (statalisti), where
peasant families would be granted small landholdings. The libertisti option
predominated but in July 1914 colonists from Tripoli and Tunis were
allowed to establish forty-three smallholdings on some of the land around
Tripoli previously held by the Turkish authorities. A scheme of colonizazzione
associata was proposed, whereby local Arab labour could be exploited on

subsistence wages. Such plans gained little local support from the indig-
enous peoples: Libyan compliance could not be relied upon and the Italian
settlers were facing increasing uncertainties. In April 1915 Libyan troops
under Italian command mutinied at Qasr Bu Hadi, stimulating further
revolts throughout the region. The leader of the initial revolt, Ramadan al-
Suwayhili, invited the support of Ottoman and German military advisors,
and his home town, Misrata, became a German base, sheltering submarines,
recruiting mercenaries and raising taxes.
Italy formally entered the war in 1915, allying itself with the British in
Egypt; the Germans, in collaboration with the Turks, worked to increase the
flow of arms and other supplies to the Libyan resistance. A number of
prestigious Muslim leaders, including Nuri Pasha from Turkey and Abdel
Rahman Azzam from Egypt, journeyed to join with Ahmed al-Sharif in
Cyrenaica. When the Libyans were badly defeated by the British army in
the Egyptian desert, Ahmed al-Sharif sunendered the Sanussi command to
Sayyid Muhammad al-Idris who became Grand Master of the Sanussi Order
in 1918 and King Idris I, with the support of the Western powers, in 1952.
The Libyans had committed mujaheddin forces of around 30,000 to support
the Ottomans against the Italians, a move which had isolated Ahmed al-
Sharif among the Sanussi leadership. Forced to transfer all authority to his
cousin Idris, who had already made contact with the British in Cairo, he fled
to Constantinople aboard a German submarine. In 1916 Idris sent a
mujaheddin force under Safi al-Din, another cousin, to impose Sanussi
control over the pro-Ottoman administration in Misrata, but he was de-
feated by Ramadan al-Suwayhili at Bani Walid. However, the British,
already impressed with Idris's credentials, interceded with the Italians, and
in the Akramah accord of April 1917 the Sanussi were granted a nominal
autonomy in the region of Cyrenaica. At that time the Italians declared their
willingness to regard Idris as the hereditary Emir of the interior. Limited
self-government was also granted to Tripolitania, with provincial Libyan
councils expected to assist the Italian administration. However, though Idris
was now Emir ('prince') there was growing conflict between the Italians
and the Sanussi Libyans.
Britain made efforts to end the Libyan/Italian conflict, not least by
enlisting the support of the Khedive in Egypt and the Emir of Arabia.10
When a truce was eventually signed in 1916 Britain recorded that Idris 'had
been made to understand thoroughly that he was to be recognised only as
the religious leader of his sect and not as chief of a political entity, and
second, that he must make peace with both powers (Britain and Italy) or
with neither'.11 The truce specified that the Sanussi were to recognise the
Italian administration in the towns, while the Italians were to recognise the
de facto Sanussi rule in the country. Idris had declared 'the unification of
the fatherland' as a political goal,12 but his health was poor and he was little
more than a nominal leader: soon after his promotion to Emir he travelled
to Egypt, not to return until installed back in Libya by the British in 1943.
Idris had, it is recorded, 'long made financial preparations for this eventu-
ality out of the Italian subsidies'.13
By the end of the First World War the colonial grip on Libya had been
severely weakened. The collapse of the Ottomans, the weariness of the
Italians, the intercession of the British with an interest in peace in the region
- these and other factors had combined to boost the hopes of those Libyans
who continued to strive for national independence. But the Libyans them-
selves were divided: decades of conflict had produced many contending
factions. Some were rooted in Islamic fundamentalism, others in the per-
ceived need to adjust to the dramatically changing features of a post-war
twentieth century; some factions, apolitical and cosmopolitan, had no inter-
est beyond trade; while others, sensitive to the upheavals wrought by
Bolshevism, saw revolution as the only route to national pride. Some
groups sought to protect their trading interests by collaborating with the
Italian merchants and administrators, and some speculated on whether a
defeat of the Italian colonists would simply return Libya to Turkish control.
There were also, as in any political environment, the competing leadership
claims, whether favouring a continued colonial tutelage, the imagined
virtues of republicanism, the eternal verities of messianic religion, or what-
ever. The disruptions brought by the competing European powers fuelled
Arab nationalism and further stimulated efforts to bring a final end to
colonial occupation. In much of Libya Italy was able only to claim a
nominal control, but it succeeded nonetheless in exploiting the discordant
strife, in exacerbating racial tensions: for example, between Arabs and
Berbers. The Italians remained in a state of virtual siege in their coastal
enclaves but the Libyans, disunited and poorly led, were in no position to
evict them from all Libyan land. Moreover, the ending of the European war
was already suggesting to the Italians that a more effective conquest of
Libya might be a realistic option.
In 1918 a rebel government managed to establish itself in Tripolitania,
despite the bombing of Misrata by Italian and Malta-based British aircraft.
Italy then despatched General Garioni with troop contingents to Tripoli to
prepare for the possibility of reconquest. By March 1919 some 70,000
soldiers had landed and ships were deliveringflame-throwers,heavy artil-
lery, tanks and aeroplanes. Garioni declared that the reconquest would be
completed 'within two months'.14 But the Italians, perhaps for domestic
reasons, were reluctant to embark upon a fresh colonial adventure. Major-
General Giuseppe Tarditi talked to the tribal leaders, instructing them to
submit to Italian rule or to face military action. The Arab leaders - who
included Ramadan Shutaywi, Sulaiman Baruni and the Egyptian Abdel
Rahman Azzam - refused to heed the Italian threats, even threatening to
intensify the guerrilla struggle if the talks broke down. Italy would be
allowed to maintain garrisons in some of the coastal towns, but the tribes
would not disarm and Italy would recognise the Tripolitanian republic. The
resolute Arab stand resulted in a partial climb-down by the Italians: a statute
was issued in October 1919 giving Tripolitanians the right to a parliament
and all the benefits of Italian citizenship. At the same time the Italians
thought that they would be able to maintain an element of control, in
collaboration with local leaders, through governing and local councils. The
70,000 troops were sent home, never having ventured beyond Tripoli, and
little seemed to have changed. The Italians maintained their coastal strong-
holds and the Libyans mounted guerrilla raids while continuing to fight
among themselves.
Conflict between Ramadan Shutaywi and the Orfella tribe, early in 1920,
resulted in Shutaywi's death. The Italians had worried that Shutaywi would
overrun the country and governor Menzinger, having failed to prevent the
crisis, was replaced by governor Mercatelli. He was however prevented by
the Italian government from taking any military initiatives, being told that
'"every warlike act, even an insignificant one, would have unfortunate
repercussions" - in Italy, not Tripolitania.'15 Signs of fresh political turmoil
in Italy suggested that potentially hazardous military adventures would be
avoided, at least in the short term. In the early 1920s Italy was on the verge
of dramatic social changes and was reluctant to pursue a further aggressive
war in North Africa. The declaration of a republic in Tripolitania was
followed by Cyrenaica establishing its own parliament, a body that lacked
full autonomy but which for a time suffered only indirect control from Italy.
In such circumstances the pressures mounted for true Libyan independence.
A delegation from the Tripolitanian republic visited Rome to lobby left-
wing deputies to declare their total repudiation of any form of Italian
sovereignty over Libya. Such developments made the Italian government
increasingly unhappy with its compromise rule in North Africa and the
scene was set for a radical change of policy. One option was for Italy to
withdraw from its 'fourth shore', to acknowledge at last that its position in
North Africa was untenable. However, such a course was unacceptable:
Italy was not about to give up its strongholds on Libyan territory.
The Tripolitanian delegation had achieved nothing: Mercatelli's refusal
to issue passports had not stopped Mohammad Khalid al-Gargani from
travelling with the delegates to Rome (Gargani was later to attend the
Muslim Revolutionary Congress in Moscow), but the delegation was dis-
credited by another Libyan group headed by Hassuna Pasha Karamanli, the
mayor of Tripoli and long a friend of Italy. The group denounced Gargani
as a revolutionary troublemaker and the Italians withdrew recognition from
his delegation on the ground that it did not represent all Tripolitania. This
led to further military tensions in Libya, whereupon Mercatelli moved to
exploit Arab/Berber differences, urging Sulaiman Baruni to organise his
Berber followers in an 'anti-rebel' front. The orthodox Muslims moved to
crush the Berber resistance and Yefren, a Berber centre, fell in 1921.
Mercatelli made what efforts he could to help the Berbers, despatching a
relief column that did not manage to reach Yefren (a shortage of water
halted the column thirty miles short). Governor Mercatelli, increasingly
frustrated by the Libyan impasse, took the decision to resign. He was duly
replaced by Count Giuseppe Volpi.
The Italian government had been pressured into making many conces-
sions to the Libyan nationalists. Before Idris sought refuge in Egypt he and
his family had been paid monthly allowances; and the Italians met other
expenses, subsidising the Emir's army and police, tribal sheikhs, officials
and others. Idris was allowed freedom of movement, and he was consulted
on the appointment of Italian officials to his territory. Similarly the Italians
gave increasing latitude to the Cyrenaican parliament, which convened in
Benghazi in April 1921 for the first time. Most of the sixty parliamentary
members were elected tribal sheikhs, with the Italian community being
allowed only three representatives. Contrary to Idris's agreement with the
Italians he had failed to disarm the tribal guerrillas or to break up the armed
camps. A further accord, designed to put the camps under joint Italian/
Libyan control until they could be disbanded, was signed at Bu Mariam
on 11 November 1921. For a time the 'mixed camps' were jointly policed
but the scheme was not judged a success: the Italians tried to make the
camps subversive centres of Italian influence deep in the country, further
exacerbating the tensions between the Italian administrators and the Arab
leaders.
The time for radical decisions had been reached. The compromises made
by Italy over its Libyan territories were increasingly seen as expensive and
unworkable. It was time to withdraw totally from North Africa or to embark
upon a fresh conquest of Libya. In August 1921 Giuseppe Volpi, the
eleventh governor in ten years, arrived in Tripoli; on 28 October 1922
Benito Mussolini marched on Rome to initiate a twenty-year period of
fascist dictatorship in Italy. The early 1920s was not the time for Italians
to contemplate an abject sunender of their North African possessions.
RECONQUEST
Prelude
In 1919 Mussolini had written in Popolo dTtalia: 'As for Libya, it is

obvious that we cannot withdraw the garrisons that are needed for our
security',16 and soon afterwards he organised the meeting at which the fasci
di combattimento were created. As always, the press could be largely relied
upon to suggest the romantic appeal of colonial adventure, to stimulate the
nationalist imaginations of ordinary citizen and politician alike. Gaspare
Colosimo, for example, responsible for the Italian colonies from 1916 to
1919 in a secondary government position, was influenced by nationalist
declarations celebrating the 'solidity - in terms both of territory and popu-
lation - of Italian rule with that of other colonial empires' .17 Even supposed
Liberal opinion deemed it necessary 'to consolidate our rule wherever
present-day circumstances have rendered it somewhat insecure', though it
was recognised - at least by Senator Scialoja, president of the Royal
Commission for the post-war period - that 'in Libya, particularly, the
religious question is of fundamental importance', and that 'we shall not be
able to get a just, sound settlement of our relations with the inhabitants
of the colonies unless we first take account of their moral requirements'.18
When the fascist Giuseppe Volpi arrived in Tripoli in August 1921 the
situation was worse than he had imagined: the Italians held a number of the
coastal towns but little else. Beyond the barbed-wire defences the Reform
Committee of the Tripolitanian republic issued its own edicts, imposed
taxes, and raised its own levies; and sometimes the Committee pursued its
activities in the urban areas under nominal Italian control. Volpi's instinct
was to go on to the offensive, but he was constrained by Rome and
abandoned plans for an incursion into Misrata Marina. The Italian govern-
ment was alarmed by a report that the region would be resolutely defended
by 100,000 armed tribesmen. Volpi met the local chiefs, declared that he
was prepared to recognise their authority over their own people - a classic
colonial ploy - but emphasised that no Emir claiming to represent the
whole country would be tolerated. But there were signs that the Libyans
were working to develop a more united front to oppose the Italian occupa-
tion. Thus in late 1921 Volpi received reports that Idris was meeting
Tripolitanian envoys and that the Tripolitanians were talking to various
Sanussi factions at Sirte. Such events were seen by Volpi as further evid-
ence that a more robust Italian policy was essential: if Rome continued to
hesitate he would himself take action. By 18 January 1922 Volpi was
prepared to invade Misrata and its port, and on the following day the Italian
Minister of Colonies sanctioned the scheme as an 'internal action' for
which Volpi would carry sole responsibility.
A force sailed from Tripoli and accomplished a dawn landing of some
1500 troops near Misrata Marina on 26 January but the plan faltered, even
though there was only a small defending force. Air and sea reinforcements
had to be sent from Italy before the port could be taken, seventeen days after
the launch of the campaign. The poor showing of the Italian forces did
nothing to convince Volpi that military measures were ill-advised. Instead
he concluded that a more vigorous military posture was the only answer to
the Libyan question: 'Italy is forever destined to bathe the assertion of
herrightsin blood!'
The Italian invasion provoked a response from the Tripolitanians. The
railway line from Tripoli to Azizia in Eritrea was cut and the garrison at
Azizia was besieged. Actions were launched against most of the Italian
enclaves, and by the end of February the Italians were looking for a truce.
Volpi returned to Rome to discuss fresh plans with a new Minister of
Colonies, Amendola. Negotiations were begun with the tribal leaders who
were threatened with military action but who responded by demanding self-
rule under a Muslim leader. On 1 April Ahmad Marayid sent a note to Volpi
revealing that the Tripolitanian and Sanussi representatives had agreed at
Sirte to a united Tripolitania and Cyrenaica under a Muslim leader with
supreme powers. Volpi, increasingly impatient, decided that a policy of
direct rule from Italy was the only solution: 'Neither with the chiefs, nor
against the chiefs, but without the chiefs.'19 With the ending of the cease-
fire on 10 April 1922, Volpi - now with 15,000 troops under his command
- was ready to 're-establish normalcy', to launch a fully fledged reconquest
of Libya.
An early Italian success was achieved when Rodolfo Graziani, a young
colonel working in concert with other competent officers, managed to
retake the whole of the Tripoli/Zuara coastal strip. The siege of the Eritrean
garrison at Azizia was lifted by Pietro Badoglio, and on 30 April Graziani
was able to march into the town. Other regions were reoccupied and
Graziani was given enlarged responsibilities: Volpi had now decided that
further negotiations with the Arabs were a waste of time. He declared a state
of martial law in areas where the rebels were active, working to crush the
rebellion before effective links could be forged between the anti-Italian
factions in Tripolitania and Cyrenaica. The newly assertive policies were
to gain added support following the social and political changes in Italy.
Soon after Mussolini took power in October 1922, he set about the
reconquest of the whole of Libya: 'Civilization in fact is what Italy is
creating on the fourth shore of our sea - Western civilization in general and
Fascist civilization in particular.' Volpi himself, writing some years later,
declared what the arrival of Fascism had meant to him: 'The absolute
identity of policy and intention and the end for ever of the tormenting
unease which up to then had increased the difficulties of action.'20 The
scene was set for a fresh onslaught by a modern well-equipped nation on
the tribal peoples of Libya.
Shape of Aggression
The reconquest of the 'fourth shore' had begun in earnest in late 1922. The
Italians made quick gains - northern Tripolitania was soon brought under
control - but it took several years to subdue the entire region. By 1928 the
Sirtica desert had been conquered, and in 1930 the Fezzan was pacified.
There was scattered resistance in Cyrenaica until 1931 but Italy's merciless
tactics eventually convinced the tribes that there was no point in further
conflict. One of the principal guerrilla leaders, Omar al-Mukhtar (see
below), was captured, tried and executed in 1931; and in January 1932 the
total subjugation of Libya was finally announced. In 1937 Mussolini had
himself ceremonially proclaimed the 'Protector of Islam', two years before
Libya was officially integrated into metropolitan Italy.
This bare chronology does nothing to convey what the indigenous
people suffered through this period. The Libyan authorities have stated that
some 750,000 people were killed during the Italian conquest, and though
this may be an exaggeration there is no doubt that many Libyan com-
munities were displaced, slaughtered and driven into concentration camps.
The researcher John Wright has claimed that the Italians were executing
12,000 Libyans annually.21 A German visitor to Tripoli, Von Gotberg,
commented that 'No army meted out such vile and inhumane treatment as
the Italian army in Tripoli. General Kanaiva has shown contempt for every
international law, regarding lives as worthless.'22
Omar al-Mukhtar had fought the Italians since the time of the original
invasion in 1911. He served under Ahmed al-Sharif until forced into a
period of exile in Egypt until 1923; then he returned to Libya to command
a force of up to six thousand guerrillas, mainly nomads. Leadership in Libya
was provided by Reda, Idris's brother, until Reda was captured by the
Italians in 1928 and banished to Sicily. Mukhtar became the effective leader
of the unpacified territories by night, able to raise taxes and recruits for the
guerrilla movement. An Italian/Egyptian agreement in 1925 gave Italy
sovereignty over the Sanussi strongholds at the Jarabub and Kufra oases,
making it easier for the Italians to cut off the Libyans' sources of supply in
Egypt, but the conflict continued. The Italian supply lines, communication
facilities and troop convoys came under frequent attack, with the Italians
responding by blocking water wells with stones and concrete; slaughtering
the herds of camels, sheep and goats that the tribes depended on; moving
whole communities into desolate concentration camps in the desert; and
dropping captured Libyans alive from aircraft.
In January 1923 General Luigi Bongiovanni was appointed by Mussolini
as thefirstFascist governor of Cyrenaica. He had been given a directive to
crush the rebellion quickly, to demonstrate that the new regime in Rome
was in effective control of the colonial territories. Bongiovanni first invited
Reda al-Sanussi, now the head of the Sanussi Order after his brother's
departure for Egypt, to disband the 'mixed camps' and all other armed
bases. When this failed to happen the Italians invaded the camps and
anested the Sanussi forces; all pacts with the Sanussis were declared void,
and the Italians demanded that the tribes recognise complete Italian sover-
eignty over the whole of Cyrenaica. The second Italian/Sanussi war, begun
in 1922, was to lead to the crushing of the tribes and the stern imposition of
a Fascist order. Small numbers of nomads resisted the Italian forces as best
they could, but they were poorly equipped, able to muster only half a dozen
machine guns, a few pieces of artillery, and no more than 6000 regular and
inegularriflemen.23Many of the tribes fought hard to keep their independ-
ence but it was difficult to resist armoured onslaughts on their camps. More
than 20,000 nomads were subjugated in the spring of 1923; eight hundred
were killed between May and September and 12,000 sheep were confis-
cated or killed. The mechanised raids continued to crush the camps but
the Libyan 'non-combatants' (sottomessi, those who had 'submitted') con-
tinued to support the active guerrillas where they could.
A principal guerrilla stronghold was the Gebel Akhdar, a rough region
with woods, caves and ravines, ideal guerrilla country. By the end of 1924
the Italians had conquered the western end of the Gebel Akhdar, though
minor skirmishes - ambushes and small engagements - still occurred. The
Italians used armoured vehicles wherever they could be taken, and could
often rely upon air support. The guerrillas lost around 1100 men between
April and September 1927, the time that has been seen as the half-way point
in the battle for the Gebel Akhdar and Cyrenaica.24 After this time, events
unfolded with a grim predictability: tribesmen equipped only with rifles
were no match for the more numerous Italian troops equipped with ar-
moured vehicles, artillery and aircraft.
When on 6 March 1923, General Bongiovanni began a surprise attack on
the Sanussi forces to signal the start of the campaign to conquer Cyrenaica
he was able to call on considerable forces: four Italian battalions, five
Eritrean battalions, two Libyan battalions (the eleven battalions together
comprising an infantry strength of more than 8000 men), two Savari (Libyan
cavalry) squadrons, two mountain batteries, two gunnery companies for
fortifications, two companies of engineers, a motorised unit divided into
twelve sections, and two squadrons of aircraft (including four Caproni Ca 3
bombers and eight Sva spotter planes).25 We have seen that the Sanussi had
around 6000 men equipped with rifles and little else. The 'mixed camps'
were broken up and fresh territory in Cyrenaica was soon occupied by the
advancing Italian forces, but the invaders were not always successful: in
two successive engagements in Sirtica the Mogarba severely mauled the
Italians, who lost thirteen officers, forty Italian soldiers and 279 ascari.26
Firm Italian rule was established over what were seen as the more stable
tribes in the region of the towns, though tribal resistance continued in the
Gebel and in many of the arid southern regions: the Mogarba, the southern
Auaghir, the Brahasa, the Abid, the Faied, and some of the Dorsa and
Abeidat.27
The offensive in the Gebel continued through 1924: in the spring of that
year, according to official Italian figures, six hundred guerrillas and some
25,000 animals were killed, though only ninety-seven rifles were seized.
The mobile rebel groups were able to avoid the fixed Italian garrisons but
guerrilla losses continued to mount as the campaign wore on. In spring 1925
the Italians attacked the southern slopes of the Gebel, killing 250 men, 5000
camels and more than 10,000 sheep; only fifty rifles were collected from the
battlefield, which suggests that the Italians were attacking ordinary
tribespeople rather than the organised guerrilla forces. In 1926 the Italians,
gaining experience in the use of trucks and aircraft in desert terrain, moved
further into the Gebel. At that time the rebels lost 500 men, 100 horses,
2300 camels and more than 30,000 sheep; the Italian losses were three
officers, twenty-five troops and twenty-four ascari?1 In four years of fight-
ing the Gebel tribes had suffered losses of some 1500 men and as many as
100,000 domestic animals, but they still managed to retain control of parts
of the Gebel. Moreover they achieved some significant victories: on the
28 March 1927 the Italian-led Seventh Libyan Battalion of 750 troops was
ambushed at er-Raheiba with nearly half the force wiped out. General
Mezzetti acknowledged this 'notable military success against us' and pro-
vided a description of the engagement.29 In November 1926 Attilio Teruzzi,
an influential member of the Fascist party, took over from General Mombelli
as governor of Cyrenaica. The Italian forces were quickly built up with the
aim of establishing complete control of the Gebel, and again the contrast
between the sizes of the contending forces was manifest. The Italians now
had massive mobile forces: nine Eritrean battalions, two Libyan battalions,
four Savari squadrons, one meharist squadron, a squadron of armoured
cars, and various bands of inegulars - all totalling more than 10,000 men
well equipped to move fast through desert tenain. In addition there were the
fixed garrisons in the towns and the increasing number of rural pacified
areas, and a supporting force of twenty aircraft. Against this array of men
and hardware, Omar al-Mukhtar commanded fewer than two thousand men.
Now the war was moving decisively to a conclusion. Mukhtar's forces were
dispersed, though they often managed to escape with their light weapons
intact, the supposedly impregnable Kuf stronghold was finally overrun, and
Mezzetti launched repeated attacks on the Gebel from July to September
1927. The rebels lost 1300 men killed, 250 women and children taken
prisoner, 3000 camels killed and 850 captured, and 5000 sheep killed
with 18,000 captured. Throughout the whole of the summer campaign the
Italians lost two officers, five airmen and sixty-one ascari.
It seemed in 1927 that the Italians had finally defeated all serious
resistance in the Gebel, perhaps the most significant rebel region in the
whole of Libya; but even General Mezzetti, while rejoicing in the Italian
victory, acknowledged that there may be further rebel offensives. He recog-
nised the strengths of the rebel resistance, noting the solidarity of the
sottomessi, and the leadership qualities of the Sanussis. However, there was
still an unwillingness to recognise that the tribes were involved in a legit-
imate struggle for national independence: 'Mezzetti and other exponents
of Italian colonialism were compelled to fall back on racist ravings in order
to explain the innate belligerence of the primitive peoples of Libya.'30
To consolidate Italian control of the Gebel, Mezzetti built a network of
fortified points to hamper the movement of any surviving rebel groups and
to provide effective logistic support for the Italian forces. New forts were
established and an effort was made to draw clear dividing lines between the
sites of the pacified population and the regions in which the rebels still had
a toe-hold: this meant that any animal or person south of the principal
demarcation line could be attacked by mechanised units on the ground or
bombed from the air. In fact it came to be realised that the 'non-combatants'
could not be effectively separated from the rebels: the garrisons multiplied,
the Italian forces became thinly spread, and the Sanussi leaders were able
to restart the rebellion.
In October 1927 Governor Teruzzi and Mezzetti called a meeting in
Benghazi of all the officials responsible for the administrative districts of
Cyrenaica: the officials were asked to estimate the number of armed rebels
still active in the territory. Mezzetti later wrote that the officials claimed
that there were not more than 'a hundred or so' armed rebels in the whole
of Cyrenaica. Again this statement has been taken as indicating that the
Italians did not really understand the dimensions of the national struggle.
The 'non-combatants' were still solid in their hostility to Italian rule, and
the armed factions were struggling to reorganise their forces. Thus in
November a fresh offensive was launched with a raid in the area of Slonta
and attacks on the Italian communication lines.31 Omar al-Mukhtar had
realised that frontal assaults on the Italian forces would be suicidal, and so
resorted to classical guerrilla tactics: there was still talk of Mukhtar's 'night
government'.
The resistance suffered a fresh set-back when Reda, Idris's brother, gave
himself up to the Italian authorities, highlighting internal disagreements
among the Sanussi. Reda's eldest son Hassan took over the Sanussi leader-
ship, and tactical moves by the Italians had the effect of stimulating further
rebellion in Cyrenaica. Perhaps misled by their own scanty information the
Italians decided to concentrate their forces in Tripolitania, and in conquest
of the Sirtic region and certain oases south of the Gebel. This encouraged
guerrilla activities in the Gebel, but the fresh Italian moves - supported by
radio, armoured cars, trucks and aircraft - achieved considerable successes
in their new operations. In particular, the pro-Italian Libyan mounted mehara
units were as mobile as the rebels' mehalle and with much superior equip-
ment: a 400-strong mehalla, intending to attack the Italian forces in Sirtica,
was spotted and bombed by aircraft, then attacked and destroyed by Italian
mobile units. In this engagement the rebels lost 226 men and 173 rifles.32
Rebel attacks continued in the Gebel, despite widespread and largely indis-
criminate Italian bombing. The Italian publication Notiziario noted that
while the air force had not failed to bomb any camps and groups that it
sighted, 'recent reports indicate that such attacks have not been very effec-
tive in view of the fact that the soldiers have easily managed to withdraw,
hiding in the caves of the high wadis\33 At the same time bomb fragments
'caused heavy losses among livestock'.
Mezzetti then withdrew forces from Sirtica to mount a further offensive
in the Gebel: on 31 March a large caravan was destroyed at Baltet-es-Zalgh,
leaving 200 dead and 1500 camels killed.34 Again, in the face of the new
onslaught, the rebel groups dispersed among the people, mingling with the
sottomessi, and the Italians were reminded how impossible it was to sep-
arate the active guerrillas from the supposed non-combatants in the tribes.
Notiziario observed how the rebels had infiltrated the ranks of the Abeidat
sottomessi: 'So-called dissidents, moreover, have sent all their livestock
into Abeidat territory, where it has mingled with the animals of the sottomessi;
they have also done the same with their families and much of their chat-
tels.'35 In December 1928 Mezzetti gave an optimistic account of his two
years of command, but conceded that absolute control could only be achieved
by the destruction of the rebels as a politico-military organisation, and that
this would be accomplished by the politico-military organisation of the

country. At the end of 1928 the Italians were forced to admit that, despite
massive offensives with considerable support, the Sanussi were still able to
control parts of the country and to operate at night in many of the occupied
regions.
In the first half of 1928 the Italians had occupied a further 150,000
square kilometres of territory in operations, in the words of an Italian
commentator, 'worthy of entry in the most glowing pages of colonial-
military history of the world'.36 But the mobile Libyan forces always man-
aged to avoid total annihilation: Italian thrusts had divided rebel forces from
each other, but they were still able to function as self-contained units, living
off the inhospitable land and continuing to rely on the support of the people.
In January 1929 Pietro Badoglio, the marshall of Italy, was made governor
of Tripolitania and Cyrenaica, an indication of the importance the Italians
attached to their Libyan territories. He quickly issued a proclamation offer-
ing 'peace, clemency and generosity' to all those who were prepared to
submit to Italian rule. The proclamation was printed in thousands of copies
and dropped by aircraft over wide areas. One hope was that it would
forestall a planned rebel offensive by Hassan and Ahmad Saif al-Nasr. At
the same time the military pressure on the tribes was maintained within the
context of an infrastructure that the Italians had developed over many years.
Graziani, now a general, had built a network of garrisons, largely disarmed
many of the tribes, and had locked and poisoned wells to restrict the
mobility of the rebels. Hassan, despite his ambition to drive back the
Italians, was forced to retreat south across barren country; and Ahmad
Saif al-Nasr was defeated at Al-Shuwayrif (Graziani: 'Thus, in miserable
fashion, the rebel plan failed once again').
The Badoglio proclamation promising peace (and also declaring: 'If
obliged, I will wage war with powerful systems and means, which they will
long remember. No rebel will be left in peace, neither he nor his family nor
his herds nor his heirs. I will destroy everything, men and things') met with
little response. Instead new Italian offensives were launched: at the end of
1929 Graziani's forces reached the area of Fezzan, quelling the last pockets
of rebel resistance, but guerrillas still managed to remain active in some
parts of Cyrenaica. Badoglio brought Reda back from exile and began
secret negotiations, after which there was a reduction in hostilities leading
to a truce.
However, the truce - of which there are various interpretations - was
short-lived. Badoglio informed Mussolini that the truce represented an
unconditional sunender on the part of Mukhtar and the other Libyan lead-
ers, but Mukhtar saw the truce as a temporary anangement to allow the
continuation of negotiations: in fact when Mukhtar went to meet Badoglio,

the Arab leader was accompanied by a strong retinue of warriors, a circum-
stance which does not suggest abject sunender. Elements of the Libyan
forces remained intact, and the hoped-for disarmament predicted by the
Italian authorities had not been achieved. The Italians tried to prolong the
negotiations but when it was clear that no progress was being made Mukhtar
announced that no further adjournments would be accepted and that hostil-
ities would be resumed from 24 October 1929. The scene was set for the
final crushing of the Libyan forces.
It was left to Rodolfo Graziani to put down the final efforts of the
weakened Cyrenaican rebellion. He had recently conquered southern
Tripolitania and Fezzan, and, a general at forty-two and now vice-governor
of Cyrenaica, he was regarded in some Italian circles as a national hero. He
was also known in Cyrenaica as 'Butcher Graziani'. On 5 April 1930 he
wrote to Badoglio: 'I see the situation in Cyrenaica as comparable to a
poisoned organism which produces, in one part of the body, a festering
bubo. The bubo in this instance is the dor of Omar al-Mukhtar, which is the
result of a wholly infected situation. To heal this sick body it is necessary
to destroy the origin of the malady rather than its effects.'37 Many saw him
as waging a personal vendetta against Mukhtar.
Repression
In 1930 General Graziani began his final task in Cyrenaica by building a

two-hundred-mile-long barbed-wire fence along the Egyptian border - from
the Bardia oasis near the coast to just north of the Jarabub oasis - to block
all guerrilla supplies coming from Egypt's Western Desert.38 The fence, ten
yards wide and five feet high, was patrolled by armoured vehicles and
aircraft; anyone trying to penetrate it was shot. Graziani himself compared
the fence to the Great Wall of China, though the actual effectiveness of the
wire entanglements was debatable. In addition, Graziani disbanded his pro-
Italian Libyan contingents, replacing them with units of Christian Eritreans,
hated by the Arabs. Any contact with the guerrillas was made a capital
offence, the Sanussi zawiyas were closed, shaikhs were anested on thin
charges and exiled, and almost the entire population of nomads in northern
Cyrenaica, along with all their livestock, was forcibly moved for incarcera-
tion in bleak concentration camps on the coast and in the desert. The camps
comprised rows of government tents set in straight rows, the whole area
enclosed by barbed wire fences and protected by machine guns. Thus the
wandering Bedouin nomads, accustomed to roaming over vast open areas,
were confined to miserable wire enclosures, their traditional modes of
existence shattered. Graziani declared to the press in June 1931 that 'no
radical change in life has been imposed on the people'. Now the proud
sottomessi were only allowed to subsist as 'caged beggars . . . ashamed at
having submitted while others were still fighting'.39 Wright quotes Knud
Holmboe, an Arabic-speaking Danish Muslim, who travelled from
Morocco to Derna in 1930, and who later described in his book Desert
Encounter a camp he encountered near Barce:
It was fenced in with barbed wire, and there were guards with machine
guns at every entrance . . . children came running towards us. They were
in rags and hungry, half-starved, but evidently they were accustomed to
getting money from the Commandant on his visits, for they stretched out
their hands and shouted in Italian: (Un soldo, Signore, un soldo!' The
Bedouins gathered around us. They looked incredibly ragged. On their
feet were hides tied with string; their burnouses were a patchwork of all
kinds of multi-coloured pieces. Many of them seemed ill and wretched,
limping along with crooked backs, or with arms and legs that were
terribly deformed.40
There is a lengthy catalogue of war crimes perpetrated by General

Graziani, for which he was never called to account. It is suggested that the
Italians deliberately bombed civilians, killing vast numbers of women,
children and old people; that they raped and disembowelled women, threw
prisoners alive from aeroplanes, and ran over others with tanks. Suspects
were hanged or shot in the back, tribal villages - according to Holmboe -
were being bombed with mustard gas by the spring of 1930. As with all
atrocity tales, there is probably an element of exaggeration, but Holmboe
noted that during the time he was in Cyrenaica 'thirty executions took place
daily . . . The land swam in blood!'41 Few Libyan families survived this
period without loss: Muammar Gaddafi himself lost a grandfather, and
three hundred members of his tribe were forced by the Italians to seek
refuge in Chad. Graziani was well aware that the alleged atrocities, under
his command, were tarnishing his military reputation: he noted the 'clamour
of unpopularity and slander and disparagement which was spread every-
where against me', but recorded in his book, The Agony of the Rebellion,
that his conscience was 'tranquil and undaunted to see Cyrenaica saved, by
pure Fascism, from that invading Levantism which sought to escape from
the civilising Latin force'. The means to 'save' Cyrenaica, with the rest
of Libya, had been much discussed and carefully planned.
The people of the Gebel were deported in order to isolate the few pockets
of guerrilla resistance still under the control of Omar al-Mukhtar. Badoglio,
in protracted discussion and exchange of letters with Graziani, noted that it
was essential to create a well-defined territorial gap between the guerrillas
and the 'subject population'. He observed in a letter to Graziani on 20 June
1930: 'I do not conceal from myself the significance and gravity of this
action, which may well spell the ruin of the so-called subject population.'42
Moreover, it was essential that this path be followed 'even if the entire
population of Cyrenaica has to perish' (my italics). In fact the deportation
plan was already well under way in May 1930, with some tribes having
been moved near to Italian bases where the Arabs could more easily be
controlled: Graziani himself recorded that 1400 Dorsa tents had been estab-
lished around Tolmeta, with 900 Abid tents on the Barce plain, and 3600
Abeidat tents in the area of Derna. But now the scheme was dramatically
expanded as Graziani ordered 'the total clearance of the Gebel by moving
the entire population, under its first phase, from Tolmeta to the sea'. Soon
there were signs of the scale of the operation: plans were set in motion for
7000 Abeidat tents to be conveyed to an approved area, and Badoglio noted
one of the advantages of the concentration camps that were being estab-
lished ('we shall go on . . . to carry out a strict census of people and
livestock'). Badoglio also suggested that the sottomessi were now thor-
oughly cowed, understanding that the Italian government would cany out
'any form of extreme measure'43 to ensure that all orders were completely
obeyed. There was to be no ambiguity in the prevailing policy regarding
the concentration camps. Thus Graziani declared that 'the government is
calmly determined to reduce the people to most miserable starvation if
they do not fully obey orders. The same severity will be meted out to all
those outside who act on their behalf.'44
Little publicity was being given in Italy to the events on the North
African mainland, and the other European powers had little interest in what
was happening in Libya (it is worth recalling that the French, English,
Belgians and Spanish had carried out similar policies in their own colonial
territories). In such circumstances Mussolini felt free to authorise Badoglio
and Graziani to adopt whatever repressive measures they chose, without
fear of consequences for his own regime. Thus the region of the Gebel
became an empty land, without livestock or animals: 80,000 inhabitants and
hundreds of thousands of animals were deported into severe camps and
other areas that could be mercilessly policed. The sottomessi had been
reduced to beggars, forced labourers - demoralised victims of a colonial
power. Details provided by Graziani indicate the character of the concentra-
tion camps: tens of thousands of people huddled together, with the bare
means of subsistence, scant health facilities (in one region two doctors were
each responsible for two camps and more than 30,000 people), and little
hope for the future.
The rebellion was now virtually over. Successive Italian offensives had
divided the tribes from each other, making it easier to deport the conquered
peoples. The outside world, with its own preoccupations, had no concern
with what might be happening in Italy's North African lands. It had taken
Italy more than two decades to subjugate an underdeveloped tribal people,
but now the task was largely complete - most graphically signalled by the
capture and trial of Omar al-Mukhtar; and by his execution, before a silent
gathering of 20,000 tribesmen.
Capture of Mukhtar
In a battle in October 1930 Omar al-Mukhtar, then over seventy, lost his
gold spectacles and their silver chain; when they were found and identified
by an Italian patrol, Graziani declared: 'Now we have the spectacles; the
head will follow one day.'45 In early September 1931 the Italians in the
Gebel received news that the rebel Brahasa-Dorsa dor (a hundred or so
horsemen), reinforced by Mukhtar's Abeidat dor, was concentrating to the
south of el-Beda in preparation for a raid around Cyrene. The alarm was
raised and scouts were sent into the region. On 9 September rebels were
sighted near Slonta, not far from an Italian garrison, and on the following
day Colonel Giuseppe Malta moved three Eritrean battalions and a group
of Savari squadrons into the zone. At dawn on 11 September the detected
dor was attacked in the Wadi Bu Taga, but the horsemen were already on
the move and as they dispersed they managed to move through the Italian
lines. One of the small groups of horsemen was sighted by aircraft and a
signal was sent to the closest Savari squadron which quickly set off in
pursuit of the rebels. Hampered by the poor state of their horses and with the
guerrillas themselves suffering from lack of food and sleep, eleven rebels
were gradually overtaken and killed. The horse of the twelfth was shot from
under him, and as the aged rebel, wounded in the arm, lay trapped under his
dead mount he was recognised by his pursuers as Omar al-Mukhtar.
On 12 September Mukhtar was put on board a destroyer and taken to
Benghazi where he was formally identified by Italian officials; at no time
did he try to conceal his identity or his position as leader of the rebels. His
capture was quickly announced in Tripoli and, in a letter to General De
Bono, Badoglio declared that Mukhtar would soon be executed: 'Should the
captured man really be Omar al-Mukhtar, I think it would be opportune to
hold the trial and carry out the sentence, which will undoubtedly be the
death penalty, in one of the big native concentration camps.'46 De Bono
wrote to Graziani on 14 September: 'Good. We shall hold a trial and then
unfailingly a sensational execution.'47 Badoglio then instructed Graziani to
hold a criminal trial 'which can only end with the death sentence according
to local customs', declaring also that it was necessary for the sentence to be
carried out in the most important concentration camp.
Mukhtar had been initially intenogated on board the Italian destroyer,
the Orsini; and later on the premises of the Investigative Office of the
Benghazi Regional Prison. The prisoner, testifying before judge Giuseppe
Franceschino and military lawyer Giuseppe Bedendo, admitted the numer-
ous guerrilla attacks that had taken place under his command; as was to be
expected, he blamed the Italians for the Libyan rebellion (T never submitted
to the Italian government. I only had conversation with it'). The trial was
held later the same day, on 15 September 1931, at the Palazzo del Littorio;
there were elements of farce, and the result was entirely predictable. An
extempore contribution was made by Public Prosecutor Giuseppe Bedendo
who remarked that the Prince of Piedmont had a birthday on that very day,
which gave him the chance to appoint himself spokesman 'for the feeling of
the people'.48 This has been depicted as an 'absurd interlude' (Rainero),
though faithfully recorded in the trial proceedings. Bedendo, the mouth-
piece of Graziani, later wrote a tribute to the General in a poem which
celebrated the fate of Omar al-Mukhtar.49
The Italians had assembled soldiers and local sottomessi in the hall of the
court to witness what was essentially a propaganda exercise, to demonstrate
that 'Omar al-Mukhtar's fate should point the direction of this new imperial
change of course'. The prosecutor used constant sarcasm and vituperation
against Mukhtar and no-one doubted that a death sentence would be de-
manded and given. Thus Bedendo declared that the trial would put an end
to 'the fame of a legendary hero who always takes flight in times of danger
. . . you are not a soldier but a bandit who has always lived underground
. . . you have said God has this time abandoned you, but if he has failed you,
human justice has caught up with you'. The character of the trial was further
revealed by the Fascist treatment meted out to the defending council:
Captain Roberto Lontano was punished with ten days of close arrest for
having argued 'the defence in an apologetic tone, in contrast to the guilty
man and the special conditions of the place and sunoundings in which the
case was held'.50
The trial lasted for half an hour, after which the death sentence was
pronounced. Mukhtar reacted with seeming indifference ('From God we
have come and to God we must return'), disappointing the Fascist regime
who wanted to use the episode as a symbol for the crushing of all resistance.
At 9 o'clock on 16 September 1931 Omar al-Mukhtar was hanged in front
of the 20,000 inmates of the Soluk concentration camp, all from the Gebel;
even Graziani was forced to record that Mukhtar faced his death with 'a
composed,firmand decisive bearing'. The trial had been a mockery, rushed
through in haste to its predictable end.51
An Italian commentator observed that Omar al-Mukhtar was 'the faithful
and intelligent servant of Idris and the mind and heart of the Cyrenaican
rebellion', with Idris himself declaring Mukhtar 'a supreme example of
chivalry and godliness'.52 Today main streets in many Libyan towns and
cities - including Tripoli, Benghazi and Baida - are named after him. A
Western featurefilm,Lion of the Desert, starring Anthony Quinn as Mukhtar
and Oliver Reed as Graziani, has been dubbed into Arabic and is shown
regularly on Libyan television. Omar al-Mukhtar is one of Muammar
Gaddafi's great national heroes and is frequently mentioned in his speeches.
AFTERMATH
After the death of Mukhtar desultory efforts were made to keep rebellion
alive, but without success. It had taken a relatively powerful Italy two
decades to subjugate the Libyan people, and it would only be able to
maintain its colonial hold for a further decade: the First World War, with
the defeat of the Ottomans, had facilitated Italy's incursions into North
Africa whereas the Second, with the defeat of Benito Mussolini, was to
extirpate Italian colonialism in the region.
Thefinalcrushing of the Libyan rebellion did not succeed in establishing
political harmony in Rome. Tensions grew between Badoglio and Graziani
when both claimed the main credit for the ending of the Mukhtar affair.
Thus the conespondence of the Italian ambassador in Egypt, Roberto
Cantalupo, highlights Graziani's repeated claims for exclusive credit and
his criticism of the diplomatic attempts to end the rebellion. Similarly the
self-serving Graziani memoirs omit any mention of what Badoglio or the
Tripoli authorities had done to combat the Libyan rebels. In contrast,
Badoglio emphasised that Graziani had merely 'followed the instructions
I have given him'; and there was disputation about the effectiveness of
particular policies and actions - for example, the efforts to close the frontier
with Egypt. However, such wranglings did not inhibit Rome's facile depic-
tion of recent events in North Africa. The 'bandit Omar al-Mukhtar' had
been eliminated, and the other two major colonial powers in the region -
France and Britain - were not keen to stir up disputes that might endanger
their own rule in the North African territories. There was predictable protest
from Arab countries that Mukhtar's reputation had spread far beyond
the frontiers of Libya - but Colonial Minister Emilio De Bono felt able
to declare:
It's time now to end it all: the Moslem world must no longer be tricked
by a handful of intriguers. The name of Italy, with a civilization going
back thousands of years, recognised by all the nations, blessed in mosques
and schools, in mahcamah (courts of the Cadi) and hospitals by more
than a million Moslems who for years have benefited from generous
government and wise justice as embodied in laws and decrees, known
and available to all - the name of Italy cannot be defamed by a group of
a few hundred marauders, rebels against all forms of order, against every
human and divine law, who, in the name of God, are trying to prolong
indefinitely an uncertain situation merely for their own selfish purpose
of plundering, exploiting others and committing all manner of violent
actions and crimes.53
The rebellion in Libya against Italian occupation had been crushed but
many Libyan groups - forced to flee to such countries as Tunisia, Syria,
Lebanon, Turkey, Iraq and Transjordan - kept alive the dream of national
independence. Chekib Arslan's obituary of Mukhtar spoke for many: 'The
blood of Omar al-Mukhtar will remain for ever an infamy that will lie
heavily on the Italian leader... The day will come when he will see the fruit
of his anogance and know that the Moslems are not dead and theirrightsare
not lost.'54 In fact Mussolini was to outlive Mukhtar by little more than a
decade.
The final crushing of the rebellion gave a considerable boost, albeit
short-lived, to the development of Italian colonisation in the North African
territory, Italy's 'Fourth Shore'. Italian families were encouraged to emi-
grate to Libya while land was taken from the tribes and Mussolini was
happy to celebrate the planting on North African soil of 'Fascist civilisa-
tion'. Two state-run settlements at Tigrinna and Suani ben Adem in
Tripolitania - the Ente di Colonizzazione per la Cirenaica and the Ente per
la Colonizzazione della Libia - served as models for further large state-
financed and state-run schemes. Model villages and farms were developed
by selected families from southern Italy, forerunners in 1933/1934 of thou-
sands of later colonists. Italo Balbo became governor of Tripolitania and
Cyrenaica in 1934 and quickly proceeded to settle Italian peasant families
by the thousand; in 1938 Mussolini approved Balbo's ambitious programme
and some 20,000 colonists were then scheduled to arrive in Libya the
following October. As many as 30,00 Italian and Libyan labourers were
organised to construct eight new colonial villages, to clear and plant the
land for 1800 farms, to drill wells and dig irrigation channels, and to lay
roads and tracks. Families in Italy were interviewed for 'export' to the
Fourth Shore: the approved families were generally large, literate and, if not
party members, at least politically sound. The 20,000 chosen people sold
up, packed their belongings, and travelled by train to the fleet of waiting
liners destined for Tripoli and Benghazi. Banners ('Mussolini redeems the
soil and founds cities') and noisy crowds greeted their arrival and the
colonists were then driven off to their designated villages. Rarely was there
a more graphic illustration of Fascist order and regimentation. Martin
Moore, a Daily Telegraph conespondent, accompanied the immigrants and
later wrote: 'Twenty thousand peasants sat down at the same hours to
identical meals spread on identical wooden tables in identical concrete
houses.'55 The ambitious scheme was a massively expensive enterprise, and
for it to be successful the Italian investment would have to be maintained
(Moore: 'everything depends upon the State continuing to pour money into
Libya for many years to come . . . there is no foreseeable revenue which
could balance the cost of garrisoning the coast and policing the desert'56).
The rebels had been defeated - Badoglio had officially declared hostilities
at an end in 1932 - but the colonists could not be complacent about their
new holdings.
New colonists arrived in October 1939 for settlement in eight newly
constructed villages; and at the same time work was begun on a 100-mile
aqueduct to link Ain Mara to the western end of the Gebel. The early settlers
were funded in part by a semi-governmental organisation, the Instituto
Nazionale Fascista per la Sociale, financed from capital allocated to the
unemployed, but the shift to mass migration after 1936 was supported by
specific colonisation companies responsible as state agents for the settle-
ment of newly developed lands; the state itself focused on the settlement of
formerly reclaimed lands. The companies and the state awarded various
types of tenancies to the migrating peasant families. By 1940 there were
nearly 40,000 colonists in Libya (Table 3.1).57
The programme of 'demographic colonisation' was conducted with evid-
ent discipline and commitment; had not the Second World War intervened
there would have been some 100,000 settlers in Libya by 1942, with around
half a million planned by the early 1960s. It is also clear that, in agricultural
and financial terms, the settler farms achieved a measure of success. Thus
in 1950 a United Nations report on Libya commented that: 'The Italian
farms . . . represent a remarkable feat of pioneering and land reclamation
which . . . has recently begun to demonstrate its full productive value.'58
Table 3.1 Agricultural Settler Population in Libya, 1940
Type of Colonisation Number of Farms Colonist Population

by Region Families Number of People
Tripolitania:
State land grants and
private property 1322 1877 8213
Colonisation companies 2353 1878 15308
Total: 3675 3755 23521
Cyrenaica:
State land grants and
private property 264 466 1524
Colonisation companies 1813 1740 13490
Total: 2077 2206 15014
Total Libya 5752 5961 38535
Source: G. L. Fowler, 'The Role of Private Estates and Development Companies in

the Italian Agricultural Colonisation of Libya', in Joffe and McLachlan (eds), Social
and Economic Development of Libya (1982).
In such circumstances little attention was paid to what had been suffered by
the indigenous Libyan tribes. Countless traditional villages had been razed,
whole herds slaughtered, thousands of people - civilians and combatants
alike - tenorised and killed. The wealth of the indigenous peoples had been
decimated: in 1926 there were 800,000 sheep in Cyrenaica, in 1933 less
than 100,000; out of a total of 75,000 camels, 72,000 had been killed
through deliberate slaughter on the ground or by bombing from the air; and
the horse population had dropped from 4000 to 1000.
According to the cunent Libyan authorities, the Italian forces had com-
mitted virtual genocide, with perhaps half the original Libyan population
dying in the Italian conquest. The surviving Libyans were sullen and
pauperised, resentful of new development schemes, indifferent to all at-
tempts to repair the psychological damage wrought by years of war. As with
much of European colonisation, schemes were implemented that brought
some benefits to the indigenous peoples, but the Italian presence - despite
the inevitable quota of mercenary collaboration - was never accepted by
the broad mass of the Libyan people.
When Mussolini visited Libya in March 1937 - to open the 1132-mile-

long Litoranea (or Via Balbo), running from Tunisia to the Egyptian
frontier - he found the colony 'morally and profoundly Italian'. The
Muslims of Tripoli supposedly greeted him as 'the greatest man of the
century and the sincere friend of Islam'59 - whereupon, after being pre-
sented with 'The Sword of Islam', the Duce decided as the Protector of
Islam to defend the rights of Muslims in Libya and beyond. Libyans,
whether Christian or Muslim, were already expected to give the Fascist
salute; many wore black shirts and cheered Mussolini through the streets of
Tripoli and Benghazi; and Libyan youth had been given its own Fascist
group, the Gioventu Araba, modelled on the Italian Balilla. In 1939 Libyans
were allowed to apply for Cittadinanza Italian Speciale (Special Italian
Citizenship), but this new status offered only petty privileges that were not
valid outside Libya. No Libyan was allowed a post or profession that would
result in Italian subordinates: in 1949 there was a grand total of sixteen
Libyan university graduates.
The tribes had been decimated and impoverished, their authority de-
stroyed: in Fezzan the councils of family heads (the Jemaa) were abolished,
with approved Mudirs instructing the tribespeople what to do. Italian courts
had jurisdiction in most matters: courts of Summary Justice delivered
speedy and harsh rulings. It was inevitable in some circumstances that
Libyans would suffer racial abuse, earning less than Italians for the same
work and with most routes for advancement blocked to them. The Sanussi
Order, perceived as a subversive political faction, was banned, though an
element of religious freedom was maintained. But the brutal imposition of
Fascism did nothing to enlist the loyalties of the bulk of an embittered and
recalcitrant population. Even after the colonial war and all the enthusiastic
influx of Italian colonists, the Libyan Muslims still comprised well over
80 per cent of the national population: it was upon this majority that
a future independent Libya would be based.
SECOND WORLD WAR
Mussolini took the decision to invade Abyssinia (Ethiopia) in 1935, partly

as a simple desire to expand the empire ('not only a territorial, military and
mercantile expression, but a spiritual and moral one') and partly as a desire
to counter what was perceived as an alarming growth in German power.
The German ascendancy was seen as aided in part by Britain's evident
indifference to the terms of the Versailles Treaty, resulting in the appeasing
of Hitler. Reasoning that Britain might be similarly purblind to the Cov-

enant of the League of Nations, Mussolini launched the invasion of the
ancient kingdom of Abyssinia on 3 October 1935. The League, still believ-
ing that Hitler was the greater danger, promptly voted sanctions that were,
in the event, only partial and timidly enforced. Part of the problem was that
Mussolini aroused much admiration in Britain (not least in Winston Churchill)
and other Western countries. Thus the historian Christopher Hibbert writes
of Mussolini: 'The accolades which had been so enthusiastically and gratui-
tously cast upon him by conservative writers and public figures . . . had been
so frequent and so unequivocally phrased that he had no trouble in believing
that he was indeed the greatest statesman of his time.'60 When Addis Ababa
was occupied on 5 May 1936 Mussolini declared 'Abyssinia is Italian'; and
the English Saturday Review (which on 25 April had headed an article
'Bravo, Mussolini!') published a telegram sent to II Duce which began
'TEN THOUSAND TIMES BRAVO BRAVISSIMO: OH! SPLENDID
MAN!!' and ended with the sentiment 'ALL YOUR ENGLISH FRIENDS
CONGRATULATE YOU ON YOUR GREAT VICTORY.' The telegram
was sent by Lady Houston, a not unrepresentativeright-wingpolemicist of
the 1930s.61 Mussolini encountered little opposition to his conquest of
Abyssinia, just as the other colonial powers had largely ignored his on-
slaught on Libya; but the friendship of Fascist Italy with Britain and France
was severely damaged when these countries began to perceive that their
own colonial holdings might be under threat, and the front against Germany
was destroyed. The Nazi leadership was quick to see the implications. The
historian William Shirer, celebrated author of The Rise and Fall of the Third
Reich (Seeker and Warburg, 1960) noted in 1941 that either Mussolini 'will
stumble and get himself so heavily involved in Africa that he will be greatly
weakened in Europe, whereupon Hitler can seize Austria, hitherto protected
by the Duce; or he will win, defying France and Britain, and thereupon be
ripe for a tie-up with Hitler against the Western democracies'.62
Hence step by step Mussolini inadvertently laid the ground for the
collapse of the Italian empire in North Africa. His successes in Libya led
him into Ethiopia, and thence into his ill-fated alliance with Nazi Germany.
The defeat of the Axis hastened the day of Libyan independence, but not
without yet more conflict and carnage throughout North Africa.
After Hitler's invasion of Poland, Libya's exiled Arab leaders met in
Alexandria in October 1939 to consider Italy's likely involvement in the
escalating war. Already it was seen that here was a further chance for
Libyan independence. Idris was chosen as the leader of the nationalists, and
the Libyan Arabs announced their support for the Allies. Italy entered the
war in June 1940 and by August the first British/Libyan contacts had been
made, despite the reluctance of some Libyan leaders to make common
cause with a country unlikely to win the war. Sir Henry Maitland organised
Libyan forces to fight under a Sanussi flag and under the command of a
British officer. Libyan leaders asked for a guarantee of Libyan independ-
ence after the war; this was refused but Anthony Eden, then Foreign
Secretary, declared to the House of Commons that 'at the end of the war the
Sanussi in Cyrenaica will in no circumstances again fall under Italian
domination'.63 Five Libyan battalions were raised, composed largely of
Cyrenaicans who had fought against the Italians in the colonial wars; at the
same time the Italians were creating their own Libyan contingents.
On 10 June 1940 Count Ciano informed Sir Percy Loraine, asked to
attend the Italian Foreign Ministry in Rome, that the King of Italy would
consider himself in a state of war with Britain as from midnight on 11 June.
In North Africa, British armoured vehicles were soon moving towards the
Italian positions on the border between Egypt and the enemy province of
Cyrenaica.64 On the night of 11 June British troops ambushed a column of
Italian lorries near Fort Capuzzo, and the desert war had begun. It would
end nearly three years later, after swaying backwards and forwards, after
the opposing armies had variously advanced and retreated nearly four
thousand miles. The Italians, with their locally raised contingents, soon
bolstered and led by German General Erwin Rommel's Afrika Korps,
fought countless engagements with the British Empire forces of Generals
Wavell, Montgomery and Auchinleck. These great tank battles in the desert,
with air and sea support, were the first of their kind in history: the devasta-
tion that they brought to the native peoples of the region is too rarely
considered.
In the spring of 1941 Rommel's first offensive had forced the British
back to Egypt, and by the time the Axis forces were again driven out of
Cyrenaica towards the end of 1941 vast areas of the land were falling into
ruin. Nationalist Libyans, taking advantage of the retreating Italians, at-
tacked the farms of the unprotected Italian colonists, though Idris had
condemned revenge-taking in any form. Much of the damage to the land
was caused by the Allied air forces: Benghazi alone was to suffer more than
one thousand air raids throughout the war; and one observer, Alan
Moorehead, entering Benghazi on Christmas Day 1941, commented that it
was 'no longer a city any more. The plague of high explosive had burst on
the place . . . ruin succeeded ruin as we drove along . . . For nearly a year
the RAF had gone on and on, night after night, and here we were looking at
the scoresheet - a ravaged, ruined city.'65 Then the British were again
forced out of Cyrenaica until they managed to reoccupy the territory to-
wards the end of 1942 for the third and final time. Some of the engagements
had involved vast numbers of men and massive amounts of hardware. Thus
in one early encounter a British force comprising one armoured division,
two infantry brigades and a Royal Tank regiment (31,000 men in all) had
driven an Italian force three times as large out of Egypt, capturing 38,000
prisoners. A subsequent British offensive, under the command of General
Wavell, succeeded in routing an army under the command of Graziani, now
a Marshall. The operation continued until 7 February 1941, by which time
the British had pushed 500 miles across Cyrenaica, destroyed an Italian
army often divisions in Libya, taken 130,000 prisoners, 500 tanks and 1240
guns. The British lost 500 killed, 1373 wounded and fifty-five missing.
General J. F. C. Fuller reckoned this 'one of the most audacious campaigns
ever fought'.66 Hitler subsequently sent German forces, including Luftwaffe
squadrons, to Libya.
By the end of 1942 two Allied armies were moving towards Tripoli;
Montgomery's Eighth Army was moving rapidly from the east, while
General Leclerc's Free French Brigade was heading north across the
Sahara. The French in Chad had entered Fezzan from the south, capturing
oases from the Italian garrisons before rushing towards Tripoli. Early on
23 January British tanks entered the city and the governor of Tripoli,
Alberto Denti di Pirajno, offered a formal sunender. Later he was to
comment wryly that 'The last hospital ship making for Zuara had been
crammed, not with the wounded, but with gold braid and chests covered
with ribbons and medals.'67 By February the Allies had extended their
occupation of the region, and Richard Casey, the British Minister of State
for the Middle East, announced the various steps that would be taken
against Fascists: leading Fascists in Libya faced anest, Fascist schooling
would cease, and Fascist clubs and other social organisations associated
with the Italian occupation would be closed. In January 1942 Winston
Churchill praised Rommel in a speech to the House of Commons ('We have
a very daring and skilful opponent against us, and, may I say across the
havoc of war, a great general'); now he dubbed Rommel 'the fugitive
of Egypt, of Cyrenaica and of Tripoli'. Libya had been liberated from yet
another colonial occupation, but national independence had not been
secured.
At a second meeting of the Libyan leaders in Cairo on 9 August 1940, a
Sanussi Emirate for Cyrenaica and Tripolitania was proclaimed; and it was
also declared that a provisional Sanussi government-in-exile was to be
created; Sayyid Idris had been empowered to make political, military and
financial agreements with the British. During 1940 and 1941 Idris repeat-
edly raised the question of Libyan independence, though the British had
made no promises. Already there were Sanussi anxieties about British
intentions: would British colonialism simply supplant Italian at the end of
the war? In December 1942 General Montgomery issued a proclamation
stating that Tripolitania, not yet 'liberated', was under British occupation;
and by January 1943 Libya came under the military administration of two
colonial powers - the British in Tripolitania and Cyrenaica; and the French,
following an agreement between General Alexander and General Leclerc,
in Fezzan. In one view, the administrations saw themselves 'as caretakers
pending the end of the war';68 other observers - Arabs amongst them -
suspected that the British and French had more permanent intentions.
For most of the first half of the twentieth century the Libyan people had
been forced to wage war against successive colonial invaders - Turks,
Italians, Germans, French and British - with all the consequences for
human lives and communities that this implies. Towns and cities were razed
to the ground; whole communities were deported for incarceration in con-
centration camps; civilians and combatants alike were tortured and bombed,
their livestock slaughtered; the survivors were racially abused, exploited as
forced labour, and reduced to penury. For years after the end of the Second
World War Libya was littered with landmines and other anti-personnel
devices, making farming in Cyrenaica a hazardous enterprise: in one esti-
mate, no less than 68 per cent of all agricultural land was mined.69 To
this day the Gaddafi government argues that the World War combatants -
especially Italy, Germany and Britain - should pay reparations for the
hundreds of Libyan dead and injured caused by unexploded bombs and
minefields since 1943. Even today there are occasional casualties in
remote areas.*
The Second World War hastened the end of colonialism in Libya, though
a fresh colonial phase endured into the post-war years. In 1952, under
United Nations auspices, Libya was established as an independent kingdom
- but not before more years of European wrangling, Great-Power disputa-
tion, and Libyan struggle.
Today, 50 years after the end of the Second World War, the dangerous task of removing
unexploded bombs and mines continues. Thus on 10 August 1993 the Civil Defence and
Salvage Department detonated 50 bombs and land mines in the area of Salouq; on 1 March
1994 several mines and artillery shells were detonated in Hon; and on 24 September 1994 the
Civil Defence and Rescue Department in Benghazi detonated 233 mines and 1062 shells. The
responsible powers have consistently refused to provide maps of mine-fields to aid the clearing
of unexploded ordnance. Many areas of Libya still remain too hazardous to farm.
4 From Idris to Gaddafi
It is often said that war is the midwife of nations: in fact the Second World
War delivered many offspring, albeit sometimes after difficult and pro-
tracted labours. Japanese and French colonialism in the Far East was fatally
damaged, so stimulating nationalisms and new ideologies; European colo-
nialism in India, the Middle East and Africa was weakened, allowing the
emergence not only of nationalist aspirations but also of pan-Arabist and
pan-African sentiment. The War had shaken the old framework, eroding the
position of the European colonial powers and giving fresh impetus to the
imperial theme in the history of the United States. A ravaged Soviet Union
was forced to adopt the guise of a superpower against a massively strength-
ened America: new regional and global hegemonies were being shaped but
in the immediate post-war years many of the political patterns were unclear.
This was true of Libya, just as it was true of many other peoples emerging
from centuries of dominance by foreign powers.
TOWARDS INDEPENDENCE
The Cyrenaican leader Sayyid Idris* had not hesitated to raise an army to
fight alongside the Allies in North Africa, despite British unwillingness to
promise him eventual Libyan, or even Cyrenaican, independence. Nor was
Idris himself convinced that full independence was a desirable goal: years
of contact with British officials had persuaded him that it was enough for
Libya to remain under UK tutelage, albeit with an element of 'internal
independence'. Thus on 27 August 1940 Idris wrote to Colonel Bromilow,
the British officer responsible for the Sanussi forces, proposing three min-
imum conditions:1
1 Great Britain to grant Libyans internal independence;
2 Libya to have its own government headed by a Muslim Emir accept-

able to the British government;
*Idris, when he eventually became King of Libya, was officially known as al-Sayyid
Mohammad Idris al-Mahdi al-Sanussi.
142
From Idris to Gaddafi 143
3 Great Britain to hold the protectorate over Libya and direct the
organisation of its financial and military affairs until it reached a
higher social and cultural level.
Such proposals were congenial to the British who, particularly in the uncer-
tain early stages of the war, were keen to secure their influence in North
Africa; but it was hardly surprising that many Libyan nationalists saw the
Idris proposals as a means of replacing Italian control with British, a fresh
colonialism that had to be opposed.
It was clear that in the early 1940s, sensing new opportunities, Idris was
making a bid for leadership of the whole of Libya, though he expected it
would be secured by a continued British presence in the region. However,
few British pledges were given. It had been declared that Cyrenaica would
never again be allowed to fall under Italian control, but no similar promise
had been made about Tripolitania; and the French, with secure bases in
Chad, were now entrenched in Fezzan, increasingly seen as vital for the
security of French Algeria. The prospect of a unified Libya, even as a
British protectorate, seemed unlikely. And as in 1943 the Free French
brigade under General Leclerc was securing its position in Fezzan, the
United States took over the Mellala (later Wheelus) airbase, east of Tripoli.
General Montgomery had declared a cessation of hostilities in Cyrenaica in
December 1942 and the exiled Sanussi leaders began to return to their
country; but the defeat of the Italians in Libya had been replaced by an
effective occupation by the British, French and Americans. The situation
was volatile but Libyan independence seemed far off.
With the return of the exiles tensions began to emerge between the
younger men, influenced by Arab nationalism in Egypt, and the older
sheikhs and confederation officials. One group, led by Assad Bin Umran,
founded the Omar al-Mukhtar Sporting Society, an ostensibly non-political
organisation intended only for recreational purposes but one in which
discussions were invited on post-war solutions for the political problems
facing Libya. By April 1943 the purpose of the club was clear to all: it was
renamed the Omar Mukhtar Club and became a focus for Arab nationalists,
attracting the militant and politically-aware sons of the tribes in Benghazi
and Derna. The Club, without as yet a fully developed nationalist pro-
gramme, demanded that Idris be recognised as the Emir of Cyrenaica and
that some sort of unification be formed with Egypt. In September 1946 the
British administrator, E. A. V. de Candole, banned al-Watan, the Club's
newspaper.
The various nationalist groups were divided and factionalism was rife;
some pressed for radical political agendas while others did little more than
seek the patronage of the local British administrators in Tripoli. The British
had failed to give any nationalist leaders a place in the regional administra-
tion, and to some extent this helped to unite the various contending groups.
When in 1946 it emerged that Britain, with purblind insensitivity, was
contemplating reimposing Italian rule as part of a post-war settlement in
parts of the region, there was a further move to nationalist unity. The United
National Front was formed under the leadership of Selim Muntasser, a
leading merchant, and the Mufti of Tripoli, Mohammed Abu al-Isad al-
Alim. The Front proposed the unity of Libya and its total independence
under Sanussi leadership: there was little confidence that Britain would not
renege over its Cyrenaican pledge and a principal aim was to avoid the
restoration of Italian colonialism. Idris was quick to see the Front as a useful
vehicle for his own ambitions and on 9 August 1946 he declared to a
gathering at Municipality Square in Benghazi: 'I have found that the lead-
ing tribal chiefs have been thinking of forming a National Front represent-
ing all the elements in the country. [I have approved of] this organisation,
for it will support me in achieving the country's aspirations and lighten the
burden of my efforts.'2 The inauguration of the Front was timed to influence
a British War Office Working Party, under Sir Bernard Reilley, intended to
report on the situation in Cyrenaica and to make recommendations on the
future of the region. It was already clear that the Great Powers, including
the Soviet Union, perceived the strategic importance of Libya; and that
this was the context that would shape any future agreements on Libyan
independence.
At the end of the War it appeared that the case against Libyan independ-
ence was 'overwhelming'.3 The surviving population, around one million
were politically inexperienced, poorly educated and extremely poor; the
War had totally disrupted trade and stopped the few social programmes
introduced by the Italians. Vast numbers of buildings had been destroyed,
the rudimentary industrial base had been shattered, Italian colonists had
been evicted from their successful farms, and unemployment was wide-
spread. Not only had the developing infrastructure been ravaged (Bardia
and Tobruk flattened and three-quarters of the buildings in Benghazi dam-
aged or totally destroyed), but the land was now infested with unexploded
ordnance. To many observers, Idris's 1940 proposal that Libyan independ-
ence should not be granted until the country had attained a 'higher social
and cultural level' did not seemridiculous.But the newly emerging nation-
alists, impatient with the self-interested views of foreigners, wanted to force
the pace of change.
At the end of 1946 the British Working Party under Reilley visited
Cyrenaica, and in January 1947 proposed that the region should be granted
independence in three consecutive stages:
1 The British military administration to remain for a short time.
2 The establishment of an Arab state under British trusteeship. Ad-

equate financial assistance should be given for not less than ten years,
including the rendering of administrative training and promoting
educational and technical development.
3 The establishment of a fully independent state. During the second and

third stages, Cyrenaica might be connected with Tripolitania in a
unified Libya, as the creation of such a state is consistent with the
specific recommendations for Cyrenaica. A treaty of alliance with a
major power is also recommended.
However, such proposals seemed too radical for the British and were
received with little enthusiasm, not least because they invited dissent among
the Big Four: no initiative could be taken without the unanimous approval
of Britain, France, the Soviet Union and the United States. France was keen
to retain control of Fezzan, and Italy - even at this stage - had not aban-
doned all ambitions for a colonial presence in North Africa. Rome urged
British support for at least an Italian trusteeship in Tripolitania but the
United States and the Soviet Union opposed any European trusteeship in the
area. Subject to these conflicting pressures, Britain decided to refer the
question to the newly fledged United Nations. In May 1949, the British
Foreign Secretary, Ernest Bevin, sufficiently impressed by the European
representations, proposed that trusteeships be granted to the British in
Cyrenaica, the French in Fezzan, and the Italians in Tripolitania. Even now,
the Italian demands weighed more heavily with the British than did the
Arab aspirations for independence. However, the Bevin scheme, proposed
jointly with the Italian Foreign Minister Count Carlo Sforza, was rejected
in the UN General Assembly by one vote. Instead it was decided that
Libya should become a sovereign state.
The British/Italian plan had galvanised indigenous Libyan opinion: here
yet again the perfidy of the European colonial powers had been exposed, at
least to the satisfaction of the nationalists. On 14 May 1949 the Libyan
leaders met in Tripoli to organise their response. At this meeting the United
National Front, the National Party (with 15,000 members) and the Libyan
Liberation Committee decided to create the Tripolitanian National Con-
gress headed by Bashir al-Sadawi. The Congress then embarked upon a
systematic campaign of civil disobedience involving strikes, public meet-
ings and demonstrations. The campaign was maintained until 17 May when
the UN so nanowly defeated the Bevin/Sforza plan. The Libyan protests
may be judged to have had some impact on the UN deliberations but it is
likely that the perceived interests of the United States were a dominant
factor. The US was reluctant to see any form of UN-sponsored trusteeship
in the area, not least because such an anangement would have gravely
weakened its own presence at the massive Wheelus site near Tripoli. Thus
Henry Villard, the State Department official then responsible for the former
Italian colonies in North Africa, commented: 'It may be worth noting that
if Libya had passed under any form of United Nations' trusteeship, it would
have been impossible for the territory to play a part in the defence anange-
ments of the Free World.'4 It was significant that under the UN trusteeship
system, 'the administrator of a trust territory cannot establish military
bases: only in the case of a strategic trusteeship as in the former Japanese
islands of the Pacific are fortifications allowed; and a "strategic trusteeship"
is subject to veto in the Security Council.'5 Thus the United States opposed
a UN-sponsored European trusteeship because it feared a Soviet veto in the
Security Council: how much better it would be for an 'independent Libya'
to agree defence treaties with the Western powers as part of the global
alliance against communism. It is ironic that this policy should have led
to the rise of Muammar Gaddafi, and to the emergence of Libya as one
of the most persistent Third World thorns in the flesh of the United States.
DEBATE AND DIPLOMACY
The bulk of the debate over the future of Libya had little concern with the
interests of the indigenous peoples. Just as the War had raged over the area
as though it were nothing but empty desert so the wranglings over the future
of North Africa were fuelled by no more than how the United States and the
European powers perceived their own interests. At the end of the War Italy
still enjoyed nominal sovereignty over the colonies of Somaliland, Eritrea,
Ethiopia and Libya, still seen by Italy and other countries as important
strategic outposts for the control of north-east Africa and the eastern basin
of the Meditenanean. The War had well demonstrated that control of the
Tripoli/Benghazi/Sicily triangle, together with dominance in the Aegean,
could effectively counter any sea-power in the eastern Meditenanean. In
the immediate post-war world, with the growth of the Cold War, the
European powers, the United States and the Soviet Union saw clearly the
strategic advantages offered by Libyan territory: here was a lengthy coast-
line and vast interior spaces, ideal for the siting of bombers, other aircraft
and electronic monitoring facilities.
The Big Four had agreed at Potsdam that Italy would renounce all its
rights in Africa, though it is likely that at that time France and Britain
perceived the benefits of a fresh Italian trusteeship as part of quid pro quo
arrangements. It was obvious that Britain had an interest in developing a
Middle East defence system close to Suez, and France was determined to
hold on to its African colonies. Moreover the United States, in the business
of developing a global presence, was keen to retain large bases in North
Africa. It was now the case that three-quarters of the world's invested
capital and two-thirds of the industrial capacity were concentrated inside
the United States.6 Even before the end of the War the US had spent tens of
millions of dollars developing the Wheelus airfield, as the first American
airbase in Africa: the US was not disposed to sacrifice such a prize. At
the same time the United States claimed to be exercising only 'limited
diplomacy' in the Middle East, a far cry from the US posture that was to
develop in later years. Already the United States perceived that its oil
interests in the area gave great strategic value to a military presence within
easy reach of the 'not so distant Middle East'.7 When the Soviet Union, as
one of the Big Four, proposed that it too should have a presence in the area
the three Western powers were happy to condemn any 'intrusion of the
Soviet camel's nose into the Libyan tent'.8 The dynamic of the Cold War
was already beginning to shape the character of the post-war settlement.
When the Soviet Union saw that there was no way it could secure a
legitimate hold in North Africa it decided that no external powers had rights
in the area. Thus it emphasised the 'post-war differentiating factors con-
nected mainly with foreign interests' that represented 'an obstacle to the
normal economic and social developments of Libya'. The peace treaty at
which Italy renounced its territorial sovereignty paid no attention to such
matters but resolved that the question should go to the United Nations if the
Big Four could not agree to a solution to the Libyan problem. The Bevin/
Sforza agreement, a piece of secret diplomacy, was a gross infringement of
the terms of the Peace Treaty but served to demonstrate the desperate
ambitions of the British and the Italians: as little as four years after the end
of the War, during which Italian aggressions and atrocities had been roundly
condemned, Britain was eager to agree a British/Italian compact to secure
its own colonial holdings. Bevin/Sforza was defeated, in part by an equally
self-interested United States; and this represented - paradoxically enough -
a significant victory for Arab nationalism.
On 21 November 1949 the UN General Assembly voted on the question
of independence for Libya: independence was agreed with a vote of 48 to
one (Ethiopia) and with nine abstentions (including France and five Soviet
bloc countries). A detailed resolution (Appendix 8) was passed, and the

General Assembly voted the United Nations Assistant Secretary-General,
Adrian Pelt of the Netherlands, as the UN Commissioner for Libya. In fact
by the time the Fourth Session of the United Nations opened in September
1949 the scene was set: the United States, with a majority in the General
Assembly, had decided to back the formula of an independent Libya. The
passing of the draft resolution - proposing 'That Libya, comprising
Tripolitania, Cyrenaica and the Fezzan, shall be constituted an independent
and sovereign state' - was a foregone conclusion. Dr Pelt's task, of super-
vising the transition from the British and French provisional administration
to Libyan control, was not an easy one: few Libyans had real political
experience or administrative knowledge, and the country was bankrupt,
with per capita income the lowest in the Middle East. John Lindberg, an
American economist who visited the area during the period of transition,
commented: 'The standard of housing is extremely low; a large part of the
population lives in caves, lacking furniture and the simplest conveniences.
Clothing is made out of home grown wool. The poor are clad in rags and
walk barefoot, even during the fairly cold winters.'9 In his First Annual
Report Pelt declared that 'The Arab population of Libya stands in need
of as much financial and technical assistance as the United Nations can
supply.'
Within two weeks of the UN rejection of the mischievous Bevin/Sforza
Plan, Idris felt able to announce the independence of Cyrenaica and the
assumption of his position as Emir. The announcement was made with
British approval, not least because many legal and financial matters were
still under the control of British advisors. Britain also kept control of
defence, foreign affairs and the disposal of Italian property; though at the
same time the British government declared that 'in taking these steps . . .
nothing will be done to prejudice the eventual future of Libya as a whole'.10
In fact Britain had anticipated the UN resolution and had taken steps to
protect its own interests. It declared that it 'could not continue to refuse the
people of Cyrenaica its indisputable right to the greatest possible measure
of self-government consistent with the international obligations of the United
Kingdom Government... The Government has therefore given the Emir of
Cyrenaica absolute powers in the internal affairs of that territory . . . the
Government... could do no less than grant Cyrenaica that full measure of
self-government.'11 The British ploy was well practised, the familiar aim
being to secure power by exploiting existing political structures. In Libya
the plan was to convert the Sanussi emirate into a constitutional monarchy
with which Britain could deal on congenial terms. Thus there was a clear
sense in which the British action effectively pre-empted the vote in the
General Assembly. By the time Dr Adrian Pelt was charged with the task of
supervising the transition, the British military administration was already
deeply enmeshed in the affairs of the new Cyrenaican government. A new
Cyrenaican legal system, drafted largely by British lawyers, was being
prepared; and there were plans to build a Cyrenaican army on the model of
Jordan's Arab Legion, itself constructed and advised by British officers.
It is hardly surprising in these circumstances that Dr Pelt saw his task as
a 'race against time'.12 The UN resolution had stipulated that Libya would
gain its independence not later than 1 January 1952; if the transitional
timetable were not adhered to, then the future of Libya would be uncertain.
It was not out of the question that the Bevin/Sforza Plan, or some equi-
valent, would prevail; and Libya would again be at the mercy of European
colonialism, perhaps with a US dimension thrown in, with no obvious
escape route. Even after the UN vote on the resolution, France argued that
independence should perhaps be indefinitely delayed; and the British gov-
ernment had taken what steps it could to ensure that the inexperienced
Libyans would in effect still be run from Whitehall. Pelt quickly perceived
that France and Britain had little interest in the UN resolution, concerned
less with Libyan unity than with securing their own spheres of interest.13
Pelt commented that the 'semi-independent status' already confened on
Cyrenaica by the British government represented a 'disquieting precedent
that was in utter conflict with the General Assembly resolution'. Yet at one
level it was difficult to fault the British initiative: had they not granted a
people - who had suffered greatly through colonialism and war - a right
to an independent future? It was only when the nature of the new independ-
ent status was scrutinised that the real picture could be discerned. The
British aim was that Cyrenaica - and later the whole of Libya - would be
granted a quasi-independence over which a practical British control would
be maintained for an indefinite period. Even though the UN transitional
timetable was observed the British grip on the newly emerging Libya, to be
ruled by a pliant monarch, was not in doubt.
At the beginning of the transitional phase the British Foreign Office
submitted a confidential memorandum to Dr Pelt proposing regional self-
government for Tripolitania with a degree of autonomy on the Cyrenaican
model. Again at this stage there was little interest in a unified Libya with
genuine independence. Already Britain and other observers detected the
growing split between the older traditional leaders, who may be tempted by
the British scheme, and the younger nationalists sensitive to any plan that
would delay Libyan independence. France, following the British example
in Cyrenaica, installed in Fezzan a transitional regime that would favour a
continuing French influence in the area. Saif Ahmed Seif al-Nasr, a prom-
inent Sanussi leader who had returned to Fezzan with the French forces,
was made chefdu territoire with specified powers; but at the same time the
French military administration retained control of the region. Like the
British, the French were taking steps to ensure that they retained a presence
in a Libya whose independence seemed increasingly inevitable. Pelt ob-
served how the British and French tried to shape the character of a Libya
approaching independence:
In Tripolitania the British authorities used indirect tactics, carefully

supporting certain political parties and opposing others, in an endeavour
to promote controlled emancipation . . . the French administration, while
ostensibly trying to match the British policy in Cyrenaica, went about
matters in its own way . . . it held up constitutional development by
repressive measures, the intensity of which varied from oasis to oasis
and village to village.15
And he also noted that British policy was 'considerably more constructive'
in the economic and social fields while the French 'introduced eco-
nomic measures which considerably improved living conditions in the
territory'.
The UN Commissioner was keenly aware that the British and French
moves would run against the spirit of the independence resolution. As soon
as Dr Pelt arrived in Libya he began talks with Idris to emphasise the
requirements of the transitional agenda, but it quickly emerged that the
Sanussi Emir was already negotiating with Britain to secure British finan-
cial aid in return for a continued British military presence in Cyrenaica.
Neither Idris nor the authorised British Resident were prepared to show the
UN Commissioner a copy of the draft treaty. Under pressure from Pelt, but
when also it had become clear that Idris would become head of an inde-
pendent Libya, Britain agreed to defer the signing of the Treaty. Libya, it
seemed, would become an independent state and would then sign financial/
military pacts with Britain and France, so ensuring the continued presence
of foreign forces in the region. Pelt feared a backlash from nationalist Arabs
but emphasised in his report to the General Assembly that once Libya had
been given independence his task was over.
The Libyans, perhaps unaware of the extent to which Britain had already
shaped the outcome, continued to debate the features of the coming inde-
pendent government. The National Congress Party of Tripolitania urged a
unitary form of state with proportional territorial representation in the
National Assembly; whereas Cyrenaica and Fezzan favoured a federal state
and parity representation aimed at nullifying the Tripolitanian presence.
This latter proposal - because it was backed by Idris, Britain and the United
States - was the inevitable outcome. All the sides agreed that the recogni-
tion of the Emir as monarch was the only workable basis for a unified state,
and in December 1951 Idris was offered the throne.
The British-backed plan for a constitutional monarchy was presented to
Libya as a fait accompli: the National Assembly, not elected but selected,
was stacked with members likely to agree Britain's federal plans. The Mufti
of Tripolitania had been persuaded into selecting members that would
support the framework favoured by Cyrenaica and Fezzan, and by Britain.
It was predictable that the contrived National Assembly would reject any
all-Libyan referendum on the constitution it had prepared. Pelt expressed
'grave doubts' about whether the appointment rather than the election of the
National Assembly would have 'the necessary moral and political authority
to elaborate a final and definitive Constitution for Libya'. His doubts were
well founded: the nationalists, largely outmanoeuvred, organised demon-
strations supporting a unified and genuinely independent Libya (on one
occasion more than 800 demonstrators were arrested16).
The nationalists were unable to prevent the implementation of the planned
constitution, but the seeds of political turmoil had been sown. The undemo-
cratic National Assembly was already pointing the way to how the post-
independence government would behave, to how a group of nationalists
would feel able to overthrow the constitutional monarchy. Idris had selected
the representatives from Cyrenaica with those from Fezzan appointed by
Ahmad Saif al-Nasr. A Preparatory Committee (the 'Committee of Twenty-
One') had met under the chairmanship of the Mufti of Tripolitania to
approve the composition of the National Assembly. The Mufti's own list
was approved by sixteen votes of the Committee: one Tripolitanian member
voted against it, one abstained, another Tripolitanian member and the ap-
pointed representative of the minorities were absent - which meant that the
Mufti's nominees were approved by only three Tripolitanian members. It
was becoming increasingly clear that the National Assembly had few demo-
cratic credentials: it was a largely unrepresentative body of placements,
shaped by Idris in concert with foreign powers. Soon there were criticisms
from outside observers. Kamil Salim, the Egyptian representative on the
UN advisory council, declared that the Preparatory Committee had 'de-
viated' from, and 'flagrantly violated', its terms of reference.18 Salim,
significantly enough, was vigorously opposed by the representatives of
Britain, the United States, Cyrenaica and Fezzan. The United Nations
Political Committee, after considering Pelt's first report in October 1950,
criticised the way in which the National Assembly had been constituted;
and in November the Arab delegates to the General Assembly declared that
the National Assembly was 'undemocratic and unconstitutional'. The

Soviet Union introduced a resolution calling for Libyan unity and the
withdrawal of all foreign forces from Libyan territory. Pelt expressed his
'grave doubts' about the National Assembly but when pressed by the
Egyptian delegate declared that there was no time for elections for a
democratic National Assembly if Libya was to become independent by the
UN-specified date. On 17 November 1950 the General Assembly passed
a resolution reaffirming the 1949 independence resolution and calling
on the National Assembly to establish a provisional government before
1 April 1951, the intention being that the provisional administering author-
ities would transfer their powers to the new government before 1 January
1952. The United Nations had lent its authority to the work of the Prepara-
tory Committee, however flawed, and the scene was set for Libyan
independence.
The National Assembly, empowered to draw up a constitution, convened
for the first time in Tripoli on 25 November 1950. The Mufti of Tripolitania
was elected as the president of the Assembly, and within a week it was
agreed that Libya was to be established as a democratic, federal and sover-
eign state with a constitutional monarchy. The federal principle was strongly
supported by the members from Cyrenaica and Fezzan but the powerless
Tripolitanians accepted it reluctantly. Idris was formally offered the throne
but decided to be known as 'king-designate' until after the formal handing
over of powers by the administering authorities. The nationalists ('extrem-
ists') continued to oppose federation, seeing it as a ruse whereby the British
and French could maintain their grip over Libya; and when the Assembly
voted for federation there were violent protests in Tripoli on 5 December.
Two weeks later there were further protests, with demonstrators shouting
their support of the 'king-designate' but denouncing the federal format as
a 'divide and rule' scheme of the 'colonialist' powers. It was significant
that British military police were used to break up the demonstrations and
that the Tripoli Newspaper Al-Mirsad, hostile to federation, was closed
down. Bashir Sadawi and Abdel Rahman Azzam, now Secretary-General
of the Arab League, continued to question the legality and competence of
the Assembly.
CONSTITUTION
On 4 December 1950 the National Assembly elected a 'Committee on the

Constitution', comprising six members from each territory, to prepare and
submit a draft constitution: a six-member working group was formed to

write the draft and to submit it chapter by chapter to the Committee for
discussion and approval. The constitutions of other national federations
were studied as examples, with the chapter on human freedoms drawing
heavily on the constitutions of Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon and Syria, as
well as on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Particular areas -
foreign affairs, finance, defence, communications, justice, education and
health - were deemed the responsibility of the federal government; and the
working party also considered such topics as Libyan nationality, language,
the powers of the king, ministerial responsibility, electoral law, and the
structure of the parliament. In September 1951 the completed constitutional
draft was presented to the National Assembly for discussion and approval.
It soon emerged that there were several points of disagreement among
the members. The Cyrenaicans insisted that Benghazi be the future capital
of Libya whereas the Tripolitanians and Fezzanese favoured Tripoli, a more
obvious choice: Tripoli was at the heart of the most highly developed and
populous region and was nearer than Benghazi to western Europe. Tripoli
was also Libya's chief port and the centre of commercial and cultural
activities; it was larger than Benghazi and had been less ravaged by the
War.
It also emerged that the Cyrenaicans had little faith in the democratic
process, urging greater powers for the king and fewer for parliament.
However here the Tripolitanians prevailed when they argued that only an
effective parliamentary system would fulfil the terms of the UN resolution
on independence. By 3 October the National Assembly had agreed all
the articles except one dealing with the distribution of customs revenue, the
succession to the throne, and the naming of the capital. On this last an
unhappy compromise was decided: Tripoli and Benghazi would be joint
capitals. On 7 October 1951 the National Assembly reached final agree-
ment on a constitution of 213 articles; Pelt commented that 'Ten months
to write a constitution by people none of whom had any previous compar-
able experience in this field is indeed a remarkable accomplishment.' The
Assembly approved the draft Electoral Law on 6 November. It remained
in session until Independence Day but now its work was done.
The new constitution stated that 'Libya is a State having a hereditary
monarchy, its form is federal and its system of government is representa-
tive. Its name is "The United Kingdom of Libya".' The three regions of
Libya were termed 'provinces' of the kingdom, and legislative power was
vested in the king and in a parliament comprising a Senate and a House of
Representatives. Half of the Senate members would be appointed by the
king, the other half of the twenty-four members (eight from each province)
to be elected by adult male suffrage. The Prime Minister and the provincial
governors were to be appointed by the king, with each governor (Wall) in
Tripolitania and Cyrenaica able to appoint a quarter of the members of the
Legislative Assemblies, the rest of the members being elected by the
people. A Supreme Court, its judges appointed by the king, was created to
hear disputes between the provinces and between the provinces and the
federal government.
INDEPENDENCE
The independence of Libya was declared on 24 December 1951, one week

before the UN deadline. The last nominal powers held by the British and
French Residents were transfened to the provisional Libyan government,
the foreign administrations were concluded, and the National Assembly
was dissolved. A formal Declaration of Independence was made by the
king-designate at a ceremony at the Manar Palace, the former residence
of General Graziani in Benghazi:
We joyfully proclaim to the noble Libyan people that . . . our beloved

country has, with the help of God, attained independence . . . We
formally proclaim that Libya has, from today, become an independent
sovereign state and . . . we take henceforth the title of 'His Majesty
the King of the United Kingdom of Libya'.
We welcome also the coming into force at this moment of the Constitu-
tion of the country . . . It is our wish, as you well know, that the life of
the country should conform to constitutional principles, and we intend
henceforth to exercise our powers in accordance with the provisions of
this Constitution . . . it is our duty one and all to preserve what we have
gained at so dear a price, and to hand it down carefully and faithfully to
posterity.
At this blessed hour we call to mind our heroes of the past. We invoke
God's mercy and reward upon the soul of ourrighteousmartyrs, and we
salute the sacred banner, the legacy of our fathers and the hard-earned
symbol of our unity . . .
The Prime Minister of the provisional government, Mahmud Muntasser,

then tendered his resignation and formally asked the king to form the first
national government. Muntasser was offered the premiership and the For-
eign Affairs portfolio; Omar Shannaib, formerly Defence minister, was
later appointed head of the royal Diwan\ other appointments included Ali
Assad al-Jirbi (Defence) and Mohammad bin Othman (Health); Mansur
bin Gadara (Finance) and Ibrahim bin Shaaban (Communications) were
retained. The king also selected the governors (Walis) for the three pro-
vinces; and Libya applied for membership of FAO, WHO, UNESCO
and the United Nations. In a letter to the president of the UN General
Assembly Muntasser declared: 'Our thanks to the General Assembly must
be directed above all to its agent, the United Nations Commissioner in
Libya, Mr Adrian Pelt. We have come to regard him not only as our beloved
friend and wise counsellor, but as one who toiled without regard for per-
sonal convenience or health for our interest.'18 The Lungomare, the main
sea-front thoroughfare in both Tripoli and Benghazi, is named after Adrian
Pelt. In his Supplementary Report Pelt commented that 'Libya has made its
entry into the family of nations without any ties which its Government will
not be free to sever, modify or continue in the light of the country's interests
or affinities'; and he defended the new Libyan constitution against charges
that it was too advanced for the country's needs: 'When a politically
adolescent people acquires itsfirstconstitutional garment, it seems wiser to
allow a size permitting a degree of political growth, rather than to select one
of such tight-fitting proportions as to risk congestion of the body politic.'19
Libya had become - with Egypt, Ethiopia, Liberia and South Africa - one
of the five independent African states.
However, not all Libyans rejoiced on Independence Day. Pelt himself
remarked that it would be an exaggeration to pretend that all Libyans were
happy about the constitutional developments. In particular, the nationalists
who wanted a unitary state perceived that the country would still be dom-
inated by the traditional forces, not least by the ever-present European
powers; the three provinces had been given excessive autonomy, so eroding
the solidarity of the nation; and the king, with his customary closeness to
Britain, represented an unwelcome constraint on democratic development.
Libya had emerged as a state 'heavily committed to the West. This was to
be the fundamental cause of the coup d'etat which overturned the monarchy
eighteen years later.'20
FACE OF MONARCHY
The Libyan federal monarchy, from the beginning, had many weaknesses.
King Idris had sweeping constitutional powers that were frequently abused
in what he saw as his own interests and those of his foreign supporters. He
had the power to appoint half the members of the Senate (the upper house)
and could dissolve House of Representatives (or Chamber of Deputies, the
lower house) or veto its legislation. The Tripolitanians saw the emergence
of a Cyrenaican Sanussi as king as a stumbling block to political progress,
and Idris's actions soon confirmed their doubts. Libya's first general elec-
tion was held in February 1952, after which all political parties were
dissolved and prohibited.
Many of the tribal leaders and important urban political centres, often
under the influence of the nationalist Arabs, had been opposed to Idris's
installation as king and as a vehicle for continued British influence. The
king was obviously a religious leader and many secular-minded intellectu-
als regretted that the new Libya had been shaped along religious lines. In
Benghazi the Omar Mukhtar society became a focus for young nationalists
who had opposed the British military administration, and who now were
even flirting with republican ideas. The Society still nominally supported
the monarchy but at the time of independence some of its leaders were in
prison for demonstrating against the previous Cyrenaican administration.
The British were keen to support the monarchy as a well-tried device in the
Middle East for countering Arab nationalism, pan-Arabism, socialist agita-
tion and other evils that would threaten British control in the region. Britain
had relied upon client monarchies - in Iraq (Feisal), in Transjordan
(Abdullah), and in the Trucial States - as a way of organising the potent
forces of religion behind the traditional tribal leaders, The first British
Ambassador to Libya had recently served in Jordan and belonged in the
Foreign Office generation that had carefully cultivated a range of feudal
monarchies as the bulwark of British influence in the Middle East. Ruth
First notes that 'The House of Sanussi was comfortingly reminiscent of the
Hashemite kingdom.'21 What the British had learned in Jordan and else-
where they were to implement in the new Libya. Events later proved that
this was a short-sighted policy. Arabists in the British Foreign Office
already detected new sociopolitical forces stirring in the Middle East and
North Africa, and it would not be long before a discredited Idris regime was
swept away.
The Americans too worked to protect their own perceived interests in
post-independence Libya: the new Ambassador cultivated his own place-
ments in the fresh Libyan Cabinet, including - appropriately enough - the
Minister for War 'whose undisguised ambition is to be sent to the United
States' and the Minister for Finance.22 The agreement over the Wheelus air-
base involved a range of aid provisions designed to secure Libyan compli-
ance in the troubled atmosphere of the Cold War. Wheelus Field, an

enormous American installation seven miles from Tripoli, had been leased
from 1400 different individual owners of property. By 1955 the American
investment in Wheelus was roughly estimated at between $50 million and
$100 million, with the Libyans unhappy at the rent being paid. The journal-
ist Robert C. Doty remarked in 1954 that 'The Air Force was in the position
of a man who builds a mansion on a lot without buying the lot first.'23 In
September 1954, after protracted negotiations, the American government
agreed to pay Libya $45 million over a period of twenty years, and to
provide other economic assistance to the country. Arab nationalists contin-
ued to object to Wheelus as what they saw as a clear violation of Libyan
sovereignty.
Wheelus Field served a variety of purposes. It served as a useful stop on
the global routes of the United States Military Air Transport Service,
offered vast areas for aircraft gunnery practice, and supported other US
bases in the area, notably those in Morocco. Wheelus was the oldest US air-
base in Africa, and more than 600 American children attended its school.
Not far from the 11,000-foot runway was the stadium that Mussolini had
built for the Tripoli automobile race-track. Supposedly the largest canti-
lever structure in the world, it presented the American demolition squads
with many problems. The Wheelus base was only a part of US investment
in the new Libya, and by the mid-1960s it stood at around $450 million. The
Western grip on the constitutional monarchy seemed secure.
The King derived his power from the claim to religious legitimacy on
which all the Arab monarchies were founded, and from the class structure
of traditional tribal society. The Sanussi zawiyah (or lodges) coincided with
the main power centres in Bedouin society, the sheikhs served to link the
Sanussi head (at that time Idris) with the land-owning tribes. The Sanussi
hierarchy reinforced the royal household (the Diwan) and at the same time
operated an administrative system through the zawiyah structure. It was
significant that none of this was written into the constitution, nor could it
be: it necessarily functioned as a complex power system that had evolved
over many generations and which was uneasily grafted onto the formal
lineaments of the new constitution. These circumstances alone gave clues
as to why tensions should develop between the traditional sources of Arab
power and the younger nationalists looking to the wider world.
The King, through his control of the Prime Minister, encouraged the
frequent shuffling of ministers: this helped to ensure, as far as the King's
perceptions went, that he would represent the symbol of security and
stability, with no ministerial placement or caucus able to consolidate influ-
ence and power. Idris inclined to solve problems in peremptory fashion, by
dictat; or he procrastinated, in due course retiring to Tobruk, leaving power

not in the constitutional Cabinet but in the Diwan. In 1955 King Idris was
in his middle sixties, frail and thoughtful, with dominating characteristics
of 'erudition, piety and suspiciousness'.24 He knew no Western languages,
but was said to be an Arabic scholar of considerable attainments. Many
observers saw him as a quietist, interested more in withdrawing from
problems than in confronting them (unless they admitted of a quick de-
cision), and lacking force of character. He had been head of the Sanussi
Order since 1917, and the subsequent decades of turmoil in Libya forced
him into exile for twenty-one uninterrupted years. The image of Idris as
'absentee monarch' never fully disappeared, and his apparent eagerness to
flee from foreign incursions contrasted unhappily with the dogged heroism
of such nationalists as Omar al-Mukhtar. After an assassination attempt in
Tripoli, when he was still Emir of Cyrenaica, he was reluctant to visit the
region; and later demonstrations against him, as he paraded in a Rolls-
Royce as 'king-designate', did little to encourage contact with the people.
Idris was also heavily superstitious. In 1952 he decided that he would
transfer the remains of his father (who had died in a distant oasis) to
Benghazi. While the body was en route by truck a terrible storm developed
whereupon Idris, seeing this as a bad omen, stopped the truck, abandoned
his plans, and sent his father's remains back to their original resting place.
It was inevitable that Idris should have been regarded as a symbol of the old
tribal society, increasingly ill-suited to be leader of a modern state.
The tensions between the old traditionalism and the new constitutional
provisions were quick to surface. Political parties contended for power in
the general election of February 1952, after which they were dissolved and
banned. Two opposing tendencies had come into conflict: the Istiqlal party
under Salim al-Muntasser, linked to business and the British military ad-
ministration; and Bashir Bey Sadawi's National Congress Party, leaning
towards the Arab League. The Congress Party won all the seats in Tripoli,
but lost in the rest of the country, a result that confounded its expectations
and led to claims that the government had rigged the ballot. As soon as the
results were announced Congress supporters invaded government build-
ings, cut telephone wires, and blocked transport. The government arrested
scores of demonstrators, banned the Congress Party, and banished Sadawi
to Egypt. The fledgling multi-party politics of independent Libya had
collapsed at the first test, and it was destined not to return: factions contin-
ued to operate on a clandestine basis but healthy political contention was at
an end. Idris had secured his nominal authority, though fresh undercurrents
of agitation would soon become apparent. The Cabinet was now the un-
questioning servant of the Palace, most candidates in subsequent elections
were government nominees, and voting criteria were most characteristically

tribal and nepotistic. With political parties suppressed, the Palace felt free
to remove governments when it wished, so nullifying any residual claims to
constitutional propriety.25 In the seventeen years of the monarchy there
were eleven governments and more than two hundred ministers in all. It
was the discovery of oil in 1955 (Chapter Five) that was to transform the
character of government and the shape of the future Libyan state.
The ending of party politics resulted in petty manoeuvrings for power, a
host of corrupt practices, and one political crisis after another. In October
1954 a major internal crisis focused on a family quarrel involving some of
the thirty-eight royal princes.26 Various members of the royal family in-
creasingly resented what they saw as the disproportionate power wielded by
Ibrahim al-Shalhi, for some forty years the King's loyal adviser. As the
King had no surviving children by his wife Fatima, Sayyid Ahmad al-
Sharif s daughter, Sayyid Ahmad's descendants claimed the succession for
their side of the family. Idris, supposedly advised on this question by
Shalhi, prefened that his (Idris's) brother, Mohammad al-Reda, be seen as
the legitimate successor to the throne. The dispute came to a climax when
a grandson of Sayyid Ahmad, Al-Sharif, shot and killed Shalhi in a street in
Benghazi. Family members were then put under house arrest for their own
safety, seven younger members were exiled to the oasis of Hon, and many
of the family members lost their titles and the right to hold government
positions. Al-Sharif was convicted of murder and then executed in February
1955, his corpse exposed in public for twenty minutes at the spot where
Shalhi was killed.27
The King, perhaps looking to his own security, then moved from Benghazi
to the British garrison town of Tobruk. One crisis had been averted but there
was still the unresolved question of the succession, the perennial problem of
childless monarchs (and of monarchs with incompetent offspring). In 1955,
with Libyan monarchy an institution well favoured by the British, the writer
John Gunther was able to opine that 'King Idris has no male heir, which is
a tragedy for the country.'28 Idris was first married when he was only eight
years old, and two subsequent marriages were dissolved when they pro-
duced no living offspring. In 1932 Idris married his cousin Fatima (Al
Sayyida Fatima Al Shifa bint al-Sayyid Ahmad al-Sharif), and by 1954
Fatima had managed fourteen miscarriages. A pregnancy in 1952 was
attended by doctors from Wheelus Field, but the son born early in 1953 died
after a few hours. After Idris had temporarily resolved the family crisis over
the succession he designated his brother Reda 'Deputy King', hoping to
forestall any further trouble from the thirty-eight male members of the royal
family: some thirty-two of the thirty-eight princes, from a different branch
of the Sanussi family, had reportedly opposed Idris on occasions.29 Gunther,

as a contemporary observer, concluded: 'In the present phase Idris is the
only person capable of holding Libya together, but he himself hardly seems
capable of doing so.'30 Nor was the situation helped by afifthmarriage - to
Alia Abd-al-Kadr Lamlum, the daughter of an Egyptian merchant - which
was dissolved in 1958 after a childless union; or by the sudden death of the
Deputy King, Reda, in 1955. Idris chose Reda's second son, Emir Hasan al-
Reda, as his heir. Perhaps it was the apparent fragility of the monarchy that
encouraged Idris to flirt with the idea of turning Libya into a republic.31 At
the same time events outside Libya were increasingly impacting on political
concerns within the country.
In 1954 there was growing hostility among Libyans to French policies in
Tunisia, Morocco and Algeria; this resulted in nationalist pressures on the
Libyan government to evict the residual French troops from Fezzan. France
was still maintaining garrisons, totalling around four hundred men, at Sebha,
Ghat and Ghadames under an agreement whereby they contributed to the
Fezzanese budget. It was perceived in Libya that these troops were strate-
gically well placed to intercept the significant flow of arms from Egypt to
Algeria. Nationalist Libyans, increasingly sensitive to pan-Arabism, would
accept nothing less than the total withdrawal of the French forces from the
region; and here their demands were successful.
The special anangements with France, whereby a French presence had
been agreed for Fezzan, were officially ended on 31 December 1954, and in
August the following year a treaty of 'friendship and good-neighbourliness'
was signed. The new agreement stipulated a withdrawal of the French
garrisons by 30 November 1956, with France agreed certain limited air and
transit rights in exchange for contributions to Libyan development spend-
ing. As the French had feared, Fezzan soon became a direct supply line for
the revolutionary forces in Algeria fighting against the harsh French occu-
pation. The Libyan success in evicting the French from Fezzan encouraged
the Tunisians and Moroccans to adopt a similar course. Such developments
were clear signs that the residual colonialism in North Africa was beginning
to crumble. This in turn eroded further the authority of the national factions
and institutions - such as the Libyan monarchy - that had been happy to
make pacts with Britain and other traditional colonialist powers.
TOWARDS THE COUP
The second general election in Libya was held in January 1956 but it had
little democratic significance: political parties no longer existed and voting
was on the basis of personality, tribal links and nepotism. All political clubs
and associations were banned, political gatherings were prohibited, and the
press was subject to licence and control. The Omar Mukhtar group had been
banned as a political organisation, though its members contrived to meet
clandestinely from time to time; the Libyan Communist Party had not
survived the expulsion of seven of its leaders in November 1951, and the
diligent attention of the Libyan police in subsequent years. Some political
activities continued to take place in sports clubs, the need for 'recreation'
being a suitable cover, and some trade unions encouraged an element of
political debate: in 1960 there was overt political rivalry between the
Libyan General Workers' Federation and the Libyan Federation of Labour
and Professional Union. On 3 February 1962 eighty-seven people were
sentenced by a Tripoli court to imprisonment, on charges of 'forming in
Libya cells of the Arab Socialist Ba'ath Party and carrying on subversive
activities aimed at overthrowing the political, economic, and social system'.
The sentences ranged from eight months to two years and eight months; the
party cells were dissolved; funds, papers and books were confiscated; and
a number of the defendants, from other Arab states, were deported.
Trade unions, seen by the authorities as inclined to socialism and subver-
sion, were suppressed by the Libyan police; and in March 1962 the Interna-
tional Confederation of Free Trade Unions threatened to take 'direct action'
in protest against Libya's refusal to allow a delegation to visit the country
and investigate the reported repression of trade unions. Libya was now an
oil producer and trade unionists agitated for its petroleum exports to be
blocked. Thus L. A. Hoskins, General Secretary of the International Federa-
tion of Petroleum Workers, declared that he saw no reason why labour
organisations should agree to tolerate supplies from a country 'engaged in
anti-union action of a dictatorial character'. Britain continued to train and
offer advice to the Libyan police forces and the military; and there was little
doubt that the hostility of the Libyan government to trade union organisa-
tion was supported by the British. In November 1962 talks in London
agreed the formation of a Libyan navy: the British government promised to
train naval cadets in Britain and to equip Libya with a training ship and a
mine-sweeper. But the British-supported federal monarchy was becoming
increasingly ill-suited to running a modern economy based on oil; and in
1963, two years after thefirstcommercial oil shipment, Idris issued a royal
proclamation abolishing the federal system. The monarchy, for a long time
highly congenial in British eyes, was being forced to acknowledge the
impact of Nasser's Arab socialism and the increasingly restive nationalist
voices in Libya itself. But efforts to shift Libya away from its traditional
tribal roots provoked inevitable reactions. Some of the restrictions were
lifted from the press, but moves to reduce the power of the governmental
sheikhs were unsuccessful. Student demonstrations in 1964 were crushed
by the British-backed security forces, and the government was replaced by
one that better represented the traditional interests of the tribes.
In 1960 a celebrated scandal over the building of the Fezzan Road had
exposed the characteristic 'tone for the enrichissez-vous activities of the
ruling group'.32 Here a Libyan construction company, with some foreign
involvement, had exhausted the money provided for the whole project with
only one-third of the work actually completed. The parliament passed a vote
of 'no confidence' in the government and the Prime Minister, Abd al-Mejid
Kubar, was forced to resign: this was the first time that the parliament had
successfully challenged the Libyan Cabinet. The development contract had
been landed through favouritism and the whole scheme was corruptly
administered. Tribal notables in government worked mainly to divert gov-
ernment resources to their own tribal areas, and to place contracts with their
own colleagues and family members. Parliament had forced the collapse
of the Coobar government, but when a new cabinet emerged under
Mohammed Othman al-Said it was found to contain a majority of members
who had served in the old one: the parliamentary victory was hollow. And
other events conspired to outrage the growing nationalist opinion.
An economic settlement had been agreed between Libya and Italy, but
on terms that were not wholly to Libya's advantage. Most Italian public
property was transfened to Libya, though with Italy still retaining some
buildings: several schools and buildings for consular and diplomatic use.
The Libyan government agreed to recognise various Italian commercial
rights and the Italians were given permission to continue investing in some
of the colonisation schemes: Italian colonists were to remain owners of their
land, regardless of the brutal way in which it had been acquired. Colonists
who wanted to return to Italy were free to sell their Libyan land and to
transfer the capital to Italy. The colonial conquest of the pre-war years was
continuing to bring profits to foreign land-owners.
The treaty designed to clarify the position of the colonists was ratified in
March 1957: it affirmed that 'all questions relative to . . . the transfer of
sovereignty' had now been settled. Many of the colonists sold their land and
went back to Italy but some - calculating that Libya would now have a more
settled future - resolved to stay and develop the land they had inhabited so
precariously for many years. This circumstance again did little to pacify the
growing nationalist clamour.
In 1955, after secret negotiations, it was announced that Libya and the
Soviet Union had agreed to open diplomatic relations: Soviet diplomatic
missions were established in Tripoli and Benghazi but the Libyan govern-
ment was unwilling to agree Soviet offers of aid, including the transport of
pilgrims to Mecca. An alarmed United States responded to these develop-
ments by increasing economic aid. The Libyan Prime Minister, Mustafa bin
Halim, the successor to Mohammad al-Sakisli (the former Head of the
Royal Diwan), was quick to insist that Libya would not be exposed to
communist influence. It was useful to demonstrate that Libya was not quite
in the pocket of the West, and in any case Soviet support for Libya's
admission to the United Nations was useful; in December 1955, four years
after independence, Libya and fifteen other states were admitted to the UN,
following backstairs talks between the Soviet Union and the United States.
Libyan nationalism received a further boost in July 1956 when Nasser
moved to nationalise the Suez Canal (Halim declared the move a 'wise and
courageous step'). The Libyan government demanded an assurance from
Britain that the bases and troops in Tripolitania and Cyrenaica would not be
used against Egypt; this assurance was given on 30 October - and the
following day Britain, France and Israel attacked Egypt, arousing further
anti-Western feeling in Libya. Demonstrations were organised against Brit-
ish and US military installations, an explosion at the Tripoli branch of
Barclays Bank wounded ten Libyans, and British families began to leave
the country. Harold Macmillan had recorded in his Diaries (18 August
1956) that if Nasser 'gets away with it', Britain would be done for: 'It may
well be the end of British strength and influence for ever. So, in the last
resort, we must use force and defy opinion, here and overseas.' The UK
socialist newspaper Daily Herald urged 'No more Hitlers'; just as the
Labour Party leader Hugh Gaitskell commented that it was all 'very famil-
iar. It is exactly the same that we encountered from Mussolini and Hitler.'33
However, comparing the Arab hero Nasser to Mussolini could have been
scarcely less calculated to impress Libyans with the soundness of the
enduring British influence in their country.
Harold Macmillan, after a conversation with Winston Churchill, pre-
sented the government's Egypt Committee with a detailed minute urging
the need to 'destroy Nasser's armies and overthrow his government'.34 One
option, despite the British government's assurances to Libya on 30 October,
was to launch a land attack on Egypt using the Armoured Division based in
Libya. In the event this option was not adopted, but for tactical reasons
rather than for any consideration of Libyan sovereignty. The possibility of
conflict between British and Egyptian forces on the Cyrenaican border
continued to alarm the Libyans, and the decision was taken to move Libyan
troops into eastern Cyrenaica. The sudden end to the fighting in Egypt, not
least following US pressure on Britain (America at that time had some
concern for the growing cunent of Arab nationalism), saved Libya from
further crisis, though not before 'extremist' opinion in Libya had received
a further boost. Libya had managed to stay out of a conflict raging so near
to its territory, but on 1 June 1957 the Cairo newspaper Al-Ahram, an
official government mouthpiece, accused bin Halim of having allowed the
British to use the El Adem airfield for raids on Alexandria. The Libyan
government denied the charge but Halim had already resigned, nominally
over a matter of domestic policy.
At the same time Libya managed, following Tunisian independence, to
establish links with the Arab Maghrib: in January 1957 bin Halim and
President Habib Bourguiba had signed a twenty-year treaty of friendship
and co-operation that Halim had termed 'the cornerstone of North African
unity' and which was intended to establish the basis for the development
of common policies, a move towards pan-Arabism but one seen by the
Tunisian government as a means of countering Egyptian influence in
North Africa. In March 1957 Richard Nixon, then US Vice-President,
visited Libya to explain the recently declared 'Eisenhower Doctrine', an
economic and military aid programme intended to counter communist in-
fluence in the Middle East; two days later James P. Richards, Eisenhower's
special envoy, arrived in Tripoli to press further economic aid on the
Libyans. The Libyan government expressed acceptance of the Eisenhower
Doctrine, agreed $7 million in increased aid, and declared that none of
this would increase Libyan commitment to the West. After bin Halim's
resignation, over the question of legislation by royal fiat, Abd al-Majid
Kubar, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, was asked to form a
government. He thereupon set about increasing Libya's dependence on the
West by persuading both Britain and the US to increase their aid, while
rejecting a Soviet offer of $2,800,000 for health, education and other
purposes. In April 1958 Kubar went to London to discuss an Anglo-Libyan
treaty that would guarantee financial aid up to 1963: $3,250,000 in British
subsidies over afive-yearperiod were agreed, as well as supplies of military
equipment and training. The annual contribution of £1 million to the Public
Development and Stabilisation Agency would end, but the United States
agreed to pay $5,500,000 over the next five years instead.35 In July 1960
West Germany agreed a loan of £5 million for agricultural and industrial
development.
These agreements enhanced Kubar's reputation in some Libyan circles,
but elsewhere the various treaties were perceived as 'unequal', attracting
Western financial and military aid but consigning independent Libya to a
subservient status, wholly vulnerable to Western whim in the uncertain
atmosphere of the Cold War. The 1956 Accord with Italy, granting the
settlers special privileges, seemed particularly humiliating. The treaty in-
cluded the words: 'no claim, even on the part of individuals, can be ad-
vanced in respect of properties of Italian citizens in Libya, by reasons of
acts by the government or the lapsed Italian administration of Libya, that
occurred before the constitution of the Libyan state. The Libyan govern-
ment consequently guarantees Italian citizens owning property in Libya,
in respect of Libyan law, the free and just exercise of their rights.'36 The
Libyan government, under pressure from the West, decided that there was
no alternative to legitimising the Italian land seizures. The Italians con-
tinued to dominate much of the business and commercial life of the country,
and when this influence was added to the rapidly escalating levels of British
and US aid it was obvious that the new Libya had little room for independ-
ent economic movement. Moreover the various aid agencies, operating
under Western or UN auspices, advised 'the need to restore the settlers'
confidence, or expect the continued decline of the agricultural base'.37
The practical limitations on Libyan sovereignty were further demon-
strated when on 18 July 1958, following the overthrow of the monarchy in
Iraq, British troops were landed in Cyrenaica. The British government
declared that the reinforcements came under the terms of the Anglo-Libyan
treaty and were justified in view of the deteriorating Middle East situation.
The Idris government declined to recognise the new regime of Brigadier
Abd al-Karim Kassim in Iraq, though the decision faced mounting domes-
tic opposition and - alarmed by the effect of British troops of nationalist
feeling - Idris recognised the Kassim regime on 4 August. Then the Libyan
government sent a supplicatory note to Cairo, declaring for the first time
that 'Libya is an integral part of the Arab nation' and that 'Libya will
continue to oppose foreign intervention in the Middle East.'38 Idris, like
other traditional factions in Arab politics, was being increasingly pressured
to recognise the undercunents of nationalist feelings that had been stimu-
lated through the colonial years and which were now being boosted by
many parallel and mutually supportive developments throughout the Arab
world.
Egypt had always had a considerable impact on Libyan political think-
ing. Idris himself, the Sanussi head, with many Libyan exiles had lived
there for a lengthy period. For many years after the Second World War there
were more Egyptian teachers in Libyan schools than there were Libyan; and
after independence the majority of Libyan university students attended
Egyptian universities. Libya's first army officers were trained both in the
Baghdad academy and in Cairo, as well as by the British. Literate Libyans
read newspapers produced in Cairo and Beirut, and Cairo radio was a
constant source of information and opinion to politically conscious
Libyans. Libyan political groupings were increasingly influenced by the
republican sentiments associated with Nasser and with the Ba'athists: Nasser
had led a successful revolution and now organised powerful diplomacy
against Western influence in the area. The Ba'athists, like Nasser relying on
the army for power, had a secular focus that pulled against traditional tribal
attitudes. The late 1950s saw a brief marriage between the two tendencies
when Nasser's Egypt and Ba'athist Syria formed the United Arab Republic.
Syria seceded three years later, and Libyan politics inherited the divisions.
The Ba'ath Party was influenced in Libya in the early 1960s but a trial
against the illegal grouping resulted in the dissolution of Ba'athist cells, the
confiscation of funds, and the exile of non-Libyans among the accused.
Cairo Radio encouraged the anti-Ba'athist feeling in Libya, the Ba'athist
Party declined, and Nasserite factions became increasingly influential. The
Libyan monarchy continued to be hostile to independent political parties
and was increasingly forced to take action against them. Students, defying
the police, protested in 1964, and there were sympathy protests by Libyan
students in Britain and West Germany. In 1966 the first conference of the
Libyan Students' Union opted for the Leftist tendency within the Arab
Nationalist Movement, pledged support to the Vietnamese resisting West-
ern aggression, demanded a radical approach to the Palestine question,
criticised the government's oil policy, and demanded the ending of Western
bases on Libyan territory. During the Six-Day War Libyan students forged
links with the trade-union movement, and oil and dock-workers struck,
refusing to allow the pumping of oil and the loading of tankers.39 In 1967
the government resorted to a mass trial to discredit the student movement
and to remove the militant trade union leaders. It also made cosmetic
concessions to Arab nationalism designed to weaken internal dissent and
discourage criticism from Egypt. Idris began negotiations for the with-
drawal of the foreign bases, but only continued the talks until the furore had
died down. Idris succeeded in nullifying political opposition, using the
rapidly expanding oil revenues for material concessions. In addition to the
flow of foreign aid, as a Cold War ploy, Libya itself was increasingly able
to invest in schools and industrial development. Prosperity helped to dis-
courage dissent, helped to counter the nationalist voices. But Idris mis-
judged the increasingly turbulent political undercurrents. His time was
running out.
One problem was the growing social stratification in the country: there
had always been a class hierarchy in Libyan society, as in all other cultures,
but now this was being exacerbated by a number of economic develop-
ments, not least the rapid growth in oil wealth that was encouraging urban-
isation. It was inevitable that any large drift of population from the rural
areas to the towns would produce massive congestion and overcrowding.
Shanty-towns grew up around Benghazi and Tripoli: one 1967 estimate
suggested that the shanty-town population of Tripoli was at least 40,000.40
The author Hadi Bulugma described one of the shanty-towns, Sabri, on
the edge of Benghazi:
The shanty-town of Sabri . . . gives a clear picture of a primitive and

miserable society living on the lowest margins of human subsistence. In
winter, the people suffer from dirt, mud and rain. Summer conditions
were better . . . but millions of flies live on the dirt and sewage found
all over the place . . . Neither modern dwellings nor medical services,
sanitation, hygiene, pipe water or electricity, are yet known, despite the
fact that the eastern part of the area lies along the main northern entrance
to the city.41
As much as a quarter of Benghazi's total population, around 35,000 people,

were estimated to live in Sabri. Nor was the problem helped by the govern-
ment's agrarian policy. The regime decided in 1961 that agricultural credits
should be provided to enable Libyan nationals to buy land. The plan,
prompted by World Bank recommendations in 1960, was intended to
encourage the buy-out of Italian settlers.42 In fact the scheme simply facil-
itated the purchase of land by the wealthy urban traders, so encouraging a
drift of population from the urban areas. Efforts to organise a trade-union
response to the increased polarisation of commercial wealth led to predict-
able responses from the government and the increasingly powerful com-
mercial class.
The Sanussi leadership, beginning to benefit from oil revenues, agreed
with the wealthy merchants that the trade union movement should be
suppressed. A strike had occuned in Tripoli as early as 1959, with hotel
workers demanding shorter hours and a fair distribution of tips, and later the
same year 350 airport workers (porters,firemen,refuellers and radio opera-
tors) followed their example. In another protest Libya's largest press, the
Italian-owned Poligrafico Maggi, was brought to a halt by a union strike for
improved pay. The federal government, though opposed to union activities,
relied on the provincial authorities in the various regions to take action
against worker militancy. Thus in a confrontation with the Libyan General
Labour Union (LGLU), the provincial governor of Tripolitania Ali Dhili
drew on the large numbers of urban unemployed to serve as 'blackleg'
labour in a concerted strike-breaking plan. The strikers at Idris airport were
quickly replaced, and a fresh labour law was quickly enacted. Trade union
offices were taken over by the police, and the LGLU General Secretary,
Selim Shita, along with other union leaders, was anested and subsequently
tried on state security charges. All the leaders, including Shita, were even-
tually acquitted but the union had been destroyed. Power was increasingly
concentrated in the state apparatus, the Sanussi leadership and the wealthy
merchant/capitalist class able to secure their hold on oil revenues and
other sources of wealth, but only temporarily - the war in June 1967 was to
exacerbate the social tensions that together were making the Idris monarchy
increasingly insecure.
The Israeli attack on Egypt on 5 June stimulated the Libyan trade union
and student movements, both already antipathetic to the Idris monarchy and
the other traditional elements within the country. Students stirred the urban
poor into a rampage against foreign-owned property in Tripoli and else-
where: Jewish property was destroyed and a number of people were killed.
Then the anger turned against the regime's support for British and Amer-
ican bases in Libya. The Libyan trade movement, dormant since 1961 but
now resurgent, decided to begin an oil boycott ahead of the formal decision
by the scheduled meeting of the Arab oil producers in Baghdad. The oil
workers struck on 7 June, refusing to handle oil company vessels in the
Port of Tripoli; and the government, fearing it would lose control, ordered
the tankers to remain outside territorial waters. An oil company memor-
andum, issued on 14 June, declared that Libya was 'on the verge of re-
volt'.43 Some leading families had already fled the country. When it became
clear that the Arabs had suffered a serious defeat by the Israelis, much of the
Libyan turmoil subsided. The state then embarked upon another bout
of repression to secure the Sanussi leadership. Trade union and student
leaders were arrested, and seven union leaders were sentenced to terms
of imprisonment. By August much of the opposition to the monarchy had
been crushed, but the weakness of the traditional power structure had been
exposed.
In October 1961 King Idris had been able to declare that 'The coming
years will be years of abundance, owing to the wealth God had given us
from our soil'; but it had soon become clear that, despite a significant
volume of social investment, the Libyans with access to capital were the
ones who had benefited most from the discovery of oil. The contrast
between the smart new villas in Tripoli and Benghazi and the surrounding
shanty-towns were obvious to everyone; wealthy Libyans and foreigners
were often living only a few hundred yards from tent-cities and shanty-
towns built of wooden remnants and discarded tin sheets. The writer and
journalist Ronald Segal noted in 1962 that there were countries 'not far
from Libya' where oil had enriched only a small group, making the sur-
rounding poverty even more desperate, and he proposed that 'Libya would
do well to learn from their example, or its government may find the
discovery of oil something more than a sudden stroke of luck.'44
The foreign bases were still in place, and had been there for many years.
Wheelus Field, originally built by the Italians, was acquired by the British
who passed it on to the Americans, who developed it further. The pressures
of the Cold War had rendered it important to the United States that it retain
a complex of bases in the Middle East. As early as January 1951 President
Truman had obtained emergency powers from Congress for war mobilisa-
tion, had reintroduced selective service, had sent two more divisions to
Europe, had doubled the number of air groups, had increased the Army by
50 per cent (to 3.5 million men), had stepped up aid to the French in
Vietnam, had offered aid to Fascist Spain in return for military bases, and
had obtained new bases in Morocco, Libya and Saudi Arabia.45 Aid, in one
form or another, was generally offered in return for the use of foreign land
for aircraft or troop concentrations. Figures collated by the British Overseas
Development Institute show that during the period 1945 to 1963 Libya
received no less than 17 per cent of the total bilateral aid which Britain
provided to all foreign countries outside the Commonwealth for that
period. The Institute noted that 'although these payments to Libya are
counted as "aid" there is no doubt that they are in essence straightforward
payments to the Libyan government in return for the use of bases'.46
The US Strategic Air Command in 1955 had a considerable global
strength. In the UK alone more than 11,000 US servicemen worked for
SAC, and the command had bases in Libya and Morocco, with agreements
to move bomber groups into Iceland, Cyprus and Turkey in time of military
need. In the early 1960s the USAF Aerospace Communications Complex
(AIRCOM) maintained key automated communications centres in various
countries, including Britain, Germany, Iceland, Spain and Libya. The
complex Ringstead-Gonamendi link provided the UK atomic Joint Co-
ordination Centre at High Wycombe with a direct connection to the US
nuclear forces in Spain and Morocco and at Wheelus Field in Libya. In the
1950s and 1960s the West developed a massive war-making capacity that
straddled the globe; the Mediterranean bases, including those in Libya,
were a part of this global scheme. Nothing short of a revolution would
shake Libya out of a world order designed to protect the defined interests
(real or imagined) of the Great Powers.
The social and political tensions in Libya were characteristic of many
societies, some of which managed to make the necessary evolutionary
adaptations in a changing world and some of which did not. Ostentatious
wealth side-by-side with poverty, trade union and political aspirations with
no useful outlet, the tensions sustained by a residual Italian colonial pres-
ence, the collapse of the monarchies in Egypt and Iraq, the constant nation-
alist resentment sustained by the presence of European and American bases
on Libyan land - all these combined to threaten the traditional political
structure. Astute observers at the time had little doubt that the days of the
Idris monarchy were numbered. The English politician Denis Healey re-
marked with hindsight that 'It was obvious that the monarchy was likely to
fall at any moment to an army coup'; and he tried to guess who would lead
it. He got it wrong ('but not very wrong'): 'In the end I decided it would
probably be Colonel Shelhi, an intelligent young man who was said to be
influenced by Nasser.'47 The rank was wrong and the name was wrong: the
coup against King Idris on 1 September 1969 was led by Signals Captain
Muammar al-Gaddafi. The event was, according to two English journalists,
'a last minute panic with a lot of chaos and just a touch of farce'.48 In any
event, an era was at an end. Yet another Middle East monarchy had fallen
and there would be far-reaching consequences, not only in the region but
in Europe, the United States, and elsewhere.
MUAMMAR AL-GADDAFI
Gaddafi's parents - Mohammed Abdul Salam bin Hamed bin Mohammed

(known as Abu Meniar, 'father of the knife') and Aissha al-Gaddafi -
produced two daughters and a son, all born in a tent twenty miles south of
the coastal town of Sirte. His father belonged to a small tribe, the Gaddafa
(literally 'those who spit out or vomit'), a basically Bedouin group that
showed strains of the many other peoples - Berbers, Circassians, Turks,
Jews and others - who had inhabited Libya over the years.49 His parents
were poor and illiterate, but they told stories, in the tradition of the Bedouin,
about their tribe and its history, about ancient battles and foreign enemies.
Aissha died in 1978; and Abu Meniar, well over ninety, in 1985. Their son,
Muammar, was born around 1940 (the date is uncertain).
The Gaddafa, though a small and humble tribe, knew the value of
education; and so Muammar's parents pooled their meagre savings to send
their son first to a Koranic elementary school and later to high school at
Sebba in Fezzan. At around the time of independence Gaddafi enrolled at
the primary school in Sirte and so became the first member of his family to
read and write. At school during the day, he slept in a mosque at night,
trekking home through the desert every Thursday, at the start of the Muslim
weekend, and returning late on Friday. He was the oldest boy in his class
and, as a rural Bedouin, viewed by his classmates as something of a country
bumpkin. His father saw him as a serious and pious student. When Gaddafi
was fourteen his family moved to Sebba whereupon he enrolled at the local
secondary school - to attract a group of friends who remained with him
until he took power in 1969. These were exciting times in Libya: the
country was newly independent, the weak King Idris was unable to sup-
press the growing political agitation, and young students were stimulated
by new ideas and foreign examples of political initiative and nationalist
success.
The young had unprecedented opportunities for education; they read
newspapers and books; and listened to the radio, particularly to the power-
ful rhetoric of the Egyptian leader Gamal Abdul Nasser. Committed
Nasserites were teaching in Libyan schools and serving in the Libyan
bureaucracy, helping to create an atmosphere in which political upheaval
was an increasingly realistic option. Nasser's Philosophy of the Revolution,
describing how he formed an 'army officers' club' and overthrew the
Egyptian monarchy in 1952, was one of the most important books that
Gaddafi encountered during that period. It was inevitable that such a work,
with a nanative that reads like a thriller, would have gripped the imagina-
tions of the young Libyan students at Sebba and elsewhere. 'Our life [wrote
Nasser] was like a thrilling detective story. We had dark secret and pass-
words. We lurked in the shadows; we had caches of pistols and hand-
grenades, and firing bullets was our cherished hope . . . I can still remember
our emotions and feelings as we dashed along that melodramatic path.'
Nasser's first 'glimmer of Arab awareness' came when, like Gaddafi, he
was a student in secondary school; he used to strike every December to
protest against the Balfour Declaration which Britain had made on behalf of
the Jews. In all this Gaddafi saw a supreme example, the model for the
forthcoming Libyan revolution.
Already Gaddafi was a charismatic figure, attracting followers and eager
to convince his fellow students (his friends carried a stool around that he
could use when he wanted to make a speech). One of his Sebba teachers, the
Egyptian Mahmoud Efay, related how Gaddafi had handed him a note
which had three questions: 'What is a pyramid organisation and which is the
best manner to organise such a structure? Does the possibility of organising
a revolution in Libya exist? If a revolution were to be carried out in Libya
would Egypt come to the assistance of the Libyan people?'50 Efay was
sympathetic and answered the questions as well as he could; in particular,
he emphasised that a successful revolution would need the support of the
army.
In October 1961 Gaddafi demonstrated against Syria's decision to break
its unity agreement with Egypt (already he was sensitive to pan-Arabist
aspirations). This was, declares Frederick Muscat (aflatteringbiographer
of Gaddafi), the first test of his organisation of followers. On 5 October he
led a protest into Sebba town centre, brandishing Egyptian flags and pic-
tures of Nasser; Gaddafi stood on his stool and railed against the continued
presence of foreign bases on Libyan territory, after which he collected
money to send cables of support to Nasser. Twenty students were arrested,
and the next day Gaddafi was told by Seif al Nasser Mohammed, a local
pillar of the town, that he would be expelled from the Sebba school. (This
followed another incident in which Gaddafi and some friends had broken
windows in a hotel where, against Islamic teaching, alcohol was avail-
able.) A month later the expulsion order, duly signed by the Minister of
Education, was received by the school's headmaster ('I convey to you the
penalties which we deemed necessary to be applied against the following
students who perpetrated acts contrary to their duties as students: 1) Muammar
Abu Meniar al Gaddafi discharged from the school and prevented from
studying at the schools of the state . . .'). The ruling ('oppressive' and
'cruel' according to Gaddafi and Muscat; 'distinctly mild', according to
Blundy and Lycett, op. cit.) may be judged to have further alienated Gaddafi
from the sociopolitical system in Libya and to have further fuelled his
revolutionary ambitions.
Gaddafi's father appealed for his son to be found a place at another
school, and in fact the appeal was successful. Since Gaddafi at nineteen was
now too old to begin at a fresh secondary school a sympathetic official
provided a false birth certificate; Gaddafi's political agitations thus contin-
ued at another secondary school, this time one at Misrata. He soon became
famous for his frank speaking and attracted more followers: on one occa-
sion he publicly denounced the English-language inspector, a certain
Mr Johnson, for being no more than an agent of imperialism, an act that
impressed his fellow students. Omar Meheshi, a fellow revolutionary in
Misrata, declared: 'When I heard this I was so struck by his audacity that
I wanted to meet him, to get to know him.'51 The group had resolved to
follow Nasser 'and Nasser alone. Our line was to support Arab national-
ism.' The rules were laid down by Gaddafi: the group members must not
drink, play card games, or fool around with women; they must pray and
study, and always attend the necessary political meetings. Then, remember-
ing the advice of his Egyptian teacher Mahmoud Efay, Gaddafi decided to
join the Libyan armed forces.
In 1963 Gaddafi enrolled in the Royal Libyan Military Academy in
Benghazi, set up in 1957 to serve, under British guidance, as the Libyan
equivalent of Sandhurst. It is a sad reflection on Libyan security that
someone like Gaddafi was allowed to enroll in the academy and join the
Cyrenaican Defence Force, an elite group charged with the special task of
protecting the King. Gaddafi was already known to the police and the
security forces, though no effort seems to have been made to block his entry
into the armed forces. The academy was headed by Colonel Ted Lough
from 1960 to 1966, and he remembers Gaddafi well: 'He was our most
backward cadet... 98 per cent of the cadets passed their exams, 2 per cent
failed, and he was one of them. He was probably not as stupid as I thought
at the time. Part of his problem was that he wouldn't learn English. I didn't
like him and he made life difficult for my officers and men because he went
out of his way to be rude to them.'52 Gaddafi was often reported for
insubordination but little action was ever taken. Lough has said that Gaddafi
'was inherently cruel'; and there is some evidence that he, with some fellow
officers, was involved in a summary execution of a man accused of 'some
sexual offence, possibly homosexuality'. The killing was reported to the
Libyan chief of staff but nothing was done. However, it seems that Gaddafi
did not always avoid punishment.
A Major Jalal Dalgeli, in charge when the commander of the academy
was away, has observed that he had 'no time for Gaddafi' and could
remember him being forced to crawl in the gravel on his hands and knees,
with a weighted rucksack on his back, until the skin came off his knees. It
is hardly surprising that Gaddafi was not a good cadet: his purpose was
altogether different. He set about subverting the officers in various ways.
They were encouraged to collect information on other staff, about stocks
of arms and other matters; thefirstmeeting of his Free Officers' Movement
was held in 1964. Gaddafi later commented on Egyptian television: 'we
were faced with many difficulties; we had to meet during vacations and
often late at night... sometimes we had to travel hundreds of miles and put
up with long sessions in atrocious weather. We would often sleep in the
open . . . all members of the committee had to buy private cars and to put
them at the disposal of the Movement.' It is obvious that Gaddafi's industry
and application paid dividends: he quickly developed a revolutionary group
among officers who were more committed to Arab nationalism than to
residual European colonialism, and in any case the British seemed increas-
ingly uncertain about their role. An unnamed British NCO has been quoted:
'We were there not really to train the army but to keep an eye on it, to find
out what was going on. We made regular reports about it to the British
embassy people. I felt for a long time that something pretty drastic was
going to happen.'53
Many observers perceived that the situation was ripe for revolution, a
circumstance that encouraged the British not to arm the Libyan army too
heavily (Lough: 'our policy was not to arm them too well'). It was well
perceived that many of the Libyan officers were interested in politics and
much influenced by talk of Arab nationalism. Lough, seeing Gaddafi as the
most likely revolutionary focus, made frequent reports to British intelli-

gence in Libya; and has expressed anger that the Foreign Office paid such
scant attention to the information he provided. One such report was made in
1964 when Gaddafi joined the Libyan army's signals unit in Benghazi and
proceeded to order elaborate radio equipment that could cover the whole of
Libya. Lough himself was unable to gain access to the radio equipment: it
was held in a secure area of the compound in Benghazi ('Gaddafi had
got himself into a strong position with a weak commanding officer').
Gaddafi was known to be a major security risk five years before he launched
his successful coup.
Gaddafi then applied for a four-month military training mission to the
United States. Herman Eilts, the deputy head of mission at the US embassy
in Tripoli, interviewed Gaddafi (and five of his colleagues) and was im-
pressed with his leadership qualities. Gaddafi was not granted permission
to go to the United States, but for reasons that are unclear: Eilts himself did
not suggest a ban ('Maybe the Libyan authorities were on to Gaddafi at
that time'). (Years later Gaddafi was to plan the assassination of Eilts in
Cairo.) Gaddafi did however manage to win a place on a four-month
training course in Britain (Lough: T can't understand it. He must have
slipped through the net'). He went first to Beaconsfield to study English,
and then to the Royal Armoured Corps headquarters in Bovington, Dorset,
to learn about signals, driving maintenance, and gunnery on armoured
vehicles. It is suggested by Muscat that Gaddafi did not enjoy his visit to
Britain: offended by racism and other endemic features of English society,
he always wore his traditional Bedouin robes in London. By the time he
returned to Libya it was becoming increasingly clear to many observers
that a weak Idris would not be able to retain power much longer. Lough
commented that Idris feared his own army ('We got him six Centurion tanks
but he was so anxious about an army revolt that he locked them away'). In
this situation events would quickly move to a head.
The new oil wealth in Libya, far from securing the monarchy, had simply
led to fresh levels of graft and corruption. A memorandum to President
Kennedy on 16 October 1962 reported the 'sheer financial chaos' in Libyan,
the 'uncontrolled spending (and grafting)' that had produced a cash short-
age. The foreign oil companies allowed money to flow into the pockets of
a privileged Libyan elite but the mass of the Libyan people were receiving
disproportionately few benefits. The US National Security Council issued a
report, 'US Policy Towards Libya', on 15 March 1960 which included
reference to the 'little loyalty' to the King 'among the younger urban
elements who do not now have significant political power but who will have
such power in the future'; moreover 'there are a number of loose political
factions and interest groups and pan-Arab nationalism has considerable
appeal, particularly to the younger urban elements'. The report also sug-
gested that the British would probably intervene 'to maintain a regime
favourable to their interests'. Already a post-Idris regime was being con-
templated by the West, with speculation about what actions such a scenario
would demand. President Kennedy approved NSC guidelines demanding
that contact be maintained with groups in Libya 'likely to play a significant
role in the event of the King's death'; that contingency plans be developed
for action 'in the event of a violent upheaval in Libya'; and that a suitable
response be made 'to a Libyan request for armed assistance under the
American doctrine for the Middle East'. Such provisions and preparations,
had they been known at the time, would have left no-one in doubt that
the 'imperialist' powers still had far-reaching designs on parts of the world
that were deemed of strategic or economic importance.
The Israeli war against Egypt and other Arab states in 1967 was another
serious blow against the security of the Libyan monarchy. Arab nationalists
perceived that Idris had little commitment to the Arab cause; there were
demonstrations in Tripoli and attacks on British and American property.
After the sudden ending of the war the protests continued. The British
embassy in Benghazi was attacked and the consulate next door was burned
down. Americans were given refuge in the British Royal Inniskilling Fusi-
liers' camp, where they stayed until the authorities had regained control.
But now the situation was unmanageable: in the words of the former Libyan
Prime Minister Bakoush, 'The country was up for grabs in 1969.' There
were already signs that Idris wanted to abdicate: he had gone so far as to
offer a letter of abdication to the parliamentary heads in Greece, where he
was - equipped with 400 suitcases - on holiday. Peter Wakefield, then
counsellor and consul-general at the British embassy in Benghazi, knew
about the abdication plans but suggested that the reports were vague ('We
were wondering who the hell would take over').
There is still debate about the extent to which the British and Americans
knew that a coup was imminent; some observers have even suggested that
the Americans helped Gaddafi into power. While this last possibility may
be reckoned unlikely it is difficult to imagine that the Western powers knew
nothing about Gaddafi's intentions. A detailed dossier on Gaddafi had been
available to the British as early as 1966, and it is likely that they would have
shared their information with the King and with the Americans. Colonel
Shelhi, Denis Healey's candidate for coup leader, was supposed by Gaddafi
to know about the coup plans and it is possible that he handed on his
information; moreover it was also likely that there would be leaks from
Gaddafi's own organisation. Colonel Aziz Shenib, number three in the
Libyan army, has said that senior officers knew about Gaddafi's plot but
did not take it seriously. They thought it best to send the young officers on
courses outside the country and to place them 'here and there' in the army
on their return.
At Beaconsfield, Gaddafi had benefited from the British signal corps
training that was to stand him in such good stead: the British instructors had
been happy to tell him that the control of communications is a direct
channel to power. As soon as he returned to Libya he used radio and a
simple cryptosystem (of his own creation) to keep in touch with the various
('first' and 'second') cells, in a two-level hierarchy, that he had established.
After the Arab defeat in June 1967 there was a fervent desire among Arab
nationalists for revenge, to be able again to hold up their heads. A Radio
Cairo 'Voice of the Arabs' broadcast was heard all over Libya:
Dear Arab brothers, raise your heads from the imperialist boots, for the
era of Tyranny is past! Raise the heads that are bowed in Iraq, in Jordan,
and on the frontiers of Palestine. Raise your head, my brother in North
Africa. The sun of freedom isrisingover Egypt and the whole of the Nile
Valley will soon be flooded by its rays. Raise your heads to the skies.54
Such words caught the mood. The plans had been laid over many years.
Gaddafi, with some helpful training by British technicians and officers, was
the best-placed revolutionary leader to take advantage of the increased
political instability in the country. The coup was imminent.
COUP
In early January 1969 Gaddafi sent a four-line 'first alert' to his fellow
conspirators, urging them to check the control of soldiers, transport, arms
and ammunition. Once they confirmed that this task had been done, Gaddafi
set 12 March as the day for the coup against the monarchy. However, it
transpired that the Egyptian singer Oum Kalthoum - able to improvise
ballads about Palestine, Nasser and the Arab heroes - had scheduled a
concert in Benghazi for that very night. Moreover the concert was intended
as a benefit for al-Fatah, the Palestinian guerrilla group: it would be very
bad form to interrupt such proceedings. And many of the regime's senior
figures would be at the performance, making it much more difficult to arrest
them without raising a general alarm. Therefore Gaddafi decided to call
off the coup for that night, and he visited his parents in Sirte instead. On his
way back to the Gar Yunis camp at midnight, he and his two friends had a
car crash: a tyre burst, the car overturned and was badly damaged. When the
wrecking crew arrived they found, not the coup plans buried under the
mangled vehicle but a bottle of water which they mistook for gin. Gaddafi
found himself upbraided for the sinful use of alcohol which he never
touched.
He then decided that the new day for the coup would be 24 March, but
alarm spread amongst the plotters when it seemed the army was being
alerted. Armoured units were brought together in the central banacks at Bab
al Aziziya, and trucks from some Tripoli units were concentrated in a camp
near Benghazi. Other units had their ammunition recalled while military
intelligence officers kept watch at banacks and ammunition stores. Gaddafi
himself later observed: 'They were taking counteraction as though they
knew about our plans. That was a bad time for us.' Some of the Free
Officers contacted Gaddafi, urging him to come to Tripoli at once. He was
still resolved to take power on the night of 24 March but on 19 March Idris
was flown from Tripoli to Tobruk, near to the protection of the British
forces. The plan was again cancelled, with June 5 the next proposed date.
However, Colonel Shelhi, with his brother planning a coup of his own,
sensed that plans were afoot and managed to arrange for some of the Free
Officers to be transfened to new posts and abroad for training. Idris, having
spent part of the summer in Greece where he delivered his abdication
message, then journeyed to Turkey for medical attention; from Turkey he
announced on 4 August that he had made a firm resolution to step down.
Gaddafi, knowing that the Shelhi brothers intended to act no later than
4 September, realised that he could delay no longer: he set 1 September as
the date for the coup. A batch of young officers was due to be posted to
Britain on 2 September, and the Free Officers knew that the postings would
seriously erode their committed manpower. And there was a further reason
why the Gaddafi coup had to take place on 1 September: the plot was about
to be exposed inside the army, and if Gaddafi did not act he would probably
lose his chance for ever. Power would fall into fresh military hands, and
all his years of careful planning would have been in vain.
The date of 1 September 1969 was finalised in a series of meetings that
took place over the previous week in the office of Signals Captain Gaddafi
at the Gar Yunis camp, just outside Benghazi. The coup, named 'Operation
Jerusalem', required that specified military and governmental installations
in Benghazi and Tripoli be taken over simultaneously. The Free Officers
were not ideally distributed, from Gaddafi's point of view, in Tripoli and
Benghazi but he concluded nonetheless that the coup had to take place on
the specified date.55 In any case he remained aware that some of his officer
colleagues were scheduled to depart for Britain for training in connection
with Libya's purchase of the Thunderbird and Rapier missile systems.
Gaddafi sent Lieutenant Omar al-Meheshi to Tripoli to tell the fellow
conspirators that Operation Jerusalem would proceed as planned; Gaddafi
himself was to handle the Benghazi end of the operation.
The plan had been refined over many months despite, or because of, the
many delays and interruptions to the schedule. An uprising in Gar Yunis
Banacks would be followed by an advance of a motorised column on
Benghazi whose task was to seize the radio stations, the police station and
the post office, as well as senior military and government officials. Mem-
bers of the royal family and the clutch of advisors around the throne were
a key priority; it was useful that Idris was still in Turkey. The Free Officers
in Tripoli - Khweildi Hamidi, Abdul Munim al-Houni, Abu Bakr Yunis
Jaber and Abdel Salem Jalloud - would capture the Crown Prince, with
troops from the Tarhouna Banacks moving to the town centre in armoured
cars to capture the key installations. A key task would be to incapacitate the
Cyrenaica Defence Force (CYDEF), an important defence ring around
the monarchy.
The coup went off smoothly. In less than two hours from the onset of
operations (at 2.30 a.m.) most of the key installations in Tripoli and Benghazi
had been secured. The Crown Prince and other senior military and govern-
ment men were captured with little difficulty. The Chief of Staff, Abdul
Aziz Shelhi, frustrated in his own ambitions, was found by mid-morning
after spending the night in a swimming pool. There were some gun battles
but these were short-lived and in Tripoli the plan was ahead of schedule.
Considering the scale of the social and political upheaval there was little
bloodshed. In one of the most important battles of the night, the CYDEF
unit in Gurnada suffered one fatality and fifteen wounded.
Gaddafi arrived at the Benghazi radio station at 6 am, martial music was
playing on the radio from Tripoli, and Libya had effectively changed hands.
At 6.30 a.m. Gaddafi went on the air to deliver 'Communique One', partly
ad-libbed and partly based on hurriedly scribbled notes (for security reasons
this first broadcast of the new regime was anonymous):
People of Libya. In response to your own will, fulfilling your most

heartfelt wishes, answering your incessant demands for change and
regeneration and your longing to strive towards these ends, listening to
your incitement to rebel, your armed forces have undertaken the over-
throw of the reactionary and corrupt regime, the stench of which has
sickened and horrified us all. At a single blow your gallant army has
toppled these idols and has destroyed their images. By a single stroke it
has lightened the long dark night in which the Turkish domination was
followed first by Italian rule, then by this reactionary and decadent
regime, which was no more than a hotbed of extortion, faction, treachery
and treason.
Finally Gaddafi took steps to reassure Libya's foreign allies:
On this occasion I have pleasure in assuring all our foreign friends that
they need have no fears either for their property or for their safety. They
are under the protection of our armed forces. And I would add, more-
over, that our enterprise is in no sense directed against any state what-
ever, nor against international agreements or recognised international
law. This is purely an internal affair.
Now Libya was to be a free self-governing republic, The Libyan Arab

Republic: 'She will advance on the road to freedom, the path of unity and
social justice, guaranteeing equality to all her citizens and throwing wide in
front of them the gate of honest employment, where injustice and exploita-
tion are banished, where no-one will count himself master and servant, and
where all will be free, brothers within a society in which, with God's help,
prosperity and equality will be seen to rule us all.'56
It was not until 8 September, when Gaddafi was promoted to Colonel
and made commander-in-chief of the armed forces, that it became clear who
the main coup leader was. Until that time public statements had been made
by Colonel Saad al-Din Bushwairib, a temporary figurehead leader of the
new regime. It would be another four months before the other eleven
members of the Revolutionary Command Council were announced.
AFTERMATH
On the afternoon of 1 September 1969 the Crown Prince broadcast a

message renouncing his claim to the throne and urging co-operation with
the new regime. The local commanders of the police force gradually ac-
cepted that the coup had been successful, though remnants of CYDEF
continued to resist in the east of the country. Within three days the last
CYDEF unit was forced to sunender, the CYDEF commander Brigadier
Sanussi al-Fezzani having been anested on the morning of the coup, and the
British base at Tobruk unwilling to give sanctuary to CYDEF troops. Idris,

paradoxically enough in view of his earlier talk of abdication, seemed
unwilling to accept the finality of the coup. From Bursa, the Turkish
holiday resort where he was convalescing, he despatched Omar Shelhi to
London to ask Britain to help reinstate the monarchy: in theory Idris could
invoke the 1953 Anglo-Libyan Treaty, pledging Britain to protect the
Libyan state from external aggression. However, the Labour government,
under Harold Wilson, was not prepared to act. The Foreign Secretary
Michael Stewart agreed to see the King's envoy but only out of courtesy:
'My motive in acceding to Idris's request to send an envoy to London was
simply that it is not creditable in the long run to appear to cut off your old
friends once they are down.' Peter Wakefield observed that 'It was too soon
after Suez.'57
It had become clear to Britain and the United States that their hold on
Libya was being eroded. On 30 November 1963 a secret memorandum for
the US President noted that: 'We need Wheelus base for quick deployments
to the Middle East and India, but a weak Libyan government is letting our
title be eroded'; and on 8 June 1967, at the time of the Six Day War which
stimulated widespread anti-US protests in Libya, the then US ambassador
David Newsom commented on the 'numerous reports of possible demon-
strations against embassy and Wheelus . . . Feeling obviously running high.
Accordingly we are reducing embassy staff to minimum tomonow and
removing last of classified files to Wheelus. Marine guards will remain on
duty for final destruct crypto gear if necessary.'58 The United States had
decided to end its Wheelus tenure in 1970, with the British also deciding to
evacuate their forces by 1971. In the event Britain, pushed by Gaddafi,
evacuated their bases by March 1970 and the Americans agreed a June
deadline. A primary requirement for the Western powers was to find a way
of co-operating with the new regime to protect their developing oil interests.
The more radical Arab states moved quickly to recognise the new Libyan
government: Egypt, Iraq, Syria and Sudan offered immediate recognition,
even before the character of the new regime had emerged. Once it was clear
that Britain was abandoning its Sanussi clients after a long relationship,
Shelhi flew on to the United States to enlist the support of the Nixon
government, but he received a cool reception: Shelhi was not invited to
official interviews in Washington or even offered the normal protocol for
diplomatic emissaries of foreign governments. He left the United States
having accomplished nothing.
Idris now recognised that the coup could not be reversed. In a Daily
Express interview (5 September 1969) he disassociated himself from the
Shelhi mission and publicly acknowledged the coup as a fait accompli. He
said he had not enjoyed being King 'very much' and had already tried to
abdicate the previous month. Later he went into exile in Egypt to live out his
retirement in the Cairo residential area of Dokki. He died on 25 May 1983,
aged 93 years.
5 The Oil Factor
Libya, a little more than a generation ago, was a poverty-stricken country,
a hapless pawn of Great Powers with strategic matters on their mind. In
1955 the author John Gunther, with monumental Western condescension,
was able to depict Libya as 'a child learning to walk', with a future
dependent on 'how well it is brought up'. Or perhaps Libya was only weak
and enfeebled: 'If it is frail, give it a brace.'1 And of course Libya was not
viable, 'unless it manages to stay united and continues to receive foreign
aid' - Western aid, that was, to avoid 'sunendering' the country 'to Com-
munism'. Gunther and his ilk did not reckon with the seismic change that
Muammar al-Gaddafi was to bring to Libyan politics; perhaps more import-
antly they did not reckon with the oil factor. In the decade after independ-
ence Libya was the poorest nation state in the world, its main exports being
esparto grass, used in paper making, and the scrap metal salvaged from the
detritus of the Second World War.2 All this was to change.
LIBYAN ECONOMY
Today Libya has few natural resources apart from oil. Efforts to develop
agriculture took place, historically, in settler enclaves often disrupted by
national resistance to colonialism or by the ravages of the Second World
War. The desert battles of the early 1940s were reported and celebrated by
the Allies as though such massive conflicts occuned in a featureless terrain
bereft of local people: in fact, the battles totally disrupted what little agricul-
tural progress had been made in the region, bringing famine and desolation
to tribes that had already been made to suffer greatly by the many foreign
incursions throughout the twentieth century.
In earlier times the Libyan economy, though frequently shaken by for-
eign conquest, had a more varied aspect. Herodotus gave some indication of
the extent of Libyan fruit growing and livestock production, and settled
agriculture was known to thrive under the Roman occupation. There was
extensive trade in raw materials and manufactured goods, mostly produced
outside North Africa, though most of the indigenous peoples were pastoralists
or farmers. The Italian occupation in the early-twentieth century, and the
subsequent bouts of war and Western colonialism, forced the collapse of the
182
The Oil Factor 183
ancient trans-Saharan trade routes through Fezzan and the coastal towns.
The Italians tried to introduce state-sponsored agriculture but it operated in
a hostile environment and was inevitably accompanied by the destruction
of tribal oases and the disruption of traditional farming practices. When oil
was discovered there were further dramatic consequences for agriculture.
Labour was attracted to the lucrative oil sector of the economy and the
traditional problems associated with poor soil, an inadequate water supply
and uncertain weather were compounded by a manpower shortage. During
the colonial period there had already been a drift of labour from the rural
areas to the regions of urban development funded by the Italians; but what
was a labour trickle soon escalated to a tonent when serious oil prospect-
ing began in the mid-1950s. Farmers from northern Tripolitania, shepherds
from all over Cyrenaica and the Sirtica, the oasis-tenders from Fezzan - all
were attracted to the oil camps and the urban areas where rapid develop-
ments promised high wages, even for unskilled or semi-skilled labourers.3
The oasis-gardens went untended, the farms were neglected, and the desert
encroached on reclaimed land.
The Idris government, sensitive to these trends and developments,
launched an ambitious Five-Year Economic and Social Development Plan
in 1963 with £29,300,000 allocated to forestry and agriculture out of a total
budget of nearly £170 million; only public works was scheduled to receive
a greater level of investment. The government perceived that it was agricul-
ture rather than oil that would offer employment to the majority of people
and at the same time help to consolidate social and economic bonds.
Schemes were outlined for land reclamation, agricultural settlement, affor-
estation, farm renovation, irrigation, and the development of animal re-
sources. Already non-agricultural workers were earning twice as much as
workers on the land and, despite the government's efforts, the trends con-
tinued. Before the discovery of oil, in the face of all the agricultural
difficulties, Libya had functioned as a net exporter of agricultural produce,
but in the 1960s it became a net importer: 'the slaughterhouses had to turn
to Sudan for cattle, and American corn oil went on sale in a country where
the Italians had planted 3 million olive-trees'.4 By the mid-1960s agricul-
ture was able to meet only 40 per cent of home demand, and over a ten-year
period prices had risen by nearly 70 per cent.
The government implemented various schemes to try to improve the
position of agriculture in the national economy. The National Agricultural
Bank, founded in 1957, offered low-interest, long-term loans to fanners, as
well as offering subsidies for farm machinery and buying agricultural
surpluses; in 1966 the Bank stopped charging interest altogether. The
National Agricultural Settlement Authority (NASA) was established in
1963 with a substantial budget and the responsibility for land reclamation
and farm renovation; scrubland in the Gebel Akhdar was to be cultivated,
and oases developed afresh in Fezzan. It was found that a mineral oil mulch
could be sprayed onto dunes to hold the sand down long enough for tree
seedlings to take root and grow.
A Ministry of Industry was set up in 1961 to develop private and state
industries and to run the existing nationalised enterprises. A principal aim
was to reduce the dependence on foreign imports through investment in
Libyan manufacture and a reduction in unemployment. However, the do-
mestic market was small and there was a shortage of skilled labour, only
partly addressed by the various government-funded training schemes. More-
over it was difficult to export to a sophisticated European market, and many
Libyan enterprises were forced to rely on regular foreign imports. Neigh-
bouring African countries, with relatively underdeveloped economies, were
inclined to protect their own domestic enterprises, and there were in con-
sequence few opportunities for Libyan exporters in this direction. Efforts to
broaden the base of Libyan industrial activity were largely unsuccessful,
and the national economy was increasingly forced to rely upon oil produc-
tion. Before the time of the Gaddafi coup Occidental was investing in oil-
linked developments, Esso was building a refinery and gas liquefaction
complex at Marsa Brega (and contemplating a sulphur plant with an annual
capacity of 45,000 tons), and other oil-based companies were negotiating
for prospectingrightsin the region. Development of the Libyan oil potential
continued to be the most favoured option to foreign investors. A second
Five-Year Plan, which was to have been launched in 1968, was postponed
because of unfinished projects in the first; by 1969 efforts to diversify the
Libyan economy were meeting with little success. The oil industry was
increasingly the sole engine of economic development.
Libya has been dubbed a 'hydrocarbon society', one in which the gov-
ernment 'is financed to a very great extent by revenues from petroleum (and
natural gas)'.5 Thus hydrocarbon societies are ones in which their govern-
ments obtain more than 90 per cent of their revenues from oil, a circum-
stance which makes it unnecessary for such governments to tax their
citizens' productive activities but one which makes such economies very
vulnerable to variations in the price of oil in international markets (with the
converse: that oil-producers can use oil as a political weapon to exert
pressure on oil-dependent states - see below). Libya is one such hydrocar-
bon society: other obvious candidates are Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Brunei,
Oman and the United Arab Emirates.
The Oil Factor 185
The success of oil production in this context inevitably has a debilitating
effect on other sectors of domestic industrial enterprise: there is little
incentive, for citizens or government, to develop other productive areas if
high revenues from oil seem assured. The danger is that concerted sanctions
by foreign countries to prevent a hydrocarbon society from exporting oil -
as happened with Iraq before, during and after the 1991 Gulf war - can
reduce a state to chaos and destitution; but presumably similar sanctions
against any export-dependent state, whatever the nature of the exports,
could be relied upon to produce similar levels of penury. If the West in its
wisdom - with or without the rubber stamp of the UN Security Council -
ever decides to impose a total oil blockade on Libya such a move would
clearly have a catastrophic effect on the national economy, and so on the
lives of the Libyan people.
In the pre-coup years that followed independence there was first a low
level of economic activity in Libya, which gradually increased through the
1960s as the oil resource came on line. Until the 1960s there was massive
dependence on the Western powers for training, weaponry and direct finan-
cial aid. Libya's first petroleum law, enacted in the mid-1950s, gave a hint
of the independent line that was already significant under Idris and which
Gaddafi was to develop, with global consequences, in the post-coup years.
The 1950s legislation enabled Libya to largely escape the dominance which
the oil companies had managed to impose over other oil producers: by
contrast, Libya was charting a route for the effective manipulation of many
of the major and independent oil companies.
Throughout the 1960s Libya's dependence on foreign aid diminished as
its oil revenues increased. Rents were still paid for the US base at Wheelus
Field and for the British base at El Adem, but such foreign payments were
increasingly unimportant to a state rapidly developing as a hydrocarbon
society. The annual increase in oil revenues was dramatic, with the 1969
income from oil twenty times that of 1962 (see Figure 5.1). During this
period oil consumers could purchase petroleum products in circumstances
of oversupply where the oil companies operating in Libya saw it as profit-
able to sell crude oil at less than the official posted price. The Libyan
government distributed funds to aid development in various areas of the
social and commercial infrastructure, with emphasis given to private enter-
prise; but strains developed in the regulation of both public and private
activity, and the government was unable to achieve balanced growth in
important commercial sectors. Agriculture, as always, faced a host of in-
tractable problems, whether the enterprises were state-run and state-funded
or privately owned and enjoying massive state subsidies: it was not always
5000 g
4000 1
c
I
3000 f
2000
Oil Revenues (Millions - Libyan Dinars)
Oil Production (metric tons)
—i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1—
19621963196419651966196719681969 1970 197119721973 1974197519761977
Figure 5.1 Libyan Oil Production and Oil Revenue, 1962-78

Source: J. A. Allan, Libya: The Experience of Oil (London: Croom Helm, 1981)
p. 69.
The Oil Factor 187
obvious how oil money could be used to overcome the perennial Libyan
problems associated with insufficient fertile land and limited water
resources.
It has been suggested that Libya's painful resource-management lessons
through the 1960s were largely ignored by the post-coup administrators.6
At the same time Gaddafi managed - in part by building on a pre-coup
oil policy - to secure a range of oil price increases both for Libya and for
other suppliers; and Saudi Arabia also pushed for oil price rises in 1973 and
1974 in the uncertain circumstances of the October War and the changed
commercial and political relationships that followed. In the 1970s, because
of price rises, oil revenues continued to grow as fast as they did in the
1960s, despite the cuts in production in 1970. It was now evident that
Libya was applying a sensible policy of oil conservation but an 'equivalent
wisdom' was not to be found in the equally important management of
water and land for agriculture, nor in the efforts to link labour and capital
to aid industrial development.7 However, by the end of the 1970s Colonel
Gaddafi and Major Jalloud were urging the prudent and thorough research
of development schemes before they were implemented, with implementa-
tion then to occur with the singular constraints of an Islamic socialism. In
the immediate post-coup years the problematic impact of vast oil revenues
on a country with a poor resource base soon became apparent.
The development of oil in Libya was helped by its geographical position:
Libya is nearer to the key European and North American markets than are
some of the most important oil producers, notably those of the Middle East.
Thus Libya found itself on the 'market side' of a Suez Canal closed by the
Middle East war of June 1967. The oil companies then worked to expand
their Libyan activities rather than simply relying on the earlier policy of
consolidation. It was cheaper by far to ship oil from the Mediterranean to
Europe and North America than to travel from the Persian Gulf round the
Cape of Good Hope. In these circumstance there was a rush to obtain
Libyan oil: the companies invested in the handling facilities to make in-
creased exports possible, resulting in a 50 per cent increase in oil production
between 1967 and 1968, and a similar increase over the following year.
Thus in the two years before the 1969 coup Libyan oil production had
doubled. If the Suez Canal had stayed closed Libya could have become the
world's third largest oil producer, behind only the United States and the
Soviet Union.8 However, it was also the case that Libya had an interest in
limiting production, partly for conservation reasons and partly as a me-
chanism for controlling prices. Libya was already set upon a course of
limiting production when it nationalised a range of foreign assets in 1973
and when the same policy was adopted by many of the other Arab oil-
exporting nations. Thus in 1974 Libyan oil production was only half that
of the peak production year of 1970, and production continued to fall

throughout the decade.
Throughout the 1970s it became increasingly clear that oil production
and export could be manipulated to serve a variety of commercial and
political ends. Libya was one of the key nations in pioneering a new
relationship between the oil-producing states and the oil companies (the
'majors' and the 'independents' - see below), a ground-breaking change
that was to have global significance for the balance between oil-rich Third
World countries and the oil-hungry developed economies of Europe and
North America. Throughout the 1980s and 1990s the prodigious oil re-
serves of the Middle East would continue to have global significance: Libya
has one of the twelve mega-fields (those with reserves over 1000 million
barrels) in the area (see Table 5.1), and this circumstance will continue to be
a central shaping factor in the Libyan economy in the decades ahead.
Libya is only one of the several hydrocarbon societies of the Middle East
but its circumstances have given it a unique significance. Its geographical
position, its colonial history, its strategic importance, the unique character
Table 5.1 The Twelve Mega-fields of the Middle East
Location Year of Discovery

Iran
Agha Jari 1938
Gach Saran 1928
Marun 1964
Bibi Hakimeh 1961
Ahwaz 1958
Iraq
Kirkuk 1929
Rumeila 1953
Kuwait
Burgan 1931
Saudi Arabia
Ghawar 1948
Safaniya 1951
Abqaiq 1940
Libya
Sarir 1961
The Oil Factor 189
of the Gaddafi revolution - all these factors have combined to make Libya
a particularly influential state in modern history. It is useful to survey the
unique features of Libya's oil experience in more detail.
BEGINNINGS
Oil in any substantial quantities was discovered in the Middle East for
the first time at the beginning of the twentieth century, and by the start of
the Second World War the region was producing only 5 per cent of the
world's oil; by 1980 this had become 40 per cent. One of the first boosts
to the young industry came in 1911 when Winston Churchill, then First
Lord of the Admiralty, decided to change the fuel of the ships of the Royal
Navy from coal to oil. From that time until the early 1970s the expanding
oil industry was effectively controlled by initially seven, and later eight,
major international oil corporations. The original 'seven sisters' were Stand-
ard Oil of New Jersey (later Esso/Exxon), Royal Dutch Shell (Shell),
British Petroleum (BP), Gulf Oil (Gulf), Texas Oil (Texaco), Standard Oil
of California (Socal/Chevron), and Mobil Oil (Mobil). In due course
Compagnie Fransaise des Petroles (CFP) became sufficiently influential to
be added to the list of the 'majors'. Until the late 1960s the majors control-
led about three-quarters of the world oil industry and more than 80 per
cent of oil production in the Middle East. During the 1950s and 1960s the
grip of the majors on the global industry loosened slightly with the emer-
gence of the 'independents' (around thirty relatively small companies, some
private and some state-owned, able to offer better terms to the producer
companies). However, the arrival of the independents scarcely affected
what was in essence a global oil imperialism operated by a handful of large
corporations backed by their home governments (American, British, Dutch
and French). The majors controlled virtually every aspect of oil production,
refining and marketing; and moreover often employed highly questionable
methods to preserve their lucrative trade. The oil specialist Mana Saeed al-
Otaiba gives one example of such practices: 'Iraq, for example, was threat-
ened with dismemberment of the Mosul Province from its territory unless
the government agreed to grant a concession to the then Turkish Petroleum
Company.'9 In subsequent years oil interests caused the collapse of the
Iranian Mossadeq government in 1953, and the 1991 Gulf war in which a
quarter of a million Arabs were killed.
Libya achieved its independence at a time when the corporate grip on the
international oil industry seemed assured; but it was Libya, aided by certain
other factions in the oil-producing countries, that managed to develop oil
policies that shifted the power balance away from the majors and in the
direction of the oil-producing (usually Third World) countries. This suc-
cess, resented by the large oil corporations and their home governments,
may yet be the undoing of the Libyan government.
The first hydrocarbon deposits in Libya were found in 1914 when, at a
depth of 480 feet during the drilling of a water well at Sidi Mesri, near
Tripoli, methane gas was detected. During the 1920s and 1930s the Italians
drilled in many locations in their search for underground water supplies;
some of these drillings revealed hydrocarbon deposits but they proved of
little economic value. A comprehensive geological map of Italian North
Africa was made by Professor Ardito Desio who decided in 1935 to watch
for signs of oil and gas in the water wells then being drilled. In 1937 he
detected both methane and drops of crude oil while supervising the drilling
of a well near Tripoli; a year later he had collected enough crude oil to fill
a bottle. In 1940, following Desio's recommendations, the Italians moved
rigs into the Sirtica to hunt for oil, but the equipment was inadequate in the
hostile tenain and the war soon brought to an end the tentative explorations.
After the war, with Italian settlers still in North Africa but with any
Italian prospecting initiatives ruled out, two Standard Oil geologists con-
ducted a survey of Libya. The movement towards independence delayed
any further foreign prospecting activities, though the oil corporations still
had an eye on the region. In 1953 a Minerals Law was enacted which
resulted in prospecting permits being given to nine major international
companies; teams of geologists were soon active in the desert. Now Italy,
which had begun the search for oil in the pre-war years, was out of the
picture.
In 1955 oil was struck at Edjeleh in the Algerian Sahara, suggesting for
the first time that North Africa might have large oil deposits; and in the
same year Libya passed itsfirstPetroleum Law (Royal Decree no. 25). The
Libyan legislation proved to be highly significant for the future of the
international oil industry. Here, for the first time, an effort was made to
prevent any single large cartel gaining a grip over a country's oil resources.
The new law suggested that oil production in Libya would be managed very
differently to how it was in, for example, Saudi Arabia where the ARAMCO
Group had received a concession covering the entire territory. The Libyan
law declared that all subsurface mineral resources were the property of the
state, and that specific rules would govern the granting of concessions.
Concession terms, rents and other conditions were specified; in particular,
the government was to receive 50 per cent of the income from company
operations after the deduction of operating costs.
The Oil Factor 191
At the time the Petroleum Law was passed (18 July 1955) no substantial
oil deposits had been found in Libya. There was some evidence that oil
would be found, but surface signs were absent: there were no indicative gas
fires as in Iran, no sluggish asphalt ponds as in Iraq. When thefirstconces-
sions were granted in November 1955 the outcome was still uncertain but
for geographical and political reasons the possibility of finding oil in Libya
was very attractive: the tankers would not have to pass through the Suez
Canal, and Britain and the United States still had useful treaty agreements
with the Idris government. In the 1950s Libya was the 'big play'.10 Seismic
operations began in 1956, though the first signs were not encouraging.
Apart from the difficulties of the harsh desert tenain, a principal problem
was the extent of the unexploded mines sown across the territory: an
estimated four million mines had been laid by the British, Germans and
Italians between El Alamein in Egypt and Mareth in Tunisia, and as late as
1957 it was reckoned that some three million mines remained untouched.
Some of the minefields extended for a hundred miles, and clearing parties
were necessary to establish 'safe lanes' for the geological teams.11
The drafting of the 1955 law had been supervised by Libyan Prime
Minister Mustafa ben Halim relying on a team of experts that included
N. Pachachi, later the secretary of OPEC (the Organisation of Petroleum
Exporting Countries), a Dutch petroleum consultant, oil company repre-
sentatives, and government officials. It is significant that the 'independent'
oil companies had a hand in the drafting of the law: they were keen to
penetrate the oil industry and many of their suggestions were congenial to
the Libyan government advisors. A limit was put on the number of con-
cessions and the total areas to be granted to any one interest; concessions
had to be surrendered if they remained unused after a specified period of
time; and the government reserved the right to offer relinquished conces-
sions to fresh bidders (some relinquished areas yielded spectacular oil
strikes). Such anangements meant that there would be a rapid turnover of
concessions and that the oil companies would be forced into competitive
bidding. Within twelve months of the enactment of the Petroleum Law,
fifty-one concessions were granted to seventeen companies. The Libyan
oil rush had started.
The map of Libya had been divided into grids with the inegularly shaped
concession areas superimposed on them. The majors made it clear that they
wanted territory near to the Meditenanean to minimise the length of the
pipelines. Ben Halim, himself an engineer and contractor, had anticipated
this requirement, so the sizes of the concession plots nearest to the coastal
ports were limited to 30,000 square kilometres each. The sites down in the
Sahara, far from the coast and so bringing many transportation problems,
were much larger. This meant that many oil companies were forced to
compete on plots close to the Mediterranean, a circumstance that brought
increased revenue to the Libyan government.
The rapid spread of concessions over the next three years resulted in
55 per cent of the land area of Libya being allocated by 1958 to fourteen
international oil companies. Oil had already been found in Algeria, so
Libyan territory close to the Algerian frontier was seen as an attractive
possibility: thus Esso spent a year on geological surveys in Concession One,
between the Ubari Sand Sea and the Algerian frontier, and in June 1957 the
company decided on the first drillings. A subsequent Esso report spoke of
terrain 'rough enough to test even camels', and the need for a 'special truck-
trailer, using giant, oversized tires that could maneuver over both sand
and hard rock'.12 Even so, it was necessary to travel 980 miles to reach a
well site that was only 480 miles from Tripoli on the map. The first two
drillings in Concession One found nothing, but in early 1958 the Atshan
Number Two hole began producing oil at the rate of 500 bpd (barrels of oil
per day), though the remoteness of the well made it uneconomic. Further
drillings in Concession One were unsuccessful.
Esso began drilling in Concession Six, which lay between the Gulf of
Sirte and Gebel Zelten, in 1958 though by the end of the year no significant
strikes had been made. By 1959 the companies had together spent a total of
£42 million, with little to show for this considerable investment: the Atshan
strike was far from the coast and the few other oil-producing wells were of
little commercial significance. But in 1959 the picture was transformed.
On 18 April a test carried out at an exploration in Esso's Concession Six,
near Bir Zelten, gave good results. This Cl-6 well, Zelten Number One,
was measured on 11 June as producing 17,500 bpd, an output that compared
well with the highly productive Kuwaiti and Saudi Arabian oilfields; in
August a further major discovery was confirmed with Zelten Number Two
tested as producing 15,000 bpd. A rich oil-bearing stratum had been dis-
covered at Zelten less than 6000 feet below the surface, so giving the
clearest sign yet of the abundant oil supplies in the Sirtica. In this same
annus mirabilis there were a number of other highly successful strikes in the
region. Drillings by the Oasis Group (the Libyan operator for the consor-
tium of Continental Oil, Amerada, Shell and Marathon), the first producer
in Concession 59, soon had oil flowing at 7000 bpd in what was to become
known as the Waha Field; and soon after, Oasis drillings in Concession 32
located the Dahra Field. At the same time the Esso Sirte/Libam/Grace
group, drilling in Concession 17, found the Mabruk Field; and in September
Amoseas (the group working for Texaco Overseas and California Asiatic),
operating in Concession 47, achieved the first oil producer in the Beida
The Oil Factor 193
Field. On 1 November Mobil-Gelsenberg, a German-American consor-

tium, started producing oil in Concession 12 from the Amal Field.13 Major
Sirtica oilfields had been discovered within a period of months, but in the
following year there were few new discoveries. 1960 was a year of consol-
idation; it was also the year in which OPEC was born.
THE 1960s
In the immediate post-war years Venezuela had pioneered arrangements

whereby the oil-producing countries and the international corporations shared
the profits from oil: similar agreements were later introduced in the Middle
East. Venezuela was also one of the principal instigators of the creation of
OPEC (Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries) in 1960. One of
the main aims of the Organisation was to maintain oil prices despite the
growing abundance of resources being discovered and being exploited by
the global oil corporations. It also wanted to improve the tax yields levied
on the companies by the member states. In OPEC's early days the oil-
exporting countries lacked a co-ordinated policy, and the Organisation
achieved only limited success. It was at the time of the formation of OPEC
that Libyan oil began to flow into the international market.
In 1950 the United States had passed mandatory import quotas to pre-
vent cheap oil from ruining the US market, a move that a former chief
economist at the Bureau of Mines reckoned had cost the American taxpayer
around $5 billion. The producing countries were now being paid a royalty
based on the 'posted price', but in circumstances of oversupply this figure
was constantly being undercut: for example, three of the majors cut their
prices to retain the Indian market against Russian competition; and in
response to the world oil surplus that was starting to emerge around 1960
they cut the posted price in the Middle East by 18 cents a banel, a decision
that cost the oil-producing companies around $132 million. These were
the sorts of circumstances that forced the oil producers to create OPEC,
what the Venezuelan oil minister dubbed 'a very exclusive club'. The first
reaction of the oil companies was to ignore the new Organisation, refusing
to trade with 'this so-called OPEC. The companies still sought to make
their deals with the individual governments, at the same time urging
President Kennedy to waive the antitrust laws so that OPEC could be fought
in the name of 'national security'. The aim was for the global corporations
to confront OPEC to safeguard their rich pickings. In fact throughout the
1960s OPEC was largely kept in line, though it was clearly pointing the way
to a new framework of relationships between the companies and the oil-

exporting states.
In 1961 Abd al-Karim Kassim, having overthrown the Iraqi monarchy in
1958, moved unilaterally to increase his revenues from Iraqi oil. He issued
Law 80 designed to expropriate without compensation the whole of the Iraq
Petroleum Company concession area apart from the 0.5 per cent of this plot
that was already being worked. The company refused to accept the decision
of the Iraqi government and in response drastically cut back production, so
that for some years Iraq lost its position among the major Middle East
producers. The companies had proved, as they had done with Mossadeq in
Iran in 1953, that they would not be trifled with. The individual oil-
producing states were in no position to act unilaterally to gain control over
their own oil resources: OPEC was to show how, by acting in concert,
they could achieve results.
In 1963 OPEC moved to propose a new royalty formula that was more
favourable to the producing states: the idea was that the royalty received by
the governments from the companies should be seen as a cost rather than as
part of a tax on profits. The majors were soon working to see how the new
formula could be turned to their advantage. Libya had become an OPEC
member in 1962, and now the companies put pressure on the Idris govern-
ment to amend the Petroleum Law so that the independents would have no
statutory advantage over the majors; if Libya agreed, the companies would
then give consideration to the OPEC formula. The majors couched their
offer in such a way that Libya would gain increased revenues but the
independents would be hard hit.14 The independents were horrified to learn
that the Idris government was considering adopting the proposals put by the
majors.15 Libya was accused of breaking contracts; of encouraging the
companies to undertake exploration and then, when oil strikes were made,
to change the concession agreements. The independents also pointed out
how they had helped to locate vast oil reserves in Libya and how they had
developed European outlets for Libyan oil. The Idris government hesitated
and then announced that biddings would soon begin for fresh oil conces-
sions all over the country, including in the highly desirable area of the
Sirtica: seventeen items for determining preference were specified. Posted
prices would be required as a basis for determining royalties; the govern-
ment would be able to demand more than 50 per cent of the profits, with
other 'benefits' to government to be defined; and the companies would have
to indicate their willingness to establish refineries and petrochemical plant
in Libya. The scheme aimed to swing the balance of power away from the
international companies and towards the oil-producing state: Gaddafi would
work to build on this initiative in the post-revolution years. Then the Libyan
The Oil Factor 195
government agreed to accept the majors' proposal. Now all the companies,
including the independents, would be taxed in the same way; the independ-
ents protested that they could not afford higher taxes, but the new Petroleum
Law was passed in 1965. The next initiative, on behalf of one of the
independents would be made by Dr Armand Hammer (see below).
When the new bidding round opened, offers were submitted by several
dozen company groups from seven different countries; about a hundred top
executives from many different companies attended the formal opening of
six crates of bids. There were few contenders for the unpromising areas of
Fezzan and Tripolitania, but in the areas where massive oil strikes had been
made there were many offers. One of the leading industry journals, Petro-
leum Intelligence Weekly, suggested that likely winners would be European
companies that gave the impression of not being 'under the thumb of the
international majors'.16 The new pricing arrangements were included in a
Royal Decree that incorporated the OPEC formula, and the government
indicated that it intended to impose a quick acceptance of the new terms.
The independents resisted for a time but capitulated before the expiry of the
deadline: the majors had forced the independents into line.
The new concessions were then announced and the Oil Minister Fuad
Kabazi stated that the list showed 'where our interests lie and which way we
intend to go'.17 Awards were won by five West German companies, by
Italy's ENI, and by the Spanish/French/American Hispanoil group. There
were also fourteen newcomers to Libya, firms with no previous oil experi-
ence abroad. The prestigious Oil and Gas Journal described some of these
organisations - Circle Oil, Lion Petroleum, Libya Texas, Bosco Middle
East and others - as 'paper companies'.18 Such criticisms led three of the
members of Libya's Higher Petroleum Council, which had studied the
offers, to submit their resignations; and at the same time the King's private
secretary issued a statement denying as 'baseless rumours' certain charges
that Idris himself had supported bids from two of the companies.
Libya was now a major oil exporting state: Fuad Kabazi had observed
how the 'legend' of Libyan oil was set to 'outpace imagination'. Five major
oil terminals were opened between October 1961 and early 1968. The new
concessions awarded after the passing of the 1965 Petroleum Law required
that 25 per cent of the concession holdings be handed back five years after
being granted, so giving the government further control over exploration on
its own territory. Two important concessions, 102 and 103, announced in
February 1966, went to Hammer's Occidental of Libya Inc.; and within
fifteen days seismic operations had begun. Within months major strikes
were made, and by the end of April 1967 the seven Augila wells were
together producing around 61,000 bpd.19 In May 1967 another successful
strike was made in Concession 103, a former Mobil holding. The scale of
the new find, augmenting Occidental Augila production, encouraged the
company to develop its own transportation system and to build a terminal.
The Tripoli Sunday Ghibli called the new 'Idris Field' a 'humdinger'.
Occidental took less than a year to build a 135-mile, 40-inch pipe (now
Libya's biggest) from the Idris Field to Zuetina on the Gulf of Sirte; the new
terminal was inaugurated by King Idris in April 1968. Another enormous
Occidental well, just south of Idris, required the building of a supplemen-
tary spur-line to join the main Zuetina pipe. By contrast, many other
companies drilled in Libya for years and found nothing.
The Libyan government was well aware, despite the changes introduced
by the 1965 Petroleum Law, that its economy was effectively in the hands
of the foreign oil companies. At the same time the companies were increas-
ingly dependent upon the rapidly escalating Libyan output. In April 1968,
partly to gain increased independence, the government formed the Libyan
General Petroleum Corporation (LIPCO) to allow the government an area
for independent initiatives in national oil development. LIPCO was ex-
pected to engage 'in all aspects of the oil industry, both within and outside
Libya either on its own or in participation with others'. A main interest was
in the setting and maintenance of price levels. On 5 April, as soon as th£
new organisation had been set up, it was announced that LIPCO would
work with the French ERAP and SNPA groups on oil exploration and
exploitation in Libya. The French were to fund most of the original effort,
with the Libyan government satisfied with a 25 per cent share of profits
rising later to 50 per cent. Some other foreign companies expressed dismay
at what they saw as terms disproportionately favouring the Libyans.
In early 1967 the Libyan government began to take a number of pricing
initiatives, which led to a wrangle with various companies (and which had
the unusual effect of uniting the majors and the independents). Four com-
panies had unilaterally decided to fix a lower price for Libyan crude oil on
the grounds of its higher wax content. The Oil Ministry accused the com-
panies of acting illegally, though at the same time admitting that there
were gaps in the law (in particular, in the relevant terms of Regulation 6).
The companies were worried that government involvement in price fixing
would lead 'to complete control before long'.20 There were fundamental
issues at stake.
The June War of 1967, and the subsequent closing of the Suez Canal,
exposed the vulnerability of the Libyan economy to external events. Libya,
on the 'right side' of the Canal, may have been expected to benefit from the
hostilities; but the two-month selective embargo on exports showed how
vulnerable Libya was to political pressures. The Libyans, in concert with
The Oil Factor 197
other Arab states, blocked shipments to the West as a sign of political
solidarity with the Arabs: the Libyan economy was almost brought to a halt.
The Libyans had no alternative marketing outlets, but the deprived Western
countries were able to turn to Venezuela, Iran and the United States to make
up the oil shortfall. With the prudent ending of the embargo, Libya was able
to benefit from the closing of the Suez Canal, but not before some salutary
political truths had been learned.21 The post-war situation had some lasting
benefits for Libya: new trade patterns were consolidated to link Western oil
consumers with well situated oil producers. Nigeria and Libya were per-
ceived as being closer than the Middle East suppliers to the European states,
and when the Nigerian civil war disrupted oil production Libya was left in
a favourable position.
By mid-1968 Libyan oil output amounted to about 85 million barrels a
month; in July Libya overtook Kuwait which that month had produced 80
million banels. By 1969 Libya was supplying a quarter of all European
needs. Now Libya was the world's sixth oil producer and the fourth oil
exporter; the expansion in the Libyan oil industry was such that Libya was
expected to be the third producer by 1970. West Germany was the biggest
buyer, with Britain, France and Italy also important customers. From being
one of the poorest countries in the world in 1960, Libya had moved in less
than a decade to being one of the economically most important.22
REVOLUTION AND AFTERMATH
The revolution in September 1969 did nothing to interrupt the supply of oil
down the pipelines. The new regime went to great pains to notify the
governments of Britain, France and the United States that all existing
agreements would be honoured, a prudent move if the new government
were to be secure in its early days. The oil companies made a few public
protests at the overthrow of the congenial Idris monarchy, but company
executives had little doubt that 'the normal processes leading to national-
isation of the oil industry in Libya have been accelerated by the September
Revolution'.23 Such sentiments, expressed in an internal memorandum of
the Oasis Group, were shared by many external observers: even under Idris,
a broadly pliant collaborator with the companies, there had been developing
trends for greater Libyan independence; few observers doubted that a Gaddafi
government would put greater pressure behind such movements. It was
recognised that the government organisation (LIPCO) could be used as a
'tool to exercise greater influence on actual operations'; and that 'Once the
regime is stable it will launch a frontal attack on the oil industry. Driven by
missionary zeal of secure absolute economic sovereignty, the regime will
use every possible means of "persuasion" but it is unlikely that it will resort
to outright expropriation.'24 Doubtless, it was hoped, Gaddafi would be
detened from any 'extreme' measures by the fate of Mossadeq in Iran
where oil production was interrupted for more than three years after the
1951 nationalisation. However, Gaddafi was in no doubt that Libya had
been exploited by the companies during the 1960s, with Idris more inter-
ested in preserving accord than in gaining control over Libyan resources.
The situation would have to change.
Gaddafi moved quickly to regain what he saw as national assets given
away to foreigners. He began negotiations with the Soviet Union to sell
Libyan oil in the East and, with the help of Prime Minister Dr Suleiman
Maghrabi, who had once worked as an Esso lawyer, started to play the
independents off against the majors. He told Hammer to cut Occidental
('Oxy') production from 680,000 to 500,000 barrels a day, so signalling that
he intended to use control over production as a means of maintaining prices.
Hammer tried to enlist Esso's support against Gaddafi but the contempt of
the major for the Oxy independent was greater than Esso's desire to begin
building a common front against the new Libyan government. Hammer had
no choice but to agree the new Libyan terms, and the old company-run price
structure was breached for ever. OPEC was given a shot in the arm and the
oil companies were forced to agonise over their trading policies. It did not
help that the large international banks, profiting from the massive invest-
ments of 'petrodollars', were content to encourage a soft line towards
OPEC. In the period 1967 to mid-1972, before the new relationships had
been pioneered by Libya, oil company profits rose a mere nine per cent a
year; between the third quarter of 1972 and the second quarter of 1974 they
increased about 150 per cent. Even the oil companies began to see that the
impact of a reinvigorated OPEC, keen to stabilise prices, even at times of
oil glut, had much to commend it.
Within weeks of the new regime being established the government
announced that it would press for increased oil prices. A government
committee was working out a strategy for confronting the oil companies
while they too were considering their position. One option was for the
companies to increase their production in their non-Libyan fields so that
they would become less dependent on Libyan output; but some companies
(particularly Oxy), with the vast bulk of the production focused on Libya,
did not have this option. As negotiations began in early 1970 between the
companies and the Libyan government, the Libyans announced that they
were imposing cutbacks in various fields, an obvious political ploy; and at
The Oil Factor 199
the same time, in circumstances that remain unclear, a Syrian bulldozer
happened to disrupt the Trans-Arabian pipeline (Tapline), so putting further
pressure on the companies. These circumstances combined to reduce oil
output from Tapline and Libya by about a million banels a day; and then the
Libyan government tackled the companies one at a time. Occidental quickly
capitulated, but Shell (with a sixth share in Oasis) refused to agree a
settlement, whereupon Libya shut down the Shell terminal. Now there was
growing dissent within the industry and confusion in the various national
governments. British Petroleum agreed to raise the price of Libyan crude
oil but insisted that the company was not influenced by the negotiating
events in Tripoli. Other companies were prepared to settle, and the British
Foreign Office suggested to Shell and BP that it would be helpful if they
changed their position. Soon Libya had achieved a price - $2.53 a barrel -
that was the highest outside the US: this, Libya announced, was no more
than a rectification of past injustices. There was still scope for further price
reforms.
The American companies were by now thoroughly alarmed at develop-
ments, and so turned to the legal advisor, John Jay McCloy, who had served
them on and off in recent years. McCloy, now in his mid-seventies, had
represented all seven of the sisters and also most of the largest independ-
ents. Soon after Occidental had reached agreement with the Libyan govern-
ment, McCloy went with various heads of the oil companies to talk to the
State Department in Washington. It was agreed that the situation was
serious but no decision was reached. A fortnight later the heads of the
British companies BP and Shell (Sir Eric Drake and Sir David Banan,
respectively) lunched with the British Foreign Secretary, Sir Alec Douglas-
Home, who was attending the United Nations in New York; here the
gravity of the crisis was discussed.25 Again, little came of this meeting: the
Europeans were clearly not keen to put at risk their Libyan oil supplies.
The companies, divided on policy, now perceived that the demand for
increased oil prices would soon spread beyond Libya. Soon Iraq, Algeria,
Kuwait and Iran were all claiming an increased tax rate of 55 per cent;
on 9 December 1970 OPEC members met in Caracas with fresh
optimism but some disquiet. The OPEC official Abdul Amir Kubbah later
observed that 'The Libyan success was an embarrassment to other OPEC
countries. It rendered further silence almost impossible.'26 The Caracas
meeting noted the 'change of circumstances' in the world market situation,
and quickly adopted a range of new proposals: the tax on profits would be
at least 55 per cent; there would be higher posted prices; and all discounts
for companies would be abolished. And even this was not the end: soon
after the Caracas resolution had been agreed, Libya demanded an increase
of fifty cents a banel, with 'retroactive claims' and a further twenty-five

cents for the 'reinvestment requirement'.27 On 11 January 1971 the repre-
sentatives of twenty-three oil companies met in the New York offices of
John McCloy to see what action could be taken to stop the avalanche. One
problem was that the companies would soon run up against the anti-trust
laws if they tried to collaborate in an anti-OPEC strategy. In an attempt to
overcome this difficulty McCloy had also invited Jim Atkins from the State
Department and Dudley Chapman from the anti-trust division to visit his
offices: he explained that he would inspect any agreement drawn up by the
companies and then wait for a clearance from the Justice Department.
McCloy clearly perceived the need for the companies to organise a united
front against OPEC: 'The idea that you can't confront a highly organised
cartel of sovereign states is rather silly.'28 It soon became apparent that the
anti-trust provisions were an inconvenience that could be abandoned in
time of crisis.
The companies then organised their own cartel and drafted the secret
Libyan Producers' Agreement specifying that none of the members would
make any agreement with the Libyan government without the agreement of
the other members, and that if the Libyans ordered a cutback then all the
members would share the cutback in specified proportions. The US govern-
ment had agreed an effective waiving of the anti-trust laws (at the time the
head of the US anti-trust division, Richard McLaren, was waging an anti-
trust battle against ITT). McCloy also invited the government to become
involved, to suggest to the oil producing states that they should 'moderate
their demands'. Jack Irwin subsequently flew to the Middle East bearing a
message from President Richard Nixon. The situation quickly escalated, a
host of other players were drawn onto the stage, and fresh meetings took
place in Iran, Libya and elsewhere.29 Two key agreements in Teheran and
Tripoli, between the oil companies and the producers, were intended to last
for five years, until 1976; they survived for two. The Libyans had pressed
harder than the Iranians, and so secured better terms; in consequence the
Shah was furious and the situation was again unstable.
In June 1973 an OPEC meeting in Geneva insisted in a further oil price
rise because of the fresh devaluation of the dollar. The militant states -
Algeria, Libya and Iraq - were now urging a unilateral control of price:
prices were increased by 12 per cent, and Sheikh Yamani of Saudi Arabia
commented that this would be the last time that prices were negotiated
with the companies. In September 1973 OPEC, in a strong bargaining
position, invited the oil companies to a meeting in Vienna on 8 October to
consider 'substantial increases' in the price of oil. And at the same time the
Libyans contemplated further militant steps, the expropriation of particular
The Oil Factor 201
concessions. In June 1973 Gaddafi nationalised the concession granted to
Bunker Hunt, declaring that the United States deserved 'a good hard slap on
its cool and insolent face'.30 In September, celebrating the fourth anniver-
sary of the revolution, he declared that he would nationalise 51 per cent of
all the oil companies operating in Libya (including the subsidiaries of Esso,
Mobil, Texaco, Socal and Shell); two days later the Libyans announced
that Libyan oil would now cost $6 a barrel, almost twice the price of
oil from the Gulf. Gaddafi also threatened to cut off all exports to the
United States unless the US stopped supporting Israel, and the foreign
ministers of the Arab oil exporting countries (OAPEC) met to consider
using oil as a political weapon against the United States. President Nixon
then gave a televised warning to Libya reminding them of Mossadeq's fate
twenty years before, but no-one took the threat seriously. Ian Seymour in
the New York Times was able to ask: 'could it really be that the President of
the US had not yet grasped the predominant fact of life in the energy picture
over the coming decade, that the problem is not whether oil will find
markets, but whether markets will find oil'.31
It now seemed clear that 'OPEC's opportunity was created in Libya'.32
The West had watched the growing confidence of OPEC with alarm through
the 1960s, but the 1969 Libyan revolution massively increased the stakes in
ways that were never anticipated. Increasingly the management of prices
was taken over by the oil-producing states: the West seemed relatively
powerless to act here, as it was similarly unable to resist the Libyan
nationalisations of 1973. The oil companies could not 'black' nationalised
oil as they had managed to do in Iran two decades earlier; but it would be
a mistake to believe that the story is complete. In 1991 and its aftermath Iraq
learned the consequences of defying Western oil interests, and there re-
mains a deep resentment in the West about what Libya has done to invigor-
ate OPEC and to press its own interests in the international oil market. It is
a central theme of the present book that in a 'new world order' framed by
the United States, independently-minded countries such as Libya are far
from secure (see Chapters One and Eight).
THE HAMMER IMPACT
A principal impact of Dr Armand Hammer was to help Libyan efforts to

erode the powers of the majors to exercise unilateral control over national
oil resources. As head of Occidental ('Oxy'), Hammer had a great interest
in the success of a leading independent; Oxy had been immensely fortunate
in its granted concessions, and Hammer was just the man to turn this to
advantage. Hammer has been depicted as, in commercial terms, one of
Gaddafi's 'greatest friends' in the United States.33 However, the aid that
Hammer and Oxy gave to the new Libyan regime must be reckoned as
incidental to Hammer's commercial ambitions: he was given few favours
by a Libya intent on regaining control of its own national resources.
Armand Hammer was born on 21 May 1898 in New York City. His
paternal grandfather was a Russian emigre who had gained and then lost a
fortune in the Russian shipbuilding industry; his father, a gynaecologist and
general practitioner, began a drugstore business in New York. In 1921
Armand graduated in medicine with top honours from Columbia Univer-
sity; perhaps he was thefirstmedical student 'ever to earn a million dollars
while still in school'.34 During the civil war in the Soviet Union, Hammer
bought a surplus US Army field hospital and transported it to Moscow.
Soon he was offering surplus American wheat in exchange for caviar and
furs; he also agreed to build a pencil factory for Lenin, and in the 1920s he
was supplying Russian oil to the Germans. Such initiatives were early
demonstrations of how he could make imaginative deals across political
divides. Lenin welcomed Hammer's capitalist contribution in the Soviet
Union's ravaged state: as late as the 1960s Hammer made a grand gesture
in the Soviet Union by offering a Goya painting to the Hermitage Museum
in Leningrad (now, again, St Petersburg). Lenin offered Hammer the con-
cession of an asbestos mine, and Hammer went on to lubricate many deals
between the new Soviet government and such capitalist firms as Ford, US
Rubber, Allis-Chalmers and Underwood Typewriter. In 1930 Hammer left
his prestigious Brown House in Moscow, taking with him a vast collection
of Russian art treasures and Soviet promissory notes that were later hon-
oured in full by the commissars. After investing in whiskey distilling, cattle
and broadcasting, he moved to California in 1957 with thoughts of retire-
ment. A friend then suggested that he finance two oil wells being drilled by
the Occidental Petroleum Company in Bakersfield, California. He then
bought up the stock, financed the drilling, and took a stock option: when
two of the wells brought up oil, Hammer became president and chairman
of the company. In such a fashion he began the long journey to prodigious
oil successes and an impact on the global oil industry that would in time
put powerful political weapons in the hands of a revolutionary Arab leader
in North Africa.
The impact of Armand Hammer on Libya and the global oil industry
began with the Libyan concession awards of 1966, well described by
Wilbur Eveland, a former CIA officer and oil-company consultant.35 Eveland
himself won a contract in Libya for the Vinnell Corporation (not an oil
The Oil Factor 203
company), and he knew well the 'oil company greed, internecine rivalries,
subordination of corruption' that obtained in Libya at that time. It is likely
that Hammer himself was forced to go through the same corrupt mill in
putting forward concession bids that stood any chance of success. We do
know that he wrapped his bid in an appeal to Libyan chauvinism - literally:
he tied up his bid in red, green and black ribbon, thus flaunting Libya's
national colours. In addition he made a number of offers calculated to
appeal to the government of the day, including to invest five per cent of
profits in a scheme to irrigate the desert around the Kufra oasis, the birth-
place of King Idris and at one time a desert stronghold of Omar al-Mukhtar.
Hammer also paid close attention to the fourteen preferential factors stipu-
lated by Libya's Petroleum Council for the bidding companies. Oxy was
quick to incorporate a number of the crucial factors in the bid: for example,
the oil minister would be notified of all contracts worth more than half a
million dollars; local funds would be kept in local banks; and Oxy would
build refineries, petrochemical plants and other installations in Libya that
would help the country escape from the stifling Western controls.36 And
Hammer also promised that if he secured an attractive concession he would
try to use Libyan natural gas, being simply burned off by the other oil
companies, to provide a fertiliser facility.37 He also decided to pay the
necessary 'commission fees' - to the Libyan Minister of Labour, Taher
Ogbi, and to the influential Minister at Court, Omar Shelhi. Both were to
receive a royalty of three per cent of the sales price of every barrel of oil that
Oxy exported from Libya, with the revenues to be paid to a Swiss bank. A
certain Pegulu de Rovin later tried to sue Occidental in a Libyan court,
claiming that he was entitled to a fee for introducing Ogbi to Occidental (he
admitted already receiving $100,000), but the case was dismissed.38 When
all these factors are considered - chauvinistic ribbons, promises to build
copious 'downstream' installations, the eagerness to out-manoeuvre the
majors, the copious bribes - it is hardly surprising that Hammer managed
to secure his attractive concessions, some on land sacrificed by the majors.
What could not have been predicted was how successful Oxy would be-
come on the Libyan plots: for a time Occidental was the biggest producer in
Libya, a circumstance that was not happily viewed by the majors. Thus the
American Ambassador, David Newsome, later remarked: 'I think it is safe
to say that the advent of Occidental on the scene was not warmly welcomed
by all of the other companies.'39
Hammer had carefully put all the pieces in place, cannily appealing to
Libyan nationalism and diligently cultivating influential men who sur-
rounded the King. An effort was made to gain the sympathy of the Libyan
Oil Minister, Fuad Kabazi, who finished up arguing Oxy's case before the
monarch, at times communicating in secret code with Occidental staff.40 All

that Hammer needed now was good luck, and this was not long in coming.
One of the Oxy wells on land relinquished by Mobil yielded 70,000 bpd on
test, this strike alone converting Occidental overnight into a major interna-
tional oil company. By the time of the 1967 war Hammer's small firm of
1957 had expanded to a net worth of $300 million with net earnings of
around $22.7 million. Soon after the 1969 revolution Occidental had sales
of more than $2 billion with earnings estimated at around $175 million.41
Hammer soon realised that the successful Libyan strategy could be used
elsewhere: when Peru nationalised Exxon's oil fields, Hammer offered to
run them on a service contract, as the Soviet Union was doing for the
expropriated oil fields in Iraq and elsewhere. Occidental was also success-
ful in finding oil in Nigeria, Venezuela, Ghana and the North Sea, so
reducing the scale of its former dependence on Libyan resources.
It is also significant that Hammer thought it prudent to cultivate the
Americans, who were already deeply resentful of Libya's impact on the
global oil industry. So he made a donation of more than $100,000 to
Nixon's 1972 presidential campaign: Hammer himself handed over $46,000
in cash and fed another $54,000 through the office of the former governor
of Montana, Tim Babcock, then a Washington-based Oxy executive.42 At
the same time Hammer continued to develop the Libyan business: Exxon
had changed place twice with Oasis as lead exporter of oil from Libya by
1969, and in 1970 Oxy was challenging Exxon for second place, after only
two years of oil production. By means of a complex raft of tactics, Hammer
had carved out a lucrative trade in a Libya run as a traditional monarchy: in
the 1970s he would have to contend with Libyan leaders with a different
approach to politics and world trade.43 However, the new regime had clearly
benefited from some of the policies pioneered under Idris: 'Libya was
always different, always a special case. Its approach to the development and
production of its oil resources was always revolutionary, even before polit-
ical revolution overtook the country and threw Colonel Muammar el-Qaddafi
onto the centre of the world stage.'44
One of the first consequences of the 1969 revolution was the renaming
of the main Occidental field in Libya: formerly Idris it now became Intisar,
as it remains today. Idris himself had pressed for increased profits for oil
but apart from such haggling he never represented a real threat to the
companies. By contrast, Gaddafi 'was willing to nationalise the oil fields
and boot the companies out of the country. That, you might say, is a
difference of style.'45 Hammer was well aware that in the early days he was
entirely dependent upon Libyan resources, and so had to accede to Gaddafi's
terms without argument. This in turn weakened the bargaining power of the
The Oil Factor 205
other companies, majors and independents alike: Gaddafi was astute enough
to recognise Hammer as the Trojan Horse in the camp of the oil companies.
Thus when the Libyan government ordered Hammer to reduce oil produc-
tion as a mechanism for price control there were consequences for the
whole of the industry.
Hammer found the Libyans polite but tough negotiators; and sometimes
there was a hint of threat. At the start of one testing series of negotiations
he admitted to being 'momentarily thrown' by the warmth of his welcome
by the Libyans, but the atmosphere changed somewhat when the fiery
Prime Minister, Abdel Salem Ahmed Jalloud, purposefully placed a re-
volver on the table between them (Hammer: 'He smiled. I smiled. Then I
tried to compose myself. I had conducted business negotiations in some
strange circumstances before, but never over the dully gleaming barrel of a
.45!'). The upshot was a compromise price increase of thirty cents per
barrel. The other companies were outraged, a Shell man reported as declar-
ing, 'From that point on, it was either a retreat or a rout.' The companies
were soon forced to follow Oxy's lead, despite the hasty meetings in New
York and elsewhere and despite the nominal backing the companies ob-
tained from their respective governments. The oil producing countries,
bolstered by the Libyan success, quickly followed suit - to the predictable
honor of the oil corporations: Iran, Iraq, Algeria and Kuwait all demanded
a 55 per cent increase in their tax rates, and got it. The subsequent talks
between the company heads, organised by John McCloy in New York,
came to nothing. The Libyans refused to negotiate with the companies en
bloc and, unexpectedly, the more moderate Iranians adopted the same
position. The companies had again been out-manoeuvred: the collective
strategy was abandoned, despite the willingness of the US government to
waive the anti-trust laws, and the producer countries were again able to
negotiate with the companies on an individual basis. The patterns and
compromises agreed by Occidental in Libya were now helping to shape
the global industry.
The possibility that Gaddafi would move to nationalise company opera-
tions in Libya further concentrated corporate minds. Hammer himself an-
nounced his intention to reduce Oxy's Libyan operation considerably, and
he even contemplated taking the Libyan government to international arbi-
tration in Paris to recover expropriated assets. Hammer then decided to hold
monies nominally due to Libya, as a means of putting pressure on Gaddafi;
Hammer was advised to wear a bulletproof vest, 'and our security people
got a price for an armor-plated car for me'.46 In due course a deal was done
that satisfied both sides. Then followed the 1973 expropriations. Hammer
considered himself lucky to be offered $136 million in cash for 51 per
cent of his Libyan operations; other companies were paid with their 'own'
oil, and some were nationalised with no element of compensation at all. The
companies pressed ahead with plans to become totally independent of
Libya, a plan that eventually led to a reduction in OPEC s share of the world
oil business.
Hammer himself perceived that it was 'just too dangerous for the cor-
poration's health that more than 90 per cent of our oil should come from
a country which was so constantly at odds with the rest of the world,
especially America' (my italics). Massive investment was put into explora-
tion around the world, and there were many successes. By the time that
President Reagan broke off diplomatic relations with Libya in 1981,
Occidental had considerably reduced its dependence on Libyan oil; and
when, under Reagan's instruction, American nationals were withdrawn
from Libya Oxy's operations there were run by employees from other
countries, mainly Britain. In June 1985 the Austrian state oil company,
OMV AG, bought 25 per cent of Occidental's remaining interests in Libya.
When Reagan ordered a ban on all US trade with Libya in January 1986
Oxy's Libyan operations represented less than one per cent of the compa-
ny's worldwide trade. The explorations elsewhere in the world had come up
trumps, one in particular being both timely and immensely lucrative: in
January 1973, in the year of the Libyan nationalisations, the Ocean Victory
rig penetrated the Piper Field, one of the biggest strikes in the North Sea.
Even if Gaddafi were to close Occidental down completely, the company
could still continue to supply customers (Hammer: 'Piper made Occidental
safe from Qaddafi'). By January 1987 Hammer was engaged in further
operations that the Libyans can scarcely have welcomed: he had begun
drilling for oil in Israel ('we have nearly half the State of Israel under
license'). The game had changed since the heady Libyan days of the early
1970s.
By 1985 OPEC's share in the global oil trade had fallen by more than
60 per cent. The companies, having learned the lessons, had invested
massively in the worldwide hunt for oil. In 1973 the Yom Kippur war was
accompanied by a devastating oil embargo by seven oil-exporting countries
against the United States, Japan and a number of European states. The
developed oil-consuming nations would not be put at such a disadvantage
again. The corollary, for our purposes, was that the strength of Libya's
bargaining position was progressively diminished throughout the 1980s.
Today Libya - though continuing, sanctions apart, to rely on oil resources
- is relatively weaker at the negotiating table; and so more cautious and
more vulnerable.
The Oil Factor 207
POLITICAL WEAPON
The scale of the international oil industry is unique and unrivalled: no-one
can doubt that oil is vitally important to every country of the world, a
circumstance that puts immense potential power in the hands of the oil-
producing countries. But the 'hydrocarbon societies' are as dependent on
the smooth operation of the international oil trade as are the oil-consuming
nations. If a country relies upon the sale of its oil resources then, if sales are
blocked, the country is thrown into chaos and destitution - as Iraq has
discovered to its bitter cost in 1991/92. Oil can be used as a potent political
weapon, but not always in ways that necessarily benefit the owners of oil
reserves.
On 14 November 1974 Henry Kissinger chose to identify oil as 'the
world's most strategic commodity'.47 Deprive a country of oil and it can
no longer function in the modern world. America in particular, with its
prodigious and disproportionate energy consumption, relies upon oil to
sustain its standard of living, its military posture, and its self-appointed
global role as the world's sole superpower. If any country, for whatever
reason, threatens an international framework that guarantees US access to
oil then it had better look to its own security. The bitter US hostility to
Libya over the years has nothing to do with tenorism (the US has always
supported its own approved tenorists); the hostility stems from the simple
fact that Libya was able to rock the international oil industry and, in so
doing, embarrass and inconvenience the global corporations.
Libya has long known that oil can be used as a political weapon. Gaddafi
himself has used his control over Libyan oil production to support the
advancement of Third World countries on the global scene, to develop his
own military posture by buying weapons, by funding research into the
atomic bomb, and by supporting selected causes in Africa and elsewhere
(see Chapter Seven). In the 1970s Libya's role as a militant focus for OPEC
members began to decline. By the mid-1970s the high price of oil had
temporarily diminished demand, massive tankers rendered Libya's geo-
graphical position less important, and there was the growing promise of oil
strikes in parts of the world that were more sympathetic to the companies.
The Libyans talked of what the 'real' price of their oil should be but in fact
were less ambitious in their practical decisions.48 Gaddafi was forced in
1975 to lift the embargo on oil sales to the United States and to the
Caribbean refineries that served the US; at that time Libya was experienc-
ing its first significant financial crisis since the revolution. This led to a
political crisis and one of the key members of the Libyan government,
Omar al-Meheshi, attempted a coup against Gaddafi.
The Libyans, surprisingly allied to the Shah of Iran, continued to repre-
sent the militant OPEC wing, though with diminishing success as new
sources of oil were found in Nigeria, the North Sea and elsewhere. Through
the 1980s Libya continued to benefit from its oil resources, though the
causes that Libya continued to fund caused it be branded - following a
range of US initiatives - a 'pariah' nation. Nor did the collapse of the
Warsaw Pact and the Soviet Union help the strategic security of Libya. In
the late 1980s and 1990s the United States, able to cajole a supine UN
Security Council, was able for the first time to make political calculations
about Libya without having to consider the possible responses of a poten-
tially hostile Soviet Union. The revolutionary regime in Libya was more
insecure than it had ever been, and there were few ways that oil could be
used as a political weapon in the changed circumstances.
The United States, its whole modus operandi based on oil, never doubted
the importance of oil in the global scheme of things. Thus it was no doubt
welcome to George Bush to learn that Saudi Arabia's monarchy was happy
to manipulate oil production and pricing to support the efforts of a Repub-
lican administration in the 1992 elections.49 Bush was privately assured that
the Saudis would pump whatever extra oil was necessary to keep prices
down during the critical election year, and there was even an expressed
willingness (according to White House sources) to make up the anticipated
shortfall in ex-Soviet oil exports. One suggestion is that the 1991 Gulf war,
following a rapid rise in oil prices in August and September 1990, helped
tip the United States into recession. The Saudi decision to increase pumping
may be seen as a prudent effort to help the US through its current economic
difficulties. It may also be seen as a reward for a president who manipulated
the United Nations and sent 600,000 troops to defeat the (real or imagined)
threat from Iraq. In any event the political importance of oil management,
whatever the political goal, is not in doubt.
6 Libyan Revolution
Muammar al-Gaddafi has always distinguished between a revolution and a
coup d'etat: the distinction is unremarkable but worth noting. A coup is
usually nothing more than a transfer of power from one dictatorial group to
another, though in some cases this may be accompanied by a change of
regime that has wider implications. A revolution, by contrast, involves not
only a transfer of power but also a total reshaping of society according to a
new philosophy. In this view a revolution represents the end of one system
of values and assumptions, a fresh beginning in the history of a nation.1
There can be no doubt that in this sense Gaddafi made a revolution.
The Libyan revolution was named 'Al-fatih', a Koranic term which
literally means 'opener' or 'conqueror' and which carries also layers of
meaning relating to military, social and spiritual achievement. To Gaddafi
and his fellow officers this symbolised the conquering of backwardness,
ignorance, poverty and national impotence: a rebirth, a new dawn of a day
that would never end, encapsulated in the potent slogan, (al-fatih abadan'
(al-fatih for ever). The Libyan revolution was no mere taking of power by
ambitious soldiers: it was at once a decisive act that encapsulated a practical
and spiritual vision. All the successes, mistakes and failures of the Gaddafi
regime should be considered in the context of this original faith.
FRAMEWORK
The Libyan revolution has involved a continuous period of change lasting

more than two decades. In a political course that is unique for the region the
Libyan leadership has sought to dissolve all pre-existing forms of political
and administrative activity, and to replace them with organisations con-
forming to a fresh approach. This transformation has involved the develop-
ment of attitudes to Islam, political participation and cultural values: these
attitudes have in turn yielded consequences for such social elements as
political decision-making, religious observance, the treatment of women,
and the conduct of practical economics. The Gaddafi assumption of power
was to represent a cultural revolution.
The first phase of the Libyan revolution (a phase dubbed 'Nasserist'2)
involved the transformation of the country from a pre-capitalist (feudal)
209
society to a state-controlled system involving a predominant capitalist com-

ponent. The second stage was the period of the socialist jamahiriya or 'Era
of the Masses' in which the revolution sought to enshrine the concept of a
collective political and economic system. The revolutionary leadership,
particularly Gaddafi, originally believed that the overthrow of the monar-
chy would be quickly followed by the effective merging of Libya and
Egypt. To this end a Revolutionary Command Council (RCC), derived from
the Central Committee of the Free Officer movement, was created as a
provisional authority that would last until the unification of the two states
had been achieved. It is interesting to reflect that an important theme in
the early revolutionary philosophy was not the idea of an independent
Libya but of the merging of two nations in the interest of a broad pan-
Arabism. Thus in December 1969 the officers issued 'The Provisional
Constitutional Proclamation', defining a range of temporary powers that
would be exercised during the period of transition. The Egyptian revolution
served as a model of social and political change for the new Libya: the
RCC introduced a range of measures that were intended to aid the transition
to a larger Arab state that would be shaped essentially by the Egyptian
revolutionary experience, and when the union failed to materialise the
measures stayed in place.
The RCC rapidly introduced a number of radical changes that were to
transform the character of Libyan society. The treaties guaranteeing the
security of British and American military facilities were annulled, the
inalienable rights of the Italian settlers to hold property were removed, and
many of the institutions of traditional Libyan society were abolished. The
monarchy was destroyed and with it the multifaceted power structure that
had depended upon birth and royal assent: by 1971 the new regime had
eradicated the power of the pre-capitalist institutions. Even the power and
influence of the Sanussi Order was massively curtailed: the zawiyas were
closed down and the Sanussi leadership, no longer in a congenial symbiosis
with the traditional monarchy, was effectively emasculated. A programme
of agrarian reform was introduced to abolish the power of the tribal sheikhs
and landowners. Behind all these changes lay a dramatic expansion of
state control.
The new regime also moved quickly to abolish political parties, trade
unions and professional groups and associations (such as the lawyers'
union). Within months of the overthrow of the monarchy the press was
heavily censored and citizens of the new state were advised not to express
public views hostile to the military leadership. When, in December 1969, a
planned coup was uncovered the government issued the 'Decision on the
Protection of the Revolution', making it a criminal offence to proselytise
Libyan Revolution 211
against the state, to arouse 'class hatred', to spread falsehoods, or to partici-

pate in strikes and demonstrations.3 The RCC began a series of seminars to
spread its philosophy, and on 11 June 1971 inaugurated the Libyan Arab
Socialist Union (ASU), the organ of 'the working forces of the revolution'
(defined as peasants, labourers, soldiers, intellectuals and national capital-
ists). The ASU has served as an important focus for national unity.
Within the ASU the RCC served as the supreme authority, responsible
for all policy and for the supervision of the lower levels of the hierarchy. A
biennial General Conference was stipulated but, having no legislative func-
tions, it was confined to the ratification of RCC decisions. At the local level
the muhafadha, able to elect the majority of conference delegates, super-
vised the activities of the ASU sub-district units (the workplace-based
mahalat and the geographically organised mudiriya). The RCC initially
found it prudent to enlist the support of local leaders with established
followings, though such leaders too were generally prepared to make prag-
matic adjustments to the new Libyan leadership.
Economic policy encouraged collaboration between the state and the
established private sector, though within the framework of a redefined
balance of power. The interests of the state were no longer synonymous
with the interests of the foreign companies and the landowning class. In the
early years of the revolution the RCC opted for state intervention as the
obvious means of securing a transition from the old patterns of colonial (or
neo-colonial) exploitation to a system of state capitalism operated in what
the RCC perceived to be the interests of the country. Again this process was
based on the Egyptian model; however, the next phase of the Libyan
revolution was to represent a significant departure from anything that Nasser
had attempted.
The need for a new social and political direction was signalled by
increasing discontent with how the local administrations were working.
Gaddafi perceived that the revolution was failing because 'pecuniary lust is
rooted in the hearts of officials':4 a new way had to be found. Gaddafi
decided to initiate what was in effect a cultural revolution, inaugurated on
15 April 1973. His supporters began the task of reshaping the framework of
district and municipal administration. People's committees, now being ac-
countable through elections, were established to take over the district and
municipal services. A wider section of the population was able to partici-
pate in political activity but this in turn led to tensions between the influen-
tial commercial sector and factions that were ready to applaud the change
of direction. This produced further state intervention and, in consequence,
a serious outflow of funds from the economy; and at the same time state
interference in university elections led in January 1976 to clashes on the
campus of Benghazi University. In April 1976 the Libyan army was in-
volved in fighting in Guarian, Misrata and Yefren.5 A power struggle within
the RCC led to the collapse of a faction opposed to Gaddafi: he emerged
with firm control of the RCC and the security services, now able to pursue
the new course with little opposition.
The new sociopolitical model was outlined in 1973 at a symposium in
Paris, and further developed in the three published instalments of the Green
Book. The new conception of social organisation, designated the 'Third
Universal Theory' - in contrast to the earlier bureaucratic and elitist route
- emphasised the importance of the masses in decision-making and admin-
istration. This mode resembled the umma social philosophy urged by the
Prophet Mohammed in the seventh century, but it remained to be seen
whether a Libyan umma (community of the faithful) could serve as a
realistic model in the modern world. Gaddafi himself saw the umma as
'natural socialism' based on God-given natural laws but corrupted in the
modern world by the emergence of class society. In Part 1 of the Green
Book Gaddafi states:
Natural law has led to natural socialism based on the equality of the
economic factors of production, and has almost brought about among
individuals consumption equal to nature's production. But the exploita-
tion of man by man and the possession by some individuals of more of
the general wealth than they need is a manifest departure from natural
law and the beginning of distortion and corruption in the life of the
human community. It is the beginning of the emergence of the society
of exploitation.6
The similarity in this to Marxist orthodoxy is obvious, despite such clear

differences as the supposed divine source of the moral law and the contri-
bution to be made by the early Koranic writings. To Gaddafi, socialism is
concerned with the 'happiness of man, which can only be realised through
material and spiritual freedom', which can only be achieved if your needs
are 'neither owned by somebody else, nor subject to plunder by any part
of society'.7 Gaddafi has drawn on his Bedouin roots to derive a version
of socialism that is relevant to the requirements of a modern Arab state.
Thus in interview he has stated how Bedouin society led him to discover
natural laws and natural relationships, 'to discover the truths that I have
presented in the Green Book'.8
The Third Universal Theory was intended to convey a version of politics
and government distinct from (and above) capitalist democracy and bureau-
cratic state control (this may be seen as nicely meshing with what some
Western social democrats have dubbed 'democratic socialism'). The theory

involves the provision of institutions of collective democracy which to-
gether enshrine the 'authority of the people'. There is no longer a require-
ment for a militant revolutionary vanguard, as was embodied in the RCC,
but instead people's congresses will work to establish a majority position.
The basic people's congresses (BPCs) are intended to send member secret-
ariats to form the General People's Congress which serves not as a legisla-
ture but as a national assembly; the Congress also includes the executive
committees of the local people's committees, and the secretariats of the
various occupational and professional organisations. The system was
comprehensively structured to ensure that 'no section of population was
disenfranchised'.9
The move to the new political system began with Gaddafi's anniversary
speech in September 1975. His followers began to replace the basic units of
the ASU with the basic people's congresses; and in January 1976 Gaddafi
and Jalloud moved to reconstitute the General Conference of the ASU. The
transition to the new system culminated on 2 March 1977 with Gaddafi's
announcement, before a 970-member meeting of the General People's
Congress in Sebba, of the 'Declaration on the Authority of the People': at
this time the Libyan Arab Republic became the Socialist People's Libyan
Arab Jamahiriya. Changes to the economic structure of the country began
a year later. The General People's Congress voted for the replacement of
private ownership by 'producer partnerships', a type of workplace co-
operative. On 1 May 1978 Gaddafi declared that 'the revolution should be
carried on and your march should continue until the workers take over the
management completely in all institutions in which they work'.10 By 1979
the ownership and control of the industrial base had been transformed; and
in the early 1980s domestic private trade was phased out, to be replaced by
people's distributive committees supplied by the state General Marketing
Company. The local agricultural market, the last remaining area of private
exchange, was taken over early in 1987.
Opposition to the changes was encountered at every stage. The well-
placed merchant class resented the new egalitarianism; and the clerical
establishment including the Sunni ulama, protested at the theological im-
plications of Part 2 of the Green Book. The clerics saw no basis in the Koran
for many of Gaddafi's political and economic changes, and he was accused
of being a communist. Gaddafi responded to the developing opposition by
creating the 'revolutionary committee' movement, comprising ideologic-
ally committed activists keen to serve as cadres of the revolution. This
group began with agitation and educational activities but came to acquire
coercive and security responsibilities: the 1979 General People's Congress
granted the revolutionary committees a range of powers to supervise the

elections in the basic people's congresses, to nominate and veto candidates
for office in the people's committees, and to dispense 'revolutionary jus-
tice'. The revolutionary committees came to serve as one of the main
bulwarks for the security of the Gaddafi regime.
It had taken Gaddafi little more than a decade to transform the social,
political and economic framework of a traditional Arab society that had
been enmeshed in old tribal practices for centuries. The new patterns and
practices, not least because of the foreign policy decisions that they in-
spired, have attracted wide-ranging criticism and hostility, often from self-
interested sources; but even many of the regime's critics have found the
Libyan revolution 'interesting'.11 It is useful to look at some of the social
and political transformations in more detail.
POLITICS
In his explanation of the character of revolution Gaddafi has declined to talk

about specific beginnings. Revolutions, paradoxically, evolve through time;
whereas a coup (inqilab) is 'a casual event occurring at the pleasure of
senior officers'.12 A revolution may resemble a military coup but it has a
different character, growing 'naturally in the consciousness of the society as
a whole'; and the very social circumstances produce 'a man of revolution,
a man of comprehensive and complete change, a man who is as if born
again in a new age'. The revolution, like a coup, may or may not be secure.
It may only partially take over the reins of power, encouraging factions
sympathetic to the old order to take steps to restore the old regime; so any
steps to restore the status quo ante must be prevented by speedy and
resolute action. In fact on 1 September 1969 Gaddafi quickly arrested
officers above the rank of major and pensioned them off or posted them
abroad. He also incorporated the purged security forces into the army,
which was still further expanded by a systematic recruitment programme. It
was vital to secure at the start the basis of security whereby effective
transformations in society could be begun. When it was clear that the
monarchy had been overthrown and that the new regime was in total control
of the country, the new government was soon recognised by the foreign
powers. After a few days recognition was offered by Britain, France, the
United States and the Soviet Union (the regime had been instantly recog-
nised by Iraq, Syria, Egypt and the Sudan); other countries quickly followed
the lead of the major powers.
The first communique of the Revolutionary Command Council defined
the objectives of the new regime:
1 All legislative councils of the old regime are abolished. They are
deprived of all power as from 1 September 1969. All attempts by the
old leaders against the revolution will be vigorously suppressed.
2 The Council of the Revolution is the only body entitled to administer

the affairs of the Libyan Arab Republic. This being so, all govern-
ment departments, officials, and armed forces of law are henceforth at
the disposal of the Council of the Revolution. Any contravention will
come before the courts.
3 The Council of the Revolution wishes to express to the people its will
and its determination to build a revolutionary Libya, a socialist Libya,
rooted in its own characteristics and rejecting all doctrine, confident
in the reality of historical progress which will turn Libya, now under-
developed and badly governed, into a progressive country which
will fight against colonialism and racism and will help colonised
countries.
4 The Council of the Revolution attaches great importance to the unity

of the countries of the Third World and to all efforts directed towards
the overcoming of social and economic under-development.
5 It believes profoundly in the freedom of religion, and in the moral

values contained in the Koran, and it promises to defend these and
to uphold them.
Gaddafi himself went to some lengths to explain the three concepts -

liberty, socialism and unity - on which the revolution had been based (this
must be set against the circumstance that no effort was made to develop a
thorough-going socialist politics and economics until several years into the
revolution). Liberty meant that Libya would be free of poverty, colonialism
and the presence of foreign military forces; unity was effective pan-Arabism,
the 'unity of all the Arab peoples', in a form that would depend upon
circumstances; and socialism meant Arab socialism, Islamic socialism ('We
are a Muslim nation. We shall therefore respect, as bidden in the Koran, the
principle of private property. But the nation's capital will be encouraged, in
order to help the country's development' - in these early days Gaddafi had
no stomach to move against traditional private property). On 14 October
1969, in an interview on Egyptian television, Gaddafi identified the under-

development of the Arab world as the 'essential dynamic' of the revolution;
he also pointed to the corrupt cliques of the old regime, and how foreign
power had ascendancy over every Libyan citizen: 'Libyan society . . . was
in the cruel grip of an intellectual and cultural imperialism which crushed
our minds and dominated everything including even our way of writing;
one could not even have a visiting-card printed unless it was done in
bilingual form: Arabic and some foreign language. There is no need to
underline the humiliation of all this, and its damage to our pride . . . the
Libyan citizen did not even receive the minimum living wage necessary
to any human being.' In Tripoli, on 16 October, Gaddafi appealed for
freedom for all Arab peoples; and on 6 November he was urging the
liberation of Palestine.
It was inevitable that much of the early optimism that sunounded the
overthrow of the monarchy would be frustrated, but even a year into the
revolution Gaddafi was able to list a number of positive achievements:
The doubling of the minimum salary.

The start of numerous industrial and agricultural projects.
The re-organisation of the country's administration.
Economic and social legislation to ensure a better distribution of wealth.
The distribution of land title deeds as part of land reform.
The evacuation of foreign bases.
The nationalisation of banks and some oil-linked companies.
The departure of the Italian colony.
The raising of oil prices.13
A few months later, on 11 June 1971, the RCC inaugurated the Arab
Socialist Union, the 'popular political organisation in the Libyan Arab
Republic'; eight principles were adumbrated to define its role:
1 To stimulate every potentiality for creation and production.

2 To indicate and eliminate the undesirable legacy of the past.
3 To respect the ethics and the essence of Islam and the integrity of the
Arab character.
4 To fight against all attempts at foreign or reactionary infiltration.
5 To eschew both the conservative right and the parasitical left, since
both are of their nature reactionary; to encourage reflection, in the
light of a true knowledge of life and of the Universe as revealed in the
divine message and by the lives and actions of the Prophets, for
therein alone can truth be found.
6 To fight against negativism, opportunism, deviation and improvisa-
tion.
7 To propagate the necessity of recognising and accepting Arab unity.
8 To work for the recognition and acceptance of socialism.14
However, despite all the enunciations, despite all the declarations of

principle, it soon became apparent that a nation's people did not necessarily
share the revolutionary zeal of the leadership. On 7 October 1971 Gaddafi
gave a speech in Sabrata in which he castigated the Libyan people for their
apathy. It was not, he declared, a matter of only a few individuals (a few
'could be dismissed or sent into retirement') but 'the mentality of hundreds,
even of thousands of people, which is at issue...'. Gaddafi had encountered
the plight of every revolutionary: how to infuse the masses with the neces-
sary political commitment, the selfless zeal without which the revolution
would falter and collapse. Nobody, he perceived, was doing anything 'ex-
cept for the sake of remuneration . . . save in exchange for some reward'; in
consequence, all production had edged towards bureaucracy, and this in
turn was making 'inroads into hearts and minds'. He realised he could not
liberate the mentality of people 'with a stroke of a pen . . . But there will
have to be a real change of heart among Libyans: the revolution of
1 September was only a beginning'. Gaddafi returned to the same theme
on 19 December, in an address given at the Tripoli Mosque. Here he spoke
for thefirsttime of the need for a cultural revolution, a notion which he did
not take from China ('It has been foreshadowed in Islam for centuries').
On 23 July 1972, in a speech to students at a camp in Masrata, Gaddafi
announced a plan for union between Libya and Egypt. A short time later, on
29 August, a common statement was made by the two countries on how the
proposed union was to be brought about; early in the evening Radio Cairo
broadcast a long declaration of the unified Egypto-Libyan political Com-
mand's thirteen resolutions for the establishment of a unified Arab state that
was to be created on 1 September 1973. The Egyptian President Sadat had
accepted the principle of total amalgamation of the two countries, as shown
by the solemn agreement undertaken at Benghazi on 2 August 1972, but
during the course of the preparatory year the Egyptians often expressed
doubts about the plan (a detailed chronology of the discussions and un-
expected events of this period is given by Bianco, op. cit.). At one stage
Gaddafi even announced that he was resigning; the RCC refused to accept
his resignation and threatened to resign en bloc if he did not withdraw it.
Gaddafi reluctantly withdrew his resignation and returned to the Egyptian
question: 'amalgamation with Egypt is inevitable, even if it means civil war
. . . corruption, favouritism, censorship and bureaucracy still have power
today in Egypt... All these must go, and the means to this end must be the
people's revolution. This alone reflects the people's will... Nasser himself
was convinced of its necessity.' A fortnight later a high-level delegation led
by the Egyptian Deputy Prime Minister, Abdel Qader Hatem, travelled to
Tripoli for prolonged discussions; soon after, Gaddafi arrived in Cairo for
four-hour tete-a-tete talks with Sadat. The upshot was that Cairo withdrew
from the agreement, for reasons that have never clearly emerged. Sadat may
have been alarmed by Gaddafi's radical political programme, in particular
the dramatic implications of the Third Universal Theory, a doctrine that was
alien to Egyptian experience; he may also have been alarmed that Libyan
radicalism might have been imported into Egypt, an alarming possibility for
an Egyptian leader who lacked Nasser's revolutionary vision. It has also
been suggested that Egyptian public opinion was concerned that the progress
made by women would be set back under the philosophy espoused by
Gaddafi (see below). In any event it was now obvious to Gaddafi that the
seductive vision of pan-Arabism would have to be approached by another
route. The immediate task was for Gaddafi to consolidate the Libyan
revolution.
In a new five-point scheme, issued in April 1973, Gaddafi demanded:
the suspension of existing laws: in future all civil and criminal cases
would be judged on their merits, according to the precepts of sharia;
the elimination of 'political illnesses' in the country, particularly Com-

munism, the Muslim Brotherhood and Ba'athism;
the arming of the population to secure 'the defence of the revolution';
an 'administrative revolution' to bring the bureaucracy back to the

people;
a cultural revolution to purge universities of 'the demagogic spirit and

foreign cultural influences'.
He identified particular groups - the legal profession, political groups, the

army, the bureaucracy and the intelligensia - as needing attention; and he
urged 'every village, town, college, factory and school' to form 'popular
committees under the control of the masses to fulfil the five points'. Soon
after this declaration he was urging students at Benghazi University to
'trample under your feet' any bureaucrat who restricted access to govern-
ment offices; and to destroy any imported books that did not express
Arabism, Islam, socialism and progress.
In May elections were held to establish the people's committees that
would thenceforth run government departments, schools, universities, fac-
tories, businesses and public services. The aim was to create several thou-
sand committees, each comprising between sixteen and twenty members,
throughout the country. Reuter reported on 7 May that the elections were
supervised by 'neutral groups whose members have no right to stand for
election themselves. After the elections the Revolutionary Command Coun-
c i l . . . sends a delegation to make sure the elections were freely held.'15 A
few days later, at a youth gathering on 14 May, Gaddafi described the
features of the Third Universal Theory that underlay the five principles
announced in the Zwara Declaration. The Theory ('or ideology') was con-
ceived as a political doctrine but also as a religious exhortation: it was
essential that people be called to return to the 'Kingdom of God', to be
rearmed with faith to confront the evils of the world. Gaddafi took pains
to emphasise the humanitarian aspects of the ideology, its interest in com-
bating the racial theories that were 'designed to bring destruction to the
world'. The Third Universal Theory was not a philosophy invented by man
but truth, 'firm and unchangeable'.
The political essence of the Theory demanded socialism, as an Islamic
rather than a Marxist doctrine ('For Islam and socialism are indivisible').
Private ownership would be allowed to continue when it was judged to be
harmless, but there was no place for wealth and poverty co-existing in the
same society: Islam, on the side of the working classes, has always set its
face against poverty. Godless governments, whether capitalist or commu-
nist, were to be opposed equally: Islam would underwrite the brotherhood
of man without which men and states would be 'no better than the wild
beasts of the forests'.
The character of the Libyan revolution was further revealed by Gaddafi's
remarks at the founding conference of the Arab Socialist Union (ASU) in
April 1972. Here he suggested that trade unions have nothing to do with
politics, and that it was no business of the revolution to set about building
a conventional democracy. If, Gaddafi argued, workers were consulted as
part of the decision-making process in a democracy then it was inevitable
that policies would be formulated in the interests only of working people,
and this would be unfair for other sections of the society. Moreover, 'The
larger the number of people consulted, the more it is done at the expense
of revolutionary transformation.' The Prophet Mohammed had been pre-
pared to consult the people but, more importantly, he relied on guidance
from God.
Gaddafi was keen to encourage debate as a mechanism for refining the
ideology to which he was already committed. To this end he organised the
various sessions of the Libyan Intellectual Seminar, held in Tripoli in 1970;
and he encouraged respected intellectuals and clerics to visit him for talks.
Some observers have remarked on Gaddafi's intellectual limitations and the
nanowness of his reading, less than remarkable in a man born to an illiterate
family in a poverty-stricken Bedouin tribe. Thus Mansur Kikhia, Gaddafi's
Foreign Minister in 1972/3, observed that Gaddafi had read only two or
three books but that he knew all Nasser's speeches by heart. Others have
maintained that Gaddafi read widely: an Italian journalist noticed an under-
lined passage in Gaddafi's copy of a book by the German writer Heinrich
Kleist: 'A free man, capable of reflection, does not stay where chance
happens to put him. He senses that he can raise himself above his destiny,
that he can control his fate.'16 Teach-ins were organised to aid the develop-
ment of his political philosophy, to consolidate his power, and to extend his
influence; but Gaddafi did not always convince the clerics, philosophers
and politicians that he invited to Tripoli for discussions, again hardly
surprising bearing in mind that Gaddafi himself had followed a tempestuous
political course outside the practical experience of many of the visiting
thinkers and politicians. In November 1973 he visited Paris to discuss
political ideas with French academics and politicians in a colloque organ-
ised by Le Monde (in collaboration with Die Weit, La Stampa and The
Times). One speaker likened Gaddafi's commitment to resisting super-
power hegemony to the political posture of the then President De Gaulle;
when another contributor suggested that the Third Universal Theory resem-
bled Marxism, Gaddafi retorted that in that case Marx must have been
influenced by Islamic philosophers.
Against such events the practical business of running the Libyan state
had to be continued; what was increasingly clear was that the revolution,
despite the creation of the people's committees, could only be secured
through authoritarian control. Immediately after the 1969 revolution the
RCC had felt compelled to decree a law ('Decision on the Protection of the
Revolution') making it a criminal offence to agitate against the new regime;
the new law warned that 'Anyone who takes up amis against the republican
regime of the Revolution of 1st September, or takes part in armed bands for
this purpose, shall be sentenced to death.'17 It is also clear that from its early
days the revolutionary Libyan regime was under threat (see Chapter Eight).
In May 1970 the discovery of an arms cache in Sebba provided evidence of
a monarchist plot centred on Fezzan. This was the so-called 'Black Prince'
conspiracy (on account of the dark features of Abdullah al-Sanussi) in
which former Sanussi officers were to invade Libya from Chad with an
army of two hundred brotherhood members with the intention of seizing
Sebba as a prelude to the reconquest of Tripoli and Benghazi. One sugges-
tion was that the Israelis had supported the conspiracy by providing arms.18
Gaddafi himself saw the plotters as 'reactionary retired police officers and
contractors who had profited from the defunct regime'.19 About twenty
individuals were anested and sentenced to various terms of imprisonment.
However, this conspiracy and other discernible threats to the new
regime did little to erode the confidence of the revolutionary leadership.
The government moved quickly to consolidate power, to remove all re-
sidual signs of colonialism, to begin a social transformation, to expel the
foreign bases, to evict the settler Italians, and to confront the oil companies.
It is remarkable, bearing in mind the radical nature of this programme, that
there was not more internal opposition or concerted moves by foreign
governments to depose Gaddafi and instal a more congenial government
(such efforts have of course been common throughout the world and per-
haps Libya's time will come).
Among the first revolutionary measures was the complete dissolution of
monarchical power. At the same time attention was given to such matters as
language and religion. For a start the precedence of the Arabic alphabet was
reinstated over the Latin: the Italians had named streets and districts, and
now all these were changed to Arabic. Many of the Christian churches
established during the Italian occupation were closed and the Roman Catho-
lic cathedral that had been consecrated in 1928, during the Italian 'reconquest'
of Libya, was converted into a mosque. The sale of alcohol was prohibited
(Gaddafi was later to enrage President Sadat by saying in Cairo: 'How do
you permit all these bars and night-clubs and liquor and gambling? . . . How
can a drunk make progress in his country? How can a drunk battle in Sinai
against the enemy?'). The government also moved against foreign firms,
imposing a range of restrictions and allowing foreign residents to transfer
only 60 per cent of their income; and steps were taken against the Italian
settler community.
The new regime refused to accept the legality of Italian-owned property
in Libya or the legitimacy of the 1956 Italo-Libyan Treaty designed to
guarantee Italian property rights in the country. The expropriation of Italian
property began at the end of 1970 and was planned to be complete by the
first anniversary of 'Operation Jerusalem', the overthrow of the old regime.
The property of Jews (refened to in official statements as 'Israelis'), along
with that of the Italians, was also taken over by the state. Italian commercial
property - shops, factories, restaurants and night-clubs - was occupied and
then closed in the first stage of the process; then the Banco di Roma and the
Banco di Napoli were nationalised; and finally the private residences and
landholdings of the Italians were nationalised. Within three months of

Gaddafi's declaration of intent on 21 July 1970 ('Vengeance Day') more
than 12,000 Italian settlers had left Libya, forced to relinquish some 21,000
hectares of farming land, 687 apartments, 467 villas and 548 other dwell-
ings, 1207 vehicles and about LD9 million in frozen capital deposits.20 On
17 October 1970 Gaddafi announced 'the end of the hated fascist
colonisation'.The comprehensive nationalisation of Italian, Jewish and other
assets were refened to as 'restoration', the legitimate return to the Libyan
people of their national wealth.
Gaddafi was also aware of the desperate need for a programme of social
construction in such areas as housing, health and education. According to
the Libyan Ministry of Information there were in 1970 about 300,000
shanty dwellings, 'most of which were about to fall down or in urgent need
of rehabilitation'. The 1972-5 Three-Year Intermediary Plan, treating hous-
ing construction as a major priority, aimed to give every family a housing
unit by 1982, a task which involved a six-fold increase in the housing
budget between 1970 and 1978. The Libyan authorities claimed that by
1974 more houses were built per thousand population than were being
built by Western governments. One independent expert observed that only
Sweden and Denmark 'had higher rates above the 13 housing units per
thousand in Libya in 1974'.21 As a symbolic gesture Gaddafi himself bull-
dozed the last shanty dwelling in 1976; in less than a decade nearly 150,000
housing units had been completed, increasing by 50 per cent the total
housing stock in the country. While this investment was in progress the
government doubled the minimum wage, introduced statutory price con-
trols, and reduced rents by 30 to 40 per cent.
Health too saw massive injections of investment capital. In 1968 Libya
had a total of forty-one hospitals; within a decade the number has risen by
50 per cent, with an increase in the number of beds from 5646 to 13,347
(3.1 beds per thousand population in 1968 had increased to 5.0 beds per
thousand in 1978). Over the same period the number of doctors in Libya
had increased from 700 to 3000; and within five years of the overthrow of
the monarchy, the ratio of nurses to population had been reduced from 1 to
2040 patients to 1 to 240.22 Malaria was effectively wiped out and there was
a massive decline in the incidence of such diseases as trachoma and tuber-
culosis. A flying doctor service was established so that people living in
remote desert regions could receive medical attention. Life expectancy
increased: from 45 in 1960 to 53 in 1974.
Education, the third social priority area, also experienced considerable
expansion, a principal aim being to transform the monarchical system,
designed for the privileged merchant class, into a system designed for
universal education. The levels of literacy had been improving under the
monarchy but 'most evidence indicates the attainment of higher levels
following the overthrow of the monarchy'.23 Student places at Tripoli Uni-
versity were 1374 in 1969/70, and 5702 ten years later; at Gar Younis in
Benghazi there was an increase from 3360 (+ 303 non-Libyans) in 1969/70
to 7481 (+ 1274 non-Libyans) in 1976.24 The revolutionary committees
kept a close watch at all times on university activities and, in one view,25
the expansion of the university population 'was too rapid for balanced
development of teaching and research'. Moreover, there were immense
problems, with the limited staff numbers, in developing a university culture
that was well suited to Libya's particular socioeconomic needs. Gaddafi
himself was keen to declare that education was 'a natural right for every
human being' and no-one had the right 'to deprive him of this right'.26
The investment made by the revolutionary government has been cynic-
ally portrayed by Gaddafi's detractors as a means of buying popular sup-
port, as if there is a singular virtue in carrying out ^popular measures. In
fact Gaddafi's social investment strategy is hard to fault, though it is always
possible to criticise specific policies at any time. Much, but not all, of the
criticism of Gaddafi has derived from factions and governments that lost
out following the 1969 revolution. Not the least of these were the powers
that had formerly enjoyed a colonial or neocolonial control over Libya's
assets. It is useful to remember that, for example, it was widely assumed
that Britain had a contingency plan for invading Libya in just such circum-
stances as Gaddafi had created. A secret protocol was attached to the 1953
Anglo-Libya treaty allowing for the invasion of Libya in case of an emer-
gency. Details of this provision, code-named 'Operation Radford', were
supplied in 1965 by an archivist at the British Ministry of Defence to the
Egyptians, and the plan was subsequently published in full in al-Ahram.21
The Radford plan specified the movement of British troops from Germany,
Malta and Cyprus in order to protect the King and restore the monarchy.
But Gaddafi had moved too quickly and he had been too successful: the
rapid seizure of the reins of power and the secure maintenance of order gave
the British (and doubtless also the Americans) no pretext for intervention.
The danger of a fresh invasion by colonial powers was averted and, suitably
encouraged, Gaddafi moved speedily to expel the British and American
forces that were still on Libyan soil. The El Adem airbase was renamed the
Gamal Abdul Nasser Airbase, and Wheelus Field was renamed the Okba
bin Nafi Airbase, after one of Libya's ancient Arab heroes.
Throughout the period of social reconstruction and the expulsion of
foreign forces, the Libyan government embarked upon a course of increas-
ing confrontation with the international oil companies. On 7 December
1971 the government announced the unilateral nationalisation of BP assets

in Libya, a prelude to the raft of expropriations that were to come in later
years. The British government refused to recognise the nationalisation and
asked other OECD countries to boycott oil from the former BP sites; and
BP itself began judicial actions to prevent the movement of oil from the
Sarir field previously run jointly with Bunker Hunt. In January 1972 BP
took action in an attempt to stop crude oil from being shipped to Sincat in
Syracuse for processing.28 All BP's efforts 'failed miserably'.29 Similarly,
the British decision on 14 December to expel Libya from the Sterling Area
achieved nothing more than encouraging Staff Major Jalloud to visit
Moscow to discuss possible collaborations in trade and other areas. In a
treaty signed on 4 March the Soviet Union agreed to help Libya with the
development of its oil industry, and crude oil from Libya's ex-BP fields
started moving to various East European countries.
Without Libya's increased revenue from oil the ambitious programme of
social investment would have been impossible. It was Libya's radical and
successful approach to the handling of its most vital resource that laid the
basis for the ongoing revolution in the turbulent years that lay ahead. Of
Libya's handling of the oil question the independent analyst J. A. Allan
observes: 'none could argue that the priority was pursued other than ener-
getically and wisely'.30 This success in turn led to the impressive social
projects in construction, education and health: 'By any standards the achieve-
ments in the provision of houses, schools, health facilities and communica-
tions were dramatic during the 1970s.'31 However, it was also clear that
other important investment areas needed special attention. Oil would not
last for ever - some estimates suggested that the Libyan reserves would
only last until around 2010 - so it was essential to reduce the importance of
the oil industry in the national economy. Attention was given therefore to
such matters as the development of agriculture in a water-thirsty land, the
possibility of employing more people in industry, and the need to develop
a balanced economy that was, as far as possible, self-sufficient. In 1977 the
Libyan government began formulating an economic development plan
for the period 1980 to 2000.
The Libyan government, despite the revolutionary successes of the 1970s,
was far from complacent. It had always been known that Libya would have
to survive in a hostile political climate, that the country's revolutionary
development was viewed with bitter resentment by various powerful for-
eign governments. In such circumstances there was a premium on self-
sufficiency: it would be highly inesponsible to continue to export oil in
return for food, if an oil blockade by the foreign powers could be used to
starve the nation. If any lesson were needed, the experience of Iraq in 1991/
92 carried a grim message. Here a formerly rich hydrocarbon society,

dependent upon exporting oil for food and high-technology equipment, was
being progressively starved by comprehensive sanctions. The revolutionary
Libyan government had always been aware of such possibilities, though to
take steps to hedge against them was a difficult matter. The key requirement
of a developing agricultural sector had been tackled with mixed success.
GREEN REVOLUTION
Agriculture has been an important sector of the Libyan economy from the
earliest times, and there is debate about the population it has supported over
the centuries; the extent of Libyan dependence on imports, and the changing
patterns of development under various foreign influences. It is thought that
the Libyan population may have approached one million during the second
and third centuries AD, aided by such circumstances as the Severus patron-
age, derived from Roman power, that channelled craftsmen and resources to
Tripolitania.32 It was not until the twentieth century that the early Libyan
population, sustained by a healthy agriculture, was surpassed.
The Italian occupation of Libya that began in 1911 (see Chapter Three)
had a drastic effect on traditional agricultural patterns.33 Many Libyans
were killed in battle or relocated to concentration camps. Agricultural land
was devastated, the tended oases became neglected and the livestock on
which the Arabs depended was systematically slaughtered as a matter of
deliberate policy. The Italians made settlements on land that, while not
regularly farmed, was essential to local farming practices. When the Italians
finally left the country, following their comprehensive defeats in the Sec-
ond World War, there remained a massively dislocated economy with a
mutilated landscape, a ravaged and demoralised people, and a massive
confusion with regard to land titles and related matters. This was the chaos
that confronted an independent Libya in 1951 and which was not resolutely
and comprehensively addressed until after the 1969 revolution.
The Italian exodus began with the granting of Libyan independence.
Many of the large farms were sold to wealthy Libyan purchasers, with some
of the extensive tracts then subdivided into units that were still substantial;
some of the deals were made by wealthy Palestinian immigrants who then
invested in citrus planting and ambitious irrigation schemes. This began the
growing exploitation of the water resource that could not be sustained by
the coastal aquifers. Efforts were made to expand agriculture in the imme-
diate post-Independence years, but before the oil revenues began to come
on stream little was accomplished; and it was not until the mid 1960s that
the pace and shape of agricultural development saw significant changes. At
first the oil revenues were relatively small and in any case still subject to the
policy decisions of the oil companies: much of the early oil revenue was
focused on further oil exploration, with some diverted to irrigation schemes
and the raising of such crops as citrus, melons and tomatoes. But even the
relatively small agricultural initiatives led to problems of water shortage,
and soon after the revolution the government was forced to cut back on
some areas of agricultural development in order to conserve water re-
sources. Many studies, from the Italian period onwards, had demonstrated
the vulnerability of the groundwater reservoir to over-exploitation,34 and
this was one of the most difficult problems that the Gaddafi regime was
forced to address.
The question of agricultural reform was one of the first topics that
Gaddafi confronted after the overthrow of the monarchy. On 22 September
1969, three weeks after taking power, Gaddafi declared in a speech at
Sebba: 'the Jefara Plain, the great Jebel al-Akhdar... the Fezzan valleys are
witnessing the great agricultural revolution that will enable the Libyan
people to earn their living, to eat freely . . . the food that was normally
imported from overseas . . . this is freedom, this is independence and this is
revolution.'35 The state quickly took over unused land as a prelude to
redistribution and measures were introduced to prevent the local sheikhs
from acquiring more land: the tribal leaders were prevented from taking
over small landholdings and so encouraging the migration of dispossessed
farmers to the urban centres. This was seen as an essential first step to
inducing the traditional cultivators and herders to stay on the land and
remain involved in agricultural production.
The land held by the residual Italian settlers was then confiscated under
the decree of 21 July 1970 and placed under the authority of the new
Department of Land Reclamation and Agrarian Reform. This land was then
reorganised into model farms to be run by fresh graduates from the Libyan
College of Agriculture; once the farms had become viable as functional
units they were reallocated to smallholders who would be allowed to pur-
chase the land after a production period of fifteen years. In 1973 further
measures were introduced that represented a further break with traditional
practices.
The revolutionary government had initially preserved a number of the
agricultural policies introduced by the monarchy; for example, the RCC had
continued to make available interest-free credit and other subsidies to assist
capitalist production in agriculture (in 1972 the new Agricultural Bank was
offering high levels of interest-free credit to landowners). The traditional
policies had increased crop outputs in some sectors but there had been
no incentive to expand the area under cultivation. Now, through the me-
chanism of the 1973-83 Ten-Year Intermediate Agricultural Develop-
ment Plan, the revolutionary government intended to use effective state
capitalism to expand agricultural production. The Plan (involving twenty-
seven agrarian projects and working in conjunction with a Three-Year
Intermediate Development Plan and a Five-Year Transformation Plan) stimu-
lated the direct development and organisation of agricultural production,
encouraging at the same time the establishment of farming settlements.
Areas devastated by the Second World War were quickly brought back
into useful production, particularly where adequate annual rainfall could be
guaranteed; the scale of damage in the Gebel al-Akhdar, an area of good
rainfall, necessitated major redevelopment, with production in dry inland
areas still constrained by the shortage of water. Underground water sources
in such areas as Kufra and Sarir in the Khalij area of Cyrenaica and in the
Maknoussa region of Fezzan were used for extensive irrigation, and studies
showed that aquifers in these parts were capable of sustaining wheat and
cereal production. (Interestingly enough, the control parameters of the
Maknoussa scheme - water distribution, chemical inputs - were initially
regulated by a computer sited in the United States.36)
The ambitious schemes had mixed successes. Some achieved the in-
tended levels of production whereas others fell far short of expectation.
Allan comments that the agricultural experiments in south-east Libya were
'expensive failures according to any economic measures'.37 Important ex-
perience was gained by Libyan graduates in agriculture and engineering but
there was a serious shortage of development staff at many of the designated
sites and lack of management experience served to compound the prob-
lems. Foreigners had been encouraged to help with the work, a ploy that
often proved counter-productive: communication problems, cultural
incompatibilities and the rapid turnaround of staff 'made quite impossible
the task of leading and managing the projects effectively'.38
The Kufrah scheme was one of the most prestigious, serving as a model
for anticipated developments elsewhere in the country. Armand Hammer
had originally funded agricultural development in the Kufrah region, its
water resources first revealed oil exploration in the 1950s and 1960s. In
1967 the Occidental Company found artesian water near Tazerbu in the
Kufrah basin and plans - of the sort pioneered in Arizona and California -
were formulated to reclaim land from the desert. An experimental farm was
established, to be taken over by the revolutionary government in 1969. The
Libyan Ministry of Petroleum was assigned the scheme and discussions
began about how to manage the water in the area. (Investigations by
American geologists had suggested that there was enough underground

water to develop 50,000 acres of arable land.)
The various development schemes involved building windbreaks, dams,
pumping stations and water reservoirs; trees were planted on land close to
crop areas as a protection against wind damage. Thus at Wadi Ramil in
Jefara windbreaks were built to help the restoration of 57,600 hectares of
land; at Wadi Athel and Wadi Mait, dams were built as part of a project
to irrigate a total area of more than 80,000 acres; and on the slopes of the
Jebel Nafusah tenaces were built in a project designed to reclaim 48,000
acres. Various piping schemes, as in the region of Bir Tarfas, were devel-
oped to retrieve deep water.39 Many such projects were linked to the estab-
lishment of farming communities: the first began at Kufrah in 1969, and
380 other farms that were started in 1971 were distributed on 25 October
1974 to farmer-proprietors in Sirtica. A week later Gaddafi himself
handed over a further 500 farming developments on the Gebel al-Akhdar.
At the same time many of the developments failed to attract the necessary
labour: there was still a significant migratory flow to the towns. Moreover,
schemes designed to make Libya increasingly independent developed a
requirement for foreign produce. By the mid-1970s Libya was forced to
import half its sheep feed, most of its cattle feed, and all of its poultry feed;
and Libya also remained unhappily dependent on supplies of agricultural
equipment from the United States. And, paradoxically in post-colonial
Libya, there was an increased dependence on foreign technicians and skilled
labour (80 per cent of the labour at Kufrah was non-Libyan). Alarmingly
enough, output in various agricultural sectors began to fall, partly as a result
of the misuse of scarce water resources. In 1976 the government was forced
to restrict the production of crops involving a high water consumption, such
as citrus and tomatoes, and in some areas there was a subsequent fall in the
amount of land under cultivation. It seemed increasingly unlikely in this
context that Libya would be able to establish the required levels of food
self-sufficiency. New initiatives were needed, particularly in the area
of water management: one of the most ambitious of these was the 'Great
Man-made River' project, which at an estimated $9 billion investment far
outstrips all other schemes.
The Great Man-made River Project, of which Muammar al-Gaddafi is
the official 'Architect', is planned to convey many millions of cubic metres
of water a year via multiple pipelines from ancient artesian wells in the
southern desert, the site of a vast water stratum, to the coastal areas dedi-
cated to agricultural production. The system is intended to feed irrigation
facilities covering a third of a million hectares and allow the replenishment
of groundwater resources in the Gebel Akhdar and Jefara Plain.40 The first
stage of the project, completed on 31 August 1984, includes a 400 km
pipeline conveying water from Tazerbu and Sarir to the coastal region
of Ajdabiya on the coast. Later stages are designed to transport water
from Fezzan to Tripoli, from Ajdabiya to Sirte, from Ajdabiya to Tobruk,
and from Tripoli to Sirte. The whole scheme is financed out of taxation
on consumer goods - including cigarettes, oil and oil products - and has
largely escaped thefirmfinancial control on investment. Much of the work
has been carried out by the Dong Ah construction company of South Korea.
Studies revealed a huge reservoir of fresh water in the 20,000-year-old
desert wells of the southern regions, findings that encouraged the alloca-
tion of massive amounts of investment capital to the project. To supervise
the scheme a public authority, the Great Man-made River Authority, was
established on 6 October 1983; and this was followed immediately by
the inauguration of the first phase of the project. According to an official
Libyan publication, this 'great and important project has called for the
largest concentration of construction equipment and machinery ever
assembled'.41
Four major underground reservoirs have been located in Libya during
exploratory drilling for oil. In the south-east the Kufrah basin has an
estimated groundwater storage capacity of 20,000 cubic kilometres; this
connects with the Sirte basin where the fresh-water aquifer is reckoned to
hold some 10,000 cubic kilometres of water; and south of Gebel Fezzan the
Murzuk basin has an estimated water capacity of 4800 cubic kilometres. A
massive Palaeozoic aquifer underlies the Hamadah and Jufrah basins that
extend from the Qargaf Arch and Jabal Sawda to the coast. Intermittent rain
provides some recharge for the reservoirs but calculations suggest that the
Great Man-made River Project, even if successful, may run out of water in
about fifty years.42 According to the official publication, the project was
designed to initially extract two million cubic metres a day from the eastern
wells and one million cubic metres a day from the western wells; and it is
claimed that at this rate there will be 'several hundred years of potential
production'.43 At the same time it is acknowledged that only a small amount
of recharge will occur 'from the heavy but intermittent rains' in the southern
uplands.
Libya also claims that the first steps towards the Great Man-made River
Project were taken as early as 1974 when studies revealed how the under-
ground reservoirs might be exploited. The first phase was designed to
transport two million cubic metres of water daily to the coastal region where
most of the Libyan population lives; in this phase more than a hundred
production wells were connected to collector pipelines with valves, limit
switches, high-pressure transmitters, flow meters and various safety de-
vices. A steel header tank at Tazerbo has a water capacity of 170,000 cubic
metres. Some idea of the scale of the First Phase construction is given by the
broad list of the specified materials (including, for example, 250,000 pipe
sections) and by details of the 'largest concentration of handling and earth-
moving equipment in the history of civil engineering'.44
The figures supplied in official publications from Tripoli only provide a
partial picture of what is involved in a gargantuan project of this type. A
permanent computer and control system (PCCS) is in place and computer
facilities are also used to provide calculations on water-flow parameters and
on information associated with water use; to monitor water levels and water
flow; and to monitor control equipment, maintenance procedures, spare
parts, inventory and other ancillary activities. Phase One of the project
required about 65 megawatts of electrical power, supplied mainly from a
plant built for the task at Sarir. The requirements of the later phases in the
project have demanded considerable expansion of the Phase One provision.
The Great Man-made River Project was conceived partly to bring much
needed irrigation to many areas; it was also intended to counter the gradual
deterioration of many of the traditional water resources at risk through
intensive use (one problem is saline intrusion into the waters of the coastal
aquifers). In addition, the water from the new project would also allow
supplies to be made available for a wide range of industrial uses, and for
domestic use in the towns. Again, a key purpose is to lead Libya to genuine
independence, particularly through self-sufficiency in food: 'It is planned to
utilise more than 86% of the water output for agricultural development, so
that the country will become self-sufficient in agricultural products and
achieve economic independence.'45 Strategic crops (wheat, barley, sor-
ghum, sheep fodder) would be given priority, so that the national produc-
tion of these crops, of beef and mutton, and of milk and dairy products
could be expanded while expensive imports were reduced. Food independ-
ence may be judged a prudent aim in an uncertain world in which compre-
hensive economic sanctions could never be ruled out.
In the official text the Project brings a number of clear benefits: agricul-
ture will no longer be atriskfrom deteriorating coastal aquifers; fresh land
will be taken under cultivation; existing cultivated land will be rejuvenated;
there will be increased self-sufficiency in food; light industry in rural areas
will be encouraged; existing industries will be boosted; both urban and rural
services will improve; rural improvements will encourage people to stay on
the land; and new fields of employment will develop. It is not difficult to see
why the Great Man-made River Project is viewed by many Libyans as 'a
dream long cherished by writers and scientists, a dream of an abundance of
water'.46 The Project is already showing many benefits but it will be years
before its full significance can be accurately estimated.
ECONOMY
Economic reform was at the heart of the Libyan revolution, though eco-
nomic philosophy has changed from one phase of development to another.
The 'Green Revolution', investment in the industrial infrastructure, a radi-
cal shift in the management of oil resources - all signalled a departure from
pre-revolutionary patterns. The revolutionary leadership took over a nation
with only a small industrial base. An early industrial survey, carried out in
conjunction with the Egyptian Organisation for Industrialisation, gave de-
tails of visits to some 13,310 'industrial plants' in 1971/72; these were
however rudimentary enterprises, each only employing a few workers.
Under the monarchy little attempt had been made to use oil revenues to
expand the industrial base; in the mid-1950s almost 90 per cent of
industrial plants employed fewer than ten workers.47 Most of the industrial
plants had been established by the Italian settlers and were based in the
main urban centres; one of the largest plants had been built by Anglo-
American Tobacco.48 In this context industry aimed to produce goods
mainly for the domestic market, and foreign exchange earnings were ex-
tremely low. A private housing boom, focused on a small proportion of the
population and linked to the oil industry, stimulated construction in some
areas; in i969, just prior to the coup, two cement factories were completed
in al-Khums and Benghazi but these were only expected to supply ten per
cent of contractors' needs, the rest being made up by imports.
The monarchy had displayed no enthusiasm for intervention in industrial
activity. The Real Estate Industrial Bank, formed in 1965, offered loans but
the state did not become involved in the task of capital formation; the
commercial bourgeoisie, interested largely in oil, had no anxieties about
state interference. Industrial development was sluggish and focused mainly
on enterprises requiring little capital investment; there was still much reli-
ance of traditional craft methods for producing textiles and other domestic
goods. At first the revolutionary leadership did not move to overturn many
of the familiar industrial and trading practices: there was still an interest in
capitalist development but now the state was intervening to encourage
industrial expansion. There was no insistence that the private sector be
abolished or even curtailed. In 1973 an official publication, issued by the
General Administration for Information, commented that the new policy
'may be summed up as a clear and frank definition of the role of each of
the private and public sectors in the execution of projects and helping the
former to overcome the difficulties, by providing financial and technical
encouragement'.49
Two new state institutions were created to support capitalist develop-
ment: the Industrial Research Centre, established on 1 November 1970 to
provide technical and financial services to both sectors, and to undertake
industrial and geological research; and the General National Organisation
for Industrialisation, founded on 3 August 1970 to supervise state invest-
ment and to control industrial projects commissioned from foreign com-
panies. The Organisation contracted thirty-two initial schemes between
1971 and 1973, including a glass factory in Aziziya with Societe Mecanique
Freres of France, an electrical cable plant in Benghazi with the West
German firm Franzkershweild, four pipe producing factories involving
other German companies, and three textile mills at Marj, Derna and Janzour.
The government moved also to expand the role of the Real Estate Industrial
Bank, specifically to encourage Libyan entrepreneurs. An impulse behind
such developments was the assumption that oil resources would only last
until around 2020, at which time Libya would be forced to rely on other
types of industrial activity. Under the monarchy the government had been
content to channel vast funds into the pockets of the ruling families and to
tolerate a minimal level of industrial development: by contrast, the revolu-
tionary government saw the need to effect a rapid transition from merchant
capitalism to productive capitalism, a prerequisite for a wider industrial
base.
The Libyan government was now acting as a state capitalist, just as other
states - Turkey, Iran, Egypt and Algeria - had moved to support and expand
industrial capitalism; neighbouring Algeria, as a hydrocarbon society, pro-
vided a useful model for the new revolutionary leadership in Libya. It was
soon found that the available supply of labour was inadequate for the
required levels of industrial expansion (in 1980 Libya still had a population
of under three million), and so foreign manpower was imported at an ever
increasing rate. Between 1970 and 1975 Libya's migrant workforce grew
from 50,000 to 323,000.50 By the mid-1970s more than 15 per cent of
the workforce in most economic sectors was made up by foreign labour,
with foreigners constituting 58 per cent of Libya's professional and mana-
gerial manpower and 77.3 of unskilled labour in the construction industry.
This meant that there was a substantial outflow of foreign exchange, which
in fact Libya was always able to meet; more important was the demoralising
effect on indigenous peoples of the continuing high levels of foreign man-

power.
The first measures introduced by the revolutionary government were
aimed at the development of a rudimentary capitalist sector that was already
in place: there was little talk at this time of the sort of 'socialist transforma-
tion' of society that would have appealed to revolutionaries elsewhere in the
world. However, the Libyan revolution was still finding itself: there had
been no pre-existing blueprint, no received text. In 1977 Muammar al-
Gaddafi issued the second volume of his Green Book, this volume (of only
around 4000 words) dealing with 'The Solution of the Economic Problem'.
Here it is suggested that the goal of society should be 'natural socialism'
which was known in an earlier idealised time during which human beings
conducted their affairs according to 'natural principles' abandoned in the
dissolute modern age.
Gaddafi briefly reviews the condition of workers since the Industrial
Revolution; he concludes that there has been little change in the relationship
between workers and employers. Workers are still exploited as economic
slaves, and to alter this it is necessary for workers to become partners in the
production process (hence the slogans that festooned Libya in the late-
1970s: 'Partners, not wage earners'). Gaddafi emphasises 'need' as a key
consideration: 'Man's freedom is lacking if somebody else controls what he
needs'; satisfying such needs, not profit through exploitation, should be 'the
legitimate purpose of the individual's economic activity'. Once the basic
needs are met there is no requirement for profit or even for money. Gaddafi's
'natural socialism' is set against atheistic Marxism but there are many
Marxists who would be happy with talk of how 'the transformation of the
contemporary societies from societies of wage labourers to societies of
partners is an inevitable and dialectical outcome of the contradicting eco-
nomic theses prevailing in the world today'.
Gaddafi argues that the world may from time to time change one eco-
nomic system or ideology for another, but that such processes do not
represent real change. The capitalist and Marxist systems may appear
different but in fact they are 'the two faces of one coin'. Both systems
exploit the workers: in capitalism there are many independent employers
whereas in Marxism there is only one (state) employer but the result is
always the same. Whatever the nature of the prevailing system the workers
are paid specific wages for their labour. In both systems the people toil
without being able to manage their own affairs. Moreover the Marxist state
was established through violence, and the people would be driven to revolt
against such a system.
Economic and social reforms, Gaddafi concedes, may improve a system

but the basic problem always remains: that of true human freedom. The
reforms, akin to mere charities, do not properly address the real rights of
workers. The only solution is for the producers themselves to be the con-
sumers of their products, and this can only be accomplished when owner-
ship is in the hands of all the people, managed by their congresses and
committees; and then will the workers become 'partners and not wage
earners'. The final solution, concludes Gaddafi, 'is the elimination of wage
earning, and hence the liberation of mankind from its enslavement. It is the
return to the natural principles which governed human relations before the
rise of social classes, forms of government and their imposed legislation
. . . Only natural principles can be taken as the criteria, and the sole source
and reference of human relations.'
Since 'in need freedom resides', it is inevitable that social struggle will
arise 'when one group in society gains control over the needs of others'.
One of the principal needs is the home, and a man cannot be free as long as
he lives in the house of another, whether he pays rent or not. There are no
circumstances in which a man should pay rent (to a private landlord, a real
estatefirm,or the state): 'No one has theright,therefore, to build any house
beyond his need. This is because that house would then embody the need
of another person. Building it with the intention of renting it out is the
beginning of the process of controlling another person's need.'
Another crucial need, according to the Green Book, is a person's 'live-
lihood'. A man dependent upon wages or charity is not free. Instead it
should be recognised that a man's livelihood is his own private property,
'which you yourself must manage within the bound of satisfying your
personal needs - or it must be your share of a product, in the production of
which you were an essential participant - and not a wage for a labour
rendered to anyone'. Another need is transport: in the true socialist society
no individual or company can be allowed to control the transport of others.
And similarly with the land: it should belong to no-one in particular but
every individual has the right to use it to fulfil personal needs. A person's
heirs do not inherit the ownership of land but simply, along with other
people, therightto use it. Against the Marxist slogan 'from each according
to his ability, to each according to his need', Gaddafi prefers 'from each
according to his ability, to each according to his effort': a worker can set
aside a portion of what he earns to meet his own personal needs but to hoard
wealth is, according to Gaddafi, to hoard 'the need of another person of the
wealth of society'.
This is not a thorough-going doctrine of egalitarianism: it is assumed
that there will be varying levels of affluence in society. Thus Gaddafi
proclaims: 'The share of every individual in the public wealth of society

varies only in accordance with the kind of public service he performs, or the
excellence of the work he does.' It is recognised that a person's needs vary
according to his education and environment, so it is difficult in the final
analysis to establish a real standard to determine how wealth should be
distributed to people in society. It is hoped that this difficulty will be
overcome by each individual controlling the means to satisfy his own needs.
Gaddafi calls this control or even ownership 'a sacred right'. He makes an
effort to confront some of the difficulties in the theory but it is hard to doubt
the impracticalities of many of its aspects.
It is easy to see the influence of traditional Islamic teaching on Gaddafi's
economic vision. The Koran prohibits usury (as did mediaeval Christian-
ity), it insists on obligatory welfare alms (zakat), and it demands that people
'spend of their wealth in the way of God'. At the same time Gaddafi is
influenced by Marx, though he may choose to trace his influence back to
earlier Islamic teachers; and many Moslem clerics have been opposed to
Gaddafi's views on orthodox Islam (see below). There is debate about the
extent to which the ideas in the second volume of the Green Book came to
influence the course of the Libyan revolution in the second half of the 1970s
and after. There is at least no doubt that Libya's economic philosophy saw
a significant shift from the early capitalist developments of the immediate
post-coup years. The extent to which this change yielded greater economic
success can be considered.
On 1 September 1985, in his Revolution Day speech, Gaddafi called on
the Libyan people to be willing to suffer in support of the revolution, a tacit
admission of the country's growing economic difficulties. By the end of
1985 Libyan imports had been cut to $7 billion (from $16 billion in 1980)
and exports to $10 billion (from $22 billion); and total GDP had fallen to
$25 billion. In the 1985 budget the General People's Congress reduced
administrative spending by 19 per cent to $5.7 billion.51 All the signs
suggested a pressing need for economies in state expenditures. None-the-
less, about $2 billion was spent on arms purchases in 1985, mainly from the
Soviet Union.
In the mid-1970s the United States first began economic sanctions
against Libya, with many categories of US equipment denied to Gaddafi. A
1982 embargo on imports of crude oil from Libya cut the country's exports
of petroleum products to the US by almost a half; but despite the sanctions
the US Department of Commerce reported increased US sales to Libya in
1985, mainly in machinery and agricultural products. In November 1985
the US imposed a ban on refined Libyan petroleum products, just as Libya's
Ras Lanouf refinery was coming into operation. Again, despite the restric-
tions, four major US petroleum companies continued to trade with Libya.
The Reagan administration legislated in January 1986 under the terms of
the International Economic Powers Act for an almost total embargo on
trade with Libya; this involved freezing some $200 million of Libyan assets
in the United States. Despite the Reagan legislation, as many as 1000
American citizens continued to live and work in Libya and were treated by
Gaddafi in 'exemplary' fashion - 'an apparent effort to put the lie to US
warnings that American citizens in Libya are potential hostages to Qadhafi's
policies'.52 In 1986, in addition to the various external political difficulties,
the Libyan oil industry faced a number of problems: maintenance difficul-
ties began to emerge; safety standards were found to be inadequate; and
there remained the pressing problem of a serious shortage of skilled person-
nel. Petroleum output was lost through mismanagement, and there were
various costly disputes between the Libyan National Oil Corporation and
foreign producers.
There were also signs that the economic difficulties caused by economic
sanctions and other circumstances were resulting in an increase in graft and
corruption, the sort of erosion of public and private integrity that had
bedevilled the Idris years. Government proclamations and exhortations
reflected the growing concern over such phenomena as nepotism, patron-
age, black marketeering, and the falsification of production statistics to
create the impression that output targets were being met. The black market
often trafficked in US dollars and by 1986 many items were not available
for Libyan dinars. The government responded by purging government to
combat corruption, by frequent public exhortations, and by giving particu-
lar projects preferential funding. The economic difficulties were by now
affecting arms purchases, an area of expenditure close to Gaddafi's heart
(see below): a dispute with Moscow had developed over the apparent non-
payment of $7 billion for arms, and Gaddafi was urging that petroleum
could be used increasingly to pay for the import of goods and services.
Funds continued to flow into the Great Man-made River Project, a pet
scheme of Gaddafi's, with some estimates suggesting that it would cost $25
billion, far beyond the officially quoted figure of around $9 billion. It was
inevitable that such massive expenditure would have a serious effect on
Libyan finances at such a difficult time.
An expansion of private enterprise in Libya in the late-1980s seemingly
took the Gaddafi regime by surprise.53 It seemed clear that a newly emerg-
ing business class was operating in ways that had little connection with the
political tenets of the Green Book (Volume 2). Gaddafi, in line with tradi-
tional religious thinking, had agitated against profit, interest and many of
the other characteristic features of the typical cash economy. Worker part-
nership and barter of goods had been enthusiastically proclaimed as import-

ant elements of the Third Universal Theory, but such notions failed to
impress the growing commercial factions in Libyan society. On 17 March
1990 a 'revolutionary programme' was adopted at an extraordinary session
of the General People's Congress to wrest back political control over the
economy. The adopted resolution declares 'the necessity to transform soci-
ety into one of production by destroying the consumer society and building
ajamahiri production society'. In a speech to the Congress on 27 March
Gaddafi depicted demands for a market economy as a 'colonial programme'
which, he declared, was bound to collapse. He noted:
Whoever wants prices to go up, salaries to go up, inflation to rise,

bonowing from the IMF to start, begging from foreign countries to start,
exploitation to begin, and dignity and freedom to be humiliated, wants
colonialism to return, takes us away from production and directs us
towards consumption.
At the same session the Congress also demanded a halt to the 'haemorrhage
of foreign cunency' and the introduction of progressive taxation. Such
proposals run counter to a number of liberalisation policies introduced by
Gaddafi in March 1988 and which now will be difficult to swing into
reverse.
At the beginning of April 1990 there was a sudden and unexpected
collapse in oil prices, a development that was to continue for several months
caused largely by OPEC overproduction when average output exceeded
23 million bd (compared with the agreed ceiling of 22.1 million bd) for
the first half of the year.* One effect was a plunge in the price of Libyan
crude oil from an average of $21/banel to less than $16/barrel in early
June (compared to an OPEC reference price of $18/barrel). This has
serious consequences for Libya's earnings from oil exports. In fact Libya
had kept reasonably close to its allocation quota of 1.23 million bd for
the first half of 1990, producing (according to the Nicosia-based Middle
East Economic Survey) an average 1.33 million bd, 7.5 per cent above the
OPEC quota. The main OPEC overproduces were, significantly enough,
Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates (UAE). On 2-3 May,
at the OPEC meeting in Geneva, Libya argued for a reduction in oil output
for the May-July period and agreed to cut its own production to the quota
*This may be reckoned one of the principal causes of Iraq's invasion of Kuwait and the
subsequent 1991 Gulf war (see Chapter 1).
allocation; but throughout May oil prices remained relatively low as the
leading OPEC producers failed to abide by the newly-agreed production
ceiling: some OPEC members then faced difficulties, and tensions began
to grow in the Middle East.
In an interview on 14 May the Libyan Oil Minister, Fawzi Shakshuki,
indicated the country's increased production capacity, declaring that the
production at the Sarir field in the south east, operated by the state-owned
Arabian Gulf Oil Company, was set to more than double its output (from
230,000 bd to 600,000 bd) following a water injection programme.54 Major
new oil discoveries were made in 1990 at the Bu Attifel field, operated by
Agip of Italy. Such finds are important and may be expected to enhance the
security of Libya's oil-based revenues. However, US sanctions in the 1990s
continue to hamper Libya's development efforts in various areas: it is
impossible for Libya to resume normal operations with five American
companies - Marathon, Conoco, Ameralda-Mess, Occidental and W. R.
Grace - and much-needed US technology and spare parts are blocked.
Libya wants the United States to co-operate in joint ventures and to train
Libyan oil personnel, activities that are prevented by existing sanctions.
On 28 August 1991, three days before the twenty-second anniversary of
the Libyan revolution, the first phase of the Great Man-made River Project
was completed at Suluq, near Benghazi. About 14,000 people watched the
first flow of water running into a massive four-million-litre reservoir, con-
veyed via a 430-kilometre-long pipeline from 100 underground wells at
Tazerno and 125 at Sarir. Gaddafi gave an inauguration speech in which he
depicted the Project as the eighth wonder of the world; he also highlighted
the fact that other oil-rich Arab states had declined his suggestion that they
make a financial contribution to the scheme. Again, the total cost of the
scheme is estimated at more than $25 billion, almost three times initial
Libyan estimates, and equivalent to around four years' oil export earnings
at current production rates and prices.55
There is still much debate about the viability of the Project and whether
it will have adverse ecological consequences. David Williams, general
manager of the London office of Brown & Root, serving as consultants to
the scheme, has been quoted as saying that with a flow rate of about two
million cubic metres per day the water should last for four hundred years.56
However, Brian Smith, a British hydrology expert, has commented that the
scheme represents 'a one-off use of the resource, and only a short-term
solution to the problem'.57
In June 1991 the General People's Congress adopted a resolution to
create a new committee to review the position of foreign companies work-
ing in Libya. A primary concern is that a number of companies have been
given money but have failed to fulfil their contracts with local municipal
authorities. It was suggested that all money be returned and contracts be
terminated. The work of the new committee has not yet been made public,
but it serves to highlight the general problem that Libya experiences with
foreign companies. There is often an expressed reluctance to become in-
volved in the Libyan economy. US sanctions have deprived Libya of US
equipment and technical expertise, and large West European companies
(such as BP or Total) have been unwilling to fill the American gap. Some
companies find the cunent exploration and production agreements un-
acceptable: for example, there is a clause giving Libya's National Oil
Corporation (NOC) therightto cancel a firm's operations at any time, even
if the company has observed all its contractual obligations. And there is also
the prevailing image of Libya, an adequate detenent to many companies:
an oil executive has been quoted as saying that 'as soon as the word Libya
is mentioned, thoughts turn to Lockerbie, the IRA, the Rabta scandal - and
that's it'.58
Libya will continue to rely on its oil resources, despite all attempts at
industrial diversification; and here there are mixed expectations. There is no
sign of a lifting of American sanctions. Quite the reverse: when Gaddafi
inaugurated the Great Man-made River Project (Phase 1 completion) on
28 August he also warned of the possibility of further US bombing raids
(see Chapter One). In such circumstances economic development is subject
to many constraints: Western experts 'are pessimistic about Libyan oil
exports . . . They estimate that Libyan oil production may be halved by the
end of the decade as depletion of cunent fields will outpace the number of
new wells coming on stream.'59 On 1 August the US Treasury Department
announced that it was expanding its blacklist of companies owned by, or
in some way associated with, Libya: eight companies and twenty-one
individuals were added to a list of firms and people banned from dealing
with US citizens and companies. The expanded blacklist now includes the
Libyan investment company Oilinvest, the Holborn oil refinery, six com-
panies in Malta, and most of Libya's top oil officials. Richard Newcomb,
director of the Treasury Office of Foreign Assets Control, has commented
that 'the recent Libyan economic expansion into Western Europe increases
Muammar Gaddafi's ability to promote and finance tenorist activity. The
US attitude cannot be business as usual.'60
DEMOCRACY
Gaddafi moved to a view of democracy, as he moved to other ideas, through

his experience of the revolution. In the popular view Libya is a highly
autocratic state, far removed from the parliamentary democracies of the
West. One expert commentator urges us not to doubt 'for a moment
that Libya has a military dictatorship'; but elsewhere in the same volume
conveys well Gaddafi's view of what he would consider to be genuine
democracy.61
In the first place Gaddafi is opposed to both the state and to representa-
tive democracy because they necessarily involve a sunender of individual
sovereignty. In Volume 1 (sometimes designated Chapter 1) of the Green
Book, Gaddafi argues that if you allow someone else to represent your
interests you necessarily sacrifice part of your individual sovereignty. This
is a matter of great relevance to real democracy (Volume 1 of the Green
Book is entitled: 'Solving the Problem of Democracy'), for how can it ever
be just to allow someone else to act as your political proxy? Representation
thus can only lead to domination by one individual or group over other
people. It is for this reason that political parties are banned in Libya: they
are seen as competing for power so that party members and party supporters
can gain dominance over people who are not members or supporters. In the
same way the dictatorship of the proletariat is no more than the domination
of much of society by one part of it. How can this be just? Or democratic?
In short, 'representation is fraud!'
Gaddafi claims to have derived his concept of democracy from a single
verse of the Koran: 'and their affairs are decided through consultation
(shura) among themselves'.62 The concept of shura has been crucial in
every political system or ideology that claims to be based on Islam: 'It is put
forward by every Islamic regime as the basis of its legitimacy. It is pre-
sented as the answer to Western democracy.'63 Sometimes the notion of the
shura signals a consultative assembly that serves to advise a despotic ruler;
or it may denote an assembly of jurists ruling over a traditional Islamic
society subject to the holy law. It is obvious that such interpretations of
shura are hardly consistent with the notion of political power residing in
every citizen. It is a mark of Gaddafi's originality that he has taken a
traditional Islamic concept and extended it in an unprecedented fashion
to every member of society. This is a highly democratic interpretation of
the consultative idea that has informed Islamic polity from the earliest
times: whether or not it is a practical approach to politics in the modern state
is another matter.
To Gaddafi the central problem is how individual sovereignty can be
maintained in modern society, 'rather than - as a Western democrat might
phrase it - how to ensure that the state does not abuse those fractions of
sovereignty each citizen has to give up, except in the general interest'.64
What Gaddafi describes in Volume 1 of the Green Book, and what to a
degree he managed to implement, is a political system with autonomous
local districts, a central government with diminished powers, and ministries
that are little more than functional secretariats (see Figure 6.1). The aim has
been to sustain the sovereignty of individual Libyan citizens through the
creation of popular assemblies (mutamarat) and committees (lijan); in such
a system that the committee is pervasive at every political level and in every
social sector. Every resident belongs to a sovereign popular assembly at
the district level; members meet for an annual week of evening sessions to
receive reports on local matters and to agree an agenda of important issues
(such issues can range widely: from the relation between law and Islam to
foreign aid, from policies on expatriates to economic development). The
chairman and other mandated delegates carry the findings and conclusions
of the meetings to the annual National Assembly which in turn takes its
majority decisions to the secretariats.
Every three years each of the popular assemblies elects people to serve
on fifteen popular committees with responsibility for local services (in such
areas as education, health, justice, youth affairs, water, transport and tel-
ecommunications): technically responsible to the districts, the committees
liaise closely with the secretariats. The popular assemblies elect their own
executive committees responsible for the day-to-day use of local sover-
eignty; and the members are in charge of the elections. They supervise the
annual assembly meetings, and serve as an effective court of appeal against
local administrators. Libya has around four dozen districts and some 170
sub-districts.65 The idea is that individual sovereignty can be preserved in
such a structure. Here the committees and the congresses 'are "the solution
to the problem of democracy"'.66 At least this is what the official Libyan
claim would be: in fact, since chairmen have executive power and come
from one of the sub-districts, people from other component sub-districts are
in effect represented by men they have not chosen. The dreaded represen-
tation has not been avoided, even in the Libyan system. Moreover, the
secretariats have wide powers of interpretation which necessarily influence
the scope of their decision making.
It is easy to point to the shortfall between the Green Book declarations
on the principles of individual sovereignty and what has actually been
achieved in Libyan society, but it should also be remembered that few other
countries would happily face a comparison of idealistic theory and day-to-
NATIONAL POPULAR ASSEMBLY

1
NATIONAL COMMITTEES SECRETARIATS

(Agriculture, Education, Chairmen (Agriculture, Education,
Health, etc.) Health, etc.)
Chairmen
LOCAL COMMITTEES
Chairmen EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE of
(Agriculture, Education,
LOCAL POPULAR ASSEMBLY
Health, 16 in all.)
Secretariat
elected by
local Assembly
LOCAL POPULAR ASSEMBLY

(Voting by sub-district)
KEY
Elected
Ex officio
Figure 6.1 The Structure of Committees
Source: John Davis, Libyan Politics, Tribe and Revolution (London: I. B. Tauris,
1987) p. 21.
day practice. In some cases the Libyan authorities tried to introduce demo-
cratic practices into sectors of the economy which were in the event blocked
by expatriate labour. Thus in the oil industry foreign personnel were unwill-
ing to carry out decisions democratically reached by revolutionary work-
ers,67 and the partial democratisation of the armed forces had to be tackled
by the creation of a people's militia rather than through any extension of the
committee principle. (Davis has remarked that Gaddafi's reforms in the
armed forces 'amounted to universal arming of the population',68 which
itself suggests how secure Gaddafi felt among his own people.)
Gaddafi is opposed to a number of political devices that seem broadly
congenial to Western democrats. For example, he is opposed to the plebi-
scite, seen as yet another form of deception. Anyone asked simply to say
'yes' or 'no', without being allowed to give the reasons for the decision, is
being subjected to 'the most cruel and most extreme form of repressive
dictatorship': there is an illusion of democracy but no substance. The
important task, as set forth in the Green Book, is to point 'the right way for
human society to arrive at the society of direct democracy based on the
authority of the people'; and to this end, 'People's congresses are the only
means of achieving popular democracy. All forms of government in force
in the world today are non-democratic until and unless they are guided to
this system. People's congresses are the end of a long journey of the masses
towards democracy.' Gaddafi's aim is that 'every member of society, male
and female' will be able to participate in a direct form of democracy. In
contrast to Western forms of democracy where it is claimed that the people
are able to supervise the government, Gaddafi prefers the concept of a
democracy that enshrines 'the supervision of the people of themselves'.
The first volume of the Green Book ends with a warning of what will
happen if true liberty for the masses is not achieved:
Finally the era of the masses is advancing hastily upon us, after the era
of republics. It sets feelings ablaze, and dazzles sights! Yet at the same
time that it announces the coming of true liberty for the masses, and the
happy deliverance from the shackles of old forms of governments, it also
warns of an era of social chaos and disintegration if the new democracy,
which is the authority of the people, is defeated and followed by the rule
of any particular individual, class, tribe, confessional group, or political
party.
To show that he is aware of empty Utopian dreams he concludes by observ-

ing that: 'In reality, those who are strong always rule.' In the same spirit,
and more recently (at the General People's Congress session held on
17 March 1990), Gaddafi is reported as saying: 'Democracy is good but it

needs perseverance.'69 It is unreasonable in this context to cite the gap
between theory and practice to deny that Muammar al-Gaddafi has demo-
cratic aspirations.
RELIGION
Gaddafi's writings (brief as they are), his speeches and his interviews
suggest that religion is important to him. The Third Universal Theory is
rooted in a theistic view of the world, and he is always ready to cite Islamic
tradition as justification for his moral and political philosophy. However, he
has frequently quarrelled with orthodox Muslim factions in Libya and with
strict Muslim groups in other countries; many of the underground Islamic
movements will have nothing to do with Gaddafi, believing him to be a
false interpreter of the teaching of the Prophet. Gaddafi is apt to cite Islam
as a basis for all Libyan actions but most other Islamic governments remain
unconvinced. He characteristically ignores caveats from other religious
leaders and proclaims that Libya is central to the worldwide resurgence of
Islam. His proclamation of the Libyan Republic on 1 September 1969 (see
Appendix 9) begins with the words: 'In the Name of God, the Compassion-
ate, the Merciful. . .'. And he is unambiguous about what he perceives as
the religious significance of Libya's 'unique example':
Libya is the unique example of a comprehensive revolution offered to all

mankind for the purpose of liberating the human being, whom the Koran
calls God's deputy on earth, from all material and spiritual obstacles
involving his will. Islam is nothing other than the humanistic revolution:
absolute belief in people's innate good powers and capabilities, which
enable them to overcome the effects of injustice and aggression that have
held them back and which enable them to take the path of progress.
Consequently the revolution of the people in the Libyan Jamahiriya is
part of the worldwide Islamic movement which, following bleak cen-
turies, is fighting for its fitting place in the world of today.70
In subsequent speeches and addresses Gaddafi's religious commitment

has been clearly expressed. Thus during a press conference at RCC head-
quarters in Tripoli in April 1972 he was asked: 'You are a true Moslem,
Mr President. What is the role played by religion in your private life? What
is the relation between your religious consciousness and the political de-
cisions you have made?' Gaddafi replied that there is 'no contradiction
between religious consciousness and political decisions'.71 A consequence
of this view - of the assumed identity of religion and politics - is that
political failures can be attributed to human corruptibility, to a sinful depar-
ture from the teachings of the Prophet. Gaddafi advised the Le Monde
conespondent on 8 June 1970 to 'read the Koran or reread it'; here would
be found 'the answers to all your questions. Arab unity, socialism, inherit-
ancerights,the place of women in society, the inevitable fall of the Roman
empire, the destruction of our planet following the intervention of the atom
bomb. It's all there for anyone willing to read it.'
Gaddafi's approach to religious debate was institutionalised on the
Supreme Council for National Guidance where mufti from all over the
Arab world joined with Libyans to delineate a philosophy of the revolution.
Sharia law, its relation to the Koran and its application in the modern world
were debated, after which the RCC drew up a system of laws supposedly
based on the conect interpretation of Islamic doctrine. One of the laws -
RCC Decree of 11 October 1972 - stipulated that thieves and armed robbers
should be punished by the amputation of hand and foot, though this law was
not enacted without much debate. Judges, mufti, journalists and linguistic
experts discussed the issue on television and elsewhere. Perhaps a meta-
phorical interpretation could be agreed: did severing the hand of a thief
mean no more than 'interrupting' the hand by removing temptation and
social pressure, and by securing a religious conversion? Or was literal
amputation the correct Islamic view? The literal interpretation prevailed:
amputation would mean amputation, but Article 21 specified amputation by
medical methods including anaesthetics, and the many qualifying clauses
made the frequent use of the punishment unlikely. In any event this law and
the accompanying enactments in the corpus were claimed to be true to
conect Islamic doctrine.
Gaddafi himself has been known to interrupt meetings with heads of
state so that he could pray at the proper time. He has presented Soviet and
other communist leaders, supposed atheists, with copies of the Koran, so
adopting the role of an Islamic preacher in high places. One of the earliest
decisions of the RCC, under Gaddafi's control, was to create the Islamic
Call Society, today an active society for the propagation of Islam in many
educational and humanitarian programmes in countries throughout the world.
Gaddafi reckons that any materialist civilisation without religious faith is
akin to Ad and Thamud in the Koran, which God destroyed because of their
corruption.72 Only Islam, according to Gaddafi, can bring human beings
back to the state of society that God willed for the world; only Islam can
provide the conect basis for morals and politics in the modern world.
At the first conference of the Islamic Call Society, held in Tripoli in

December 1970, Gaddafi asserted that Islam is the last divine address to
humanity, with Muhammad the seal of God's messengers to mankind;
every Muslim has an obligation to spread this universal faith to ensure that
the 'word of God remains uppermost'73 until the time of the Resurrection.
In this view all moral principles and all human knowledge - even that
relating to such topics as mathematics and astronomy74 - have their basis in
the Koran. The central question for Gaddafi has always been how the
traditional teaching could be made relevant to the conditions of the modern
age: 'What is needed is positive change, or progress. By change, however,
is not meant altering the basic principles, or essence of the faith or sharia,
but change in the ways in which they can be applied to today's conditions
and problems.' Here Islam is depicted as a universal system capable of
answering all human questions and solving all human problems.
There is still scope for interpretation and for adding to the sacred corpus
of laws and received doctrine. Thus in an interview with Qarinah, a journal
published by the Faculty of Literature at the University of Gar Yunis,
Benghazi, Gaddafi conceded that other laws could be devised to comple-
ment the sharia, with the important proviso that human rights and dignity
must be safeguarded; some Islamic thinkers have called this open-ended
approach to the sharia an instance of 'reprehensible innovation'. This
highlights the perennial problems that surround the interpretation of any
sacred canon: in one context doctrinal departures and expansions can serve
a creative purpose in a changing world, but in another context dissensions
and schisms may be the only outcome. Gaddafi's Third Universal Theory
was prefigured in many of his earlier utterances, not least in those depicting
Islam as the divine message of truth. The Theory is not intended as a new
message, 'because there is no new message after the message of the apostle
Mohammad', but it is necessary to clarify Libyan identity and the path to
be followed: 'For any man who follows a way other than the truth will
not reach his goal, but will surely go astray.'
Another problem is how religions can be allowed to co-exist in the same
community and in the same world: Islam is, after all, a proselytising faith.
In Sri Lanka in August 1976 Gaddafi exhorted the Muslims in that pluralis-
tic country to live peacefully with people of other religions ('Since the
motto of Muslims is peace, then they must be missionaries of peace every-
where'). At the same time there is a constant jihad, though Islam should be
spread by persuasion rather than by force. All other religions are incapable
of solving human problems; only Islam, with its rich cultural diversity, is
suited to all the human societies throughout the world: 'all the religions
which came before it were local dispensations. They were concluded with
Islam which is addressed to all humanity.' It is also suggested that despite
the spiritual primacy of Islam good can be found in other religions. Gaddafi
has praised the Red Cross as well as the Red Crescent, hoping that they will
be able to work side by side in the world. Even Christian missionary groups
working to spread Christianity are applauded because at least they are
preaching religion. Gaddafi insists that he does not wish to turn Christians
into Muslims. The central task is to bring religion, of whatever sort, to all
the millions of people in the world who have no faith. 'We should seek first
to turn these millions of people to religion; then all will be easy.'75 The
ultimate aim is for a 'universal religion' that will come to be recognised
by all people.
A Libyan-sponsored Muslim/Christian discussion was held in Tripoli in
February 1976; here Gaddafi called for greater understanding between the
various followers of divine scripture: Jews, Christians and Muslims. He
suggested that the various conflicts between the different religious tradi-
tions had only occurred because the various devotees had not been true to
their respective sacred texts. Muslims had not followed the Koran as they
should, just as Jews had neglected the Torah, and Christians the Gospel; but
in the end the Jews and Christians can only recover their faith by turning
to the Koran. Until that happens, Gaddafi is keen to promote religious
harmony since the main battle is against the unbeliever: 'We must over-
come our problems in order that we do not promote atheism among our
people and prevent them from abandoning faith altogether.'76 When Roger
Garaudy, the French Marxist who later converted to Islam, visited Gaddafi
in May 1978 there was talk of the possibility of jihad against the state of
Israel. While declaring that such a conflict was necessary, Gaddafi also said
that it was impossible to have a war between Muslims and Christians, or
between Muslims or Jews, 'because we are all the children of Abraham,
our forefather'. In struggling against idolatry in all its forms, 'we are all
people of the Book'.77 However, the Koran also counsels Muslims 'not to
take the Jews and Christians as allies, for they are allies of one another.
Whoever of you befriends them, shall be one of them'.78 If Gaddafi wants
a reason for preserving his antagonism for Israel and the United States
he can find it easily enough in Koranic texts.
On 15-18 March 1982 the 'first intellectual gathering' of Arab students
studying in Libya was held in Tripoli. At this meeting Gaddafi declared that
the just society safeguards individual rights without violating the rights of
God; the primary source of the law of society is the Koran, with the sunnah
(the example of Mohammad's life) the second source, the qiyas (analogical
reasoning, for addressing questions about which the Koran and the sunnah
are silent) the third, and the ijtihad (individual reasoning and scientific
knowledge) the fourth. Gaddafi gave as an example of his own ijtihad the
first part of the Green Book dealing with the law of society: problems were
tackled by adapting Islamic philosophy to social circumstances rather than
by unthinkingly relying on this or that Koranic text.
The Jamahiriya (or 'popular republic') was created on 2 March 1977, on
the Prophet's birthday, and at the same time it was declared that the Koran
was the official law (sharia) of Libya. This development was consistent
with Gaddafi's earlier pronouncements. Thus at a political symposium on
26 October 1972 in Tripoli he had spoken of the 'perfection' of the Koran,
how it served as a 'guiding light', able to solve personal problems and to
offer answers to international questions. Muslims were exhorted to reject
books and political theories that were influenced by the social decadence
that characterised the machine age, and to return to the original source of
their spiritual strength: 'We are a nation with a special mission, possessing
a Book which was sent down from heaven, a Book in which we all believe.'
And again there is the insistence that all questions can be resolved by a
diligent study of the Koran: 'Anyone who does not know true economics -
let him look in the Koran where he will find true socialism. Anyone who
wishes to study astronomy should know that its basic principles are to be
found in the Koran. Anyone who seeks the laws that govern human socie-
ties in times of war and peace, and which govern international relations - let
him look in the Koran, for they are there.'79
On 3 July 1978 Gaddafi debated Islamic doctrine with a group of
Muslim religious scholars (ulama) in Tripoli. Much of the talk focused on
the extent to which the hadith (reports from the Prophet) should comple-
ment the Koran as a source of spiritual and social guidance, a central
problem being how to know which of the various hadith traditions associ-
ated with Mohammad to accept. Gaddafi argued that many of the sacred
books had been subject to interpolations and alterations, and so could not be
trusted in their entirety ('Where is that which the Messenger actually
uttered, and where is that which he did not utter?'). This is the familiar
problem of theological exegesis: human beings must stand above the texts
if they wish to evaluate them; in which case there is the paradox that the
text, once evaluated, cannot serve as a primary ground for truth. There are
many different hadith texts: 'If we were now to study the corpus of hadith
literature, we would find sixty kinds of hadith.' Gaddafi was even able
to cite seemingly contradictory hadith to prove his point: how could it
ever be known which, if any, conesponded to the truth? He concludes that
for these reasons the hadith cannot serve as a basis for determining the law
of society. The Koran, by contrast, is the eternal word of God.
The Koran offers precepts and laws that are intended to govern both life
on earth and the life to come. It offers practical guidance in such areas as
marriage and divorce, alimony and inheritance, theft and adultery. The
precepts give guidance on how to build a just and virtuous society, and
general principles are available to illuminate such questions as morality,
social harmony and goodness. People are exhorted not to transgress against
others in this life, to show consideration and to behave without malice. In
one section the Koran says: 'O you who have faith, let not any people mock
other people, for perhaps they may be better than them. Nor let any woman
mock other women, for perhaps they may be better than them. Do not
slander one another, nor should you despise one another through name-
calling.'80 Gaddafi interprets this text to mean that no social class should
enslave another, and he concludes that in consequence the Koran permits
revolution against slavery.
He also cites the Koranic admonition: 'Those who hoard gold and silver,
and do not spend it for the cause of God - announce to them a painful
torment.'81 This is taken as support for the socialist ideal, with 'gold and
silver' interpreted as including today's hard currencies that are smuggled
out of Libya in dollars and deposited in foreign banks. Gaddafi concludes
that people should work and eat, work and consume: 'Then anything you
have beyond your immediate needs does not belong to you.' Of the Koran's
recognition of the differences in society between the rich and the poor, and
how this has sometimes been used by Muslims to justify the exploitation of
the downtrodden, Gaddafi retorts: 'Is religion then slaves and servants,
maidservants and numerous wives? Is it big palaces and tall buildings? Is it
spending the fast of Ramadan in Germany and making the hajj pilgrimage
by way of Rome? Is it big bellies and bulging pockets? Is this religion? No,
I seek refuge in God! If this is what religion is, I will abandon it before
morning. On the contrary, I am sure that the exact opposite is true! Religion
came to abolish all such rotten things.'82
In August 1982 Gaddafi discussed the Green Book at the second confer-
ence of the Islamic Call Society, exploring the relation of the new text to the
Koran and the hadith tradition. In fact the ulama were angered by the
second part of the Green Book which urged the abolition of wages and
private property. There had been no precedent in Islam for such measures,
and it was at this stage that the ulama broke with the regime. Clerics argued
also that there was nothing in the sunnah to justify the Green Book recom-
mendations on private property. Gaddafi was accused by members of the
ulama of being a Marxist and of holding heretical views that contradicted
the hadith. The ulama had a practical as well as a theological reason for
declaring that the Green Book was contrary to Islam: the clerics had strong
links with the commercial sector, many of them related to merchant families
and bound to merchant capitalism by complex economic relationships. A

prime source of clerical income was the waqf, the religious endowment
offered by trading families; and the social standing of individual clerics
was signalled by the level of endowment made to their mosques by wealthy
traders.
Gaddafi responded to the clerical opposition by warning the ulama, in a
speech at a Tripoli mosque in February 1978, not to form a political alliance
with the merchant classes to oppose his policies. He argued that the Green
Book was compatible with Islam, and then in May denounced the ulama for
'propagating heretical stories elaborated over the course of centuries of
decadence'.83 On 21 May Gaddafi announced an 'Islamic Revolution' and
urged the masses to occupy the mosques: they had to be seized from the
ulama who had introduced 'foreign and non-Islamic ideas'. In July he again
engaged in theological debate to uphold the principles of the Green Book,
and while acknowledging the primacy of the Koran he cited ijtihad in
justification for the Third Universal Theory. Gaddafi argued also that every
individual had arightto ijtihad, the right to think for himself on religious
and political questions. He has cited ijtihad to alter the calendar so that it
began from Mohammad's death in 632 AD instead of the flight to Medina
(hijra); to deny that the hajj (pilgrimage) is an essential element in Islam;
and to make changes in the zakat (charitable tax). Gaddafi also moved to
establish the metaphorical rather than the literal interpretation of the law
stipulating the amputation of the hands and feet of thieves. Gaddafi has
been depicted as an Islamic modernist rather than a fundamentalist. He is
not 'another Mahdi al-Sanussi, rising out of the Libyan desert to create a
theocratic empire'.84
We can see that Gaddafi is a 'flexible reinterpreter',85 interested more in
the needs of a modern state than in the demands of orthodoxy. In this he has
found himself at odds with fervent Muslims in Libya and in other Arab
states. Gaddafi has always been a committed upholder of Islam, but has also
tried to reach for a broader religious vision (see Appendix 10) in which
other faiths are tolerated; this has not endeared Muammar al-Gaddafi to the
assorted fundamentalists that still argue for various versions of orthodoxy
throughout the Islamic world.
WOMEN
The third volume (or chapter) of the Green Book is concerned with 'solving
the problem of society': social commentary is followed by a discussion of
particular social questions, one of which is the position of women. Gaddafi
claims, in considering the character and rights of women, to be basing his
views on both the Islamic tradition and the specific needs of his own
society.
He begins with the useful observation that 'woman and man are both
human, without any doubt or disagreement'; it follows that 'women and
men are equal in their humanity, and any distinction between them on the
human plane is an act of naked and unjustifiable oppression'. However, this
suggestion fails to conduct Gaddafi to a position that would satisfy main-
stream feminism. Men and women, he argues, have distinct physical differ-
ences that dictate different roles in society. At times a woman's biological
functions - menstruation, pregnancy and suckling - make her unfit to be a
fully active member of society. (In 1973 Gaddafi enraged feminists in Cairo
when he suggested that because of certain 'biological defects' women could
not hope to succeed in all tasks traditionally performed by men. When
challenged that a woman could do any job, Gaddafi retorted: 'In that case
you won't complain if we ask women in our army to parachute when they
are pregnant.') It is important, according to Gaddafi, that the natural bio-
logical functions are respected and allowed to function as God intended; for
this reason Gaddafi is hostile to birth control and bottle-feeding. He is also
opposed to nurseries as involving coercion and oppression of the child and
denying women their human dignity and natural medium of expression.
Pregnancy, it is argued, prevents women from undertaking tasks that in-
volve great physical exertion, which means that they are unsuited to mining,
much factory work and the like. Gaddafi objects in particular to the phrase
'There is no difference between man and woman in anything': the 'in
anything' is 'the great deceiver of the woman'. There is no difference
between men and women in their common humanity, their rights and
freedom; but a woman is only truly free when she is not forced through
economic necessity to do unsuitable male jobs; a woman is only truly free
when she is allowed to be a female.
Gaddafi emphasises that all societies regard women as commodities: the
East sees her as merchandise, and the West looks at her 'not as a female'.
By nature, women are intended to bear children and to look after them in the
home; women are not precluded from work, providing it is suited to their
abilities and to their physical characteristics. Women are limited by their
biologies, handicapped by pregnancy and further tied by their need to
breastfeed their babies 'for about two years'. Women have as muchrightas
men to fulfilment but this cannot be achieved through violating their god-
given natures: 'driving women to do men's work is unjust aggression . . . A
woman has fullrightsto live without being forced to change into a man and
to give up her femininity. A woman is tender. A woman is pretty. A woman

weeps easily. A woman is easily frightened. In general, woman is gentle
and man is tough by virtue of their inbred nature.' It need hardly be
remarked that these views are traditional in the Arab world, though depar-
tures from orthodoxy should also be noted. Polygamy is banned in Libya,
against Islamic tradition; and women are active in the political committees
and in such unlikely arenas as the armed forces. The Women's Military
Academy was founded in 1978, and in his speeches at the first graduation
in 1981 Gaddafi declared that the officers produced by the Academy would
have duties spanning the full range of military activities: the women would
not merely serve as a corps of auxiliaries as, according to Gaddafi, they do
in the American armed forces.
The graduation ceremony was attended by the armed forces commander
Brigadier General Abu Bakr Yunis Jaber, the commandment of the Acad-
emy, and other armed forces officers. Gaddafi declared that Libya's gradual
'mobilisation' had begun shortly after the air battle with US planes over the
Gulf of Sirte on 19 August 1981, as afirststep in the 'patriotic mobilisation
of all the Arab nations' combat forces'. In broadcasts on Tripoli Radio on
17 and 18 April 1981 Gaddafi expounded on the role of Libyan women in
the armed forces.86 He pointed out that detractors had said it was impossible
for women to come forward to join a military academy, but this had been
proved wrong: 'Revolutionary transformations have surpassed such men-
talities and created a new individual.' It was a source of particular pride that
'thefirstmilitary academy for girls in the world is today graduating officers
in the Jamahariya . . . We in the Jamahariya and the great revolution affirm
respect for women and are raising their flag. We have resolved to totally
liberate women in Libya, thus . . . removing them from the world of
oppression and subjugation, so that they may be masters of their own fate
in a democratic milieu where they have equal opportunities with all other
members of society.' In this context the Women's Military Academy would
serve as a 'cornerstone' for the liberation of women in Libya, the rest of the
Arab world, and beyond. A central task would be to liberate the 'oppressed
and paralysed' female half of the Arab nations.
It seems clear that Gaddafi, contrary to the facile tenets of the Green
Book, had long toyed with a degree of female emancipation that would
have been totally at odds with the traditional Islamic practices of pre-
revolutionary Libya and the modern societies of Kuwait, the UAE and
Saudi Arabia. In 1978 Gaddafi was encouraging the emancipation of the
one section of society that was 'not yet free': he declared that 'women are
still enslaved and tied by serious social chains, and still suffer injustice
because, unfortunately, until now there was no revolutionary tool capable
of mobilising women for the revolution of their liberation'.87 Women cadres
were picked to form the basis of a revolutionary caucus, and the Revolu-
tionary Women's Formation was created to advance the cause of Libyan
women. This was an immense task in a traditional Islamic culture where
women were draped head to foot in public and encouraged not to leave the
house (men even shopped so that their wives and daughters could remain
incarcerated at home); women were sold by their fathers to the highest
bidder and executed for adultery. This was the social context in which
Gaddafi moved to his vision of female emancipation.
In 1975 he had created the Libyan General Women's Federation to
remove the worst features of social oppression, and by 1979 there were
some twenty local branches. The Federation offered support in traditional
female areas - helping with hygiene and baby care, running nurseries and
kindergartens (against the edicts of the Green Book) - but also expanding
female horizons by combating illiteracy, and by helping girls to enter
school and university. Health centres had been established to improve the
welfare of women and their children: family planning facilities were offered
(again contrary to the Green Book), as was medical support for pregnancy,
birth and lactation. These centres worked in conjunction with the Social
Care and Enlightenment Centres specialising in social work and community
health, institutions that were unheard of in pre-revolutionary Libya. In
addition, a Centre for the Protection of Women was created in Tripoli to
help with the rehabilitation of women such as divorcees, prostitutes, and
others abandoned by their families. Under Gaddafi women witnessed for
the first time 'a proliferation of educational opportunities'.88 The People's
Committee for Education and the Ministry of Education are prohibited from
discriminating on grounds of sex when granting stipends to students. Since
the fall of the monarchy the number of females in the educational system
has risen at all levels.
In 1970, immediately after the seizure of power, there was legislation
(Law no. 58) to affirm the equal status of men and women, and to establish
wage parity for male and female workers in the same occupation. In 1972
the passing of Law no. 172 established new rights for women in the areas
of marriage and divorce: brides would have to be at least sixteen years old
and consenting; brides were allowed for the first time to enter into mar-
riages against their guardians' wishes; and the guardians could be similarly
overruled by the courts on matters of divorce. Other laws in 1973 gave
social security protection to widows, female divorcees over forty, and
unmarried mothers. Women who had worked for at least six months became
entitled to fifty days' maternity leave, various cash benefits, and an exten-
sion of thirty days if there were medical complications during the delivery.
Many unprecedented measures were put in place during the 1970s but they
still had to contend with age-old Islamic attitudes. And the inevitable
tensions between tradition and emancipation can easily be detected in
Gaddafi himself: on the one hand he applauds the familiar domestic role for
women but on the other he urges a revolutionary liberation of women
throughout the Arab world and beyond. Whatever the theoretical disputa-
tion, there can be no doubt that the position of Libyan women has massively
improved since the overthrow of the monarchy.
ARMAMENTS
One of the early priorities of the revolutionary Libyan government was to

build up a comprehensive arms capability: this began with such items as jet
aircraft and armoured vehicles, and continues today - according to some
observers - with the stockpiling of chemical weapons, a biological weapons
research programme, and ongoing efforts to achieve a nuclear-weapons
capability. As soon as Gaddafi seized power the old British arms agree-
ments were renounced and the new regime looked to France to provide
military hardware. Mirage aircraft were an attractive option: the Israelis
had demonstrated their effectiveness by sweeping across the Nile Valley on
5 June 1967 to bomb the Egyptian MiGs before they had a chance to leave
their airfields; by the end of the day the Israeli aircraft had destroyed three
hundred Egyptian planes and nineteen airbases, and the Israelis were then
securely placed to occupy the Sinai desert, the West Bank and the Golan
Heights. The technical competence of the Mirages had impressed the world.
President Pompidou found the possibility of supplying Mirages to Libya
irresistible: he would at once find a solution to France's pressing oil prob-
lems and move into a strategic area where the British and the Americans
had become unwelcome. The French decision was resented by the other
major powers but French diplomats explained that the Libyans only wanted
the sophisticated aircraft as expensive toys, as status symbols for the new
regime; in due course the Libyans lent some of their Mirages to Egypt.
When Pompidou was criticised during his visit to the United States in
February 1970 he attempted to justify the sales of Mirage jets to Libya with
the familiar argument of all arms traders: 'There was a vacuum to fill and
we thought it was in our interests and - 1 add - the interests of others to fill
it.'89 The new Libyan regime had managed to acquire modern aircraft but
after Gaddafi sent the Mirages to Egypt during the 1973 Arab/Israeli war
the West was reluctant to allow any further arms deals with the Libyan
government. In consequence Gaddafi looked to the East.
In 1975 a huge deal was struck with the Soviet Union, said to be worth
more than $500 million: this included 2000 tanks and two squadrons of
MiG-23 jet aircraft. It was obvious that Libya could not use this quantity of
armament and again there was the danger that military equipment would be
shipped to other countries.90 Gaddafi still worked hard to secure what arms
he could from Western sources, and some deals were made that were of
doubtful value. Once the Israelis had demonstrated the Star-Tron night-
seeing device during the 1973 war the Libyans ordered 3000 Star-Trons
from a Paris company that had obtained the sales licence. However, the
French government prohibited the export and so the company faked the
Star-Trons and fed them through the Atlantico arms-dealing company in
Madrid. The deal was authorised by a Libyan inspector who promptly
disappeared after the money had been paid over.91 Libya had invested
heavily in useless equipment.
Throughout the 1970s, according to the US Arms Control and Disarma-
ment Agency, worldwide arms exports grew 60 per cent, with 39 per cent
of the total coming from the United States and 28 per cent from the Soviet
Union. With 'arms' taken to include all support services and construction,
the main arms importer was Iran, followed by Israel, Iraq, Libya and West
Germany. In all such cases there was always the possibility that purchased
hardware mightfinishup where the original suppliers may not have wished.
In fact Libya replaced the eleven MiG-21 jets lost by Uganda in the 1976
Israeli raid on Entebbe. It is known that France, Britain and other suppliers
impose few end-use conditions, and we may speculate that military equip-
ment supplied to one country may be intentionally destined for another
location. Even if the hardware stays in the purchaser country it may come
to be used in ways that the supplier country disapproves of, as was demon-
strated in the use of Arab squadrons in the 1973 war and by Iraq's use of
Western technology in the 1991 Gulf war. France had imposed a few end-
use restrictions on the Libyan MiGs but merely complained ineffectually
when these were ignored.
US sanctions have been used to block various Libyan efforts to acquire
military equipment. In March 1979 the American firm Smith and Wesson
were ordered to pay a civil penalty of $120,000 for the unauthorised sale of
283 rifle night-sights to Libya. An order in 1978 for eight C-130 aircraft
that Libya had already paid for was blocked by Washington, along with an
order for spare parts for aircraft that Libya had already acquired. Gaddafi
was however permitted to buy four hundred army-type trucks and he had
already obtained Boeing-Vertol Chinook helicopters through Italy.92 The
US aerospace consultant George C. Pritt was quoted at that time in Aviation
Week as opposing the bans on sales to Libya. He argued that paying Libya
$4 billion a year for oil, revenue which could be used to buy aircraft in
Europe, was no different in end result from a direct barter of US planes for
Libyan oil. However, the bans remained in place and have been intensified
in recent years; immediately after the 1969 revolution Libya was not even
allowed to purchase US maps and navigation charts.
The Libyan acquisition of 110 Mirages in 1970 had affected the balance
of power in the area, and there were further shifts in power and influence to
come. Libya had loaned Egypt Mirages during the 1973 war (to be flown by
Egyptians as Libya had only twenty-five trained pilots for the aircraft), but
when Sadat signalled his willingness to negotiate with Israel he lost Libyan
support. Some Egyptian technical staff were expelled from Libya and Egypt
itself withdrew others, including the much-needed pilot instructors. Cairo
also withdrew two ships and dismantled the surface-to-air missile (SAM)
sites that it had placed on Libyan territory; and Egyptian work on the air-
defence system around Tripoli, Benghazi and Tobruk was brought to an
end. Gaddafi managed to import pilot instructors and technicians from
Pakistan, France, Italy and Yugoslavia to fill the gap. He tried to obtain
military equipment from the West but was again forced to look to Moscow.
A deal was signed in Moscow for the barter of Libyan oil for Soviet SAM
batteries. In December 1974 Moscow agreed to supply Libya with Tu-22
supersonic bombers, MiG-23s, the massive MI-8 troopcarrier helicopters,
SA-3 and SA-6 batteries, T-62 tanks and antitank missiles. In addition, five
hundred Soviet advisors were brought in to train Libyan personnel.
In April 1975 Britain blocked a projected deal for six submarines and
thirty-eight Jaguar aircraft, an intended order of around $1.4 billion for
British manufacturers, but London remained keen to authorise the sale of
other equipment deemed less destabilising: transport aircraft, frigates, tank
transports, ammunition and support equipment. However, Gaddafi wanted
the full deal and so turned again to the Soviet Union. In May Kosygin
arrived in Tripoli and a deal, said by the Cairo newspaper Al Ahram to be
worth $4 billion, was agreed.93 Four hundred more T-62s were promised,
which would bring the Libyan total up to around one thousand; and subma-
rines, with support facilities at Tobruk and Benghazi, were also included.
By 1977 there were 800 Soviet advisors in Libya and 1100 Libyan trainees
in the Soviet union. Training remained a problem, as it does today: Sadat,
commenting on the rapid build-up of military power in Libya, suggested -
drawing on his experience of the Egyptian armed forces - that it would take
the Libyans 'twenty to fifty years' to learn to operate their new equipment.
In any event the deal was useful to Moscow: the Soviet Union continued in
the 1980s offering 'arms for oil' to Libya (and to Iraq, Algeria and Syria).
In recent years there has been growing concern about the likelihood of
nuclear proliferation, an anxiety hightened by such circumstances as the
growing Israeli stockpile of nuclear weapons,94 nuclear research in various
Third World countries, and Iraqi efforts to build a nuclear device. Gaddafi
himself remarked in 1976 that 'atomic weapons will be like traditional ones,
possessed by every state according to its potential. We will have our share
of this new weapon.'95 In 1975 Russia had agreed to build a small nuclear
reactor for Libya, with the West taking heart at the belief that a small ten-
megawatt facility could never be used to generate enough plutonium for an
atomic bomb. It has been said that Libya tried to buy a nuclear bomb from
China in 1970 and that since that time it has made many other efforts with
the same goal in mind. The Pakistani nuclear-weapons research programme
has been partly funded by Libya, with the possibility that Pakistan will one
day give Gaddafi a nuclear weapon or the necessary expertise for him to
develop his own nuclear research. In March 1986 President Zia ul-Haq
made no secret of his view that a Pakistani bomb would belong to 'the entire
Islamic world': 'if the Islamic world possessed this technology, it means
that 900 million Muslims possess advanced technology. Here comes the
aggressive campaign against Pakistan and the aggressive talk about the
Pakistani nuclear bomb. It is ourrightto obtain the technology. And when
we acquire the technology, the entire Islamic world will possess it with
us.'96 Libya helped, on at least one occasion, by obtaining 100 tons of
yellowcake (uranium) from Niger and then conveying it on to Pakistan.97
On 22 June 1987 Reuters reported Gaddafi as saying: 'The Arabs must
possess the atom bomb to defend themselves, until their numbers reach one
thousand million and until they learn to desalinate water and until they
liberate Palestine.'98
In June 1981 Gaddafi had declared that the production of nuclear weap-
ons must be regarded as a terrorist priority: 'As long as the big powers
continue to manufacture atomic weapons, it means that they are continuing
to tenorise the world . . . I have nothing but scorn for the notion of an
Islamic bomb. There is no such thing as an Islamic bomb or a Christian
bomb. Any such weapon is a means of tenorising humanity, and we are
against the manufacture and acquisition of nuclear weapons. This is in line
with our definition of- and opposition to - tenorism... this does not mean
that we will spare any effort to use atomic energy for peaceful purposes.'99
This denial of Libya's intention to develop nuclear weapons has been
reiterated many times, though his parallel condemnation of terrorism is
rightly viewed with scepticism (see Chapter Seven). In the early 1980s it
was reported that a West German firm, Kraftwerkunion AG (KWU) was

co-operating with Libya in the building of a nuclear reactor facility, one big
enough - unlike the Soviet-supplied reactor outside Tripoli - to generate
weapons-grade enriched uranium. However, no evidence emerged through
the 1980s that the KWU site, at Sebba in Fezzan, was in fact part of a
nuclear-weapons research programme.
In the 1970s Gaddafi had even tried to obtain a complete reactor from
American suppliers. Executives at Gulf and General Atomics Corporation
of Los Angeles had indicated that they were prepared to agree a deal and
contracts were drawn up; but when Washington heard about the deal there
were speedy moves, apparently involving Henry Kissinger, to block it.
Gaddafi then turned to Adera Incorporated, a firm of American consultants,
and talks took place in New York, Tripoli and elsewhere. It soon emerged
that the Libyans were interested in more than an innocent nuclear-powered
generator and Adera too broke off the talks. By the late 1970s Libyan
efforts to gain information from the Pakistani nuclear research programme,
following generous Libyan financial support, appeared to have ended, partly
because of Gaddafi's unwelcome political demands on General Zia. Nor did
Libyan approaches to India bear fruit. Prime Minister Indira Gandhi and
later Prime Minister Morarji Desai were willing to offer low-grade nuclear-
research information to Third World states as part of India's 'atoms for
peace' policy, and to allow the state Bharat Heavy Electric Company to
build conventional diesel electric-generating stations in Benghazi and Tripoli.
At the same time a Soviet-supplied research reactor was being installed at
Tajjura near to the Okba bin Nafi Air Base (formerly Wheelus Field). A
nuclear engineering facility was established at the al-Fatah University in
Tripoli, helped by two leading Libyan scientists Dr Fathi Noon, educated at
the University of California in Berkeley, and Dr Fathi Skinji, trained in
India and the United Kingdom; and by at least one American consultant on
loan to Libya from a major US university.100
There have been many allegations that Libya is attempting to develop
nuclear weapons, though such charges generally derive from hostile sources.
In February 1992 Hans Blix, the director of the International Atomic En-
ergy Agency, visited Libya to discuss the country's nuclear activities and
intentions. At that time the Libyan Foreign Minister, Ibrahim Muhammed
Beshari declared that Libya was committed to the peaceful uses of atomic
energy, and that no efforts were being made to recruit nuclear experts from
the former Soviet Union. It seems unlikely that Libya possesses even a
rudimentary nuclear weapon or is investing in nuclear research intended
to produce such a weapons capability. Anxieties in the US and elsewhere
that the West German company Orbital Transport und Rakenten-
Aktiengesellschaft (OTRAG), which for a while operated a research site in
Fezzan, would supply Libya with ballistic missiles capable of carrying
nuclear warheads proved to be groundless. An international outcry induced
OTRAG to cease its Libyan operations in 1982. The Swedish government
agreed in the late 1970s to train Libyans in guided-missile technology but
criticism of the scheme led to its cancellation in January 1982: the Libyan
students were sent home and the Swedish government made it clear that
there would be no further such courses.101
Attempts in the 1990s to demonstrate that Libya was developing nuclear
weapons appeared to be nothing more than a political ploy of hostile states,
but is there evidence that Libya has chemical weapons? In the late 1980s the
US was claiming that Libya had acquired chemical weapons, and press
reports attributed to British intelligence sources stated that the Soviet Union
had supplied Libya with warheads containing nerve gas for its SCUD-B
surface-to-surface missiles.102 In January 1992 the journalist Andrew Stephen,
reporting from Washington, declared that US intelligence analysts are con-
vinced that Libya has stockpiled up to 100 tons of chemical weapons, 'a
much bigger arsenal than previously believed'.103 Robert Gates, the new
director of the CIA is reported as saying that 'the Libyans have no intention
of giving up CW production' and that they are cunently building a second
plant - 'one they hope will escape international attention'. It is suggested
that satellite surveillance and information from CIA sources in Libya has
provided evidence that Gaddafi, fearing another air strike, is dispersing his
chemical weapons around the country instead of concentrating them in what
the US claims is the main production plant in Rabta, forty miles south-west
of Tripoli. In early 1992 these American claims had a very familiar ring.
The Libyan revolution has been massively influential, profoundly affecting

the culture and history of the nation and dramatically impacting on the lives
of its citizens. There remain many imbalances and paradoxes in Libya's on-
going development, minored in the confusions and ambiguities of Gaddafi
himself: it is an easy matter to note contradictions in Gaddafi's theoretical
statements and between aspects of his theory and the practical plans he
espouses. In most of his writing and public speeches he is a dedicated
socialist but eager in the real world to make pragmatic accommodations
with all manner of capitalist organisations; he urges the importance of
'personal sovereignty' but runs a highly authoritarian state; he has a long-
standing commitment to pan-Arabism (in 1992 Libya and Egypt were again
growing close) but has often offended other Arab leaders; women, he
asserts, are gentle and easily frightened but female soldiers form part of
his personal bodyguard when he travels abroad; he urges the primacy of
the socialist Jamahariya (people's state) but in the 1990s astounded his
fellow revolutionaries by proposing the privatisation of schools and the
health service; he has always applauded human dignity and human rights
but Amnesty International continues to report hundreds of political pri-
soners held without trial.
In practical matters Gaddafi's huge investment in the welfare of the
Libyan people has made him a popular leader. It is generally conceded,
albeit reluctantly in the West, that Gaddafi is unlikely to face hostile public
demonstrations or to be toppled by a military coup. However, there have
been coup attempts and Libya, like any Third World country, remains
vulnerable to attack by the developed nations. Gaddafi's domestic policies
- in the early days impacting directly on foreign assets - have been enough
to make him viewed as a hate figure in the West. But it is his foreign
adventures that have made it easy for Western countries - in particular, the
United States - to brand Libya a 'pariah nation'. This has proved a useful
arrangement in an American culture that has always thrived on the exist-
ence of an external enemy. US policy on Libya was also a consideration
in efforts to boost George Bush's popularity in the run-up to the 1992
presidential election. It is useful in this context to consider Libya's foreign
activities in recent years.
Part III
Terrorism and the
US Response
7 International Ambitions
By the passage of time, everyone changes, through experience. In
the 1970s we supported liberal movements without knowing which
were terrorists and which were not. In the 1980s we began to
differentiate between terrorists and those with legitimate political
aspirations.
Muammar al-Gaddafi, 1992
FOREIGN POLICY
Libya's foreign policy derives from the views and philosophy of one man.
There are various state organisations through which international policy
matters are conducted but the ultimate decision-making is Gaddafi's alone.
A change in outlook and emphasis over the years can be detected but
Libya's international posture continues to derive from an ideology that has
been articulated many times. It has been necessary for Gaddafi to make
pragmatic and prudent accommodations with many groups, companies and
nations that, in the next breath, he may violently condemn. At one time or
another he has antagonised African states, most of the Arab world, and the
whole of the West. However, this undoubted circumstance needs to be
examined with care. Libya's relative isolation in the modern world can be
attributed in part to the mercurial and radical temper of its leader, a man
prepared to use violence to achieve his goals; but Libya's status as a pariah
nation derives equally from the resentment among powerful states that any
small country should dare to challenge an international order that upholds
the exploitation of the weak by the strong, and that tolerates levels of
violence - sometimes reaching genocidal proportions - in defence of that
order.
Gaddafi's political philosophy is rooted in an awareness of Libya's
colonial past and in the impact of world events in the 1950s and 1960s. He
remains acutely conscious of the devastation brought to the region by the
French and Italian colonial powers, and became deeply sensitised to the
character of international power politics by the struggle of Nasser's Egypt
against Israel, France and the United Kingdom. At the heart of Gaddafi's
outlook is the belief that the Third World is victimised by powerful nations,
263
often exploiting racial differences to maintain their global hegemony, and
that the United States is a principal villain in this corrupt scheme. With
such an outlook Gaddafi has been easily depicted as both a local trouble-
maker and a threat to world peace, roles that he seems less keen to assume
in the post-Cold-War world. Today the military ascendancy of the United
States, as sole superpower, gives Gaddafi pause for thought. He is no doubt
equally conscious that Libya has not managed to achieve the desired levels
of self-sufficiency, that the nation remains painfully dependent upon
foreign workers, foreign technical expertise and foreign markets. Libya
remains an immensely vulnerable country, a vast area with a sparse popu-
lation amounting to less than five million people. This too is likely to
generate attitudes that the more secure nations, with their long histories
of independence, consider to be impolite. Libya's foreign policies and
international posture should be considered in the light of the region's
history and in acknowledgement of the fact that not all the political struc-
tures in the world are just and morally defensible.
Gaddafi's foreign policies derive from an ideology that is frequently
rehearsed in interviews and speeches. His aim is to encourage, by any
expedient means, all national and international movements fighting what
he perceives to be imperialism, the exploitation of peoples by powerful
countries. An initial goal is stimulated by pan-Arabist sentiment, the desire
to create a unified Arab nation that will then come to influence the shape of
global politics. There is no doubt that Gaddafi believes in the universal
relevance of his ethical views and his political commitment: the Third
Universal Theory is intended to bear on all mankind, the only route to
human emancipation and national pride. He is willing, as circumstances
demand, to offer diplomatic relations, foreign aid and even the political
merging of states - so far unrealised - if such initiatives will further his
aims. In much of this, Gaddafi is no different to many other world leaders,
but he is unusual in functioning as the sole reference for his country's
foreign policies and in the audacity which he has shown in putting them into
effect: there have not been many Third World leaders with small populations
that have sought to have a global influence. It would be a mistake to believe
that Gaddafi's desire to see a universal ethic and a universal polity derive
from mere self-aggrandisement. There is obviously a psychological dy-
namic - as there is with any charismatic and successful leader - but
Gaddafi's ideological and spiritual motivation cannot be gainsaid. It is also
true that his assumption of a divine mission has alienated many states in
Africa and the Arab world that would otherwise have been sympathetic to
his message. Gaddafi's flamboyance and rhetoric have likewise not served
him well in public relations: too often his promiscuous indignation and poor
International Ambitions 265
judgement - witness his support for the Yanayev coup in the Soviet Union
('a brave historical action') - have set back just causes that would have been
better served by a more astute political mind.
In summary, Gaddafi has chosen a wide range of policy tools to influ-
ence political events outside Libya: he has trained foreign dissidents and
insurgents; provided sanctuary for individuals that other states have dubbed
'tenorists'; supplied weapons to subversive factions in many parts of the
world; used all manner of front organisations (commercial, educational,
journalistic, cultural); organised assassinations in foreign countries; and
launched military invasions (for example, in Uganda in 1979 and in Chad at
various times - see below). In all such ventures the orthodox diplomatic
facilities in Libya and elsewhere have often been exploited with scant
regard to international norms of convention and propriety: what Gaddafi
would see as justified revolutionary change can only be furthered by the
effective exploitation of any means to hand. The imperialists, he would
argue, created the diplomatic protocols and the political structures to sustain
their rapacious hegemony: this has nothing to do with justice and humanity.
A number of formal bodies are nominally responsible for the implemen-
tation of Libyan foreign policy, though they are often peremptorily in-
structed by Gaddafi or members of his inner circle. The Libyan Foreign
Liaison Secretariat is in ostensible control of policy implementation but
may be overruled by other bodies in the bureaucracy; policy tasks are
carried out also by the Secretariat for External Security, the Secretariat
of Justice, the divisions of General Intelligence and Military Intelligence,
and the Libyan Special Security Forces. The Revolutionary Committees,
virtually a law unto themselves, have their own bureau, afree-rangingbody
that may seek to undercut the activities of the more orthodox parts of the
functioning bureaucracy. The Islamic Call Society can also impact on other
state organisations and influence the shape of foreign policy in many
aspects of its implementation. Professional Libyan diplomats sometimes
face difficulties in foreign countries because they are unaware of subversive
initiatives being undertaken by state bodies outside the diplomatic service.
Thus diplomats serving at a particular Libyan People's Bureau may be
forced to defend the consequences of actions of which they were unaware
and about which they may be unsympathetic. Such confusions doubtless
serve the revolutionary Libyan government: there can be genuine Libyan
protestations of innocence in foreign capitals while the real business of
subversion is conducted. (Other states, it is worth noting, often behave in
a similar fashion.)
The Secretariat for External Security, created in February 1984 follow-
ing a directive of the General People's Congress, is responsible for security
and intelligence gathering. One of its main tasks is to co-ordinate other
security and intelligence bodies; in consequence, this secretariat is highly
influential in the foreign policy establishment. Gaddafi maintains respons-
ibility for its staffing and for how it interacts with other important groups,
such as the revolutionary committees.
The revolutionary committees and the people's bureaus have often been
involved in subversive activities as part of their foreign policy strategy: in
1985, for example, fresh attempts were made to extend Libyan influence
into Latin America, partly to attack US interests and partly to increase the
Libyan presence in the Third World. Again the 'up-front' diplomacy is one
thing, subversive endeavour quite another. Historically, Gaddafi has shown
little discrimination in selecting clandestine subversive groups for support:
he has been prepared to support equally separatist organisations, mercenary
terrorist groups, and national liberation movements. It seems that little
effort has been made to assess the viability of any particular group, its
revolutionary credentials, or indeed whether it is in accord with Gaddafi's
proclaimed ideology. He is particularly interested in the unity and develop-
ment of the Arab world but keen at the same time to demonstrate that he can
support liberation movements across the religious divide (hence his erst-
while support for the IRA - see below). The 'Universal Theory' is held to
apply to all groups and movements seeking to free themselves and their
people from oppression and exploitation, even if such factions are tem-
porarily unaware of the compelling validity of the 'one true religion'. In
this sense Gaddafi is proud of his cosmopolitan support for liberation
movements throughout the world, irrespective of race, creed or ideology.
Gaddafi's support for subversion has achieved, even in his terms, mixed
success. In some instances he has alienated revolutionary groups by de-
manding too much in return (intelligence, political commitment, an accept-
ance of Libyan directives); in other cases he has backed groups that had no
chance of success, and so dissipated both resources and credibility. There
are signs that Gaddafi has learned from earlier mistakes (or perhaps he has
simply grown weary and anxious). It is useful to look at some of the policy-
decision areas in more detail butfirstthe question of Arab unity, a principal
motivation for the 1969 revolution, should be considered.
ARAB UNITY
The dream of pan-Arabism, the gradual coalescing of the states of the Arab
nation, has long motivated aspects of foreign policy in the region. Nasser
had hoped that the Arabs would unite around the Palestinian question but
their failure in this arena did no more than signal Arab disunity. And if
Nasser's pan-Arabism had achieved nothing how could Gaddafi do better?
An original impulse behind the 1969 revolution was that Libya and Egypt
should merge as a prelude to a greater Arab unity but, as we have seen, the
Egyptians drew back for reasons that can be only surmised; perhaps they
feared an influx of Libyan radicalism into Egypt, and perhaps they feared a
close association with a new Arab leader who, on the international stage,
was still an unknown quantity. Gaddafi visited Cairo on 22 September 1970
for what was to be above all a symbolic meeting for Arab unity. However,
this historic conference achieved little.
The Nile Hilton Hotel was cordoned off by armed guards, and at least
three of the guests - Yasser Arafat, PLO chairman, King Hussein of Jordan
and Colonel Gaddafi - wore revolvers in their belts. A principal reason for
the meeting was to end the conflict between units of the Jordanian army and
PLO guerrillas in Amman, Jordan. Gaddafi seized the opportunity to pros-
elytise on the subject of Arab unity. He declared that Palestine could only
be restored by 'the march of the Arab masses, free of fetters, restrictions and
narrow regionalism. We will arrive at Palestine, brothers, when we have
pulled down the walls which impede the fusion of the Arab people in the
battle. We will reach the holy lands only when we have removed our
borders and partitions. We shall liberate Palestine when the Arab world has
become one solid front.'1 Arafat responded by dubbing Gaddafi the 'knight
of revolutionary phrases'; the leader of the PLO is said by his biographer,
Alan Hart, to enjoy telling jokes about Gaddafi. Nasser's aide, Gahazzen
Bashir, having found Gaddafi 'dynamic in an irritating way, like a little boy,
very enatic', was told by a senior Russian diplomat that Gaddafi 'is crazy'.2
Gaddafi was at least naive in thinking that Arab unity could be forged with
little more than revolutionary slogans and a meeting between a few Arab
leaders. He was well aware of the factional disputes between Arab groups
and Arab states but at times seemed to believe that rhetorical exortation
alone would sweep away all the differences. An early partial success
was the Tripoli Pact, signed in December 1969 by Nasser, Gaddafi and
President Jaafar Numeiri of Sudan, but this agreement fell far short of the
total unity that Gaddafi had always envisaged as a step towards the ultimate
creation of one Arab state.
Gaddafi was also disconcerted to perceive signs of political compromise
on the part of Nasser, more experienced in statecraft than the heady young
revolutionary from across the border. Where Nasser, according to Gaddafi,
should have been mobilising to remove the stain of defeat in war he seemed
prepared to accept a US peace plan aimed at ending the hostilities between
Egypt and Israel along the Suez canal. UN Resolution 242, seen by Gaddafi
as a sell-out but supported by Nasser and King Hussein, declared that
territory cannot be acquired by force and demanded that Israel evacuate the
Sinai and withdraw to its own permanent and secure borders; there was also
reference to a 'just settlement' for the Palestinian refugees and for the
ending of the state of belligerency between the Arabs and the Israelis. We
can hardly fault Gaddafi's perception that Resolution 242, framed about
fifteen years ago, would not bring justice to the Palestinian people; to
Gaddafi the only solution to the Arab/Israeli problem was war. Anyone who
stood against such a policy was a traitor to the Arab cause and to be
condemned. When King Hussein launched a Bedouin army against the
Palestinian guerrillas Gaddafi declared that Hussein should be hanged
(T will go on Egyptian television and announce myself that Hussein should
be hanged and that the Egyptian government didn't have the courage to do
it'). Gahazzen Bashir later observed that he thought then that 'we were
dealing with a dangerous young man'.
Soon after Nasser's death on 29 September 1970, from a massive heart
attack, the federation between Libya, Egypt and Sudan - 'to hasten and
develop integration and cooperation' - was announced. The prospect was a
greatly enlarged Arab country with a large population (mostly Egyptian)
and vast financial resources (mostly Libyan). Egypt also had considerable
military power and technical expertise; it was hoped that the new union
would attract other Arab states towards the final realisation of the unity
dream. In fact Syria joined the new federation in April 1971 and plans for
further integration were drawn up: it was suggested that the four armies
could be put under joint control and that a single president would preside
over a sixty-member federal assembly. On 1 September 1971, the second
anniversary of the Libyan revolution, the peoples of Egypt, Syria and Libya
voted 98.3 per cent in favour of the merging of their countries. Work
continued on drafting a constitution for the new Federation of Arab Repub-
lics, with Syria succeeding in defeating Libyan and Egyptian demands that
Islam be made the state religion of the new organisation. Instead the
constitution was similar to earlier Syrian constitutions in making Islamic
law 'the source' of legislation, with Syria agreeing at the same time that an
educational policy would be adopted to create 'a believing generation'.3
(Syria's decision to join the new federation caused an immediate crisis
in the government. Dr Atasi resigned as premier and head of state on
18 October, and General Assad moved quickly - in what has been called
his 'second coup' - to arrest army officers and to jail top political leaders.
This was, he later commented, not a coup d'etat but 'a normal development
in our party.'4 On the monow of the coup Gaddafi arrived in Damascus to
support Syria's membership of the Tripoli Federation, and this intervention
helped Assad to consolidate his position.)
However, despite the popular support and the nominal agreement of the
Arab leaders, the Federation of Arab Republics never got off the ground.
There were various crippling points of disagreement and contending ambi-
tions. One disabling problem was how communists were to be viewed in the
new organisation: Egypt, Sudan and Libya ban the Communist Party but
Syria was reluctant to legislate a similar provision. In July 1971 Egypt and
Libya invaded the Sudan to crush a pro-communist coup, whereupon Gen-
eral Numeiri executed many communists and fellow travellers. Gaddafi
demanded that Assad oust all Communist Party members from the Syrian
Progressive Front and from the government. Assad rejected this demand but
the Regional Command, at the Ba'ath Party eleventh National Congress
(August 1971), presented a draft resolution terming the executed Sudanese
communists and pro-communists 'Qasimites, regionalists and false pro-
gressives': the Congress then overwhelmingly rejected this resolution. An-
other resolution upheld the Progressive Front as the only conect model for
all Arab countries. Thus Syria was directly challenging the political posture
of Egypt and Libya.
Other problems arose out of the different ambitions of the member
states. It soon emerged that Sadat was more interested in co-operation than
in integration, and that he was more concerned to get his hands on Libyan
money than he was with any romantic dreams about pan-Arabism (this was
one reason why the West found the pragmatic Sadat a more congenial Arab
leader than it did the visionary Nasser). The Syrians, quick to stake their
own claim to political independence within the new federation, were wor-
ried that the organisation would be dominated by the Egyptians. Gaddafi, as
always, preached in a way that irritated his nominal partners, exacerbating
rather than closing rifts within the new organisation. When he visited Cairo
in 1973 he lectured the Egyptians with seeming indifference to their own
views; Egyptian politicians were antagonised and Egyptian feminists were
appalled (he instructed the relatively liberated Egyptian women to get back
in the home where the Koran told them they belonged). Gaddafi rationalised
his failure by denouncing what he saw as the decadent bourgeoisie of
Egypt, a corrupt stratum of society far removed from the toiling masses in
the villages and urban slums. In September 1973 he tried to march 20,000
Libyans 1500 miles to Cairo, assuming that thousands of Egyptians would
then rise up to demand unity; the Egyptians stopped the march at the border
and a small group was allowed through to hand in an ineffectual petition.
On 22 December 1972 Gaddafi had spoken at a rally in Tunis to demand
union with Libya. President Bourguiba of Tunisia had not been forewarned
of this initiative and was shocked when he heard Gaddafi's words on the
radio. He rushed to the rally, insisted on taking the microphone, and launched
a criticism of the whole unity idea. He commented that the Arabs had never
been unified and that he did not welcome a lecture on the subject by the
leader of a backward nation. It seemed that wherever Gaddafi turned he
could find no Arab leaders to share his pan-Arabist vision. His first dis-
appointment had come with the collapse of the United Arab Republic;
separate appeals to individual states had come to nothing; and finally the
new Federation, ambitious in concept, had not proved able to surmount
political differences and petty rivalries.
President Sadat had been prepared to support union with Libya provided
it could be turned to Egypt's advantage, but various difficulties combined to
frustrate even cynical calculations of expediency. It was not long before the
United States became involved: the Secretary of State, William Rogers,
began conciliatory talks with Sadat which quickly aroused suspicions in
other Egyptian power centres. The Egyptian Armed Forces Commander in
Chief General Mohammed Fawzi informed Sadat that the army was un-
happy at the talks with the Americans.5 The situation deteriorated further
whereupon Sadat sacked the Interior Minister Sharamy Gomaa on the
ground that his phone was tapped. Senior government officials then re-
signed and Fawzi, fearing a sell-out to the Americans, urged senior officers
to stage a coup; but enough officers remained loyal to Sadat to keep him
in power.
This power struggle was concluded on 15 May 1971 with the arrest
of the main conspirators against Sadat. This 'Conective Revolution' had
strengthened Sadat's position: with added powers he felt able to act accord-
ing to his own instincts rather than being pressured by Egyptian factions
clamouring for Arab unity. The changed circumstances had consequences
for Egypt's relations with Libya. In the summer of 1971 Sadat began secret
talks with Saudi Arabia and set up a hotline link between his own house in
Giza and the Cairo residence of Kamel Adhem, the director of the Saudi
intelligence service (trained by the CIA). Sadat was already establishing
links with organisations hostile to the Gaddafi-sponsored unification plans
while at the same time he saw advantages in going along with the unity
talks. This was a time when, 'Whatever Sadat's real thoughts and intentions
may have been... he managed to conceal them from more or less everyone.'6
When Sadat stopped the 20,000-strong Libyan march on Cairo he sent
Hafez Ghanem, Secretary of the Egyptian ASU, to confront Gaddafi but
when Ghanem arrived in Tripoli he was told that Gaddafi had resigned and
that Sadat was the effective ruler of the two countries. We can surmise that
this statement was not taken seriously by the Egyptians. The marchers then
began a popular demonstration in support of Gaddafi, and a short time later
he withdrew his 'resignation' and declared that he would make fresh efforts
to secure union with Egypt ('even if it means civil war'). When Gaddafi and
Jalloud flew to Cairo to discuss union they were told that Sadat had de-
parted for talks in Saudi Arabia. When, a week later, they did meet, Sadat
informed the Libyans that Egypt was not yet ready for 'total union': a
planned referendum, to be held on Libya's Revolution Day, was postponed
and no new date was set. Sadat was preoccupied with his plans for war with
Israel, about which Gaddafi knew nothing: Sadat had his own scheme for
Arab unity and, at least in the short term, it left Libya out of the picture.
When the war began, there was a further widening in the gulf between the
Egyptians and the Libyans. The Libyans were generous in supplying two
Mirage squadrons but when their officials visited Cairo they were not given
the same preferential treatment as the Saudis. And when Sadat accepted a
ceasefire on 25 October Gaddafi remonstrated with him by telephone - and
later during a personal visit - to push on into Sinai. Sadat was soon involved
in disengagement talks whereupon Gaddafi boycotted the Arab League
and withdrew the Libyan diplomatic mission from Cairo. Sadat responded
in kind and the proposed union between Egypt and Libya had never
looked farther away.
Gaddafi then focused his attention on Tunisia, not for the first time. On
11 January 1974, President Bourguiba, now able to ignore Gaddafi's Tunis
speech in December 1972, signed an agreement committing their countries
to the formation of a single unified state, the Arab Islamic Republic. This
Jerba Declaration, named after the Meditenanean island where the talks
were held, represented a dramatic change of mind by the Tunisian presi-
dent; now Bourguiba seemed to be committed to an arrangement that would
give both countries a single constitution, a single army, and a single pres-
ident. Bourguiba's volte-face was not unrelated to the fact that 30,000
Tunisian workers in Libya were making a useful contribution to the Tuni-
sian economy. Moreover, some members of the Tunisian government -
notably, the Foreign Minister, Mohammed Masmoudi - were convinced
that closer ties with Libya would bring further economic benefits. In 1973
a series of agreements were concluded on trade, customs duties, investment,
regulations for migrant workers, social security, and the creation of a joint
shipping company. On 1 September 1973 Tunisia was the only country in
the Arab world to celebrate the Gaddafi revolution; elsewhere in North
Africa and the Middle East the anniversary went unsung. The Tunisian
government was not, however, prepared to surrender control of the state:
economic benefit was one thing, a surrender of Tunisian sovereignty quite

another.
This meant that Bourguiba had miscalculated: in pledging unity with
Libya he had gone beyond what he could deliver. The Socialist Destour
Party in Tunisia rebelled against what they saw as 'blank cheque' agree-
ments with Libya, ill-defined arrangements that made no mention of the
sorts of political institutions that would develop in the new union. Bourguiba
was forced to have crisis talks with other members of the government and
with Hedi Noura, a one-time governor of the Central Bank, after which
Bourguiba was compelled to abandon the Jerba Agreement. On 12 January
1974 it was announced that the planned referendum would be postponed
and any agreement with Libya would only be introduced gradually. The
next day Masmoudi, the main pro-union advocate, was sacked; Hedi Noura
staged an internal coup; and Bourguiba flew to Switzerland for a rest.
Libya's pan-Arabist ambitions were thwarted yet again.
Efforts to cajole Algeria into union were similarly unsuccessful.
President Houari Boumedienne, under pressure from Gaddafi, was prepared
to declare union as an ultimate aim but at the same time was keen to
preserve the Algerian independence won at such great cost in blood by the
FLN. Boumedienne had been anxious about the Jerba Declaration, con-
cerned that it would create a powerful state on Algeria's eastern border. To
have joined such a union, had it succeeded, would have necessarily com-
promised the freedom of the FLN in Algeria. Gaddafi remained concerned
at the failure to develop ties between Egypt and Libya, and it was obvious
to him that his further efforts to develop a union in the area were fruitless.
He again travelled to Cairo in a vain effort to pacify Sadat but it was too
late: Sadat was now keen to develop relations with Israel and the United
States, even to the point that he accused Gaddafi of exerting economic
blackmail so that Egypt could attract more US aid. Egyptian civil servants
were prohibited from travelling to Libya and Gaddafi responded by banning
all Egyptian propaganda about the 1973 war and by closing the Egyptian
cultural centre in Benghazi.7
Libya was blamed when a Muslim group launched an attack on the Cairo
military academy on 18 April 1974 and when, on 26 July, an Alexandria
nightclub was blown up. Libya countered by suggesting that Egypt was
stirring up trouble among the border tribes, with Cairo alleging that Gaddafi
had laid plans for the assassination of the entire Egyptian leadership. Sadat
leaked the fact that Libya's French Mirages had been used in the 1973 war,
so exposing Gaddafi willingness to ignore purchase conditions. The Egypto-
Libyan 'Cold War' was significantly moderated after mediation by Sheikh
Zayed, the Federal President of the UAR. Sadat and Gaddafi met briefly in
Alexandria and agreed to behave themselves; a joint committee was estab-

lished to study the dispute between the two countries and to make recom-
mendations. However, a few months later Sadat commented (in an inter-
view published in the Kuwait newspaper, al-Siyasah) that the Libyan leader
was 'one-hundred per cent mad' and that he was trying to divide Egypt from
other countries. Then Sadat claimed that Libya was trying to annex Egyp-
tian territory, a charge that resulted in Gaddafi expelling 265 Egyptian
workers from Libya, which in turn induced the Sadat-controlled Egyptian
parliament to demand the withdrawal of the entire Egyptian workforce in
Libya. On 10 May 1975 the premises of the Libyan diplomatic mission in
Cairo were invaded by a mob. As Sadat prepared for the signing of the
second Sinai disengagement agreement the Libyan authorities organised
demonstrations against 'the capitulationist Egyptian regime'.8
Sadat moved further to the right by deregulating the Egyptian economy
in an attempt to attract foreign capital. Laws were introduced in 1974 and
1975 to exempt foreign investment from taxation for a period of five years;
foreign merchant banks were offered attractive cunency exchange facil-
ities; the Suez canal area was converted into a Free Trade Zone; and steps
were taken to dismantle the public sector while encouraging free enterprise.
With this infittah ('opening up') policy an economic atmosphere was cre-
ated that soon generated a class of capitalists and entrepreneurs, what came
to be known as the 'Sadat class'. There was nothing in this of pan-Arabism
or even of Egyptian nationalism: the new entrepreneurs were only inter-
ested in profits, their sole allegiance being directed at international capital-
ism. The possibility of a restoration of Nasserist policies became increas-
ingly remote and the gulf widened between Egypt and Libya. Sadat had
progressively eroded Nasser's political achievements, intent above all to
make accommodations with the post-war Israelis and the United States. At
the same time Sadat developed his relations with the pro-Western regime in
Saudi Arabia. The Arab world, far from moving gradually to a pan-Arabist
unified nation, was becoming consolidated in a static regionalism, key Arab
leaders being content to form alliances with opponents of Arab nationalism.
Gaddafi had been sidelined, his fervent rhetoric and unification ambitions
ignored in a region increasingly concerned with factional self-interest;
Libya was too weak to make a difference.
The relations between Gaddafi and Sadat had deteriorated beyond the
possibility of recovery; frequent incidents confirmed that there was no way
of reconciling the competing philosophies. On 21 February 1973 a Libyan
Airlines plane lost its bearings en route for Cairo and began heading over
Sinai. The Israelis detected the aircraft on radar and sent up jet fighters to
shoot it down: all the passengers and the French crew, a total of one hundred
and eight people, were killed. When Gaddafi urged retaliation, Sadat dis-
couraged him, saying that they should conserve their forces for the coming
war against Israel. Asked why Egyptian aircraft had not flown to the aid of
the Libyan plane, Sadat commented that the weather was bad. Gaddafi
retorted by phone that the weather had not stopped the Israeli aircraft from
flying, but he decided to take Sadat's advice and take no action. In Libya
there were anti-Egyptian protests and the son of Salah Buassir, the former
Libyan Foreign Minister and one of the victims, printed leaflets accusing
the Egyptians of treacherous cowardice.
Another incident, potentially equally dramatic, caused Egypto-Libyan
relations to worsen still further. A group of wealthy Jews and other support-
ers of Israel had chartered the Queen Elizabeth II for a special voyage to
celebrate the anniversary of Israel's independence. Gaddafi summoned the
commander of a Soviet-supplied submarine, part of an Egyptian naval unit
still based in Libya under defence agreements that Gaddafi had negotiated
with Nasser. Gaddafi then ordered the young commander to sink the ship on
its way to the Israeli port of Ashpod. However, once at sea the commander
radioed a report to Alexandria whereupon Sadat was quickly informed of
Gaddafi's instructions. Sadat cancelled the plan, waited until the Queen
reached Ashpod, and then notified Gaddafi that the submarine had been
unable to locate the liner. This event served as further confirmation, if any
were needed, that Sadat was more interested in maintaining good relations
with the Israelis and the Americans than in combating the traditional
enemies of the Arab nation. In one quoted comment from a Libyan emigre
the impact of this incident on Gaddafi is made clear: 'Gaddafi at this point
became like a different person. He withdrew into the desert, raging at
anyone who tried to speak to him. If ever he showed signs of being a manic
depressive, it was after the submarine incident.'9 Gaddafi later flew to Cairo
in an attempt to patch up matters, but the time for compromise was gone.
The situation would only be resolved, to Gaddafi's satisfaction, with the
assassination of Sadat in Cairo on 6 October 1981. There is no evidence that
Gaddafi was implicated in the murder of Sadat but no doubt he was pleased
with what the assassins had accomplished.
Gaddafi had also struggled to breathe life into the discredited Jerba
Declaration, originally intended to consolidate the union of Tunisia and
Libya; now the Destour socialists in Tunisia were saying that the document
should be seen 'as a political declaration, not as a treaty'.10 It seemed likely
that Algeria's President Boumedienne had discouraged the proposed union,
perceiving that an enlarged state on his eastern border might pose a threat;
Gaddafi was soon talking of Maghreb leaders 'who stand in the way of
inevitable unity', but he was no nearer to achieving such unity with Tunisia
or any other country. By March 1976 he had lost patience: 6837 Tunisian
workers, said by Tripoli to lack the proper work and residence permits, were
expelled; and evidence soon emerged that Gaddafi was beginning a policy
of subversion. On 21 March 1976 three members of the Libyan mukhabarat
(intelligence service) were arrested in Tunis, with Bourguiba announcing
that they had come to murder him and his prime minister. Tripoli indig-
nantly denied the charge and expelled eight Tunisian diplomats; more
expulsions followed on both sides, though diplomatic relations were
preserved.
A fresh problem arose, following an important oil strike, when Tunisia
and Libya began a dispute over the offshore median line. The two countries
agreed to take their argument to the International Court of Justice at The
Hague, but in February 1977 Tunisia sent the Bourguiba frigate to stop
Libyan drilling in the area. Warning shots were fired to signal Tunisian
intent, and the Libyans sent a gunboat. The offshore rig at the centre of this
confrontation was the Scarab Four being used in a joint venture between
the Italian oil company ENI and the Libyan National Oil Company. When
the Italians could not get the necessary security guarantees for the seventy-
man crew they towed therigaway. The dispute dragged on for several years
and, signalling the state of relations between the two countries, a Libya-
supported guerrilla attack was launched on Gafsa, a Tunisian phosphate
mine, on 26 January 1980. Gaddafi had demonstrated, in familiar fashion,
what he thought of the small pro-Western country situated on Libya's
shoulder.11 Gaddafi had failed to cement a union between Tunisia and
Libya, as he had failed elsewhere. In the early 1980s he turned his attention
to Morocco.
The 1984 Oujda Treaty pledged Morocco and Libya to eventual unity
though no plan for implementation was agreed and the treaty was seen as a
declaration of intent rather than a firm bond between the two nations.
Efforts to build links with other countries in the area had achieved nothing;
instead invective was traded as part of the status quo. On more than one
occasion Gaddafi has warned President Hosni Mubarak of Egypt that he
will 'meet Sadat's fate'; and in November 1984 an Egyptian 'sting' opera-
tion tricked Gaddafi into thinking that he had successfully brought off a
plan to assassinate a former Libyan prime minister in Cairo. There is
evidence that Gaddafi retaliated by mining the Red Sea and the Gulf of
Suez. Through the 1980s he seemed no nearer to advancing his dream
of pan-Arabism: he had managed to sustain a level of friendship with
Morocco, Syria, Iran and South Yemen as fellow Islamic states, but even
with these sympathetic countries various serious differences emerged from

time to time. Gaddafi supported Iran in its war with Iraq, not least because
he rightly detected US support for Iraq in its desire to contain Islamic
fundamentalism; and most other Arab states condemned Libya on this.
Similarly, they are suspicious of Gaddafi's hostility to Yasser Arafat and
his (Gaddafi's) support for the more extreme Palestinian factions. Several
hundred Libyan troops were stationed in Lebanon in the late 1970s and
early 1980s, which led to fresh tensions with Syria but failed to win Libya
kudos as one of the committed 'front-line states' against Israel. In fact
Libya has at times broken ties, for one reason or another, with Egypt,
Tunisia, Morocco, Iraq, Jordan and Saudi Arabia. Gaddafi on one occasion
tried to disrupt the Muslim hajj (pilgrimage) to Mecca in Saudi Arabia, and
he has frequently tried to appeal to the Arab peoples over the heads of
their rulers, as he did in April 1985, to 'rise and destroy the submissive
traitors who have betrayed our nation'.12
On his southern border Gaddafi has attempted to create a bloc of
Libyan-dominated pan-Islamic countries in the Sahel region of West
Africa. He has claimed territory in a number of states but has only been
strong enough to invade and occupy a part of Chad (see below), though
he has often threatened Niger and Tunisia. Libyan-trained Sudanese revolu-
tionary committee members were positioned in Sudan in the mid-1980s and
Gaddafi's declarations of support for the Sudanese regime were viewed
with some suspicion. In August 1981 a tripartite alliance between Libya,
Ethiopia and the People's Democratic Republic of Yemen was formed but
represented no more than a paper agreement: there was no realistic attempt
at a political merging of the states or at the creation of a unified military
command (Libya's efforts to improve relations with Somalia resulted in a
deterioration in the scope of the Ethiopian connection).
Gaddafi's 'carrot and stick' approach (oil and finance on the one hand,
threats and subversion on the other) has influenced a number of states in
their attitude to Libya. It has been prudent to remain in a condition of
reasonable accord but Gaddafi's rhetoric and unreasonable demands have
often led torifts.It is difficult to fault his Islamic commitment or his fervent
wish for the unification of the entire Arab nation: had he moved more
diplomatically, and with greater regard for the international protocols he so
obviously despises, he might have accomplished more through the troubled
1970s and 1980s. In the 1990s there are signs that, through experience or
weariness, he is acting with more circumspection. This is too late to retrieve
his reputation in the eyes of the West and many Arab states: Gaddafi
remains a force to be considered on the global stage but he has few firm
friends.
An extraordinary Arab Summit was held in Baghdad on 28-30 May
1990, intended to discuss the Palestinian intifada, the problems of Soviet
Jewish emigration to Israel, and items such as 'threats against Iraq and
Libya, possible aggression against Jordan, and the assessment of the Arab
position vis-a-vis recent world developments, in particular in Eastern
Europe'. The summit was addressed by Yasser Arafat, PLO chairman,
who considered the likely escalation of the Arab-Israeli conflict. Syria
did not attend the meeting, despite mediation by Gaddafi (and by Egypt,
Jordan and Saudi Arabia), and this may be seen as a further set-back for
Gaddafi's dream of Arab unity. However, an event earlier in the year
seemed, from Libya's point of view, more promising.
On 6 March Gaddafi and Omar Hassan al-Bashir, the military ruler of
Sudan, signed an agreement specifying a complete merger of the two
countries within four years: this would represent a total integration of their
political, economic, social, defence and foreign policies. The declared in-
tention was to create a supreme authority vested in the two heads of state,
a general secretariat and a ministerial body; at the same time common
authorities would be created for finance, labour, energy, mining and foreign
affairs, and a Joint High Command of the armed forces would be created.
An earlier union between Libya and Sudan (then under prime minister
Sadiq al-Mahdi) had been planned for September 1989, but this was can-
celled when General Bashir took over on 30 June 1989, following a military
coup.
The unity plans seemed still to be on course when, on 19 June 1991, the
first meeting took place to agree the steps towards union. At this meeting of
the Arab Integration Ministerial Committee, held at Sirte, an agreement for
freedom of movement, residence, work and ownership was signed by the
deputy prime minister of Sudan, Zoubeir Mohammed Saleh, and the foreign
minister of Libya, Ibrahim al-Beshari. Moves were set in train for the
provision of new identity cards, showing dual Libyan/Sudanese citizenship.
On 1 July Gaddafi visited Sudan and gave speeches - one to celebrate the
second anniversary of General Bashir's National Salvation Revolution - in
which he focused on the questions of integration and unity. However, from
the outset there were difficulties: the two countries have very different
political systems and in 1990 Gaddafi made it clear that he expected Sudan
to move towards the Jamahariya style of government. By 1992 he was
beginning to doubt the sincerity of the Sudanese leadership in this respect,
having already observed on 17 July 1991 at the General People's Congress
at Sirte that the Sudanese authorities were preparing to hold council and
government elections, activities that were incompatible with the jamahiri
system.
On 8 August a unity document for the Sirte municipality and the
Sudanese province of Dafur was signed and Abdel-Rahim Hamdi, the
Sudanese Minister of Finance and Planning, declared that Libya and Sudan
had agreed that all local goods traded between the two countries should
carry no customs and excise duties. A joint protocol was signed for the
establishment of the Nile International Bank; and on 23 August an agree-
ment was concluded on Libya's investment of $45 million in the Sudanese/
Libyan Holding Company intended to finance the manufacture of plastics
and agricultural production. In 1992 it seemed that the Libya/Sudan unity
plans were making progress but there were still many problems to over-
come, not least the regional influence of Egypt. The Egyptians have been
unenthusiastic about developing their own relations with Sudan, and it has
been suggested that 'Libya will not jeopardise its friendship with Egypt
by fraternising with the Khartoum regime.'13
Gaddafi had increasingly looked to post-Sadat Egypt for support, even
though he has frequently criticised President Mubarak for his lack of inter-
est in practical steps towards Arab unity. One calculation is that Egypt is
well placed to help Libya gain international respectability. Mubarak was a
plaint supporter of the Gulf war coalition, induced to conform when the
United States cancelled his substantial dollar debt, and so the Egyptian
leader is perceived as a useful conduit to Washington and the conservative
Arab states. Gaddafi also calculated that Mubarak might be able to provide
Libya with a degree of protection against a further US military strike in the
context of the Lockerbie issue (see Chapter One). Again the familiar Libyan
tactics are fully displayed though, with a new prudence, Gaddafi seems to
be relying more on 'canot' than on 'stick'. Libya is being generous in
financing joint ventures and in the terms of other agreements on economic
co-operation; it is also significant that Gaddafi has offered to help Egypt's
overpopulation problem by funding the resettlement of one million Egyp-
tian farmers in areas of Libya that will be irrigated by the Great Man-made
River Project. Egypt also has an interest in curbing Islamic fundamentalism
which might come to the fore if Gaddafi were to collapse. In May 1989 a
reconciliation took place between Mubarak and Gaddafi in Casablanca and
they have met on many occasions since that time: Gaddafi was quick to visit
Mubarak for talks when the possibility again loomed, in late 1991, that the
United States would launch fresh bombing raids on Libya within a matter
of months.
On 4 July 1991 Gaddafi visited Egypt to reach an immediate agreement
on the payment of arrears to Egyptian teachers and doctors working in
Libya; and after a Mubarak visit to Tripoli in August Cairo ordered the
dismantling of all the border customs and immigration posts with Libya. An
Egypto-Libyan meeting in Benghazi yielded a number of economic agree-
ments, and Gaddafi expressed his much-rehearsed hope that a union be-
tween Egypt and Libya would be the first step towards a wider Arab unity.
He again called for a union between Libya, Egypt and Sudan but there is no
reason to think that Egypt shares these unity enthusiasms. In an interview
on 23 August with the Egyptian journal Al-Musawwar President Mubarak
commented on his excellent understanding with Gaddafi who had 'kept
his word and promises', but he also suggested that true unity between
nations could only come when there was a genuine convergence of inter-
ests, that this would generate a stronger unity than one imposed by the will
of political leaders. He commented that the cunent Sudanese regime gave
cause for concern, so dashing Gaddafi's perennial hope of a tripartite union.
Almost as soon as Egypt abolished the controls on the Libyan border in
August 1991 the human traffic escalated to around 10,000 a day. Egyptian
consumer goods began to flood into Libya's shops while Libyans surged
across the border for goods and entertainment not available under the
puritanical Libyan regime. The volume of traffic alarmed both governments
and within a week the Egyptian security police established a border post to
check the names of all travellers to Libya, while at the same time the Libyan
police manned a checkpoint between Tobruk and Mosaid. Furthermore,
both Libya and Egypt introduced an 'insurance' charge on each car crossing
the border; and on 18 August Mohammed Abdel Halim Moussa, the Egyp-
tian Interior Minister, visited Libya to discuss further controls on the flow
of traffic. An agreement, not made public, was signed on 23 August: there
has been official comment on the need to stop drug smuggling and to
apprehend criminals, but a principal reason is the desire to monitor the
movement of political opponents.
Gaddafi has struggled for more than two decades to build Arab unity.
Hampered in part by his own mercurial temperament but more by the
factional disputes and competing interests in the region, he has made little
progress. Islam itself, like any world faith or ideology, is a multi-faceted
and evolving system; it lacks the monolithic dynamic that may be used to
unite first the Arab and then the entire Islamic world. In one view, all
Gaddafi's ambitions derive from his desire for a unified Moslem world that
will then seduce by its example the rest of the human race. However, it is
an easy matter to point to the perfidies committed in the name of Islam (and
in the name of any other missionary faith). It is possible to defend some
of the national liberation groups that Gaddafi has supported, but for much
of the period of the Libyan revolution Gaddafi sought to intervene, with a
promiscuous lack of discrimination, in other countries.
EXPORTING REVOLUTION
The Gaddafi revolution was never an insular affair: to the alarm and resent-
ment of his neighbours and the West every effort was made to spread the
message of Islam and the Jamahariya as widely as possible. Here was a
model, not just for the Arab world but for the entire Moslem community
and ultimately all mankind. It is easy to conclude that such an unconstrained
ambition signals no more than megalomania, the rantings of a demagogue;
but where is the committed political leader who would not like to see his/
her views prevail throughout the world? With the revenue and clout based
on oil, Gaddafi set about exporting a revolution that at least had succeeded
in transforming independent Libya.
The Arab Liaison Bureau, sited in what was a favourite building of King
Idris and is now the People's Palace, functions today as an effective foreign
ministry, set up to supervise the foreign bureaus that were designed to
replace the old Libyan embassies. In non-Arab countries, such as Britain
and the United States, the bureaus are called People's Bureaus, in Arab
countries Brotherhood Bureaus; in all cases they have a range of respons-
ibilities, from looking after diplomatic relations to collecting intelligence
information. Some observers, able to cite evidence, suggest that the bureaus
also have an interest in subversion and sabotage, in agitation and political
assassination. It is said that arms and sabotage devices are frequently
smuggled in diplomatic pouches to foreign countries. Such activities clearly
violate diplomatic protocols but it should never be thought that Libya has a
monopoly of such behaviour. The Foreign Liaison Bureau is also concerned
with foreign visitors, with the supervision of emissaries sent abroad, and
with the recruitment of foreign agents.
The Arab and Foreign Liaison Bureaus work with the Libyan intelli-
gence and security services and operate under the auspices of the Maktub
Tasdir al-Thawra (literally the 'Bureau for the Export of the Revolution'):
for much of the period of the Libyan revolution the desire to spread the
revolutionary message was an up-front matter, though the range of practical
tactics were necessarily clandestine. Gaddafi intended to export the revolu-
tion and there were government departments set up for the task.
SUPPORTING TERRORISM*
There can be no doubt, despite Gaddafi's protestations, that he has sup-

ported a wide range of tenorist organisations throughout the world. The
past is unambiguous on this matter though today the position is unclear: in
a 1992 interview with The Observer editor, Donald Trelford, Gaddafi
declared that there were times in the 1970s 'when we might have behaved
in a way that was not in accordance with international law, but not now'.14
In the same interview Gaddafi claimed to have changed 'through experi-
ence . . . In the 1980s we began to differentiate between terrorists and those
with legitimate political aspirations.' We need hardly remark that this is a
highly contentious claim: few people would argue that a genuinely op-
pressed nation would not be justified in using force - 'terrorism' - to
achieve liberation, and so the distinction between tenorists and 'legitimate'
political activists is hard to sustain. However, whatever Gaddafi's cunent
position his earlier support for tenorism throughout the world is well
established.
Gaddafi has given both funds and rhetorical support to Sinn Fein and the
Irish Republican Army in Northern Ireland, to the Armenian Secret Army,
to the Basque Separatist Movement, to the Red Army Faction in West
Germany, and to the Popular Forces of April 25 in Portugal. Such interna-
tional tenorists as Carlos Ilyich Ramirez and Abu Nidal have received
financial support from Gaddafi and been offered sanctuary in Libya: in
1987 Abu Nidal opened a huge tenorist training camp in the Libyan desert,
100 miles south of Tripoli, but today Gaddafi claims that he has renounced
international tenorism and that the camp is no longer in his country.15
Similarly, the German Bader-Meinhof gang has at times received support
from Gaddafi and been offered asylum in Libya. The Palestinian Black
September and Abu Musa factions, the Japanese Red Army, the Philippine
Moro National Liberation Front, and various black groups in the United
States have also received rhetorical and financial support.
According to a detailed Israeli intelligence report,16 Gaddafi was sup-
porting in 1986 some 'fifty tenor organisations and subversion groups, in
addition to more than forty radical governments in Africa, Asia, Europe and
America'. Help is given to almost all the terrorist groups of the Middle East,
such as George Habash's PFLP, Ahmed Jibril's PFLP-GC, Naif Hawatmeh's
Democratic Front, the Saiqa, the Popular Struggle Front, and the Abu Nidal
*I use the word terrorism for the sake of convenience and no moral connotation should be
assumed. The platitude 'one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter' suggests that
violent political acts have to be considered on their individual merits.
17
organisation. Gaddafi has also funded terrorist groups working against
what he takes to be the reactionary regimes of the Arab world; so while he
has tried at one level to build unity between Libya and such states as
Tunisia, Sudan and Egypt he has been prepared at another level to organise
acts of subversion in those countries. He has maintained close and sym-
pathetic links with such groups as ETA in Spain, Action Directe In France,
and the SIM group in Sardinia. Name almost any terrorist or revolutionary
group and you will find Gaddafi's fingers in the pie. He has supported the
Tupamaros in Uruguay, the revolutionary groups (principally the FSLN) in
El Salvador (where an end to the war was agreed early in 1992), and the
one-time Sandinista government in Nicaragua. In such countries as Chad,
Senegal, Zaire and Tunisia, help has been offered by Gaddafi to groups
trying to destabilise pro-Western or reactionary governments. The Israeli
report claimed that in 1986 some 7000 tenorists were being trained - by
Syrians, Cubans, Russians and East Germans - in camps across Libya: for
example, the Al Hilal camp west of Tobruk; the Al Jadayim camp west of
Tripoli; the Al Jaghbub camp west of the Egyptian border; the Ghadames
camp; the Beda camp south of Sirte; and camps at Kufrah, Misrata, Sidi
Bilal, Sebba, Sabratha and Benghazi.
It should be emphasised that the various Israeli intelligence organisa-
tions have different opinions and make different factual claims about the
Libyan funding of world terrorism. In the 1980s Israeli intelligence analysts
consistently down-played the risk posed by Libya, saying that if there was
'a mastermind behind international terror, it is President Assad of Syria'.19
This is an important consideration in view of current Western claims that
Libya has sole responsibility for the Lockerbie outrage (see Chapter One).
Nevertheless, there is no doubt that Gaddafi's revolutionary ambitions have
had effects, albeit usually minimal, in dozens of countries throughout the
world.
Many countries - among them Egypt, Sudan, Tunisia, Algeria, Senegal,
Nigeria, Lebanon, Gambia, Mauritania, Mali, Malaysia, Indonesia, Thai-
land and the Philippines - have at one time or another accused Gaddafi
of supporting dissident or subversive groups in their countries. In the
early 1970s Gaddafi supported the Eritrean rebels against the reactionary
Ethiopian government of Haile Selassie, but changed sides in 1974 when
President Mengistu took power in a military coup. Gaddafi also supported
Idi Amin through the 1970s because he was a Muslim who had expelled
the Israeli advisors from Uganda. In an interview with Oriana Fallaci, an
Italian journalist, Gaddafi declared in 1979: 'Amin's internal policies do
not interest me; what I am interested in is Amin's position in the field of
international relations.' He admitted that Amin's 'private personality . . .
might not be to my liking' and that he might disagree with particular
policies, but he disliked even more: 'the interference of France and Tanza-
nia and worst of all I dislike the support provided by the Westerners to
Israel'. When in 1978 Tanzania, with the support of Ugandan exiles, in-
vaded Uganda, Gaddafi provided 2500 troops, tanks and other vehicles in
support of Amin. The invading force was defeated and the Libyans were
expelled, having lost more than four hundred dead.
Connections have been established between various subversive groups
acting in Europe, the Middle East and elsewhere. Thus evidence emerged in
the 1970s of links between the Italian Red Brigades and the Revolutionary
Cells Movement in West Germany; in Athens the CIA station claimed to
have discovered similar connections between France's Action Directe and
the Greek Revolutionary Group for International Solidarity. All such groups
have used explosives provided by Libya; and in many cases the groups have
benefited from training provided in the Libyan camps set up for that pur-
pose. A key task was to train tenorists who could then journey to foreign
countries to kill political activists opposed to the Libyan regime. In 1980
Gaddafi threatened his own opposition abroad that they 'would be liqui-
dated wherever they were'.20
On 11 April 1980 the journalist Mohammed Mustafa Ramadan was shot
dead outside a London mosque, and a fortnight later the lawyer Mahmud
Nafa was killed outside his house. The businessman Mohammed Salem
Rtemi was shot by Libyans in Rome, his body found in the trunk of his car
a month later. On 19 April 1980 three Libyans shot and killed a textile
wholesaler, Abdul Jilal Aref in the Cafe de Paris on the Via Veneto, just as
the Libyan Aballah Mohammed el-Kasmi was shot twice in the head by a
Libyan in the Hotel Torino in Rome and the former Libyan diplomat Omran
Mehdawi was shot and killed in Bonn. Such murders serve to highlight the
character of Libyan tenorist methods but they also illustrate that Gaddafi
has had as much interest in attacking Arabs as he has had in subverting
Western or Israeli institutions or individuals. An American report, pub-
lished in 1986, suggests that Gaddafi has not been particularly active in
attacking Israel or the United States.21 Instead he has focused on dissident
citizens of his own country, on moderate Palestinians, and on Arab and
African countries with which he has political disagreements. A chronology
of Libyan support for specific tenorist acts in the period 1980 to 1985
shows, according to the US report, that Gaddafi carried out five anti-West
tenorist acts and forty-six against Arab and African targets. The attempt
to assassinate Ambassador Eilts in Cairo has been interpreted as more an
attack on Sadat and US/Egyptian relations than as an attack on the United
States (Eilts himself has remarked that 'It was nothing personal...').
A report from Tel Aviv University similarly suggests that Libya's sup-
port for international tenorism in the 1980s was less than often supposed.22
Out of a total of more than four hundred terrorist incidents in 1985 Libyan
hit teams were responsible for only eleven, and these involved eight Libyan
victims; by contrast, the Shiite Islamic Jihad were responsible for thirty-five
hits, and Abu Nidal twenty-four. Dennis Pluchinsky, an expert in the Threat
Analysis Division of the Bureau of Diplomatic Security in the US State
Department, recorded about seventy-five tenorist attacks that produced
sixty-five deaths and more than 500 injuries: most of the attacks were
against Arab or Palestinian targets and, interestingly enough, there were six
attacks against Libyan targets and only five against American. There is in
fact a tenorist campaign against Gaddafi and the Libyan regime.23
The statistics should be interpreted with care. It may well be true that
Libyan hit squads have themselves only attempted a relatively small number
of tenorist acts; it remains the case that Libya has funded, and supported in
many other ways, the tenorist activities of many other groups, some of
which in their terms have been successful (Patrick Seale gives details in his
book Abu Nidal, A Gun for Hire, 1992, of the extent of Gaddafi's support
for one of the world's most notorious tenorists). A mere listing of Gaddafi's
foreign interventions is also likely to be misleading. His is essentially a
scattergun approach: his financial and manpower resources, although clearly
significant, have been spread thinly in the international arena of subversion.
He might have accomplished more if he had adopted a focused attack in
particular areas, in perhaps Africa or the Middle East. His efforts to recruit,
train and shelter tenorists had some success but it is difficult to point to
changes of regime or alterations in a country's political direction that such
recruitments achieved.
It has been claimed that Gaddafi at one time or another set in train plans
for the assassination of particular world leaders: for example, Sadat of
Egypt, King Hussein of Jordan, and Ronald Reagan of the United States. At
one time the CIA station chief in Rome, Duane R. Clarrige, received what
he believed to be reliable reports that Gaddafi was planning to kill President
Sadat. The source was a Clarrige contact in DIGOS, the Italian anti-tenorist
squad that had maintained strong contacts in Libya. Aziz Shenib, in 1982
the Secretary of the Libyan People's Bureau in Jordan, has related how he
was asked to recruit 'fanatics' from the Palestinian refugee camps, to
assassinate King Hussein, and to obtain a rocket for firing at the Israeli
nuclear reactor at Demona in the Negev desert.24 According to Shenib,
Gaddafi had wanted to get rid of Hussein since 1970, holding him respons-
ible for the loss of the West Bank to the Israelis in 1967. Gaddafi proposed
that Hussein's private jet could be shot down one weekend by a ground-to-
air missile that could be obtained from the Syrians. Shenib ('I have a lot of
respect for Hussein') decided to defect and inform the King of the plan; he
then visited Khaddam in Damascus to see if the Syrians would take the bait.
Assad reckoned the scheme 'ridiculous and childish' and the plot was
cancelled, but Hussein remained high on Gaddafi's hit list. The plot against
Reagan, if there ever was one, was also abandoned (see Chapter Eight).
If Gaddafi had little success in eliminating foreign leaders he had more
in controlling domestic dissidents (it has to be said that because of Gaddafi's
personal standing in Libya the dissident problem is less significant than in
regimes with less popular leaders). Throughout the period of the Libyan
revolution there have been violations of human rights, as there have been
elsewhere in the Arab world without the compensation of massive social
investment. Libyan dissidents have been anested, imprisoned without trial,
and then 'disappeared' without official explanation. In the United States
Admiral Bobby Ray Inman, an intelligence expert, provided William Casey,
CIA Director, with information about torture in Libya. Inman, head of the
NSA, had pinpointed in 1981 the old Ministry of Planning buildings in
Tripoli as the country's main torture-centre. Here, Inman claimed, victims
suffered electric shocks, hooding, mock executions and other inhuman
treatment. Through the 1980s the situation improved: 400 political prison-
ers were freed in 1988 and legal reforms were promised to safeguard human
rights. However, on 26 June 1991 Amnesty International noted a deteriora-
tion in the human-rights situation, claiming that 'hundreds of political
prisoners have been jailed in the past two years, including prisoners of
conscience, and that arbitrary anests and secret incommunicado detention
are continuing'. The whereabouts of several hundred political prisoners
anested in 1989 and 1990 were not known to their families, and in some
circumstances prisoners remain 'extremely vulnerable to torture and ill-
treatment'. Perhaps the most celebrated disappearance in Libya was that
of Iman Moussa Sadr, founder of the Amal Militia, who went missing in
Tripoli in 1978 and who was never seen or heard of again.25
While Gaddafi's hold on power in Libya seems secure most of his
foreign ambitions have been thwarted. In many cases initially promising
links with other countries have been torn asunder by Gaddafi's caprice or by
incompatible ideologies and contending political objectives. Dom Mintoff
of Malta, no lover of Western imperialism, had a long honeymoon with
Gaddafi but relations collapsed when, in June 1980, Gaddafi cut off the
preferentially-priced oil shipments to Malta. The situation was exacerbated
by a dispute about jurisdiction over the waters between Malta and Libya in
connection with drilling rights. The Libyans were expelled from Malta, and
when Maltese neutrality gained international recognition they were effec-
tively prohibited from returning. Again a promising connection between

Libya and another state had crumbled.
Most of Gaddafi's foreign policy initiatives have come to nothing. Some
have had mixed success. Perhaps only one has been generally viewed as -
from Gaddafi's point of view - successful. Chad is a special case. However,
here too there are ambiguities and uncertainties.
CHAD
Libya has long had an interest in Chad, the poverty-stricken desert country
to the south of Fezzan. For centuries the two countries traded and the
Sanussi Order established military, religious and commercial centres in
northern and central Chad in the nineteenth century. Nomads travelled
between the two countries with scant regard for lines drawn on a map. The
Sanussi and their Muslim friends had vigorously resisted French expansion
in the area, and Chad was one of the first African countries to win its
independence.
The many ethnic and regional factions in Chad have always tended to
weaken the country's central authority, a circumstance which has made it
relatively easy for Libya to press its own interests in the area. One key
concern has been control of the Aouzou Strip, a 40,000 square-mile border
zone. The Strip was effectively given to Libya under the terms of the
unratified 1935 Franco-Italian Treaty, but after the Second World War the
French colonial government tried to integrate the zone within Chad. When
the French were forced to withdraw from Fezzan in 1954, King Idris tacitly
accepted the annexation by agreeing the 1955 Franco-Italian Treaty; but
after the fall of the monarchy Gaddafi moved quickly to restore Libyan
sovereignty in the region.
The border originally drawn by the French had no ethnic or religious
significance: there were strong kinship and commercial links between the
inhabitants of southern Libya and northern Chad. The largest ethnic group
in the region were the Tebu, occupying the land from Kufrah in the north to
the shores of Lake Chad in the south. The 70,000 Tebu were largely
nomadic, moving freely over a vast area but mostly concentrating in the
Aouzou Strip. The Tebu tribe, converted to Islam by Ould Suleyman Sanussi
in the late nineteenth century, was not of Arab origin but black Caucasians
intent on retaining part of their animist heritage and characteristic tribal
structures. They were divided primarily between the northern Tedas and the
southern Dazas, keen to recognise the overall authority of the Derde (judge)
chosen from leaders of the Tomagra clan. The French tried to restrain the
wandering Tebu in defined areas, to give credibility to the colonial territ-
orial claims but such efforts were unavailing: the Tebu continued to mi-
grate, as they had always done, between Chad and Libya. At the same time
there were Arab migrations to the south: Arab settlements and sultanates
were established in Chad and when independence was achieved in 1960 the
ethnic Arab population was estimated at around 40,000.26 While the vast
majority of the Arabs were locally born, they continued to owe political and
religious allegiance to their ancestral lands of Libya and Sudan. The Sanussi
tried to exploit these commitments when in 1972 they made Chad their base
for the planned royalist overthrow of Gaddafi.27
The French had not succeeded after eight decades of colonial occupation
- up to Independence Day in 1960 - in constraining the wandering tribes
within the arbitrarily defined Chadian borders. The occupying authorities,
in familiar colonial mode, ruled the territory piecemeal by inviting the
collaboration of local tribal leaders. The country remained divided between
nearly two hundred tribes with no clear sense of national unity. A rudimen-
tary infrastructure was established by means of a network of military
garrisons which have evolved into the principal Chadian towns of today.
Efforts were made to adjust the borders to give Chad some sort of territorial
integrity - for example, the French tried to annex the Tebesti mountains to
the Chadian area - but the tribes, particularly the Tebu, remained recalci-
trant and unco-operative.
The colonial authorities were interested mostly in developing the land to
defray the costs of the colonial administration. Crops were introduced into
fertile areas to provide an export potential: the cordes des chefs plantations
were worked by farmers of the Sara people, the most populous minority in
Chad. The French hostility to the slave trade in the area derived mainly
from the need to keep the plantations supplied with labour. The crops,
particularly cotton, came to have real economic significance for the region,
and after the Second World War the metropolitan government continued the
process of development through irrigation, locust control, and increased
mechanisation on the land. One consequence was that the Sara people
began to achieve political ascendancy within the colonial structure. How-
ever, when the local chiefs inadvisedly appropriated an excess of the pro-
duce rebellions broke out and the French were forced to abandon the cordes
des chefs programme.
The local farmers and traders then founded the Parti Progressiste Tchadien
(PPT), similar to the Parti D&nocratique de la Cote d'lvoire (PDCI) of Felix
Houphouet-Boigny: the party wanted to achieve political independence but
was still prepared to collaborate with the French authorities. The PPT
leader, Gabriel Lisette, led his party to victory in the 1957 elections and, as
the new Chadian Prime Minister, looked set to lead the country to independ-
ence. However, in 1959 Lisette was ousted by the Sara trader, Frangois
Tombalbaye, who was soon endorsed by the Sara-dominated national as-
sembly. Tombalbaye was accepted by the French and became first head of
the government and then head of state. When independence was granted in
1960, he set about creating a Chadian nation based on the southern Saras, a
shortsighted policy that quickly led to the disaffection of the Arabs and the
Tebus in the north, whereupon the Arab sultans and tribal leaders created
the Parti National Africain (PNA) to rival the Sara PPT.
There followed a period of unrest throughout the country. The French-
backed Tombalbaye had imposed a virtual military regime on the south to
replace the departing French colonial forces. This led to areas of popular
unrest in what should have been a secure PPT power base. Various groups
were now organising to oppose the Sara-imposed regime that by now was
enjoying little popular support throughout the land. Thus the Union Nationale
Tchadienne (UNT), led by Arab and Muslim intellectuals, began prepara-
tions for an uprising in central and northern Chad, following Tombalbaye's
suppression of political opponents in 1962/3. New tensions developed
between Tombalbaye and the Tebu Derde when the government refused to
appoint the son of the Derde, Goukouni Ouaddai, to a government post.
Then the Derde, with a thousand tribesmen, sought refuge in Libya as the
guest of King Idris while the Chadian rebellion grew across the border.
In 1966 a Chad exile, Ibrahim Abatcha, founded the Front de Liberation
Nationale du Tchad ('Frolinat') in Khartoum. This brought together various
groups and parties (the UNT, the FLT, other northern oppositionists, etc.)
in a common organisation dedicated to what was increasingly perceived as
a Chadian dictatorship, one moreover backed by the previous colonial
power. A principal aim of Frolinat was to organise the Tebu tribes of the
north to liberate the ancestral homeland of the south. Abatcha - with his
lieutenants Djabalo Othman and Mohammed Ali Taher - travelled the
world in search of recruits and support for the liberation war. He managed
to recruit students in Cairo, some of whom went with him to North Korea
for training in guerrilla warfare. On returning to Chad, Abatcha founded
the First Liberation Army which set about inaugurating popular councils
comprising military commanders and political organisers, and launching
raids into southern Chad, burning cotton plantations and sabotaging com-
munications. In 1968 the government army of Felix Malloum, Chad's
French-educated president, killed Abatcha in battle and paraded his head
through the northern villages on the point of a spear.
This was a set-back for the liberation forces but the armed struggle
continued, led by the surviving lieutenants of the First Liberation Army.
Taher launched Frolinat operations in the Tebu areas, and in March 1968
the Tebu Noman Guard in Aouzou mutinied in sympathy and killed their
southern officers. Tombalbaye, seeing that the situation was rapidly dete-
riorating, invoked the 1960 mutual defence treaty with France. The French
invaded the northern territories and quickly restored the situation and in
August forced the Tebu Nomad Guard to sunender, but as soon as the
French had withdrawn in November the Tebu rose again and quickly gained
control of much of the north. This time the French decided to focus their
attention on the strategically more important area of central Chad. By the
time the Idris monarchy collapsed most of the Aouzou Strip had been
liberated from Chadian government control. There had as yet been no
Libyan invasion of Chad but the Libyans had already become involved in
the war of liberation.
In 1966 Frolinat had established a presence in Sebba and begun a
recruiting drive among Chadian students at the Islamic University at al-
Beida; Idris, reluctant to become involved, was nonetheless forced to show
some sympathy with his co-religionists among the Tebu and Arabs south of
Fezzan. He stopped short of providing weapons or open support for the
rebels but they derived some material support from the Libyan monarchy.
At the same time, to the anger of Frolinat, Idris signed a number of
agreements - on communications, the support of Islamic institutions in
Chad, and the position of Chadian workers in Libya - with the Tombalbaye
regime.28 The border issue was not discussed.
Once the Idris monarchy had been overthrown Gaddafi addressed him-
self to the Chadian question. Atfirsthe was circumspect, offering arms and
funds to Frolinat but unwilling to become involved in direct confrontation
with the Tombalbaye government. Frolinat's new chief, the successor to
Abatcha, was Dr Abba Seddik who had both a European and a traditional
Muslim education and who was bitterly hostile to the non-Muslim neocolonial
black power in the south of Chad. Some observers saw Seddik as a more
conservative figure than Abatcha: he had been friendly with Idris and
seemed to favour a campaign of national liberation rather than a bloody war
of liberation. This seemed to suit Gaddafi who initially had no interest in
being drawn into a war beyond his borders, nor in seeing the establishment
of a robust Tebu force in the Aouzou Strip that would be sure to oppose
Libyan claims on the area.
When divisions emerged in the liberation organisation Gaddafi backed
Seddik. A Second Liberation Army (the Forces des Arm6es du Nord, FAN)
had been formed by the Derde's son, Goukouni Ouaddai, and this now
challenged Seddik's leadership of the Frolinat movement. Gaddafi responded
by clapping Ouaddai in jail but this only made matters worse. When
Ouaddai was eventually released in October 1972, a reorganised FAN (now
the Conseil de Commandant des Forces des Armees du Nord, CCFAN)
came under the sway of Hissene Habre who was to emerge as an implacable
enemy of Gaddafi. As relations between Gaddafi and Tombalbaye deterio-
rated further, Tripoli moved to offer Frolinat enhanced facilities: Seddik
himself was provided with an office and communication facilities, and
Frolinat was offered official recognition. Tombalbaye responded immedi-
ately by declaring that he would give similar facilities to the forces planning
the overthrow of Gaddafi (the 1972 Sanussi plot to overthrow the Libyan
government showed that the threat was not empty). However, the President
of Nigeria, Hamami Diori, then came to serve as an intermediary between
the two countries: negotiations took place and the threat of war was averted.
In fact at that time Libya and Chad achieved an unexpected accommoda-
tion. On 12 April 1972 it was declared that both countries were resuming
diplomatic relations; the Frolinat leadership was expelled from Tripoli, and
Chad broke all its links with Israel, including the presence in its territory
of Israeli military advisors. The principle of a Chadian/Libyan 'zone of
solidarity' was incorporated in a formal treaty signed on 23 December 1972
in Tripoli. In 1973, under cover of the treaty, Libyan troops moved into
the Aouzou Strip and they have been there ever since. To sweeten what
may have seemed a bitter pill to Tombalbaye, Libya announced in March
1974 the creation of a joint bank to provide the Chadian regime with
investment funds. However, it has been suggested that the promised funds
never materialised and Gaddafi's support for Frolinat continued.29
The Libyan/Chad accommodations, whatever their character, became
seriously threatened with the fall of Tombalbaye on 13 April 1975. He was
deposed by a military group, led by General Felix Malloum, that called
itself the Conseil Superieur Militaire: the new junta, with French backing,
had no interest in agreeing Gaddafi's claim to the Aouzou Strip. The Libyan
Foreign Secretary, Dr Ali Treiki, visited Ndjamena for discussions with
Malloum who prefened to seek a negotiated settlement with all the inter-
ested parties (Seddik and Habre included) rather than simply agreeing to
Tripoli's demands. A confrontation between a Habre force and Libyan
troops in northern Chad in June 1976 indicated the shape of things to come.
In the same year a Libyan-backed coup attempt failed to topple General
Malloum.
There now developed a nationwide civil war between the Malloum
regime established in the south and the Frolinat forces, backed by Libya, in
the north. By 1978 it was clear that the superior Libyan-supplied fire-power
was having its effect: Faya Largeau, the largest town in northern Chad, was
liberated by Frolinat, and by that time almost half the Chadian army had
been lost in the fighting. But not all the Frolinat factions were enthusiastic
about the growing Libyan influence in Chad: for instance, Goukouni Ouaddai,
now head of FAN, even proposed to Malloum 'a national truce to confront
the Libyan occupation' .30 Such an arrangement never transpired and Gaddafi
was content to assume the role of peacemaker between the contending
factions.
In March 1978 he persuaded Frolinat and the Malloum government to
sign an armistice that entitled Frolinat troops to travel through Chad to
'check on the presence of foreign troops', allowing the liberation forces
to ascertain any residual colonial presence.31 Malloum was forced to agree
a range of concessions that effectively institutionalised Libyan intervention
in Chad. Thus Gaddafi was able in July 1978 to divide Chad across the
14th Parallel into Libyan and French zones of influence. Gaddafi com-
mented to the French: 'If you give me the Muslims in the north, I will give
you the blacks in the south.'32 Habre remained unhappy about the deal and
broke away from Frolinat to develop his own faction, which led before
long to a coalition between Malloum and Habre's FAN. This union, which
Gaddafi called 'colonial and Fascist', did not last long.
Malloum, contrary to the negotiated agreement, had not renounced all
his military ties with France and this gave Ouaddai the excuse to launch a
further onslaught on the south. A further Libyan-sponsored peace confer-
ence never took place, and Gaddafi was soon forced to give fresh support to
the Frolinat faction. Malloum again invoked the defence agreement with
France and the French seized the chance to intervene yet again in the
Chadian conflict. French airforce Jaguar bombers attacked Frolinat forces
advancing towards the Chadian capital and the offensive was stopped.
Goukouni Ouaddai split from the commander of the main Frolinat army,
Ahmed Acyl, and a new power struggle developed in the movement. A
Third Liberation Army, this time backed by Nigeria, entered upon the scene
under the leadership of Abu Bakr Abdul Rahman; and at the same time
there were splits in the Sara factions in the south, hampering Malloum's
capacity to exploit the growing divisions within Frolinat.
In March 1979 Frolinat forces marched south and managed to take
Ndjamena. Ouaddai became provisional President of Chad and tried ini-
tially to rule in conjunction with Habr6 but this alliance crumbled and yet
another civil war began. With Ouaddai's position becoming increasingly
insecure he desperately requested Libyan assistance, the sort of invitation
that Gaddafi had been waiting for. Seven thousand Libyan troops attacked
Habr6 in the south and Gaddafi's Russian tanks travelled across 700 miles
of desert to crush pockets of resistance in Ndjamena. Gaddafi had won his
first significant military victory. Habre fled to Cameroon and the French,
who had always assumed their right to a continuing influence in Chad,
were humiliated. Moreover, Gaddafi could always claim that he had been
invited into Chad by the provisional president.
In addition to the 7000 regular Libyan troops a further 7000 members
of the Islamic Legion took part in the fighting. There were some serious
Libyan losses but the remnants of Habre's 4000-man army were forced to
flee to Sudan. The Islamic Legion continued to attack the fleeing forces in
Sudan until President Sadat threatened that 'if one Libyan soldier enters
Sudan, Egypt will act with its own forces'. In March 1981 Gaddafi com-
mented from Tripoli: 'We have no wish to send our troops beyond Chad.
We are bringing all confrontations to an end, including the one with Sadat's
army.'33 For the first time Gaddafi appeared to have tightened his grip on
the whole of Chad; his victory would prove to be short-lived.
In 1981 Gaddafi was again looking to the possibility of merging two
independent nations, with strong hints that Ouaddai would be executed if he
refused to comply. The possibility of merger aroused honor in Chad, and
Habre redoubled his efforts to organise a military force strong enough to
expel the Libyans. Gaddafi again attracted international criticism and
abuse, Libyan officials were expelled from many African countries, and
the Organisation of African Unity (OAU) - seeing the Libyan plans as an
unwelcome Arab penetration of the continent - condemned the proposed
merger. Ouaddai declared from Paris that Libya and Chad would remain
two separate countries and then, having asked the Libyans to enter his
country, asked them to leave. Gaddafi, now being criticised by the OAU
for imperialism and perceiving that Ouaddai was gaining considerable
international support, abruptly pulled out of Chad in October 1981. An
African peace-keeping force moved in but soon the country was again
involved in civil war. This time Habre was backed by France and the United
States: he moved back into Chad from Sudan, drove Ouaddai out of
Ndjamena, and became president. Ouaddai was forced to flee to Cameroon,
and Chad settled down to a brief period of peace. Then Ouaddai managed
to raise support among the northern tribes and what has been called the
'Third Civil War' began.
This time the United States decided to become involved, sending two
AWAC planes and eight F-l 5s to monitor and control Libyan air activities,
and supplying also $10 million in other types of military aid. France, for the
third time, sent troops and aircraft to Ndjamena. Habr6 was rescued and
flown out on a Red Cross plane, just before Ouaddai and the Libyans
captured the area on 11 August 1983. The French troops drew their own
'Red Line' across Chad, effectively dividing the country: Habre controlled
all the territory to the south, under French and US protection; and Ouaddai
controlled everything to the north, helped by the Libyans. Gaddafi consist-
ently denied that his forces were in Chad, despite photographic and eye-
witness evidence that they were. The US aircraft carrier Coral Sea had been
despatched to join the Eisenhower off the Libyan coast; despite the French
involvement in the conflict they were still able to suggest that Reagan was
'obsessed' by Gaddafi.
The stalemate lasted for a year. There were three thousand French troops
and a full squadron of Jaguar aircraft at Ndjamena while Libyan troops were
established at Faya Largeau. The OAU tried to mediate in Addis Adaba in
January 1984 but the attempt collapsed when both sides insisted on their
right to fly the Chadian flag. Meanwhile secret talks were being conducted
between the Libyan and the French, leading to an agreement in September
1984 (to many Chadians, the 'great betrayal') that both sides would with-
draw their troops. Against the wishes of Habre the French withdrew their
troops from the south but Gaddafi's 'non-existent' army stayed entrenched
in the north (the US State Department claimed that there were still 5500
Libyan troops in Chad). Faya Largeau continued to fly the Libya flag and
was recognised in the mid-1980s as a part of greater Libya. On 16 November
President Mittenand met Gaddafi in Crete, with the Greek prime minister
Papandreou serving as a mediator. Here Gaddafi repeatedly declared that all
Libyan troops had been withdrawn; the next day Mittenand admitted in Paris
that Gaddafi had lied to him but declined to order French troops back to
Chad. The country then enjoyed two years of peace, during which time the
French and the US were building up Habre's forces and the Libyans were
constructing roads and airbases in southern Libya and northern Chad. It did
not take long to prepare the ground for the 'Fourth Civil War'.
It began, according to Western commentators, with an attack in February
1986 by Ouaddai and his Libyan allies across the 'Red Line'. French
aircraft were soon in action and the attack was beaten back. A further
stalemate was established until Ouaddai took the unexpected initiative of
proposing a peace with Habre. Ouaddai, apparently seen by the Libyans as
betraying their cause, shot and wounded him in Tripoli on 30 October while
he was 'resisting arrest'. This led to the Tebu changing sides and inviting
Habre to come to their rescue: he began mobilising his forces and moving
north. On 11 December Libyan jets flew south to attack Ndjamena and a
month later French aircraft struck at a Libyan airbase in Northern Chad. On
2 January Habre launched a ground attack, using four-wheel-drive trucks
mounted with heavy machine-guns or anti-tank guns. They were supported
by troops loyal to Ouaddai using Libyan weapons that they had brought
with them when they changed sides. Habre succeeded in capturing six
Italian anti-aircraft guns and dozens of Soviet T-55 tanks from the Libyans;
armoured Libyan columns were ambushed and Habr6 claimed to have
killed 800 Libyans in two major encounters. Libyan enclaves were success-
fully attacked and captured. The French and the Americans provided mas-
sive quantities of arms for the offensive, and the French provided also
logistical support, transporting weapons and munitions up to the northern
front.
As many as 1200 Libyans were killed at Faya, the Chadians taking them
completely by surprise, and an immense quantity of booty was captured,
including scores of Tupolev fighter-bombers, MiG-21s, helicopters, three
Soviet SAM 13 batteries, Soviet Radar, and more than one hundred tanks.
One estimate was that this booty was worth between $500 million and $1
billion. By the end of March it was claimed that 3603 Libyans had been
killed and 1165 wounded, with losses of thirty-five Chadians. It was found
that many of the dead and captured 'Libyans' were in fact mercenaries:
Sudanese, and 1700 Druse militiamen from Lebanon, hired out by Walid
Jumblatt at a monthly rate of $500 to $2300, their families assured of
$50,000 if they were killed.34 Habre then proceeded to expel the Libyans
from the rest of the country. In June 1987 he visited President Reagan in
Washington and was promised $32 million in aid, including Stinger anti-
aircraft missiles in exchange for a selection of the captured Soviet military
equipment, of much interest to US specialists.
In August, Habre succeeded in driving the Libyans out of the Aouzou
Strip but the Chadian occupation of this area could not be sustained. The
French had refused to provide air cover and the fresh confrontation was too
far from Habre's own bases. The Libyans retook the Strip and flew foreign
journalists to the region to demonstrate their success. But this again was
swiftly countered when Habre sent a column more than sixty miles into
Libyan territory to destroy the major Libyan airbase at Matan as-Sarra. The
Chadians claimed a further 1700 Libyan fatalities and 312 prisoners while
losing sixty-five of their own men. The OAU managed to organise a
ceasefire for 11 September 1987 but not before Gaddafi had lost, according
to US estimates, one-tenth of his army, 7500 men killed, and around $1.5
billion in equipment destroyed or captured.35
This was not the end of the matter. Both sides again began preparations
for war, with the Libyans building fresh airbases and military installations
in the Strip and Habre taking delivery of his US-supplied Stinger missiles
and continuing to benefit from annual French aid amounting to around $70
million. The French, despite some earlier assurances, continued to maintain
troops in Chad and a squadron of Jaguars was maintained at Ndjamena. At
an OAU conference in May 1988 Gaddafi announced that he would recog-

nise Habre as the legitimate president of Chad, 'as a gift to Africa', but said
nothing about evacuating the Aouzou Strip. Habre, for his part, declared
that he would not return an estimated 2000 Libyan prisoners-of-war, or send
the French forces home, until Gaddafi had vacated the Strip. In August 1989
Libya and Chad signed a peace agreement and a number of meetings of the
Libya/Chad Commission were subsequently convened to discuss the Strip
and the question of Libyan prisoners-of-war, though deadlock has always
resulted. The meetings were also overshadowed by periodic outbreaks of
violence between government forces and pro-Gaddafi rebels entrenched in
Sudan's Durfar Province. On 27 March 1990 Chad's foreign minister
Sheikh Ibn Oumar declared to the BBC conespondent Brice Ndoumba that
Libya was using the rebels to destabilise his country. Fresh incidents in-
volved military clashes and the stopping of ten Libyan lorries travelling
between Libya and Sudan. In May Libya called on the UN Security Council
to intervene to settle the dispute.
At the beginning of 1991 President Habre was deposed by the Libyan-
backed Idris Deby, according to one journalist, 'a leader satisfactory to
all' ,36 Deby, a French-trained officer, was quick to pledge friendship to both
Libya and France, and to announce democratic reforms. However, Habre
had managed to escape into Niger with 3000 to 4000 of his troops intact,
and in early January 1992 he returned to the country in force and captured
two towns on Lake Chad. Now, it seems, the French are protecting Chad
against Habre: the 1400 French troops in the country were supplemented
in early 1992 by 450 more sent from France and bases elsewhere in Africa.
The French foreign ministry declared that the troops were there to protect
the 3000 French nationals in the country, but soldiers have still been
deployed to key installations. France has also expressed support for Deby's
democratic reform programme and is seemingly not keen to see a Habre
return. In late 1991 there was a further coup attempt against Deby, so
perhaps he too will be submerged by the quagmire of Chadian politics. In
1992 the French continued to support the Deby administration, with French
officers assigned to help the Chadian armed forces. Colonel Gaddafi, across
the border, was keeping a low profile.
SUDAN
Sudan is of cunent interest because it remains the target of Gaddafi's

unification plans and because it has been alarmed at Libyan incursions
into Chad. The Sudan's western regions of northern and southern Darfur,
bordering Libya and Chad, were included within the territory of Sudan
according to a 1919 agreement. Darfur is a poverty-stricken area remote
from Khartoum; social deprivation often led to protest which had to be
suppressed by government forces. A revolt in January 1981 was not origin-
ally blamed on Gaddafi, though the area, the least developed region of
Sudan's Muslim north, seemed to invite the attention of the Bureau for the
Export of the Revolution. Throughout 1981 President Numeiri and Gaddafi
traded insults, each saying that the other deserved to be put to death by his
own people; and the Sudan was one of the African countries working
hardest to get Libyan forces out of Chad. On one occasion Gaddafi sent a
plane to bomb Khartoum, never forgetting that Darfur would serve as an
excellent springboard for operations against Chad.37
In 1975 Libya hired mercenaries to attempt a coup in Sudan; the attempt
was brutally crushed, with almost one hundred people summarily executed.
Numeiri became increasingly autocratic, imposing the sharia with great
severity and growing increasingly unwilling to compromise on what he
took to be Islamic principle: adulterers were stoned to death, thieves had
hands and feet amputated, and all alcohol (even that intended for medical
uses in hospitals) was banned. Tensions in the country began a civil war in
1983, fomented in part by the Sudan People's Liberation Army led by
Colonel John Garang, a US-educated Christian Dinka. At the same time the
United States poured in aid ($77.4 million in 1989 and much more in
military assistance) to ensure the loyalty of the country. Earlier, in 1985, the
US, Britain, West Germany and Saudi Arabia had all suspended aid because
of the drastic need for reforms in the country; and when President Reagan
resumed aid, no reforms having been put in place, in 1985 it was too late.
There were riots, mass demonstrations and a general strike: the army staged
a coup on 6 April, whereupon the new government quickly resumed diplo-
matic relations with Libya. Today Sudan accepts large-scale aid from
Libya, though this is not always welcome: the suspicion prevails that
Gaddafi wants to annex Sudan and even a small incident - such as a
confrontation between Libyan and Sudanese troops on the border - can
spark riots against the Libyans. After the 1985 coup the army staged
elections in April 1986 and power was won by the Umma Party under
Saddiq el-Mahdi, the great-grandson of the Mahdi.
Conflict has continued between the new government and Garang's SPLA.
In December 1987 the government forces claimed to have killed more than
3000 rebels, but Garang's army has been estimated as having up to 30,000
men and he has greatly extended his power base beyond the Dinka tribe.
The Sudanese army ventures out of secure garrisons to attack the SPLA and
in such unsettled circumstances the Sudan exists in a state of chaos (in 1988
more than three million people were dying of starvation). The government
had little regard for human rights and it has been charged with deliberately
starving whole sections of the rural population. The United States, ever
mindful of the needs of realpolitik, has refrained from criticising the abuses
emanating from Khartoum for fear of pushing Mahdi into the arms of
Gaddafi; but the Washington ploy has failed in its purpose. In recent years
the Sudanese government has been happy to grow closer to Libya. In 1988
Mahdi visited Libya and signed an agreement for the merging of the two
countries: again it seemed that Gaddafi's perennial dream for an enlarge-
ment of the country, with a view to the ultimate unification of the Arab
world, was at last being realised.
However, the Sudanese army could not tolerate a union with Libya. The
economy continued to worsen, the war dragged on, the famine in the south
persisted, and on 30 June 1988 the army again took power. The coup was
overtly welcomed by Egypt and covertly by Britain and the United States,
none of which wanted to see an enlarged Libya. In February 1989 the US
State Department commented that between 100,000 and 250,000 people
had starved to death in southern Sudan, 'after elements of the armed forces
on each side interfered or failed to cooperate with efforts to deliver food
supplies to regions controlled by the other side'.38 However, none of this
was enough to totally disrupt Gaddafi's plans for a merger between the two
countries. The unification steps taken by Mahdi were not wholly repugnant
to Sudan's new military ruler, Omar Hassan al-Bashir, despite the earlier
position of the army.
On 6 March 1990 Bashir and Gaddafi signed an agreement for a com-
plete merger of the two countries within four years; the plan provided for a
complete integration of their political, economic, social, defence and for-
eign policies, with a supreme authority vested in the two heads of state, a
general secretariat and a ministerial body. Joint authorities would be created
in such areas as foreign affairs, finance, labour, energy and mining; and the
armed forces would have a joint High Command. By 1992 the scheme had
developed further and the intention of full integration of the two countries
was still on the agenda.
WESTERN SAHARA
One effect of the Second World War was to destabilise all the colonial
territories of North Africa. The Algerian National Liberation Front (FLN)
began its war against the French occupation in November 1954, and in
Morocco an Army of Liberation started operations to achieve an independ-
ent republican state. The French removed the sultan of Morocco, Moham-
med V, in August 1953 and installed a new compliant monarch. However,
following the country's rapid descent into chaos the French, wanting to
concentrate on Algeria, gave Morocco and Tunisia their independence.
Spain too was forced to abandon its territory in Morocco, leaving the north
immediately and agreeing to vacate the south as soon as an independent
Morocco could take over. Under attack by the Army of Liberation the
Spanish were then pushed out of Ifni, Spanish Sahara and Spanish South
Morocco (though the Spanish army later returned to a small strip around
the village of Sidi Ifni).
The Army of Liberation was perceived as a threat to the Moroccan
monarchy, as it was to the local interests of Spain and France. After an
Army attack on French positions in Algeria and Mauritania, France launched
Operation Hurricane to crush bases of the Army of Liberation in Mauritania
and the Spanish Sahara. Spain, with this military support from France,
found that it could retain part of Spanish Sahara, though when Mauritania
gained its independence in 1960 both Mauritania and Morocco laid claim to
the Spanish Sahara. Morocco's claim to this region was first declared in
1974, by which time an anti-colonial movement had been created by student
Saharawis influenced by the radical Arabs. These students from Moroccan
schools and universities founded the Polisario Front in 1972 (the Frente
Popular para la Liberation de Saguia el-Hamra y Rio de Oro, the Saguia
el-Hamra a river in the north of Spanish Sahara, Rio de Oro the southern
area). Polisario began its guerrilla war in 1973, supplied with arms by
Gaddafi.
The Americans and the French opposed Polisario on principle because
of its leftist leanings but the Spanish, still under Franco, decided that it
could work with the Polisario Front. The United Nations sent representa-
tives to Spanish Sahara and were everywhere greeted with demonstrations
in support of Polisario. On 15 October 1975 the UN mission declared that
most of the people of Spanish Sahara were in favour of independence; it
was clear also that Polisario would be the people's choice for the new
administration. On 16 October the International Court of Justice ruled that
no 'tie of territorial sovereignty' existed between the territory of Western
Sahara 'and the Kingdom of Morocco or the Mauritanian entity'. King
Hassan of Morocco decided to ignore the judicial ruling and was supported
in this by France and the United States. Spain severed all links with
Polisario, began talks with Hassan on 21 October, and a week later began
leaving the territory (even to the point of removing a thousand bodies from
the Spanish cemetery at Villa Cisneros): soon the Moroccan army and
Polisario units were fighting each other for control of the region. Some
40,000 Saharawis fled their homes while Morocco and Mauritania divided
up the territory between them.
The military wing of Polisario (the Saharawi People's Liberation Army,
SPLA) continued to fight against what it saw as an illicit occupation of its
land, and it now enjoyed the support of Algeria and Libya. El-Ouali Mustapha
Sayed, the founder and secretary-general of Polisario, was killed in a raid on
the Mauritanian capital in June 1976. He was succeeded by Mohammed
Abdel Aziz who, in the early 1990s, was still Polisario's secretary-general.
Through the 1980s the SPLA won a number of important victories against
Morocco but was unable to erode Morocco's position in the OAU or the
United Nations because of the position of the Western powers. Most of the
Arab states, out of a sense of ethnic solidarity, also supported Morocco.
Gaddafi vacillated: having opposed Morocco, he then swung round and
signed a unification treaty with Hassan, only to swing the other way two
years later.
In August 1988 UN Secretary-General Perez de Cuellar proposed a truce
between the SPLA and Morocco, to be followed by a plebiscite in the
Western Sahara; and on 27 December Hassan, reversing his 13-year-long
policy, declared his willingness to talk to the Polisario Front. In 1992 the
United Nations was still trying to establish the terms of the proposed
referendum. The Polisario Front has accused the Moroccans of trying to
gerrymander the result by artificially inflating the pro-Moroccan vote.
Today the problem still sits on the desk of UN Secretary-General Boutros
Ghali. Gaddafi, having dumped Polisario in 1984 and then taken up the
cause again in 1986, is saying little.
PHILIPPINES
The Muslims in the Philippines, though racially indistinguishable from the

Filipino Christians, are known as the Moros (from 'Moors'). They live
mainly in the southern islands, Mindanao and the Sulu archipelago. They
never accepted the rule of the colonial Spanish but during the American
period Mindanao and Sulu were brought firmly under Manila's control. The
authorities, with American support, have encouraged landless peasants
from Luzon to settle in the southern islands, with the result that there are
now fewer Muslims than Christians in Mindanao. The principal Moro
grievance is that they fear being submerged by the Christian influx, their
land taken and their rights ignored. In 1968 a group of Moros, inspired by
Muslim nationalism in Indonesia and Malaysia, founded the Moro National

Liberation Front (MNLF). In the early 1970s they began looking to Arab
states - including Libya - for moral and practical support. The MNLF has
launched tenorist attacks and on occasions full-scale military operations in
an attempt to secure the independence of the Muslim provinces. The Moros
have claimed that ten per cent of the Filipino population of 50 million is
Muslim (President Marcos used to declare that the Muslim proportion was
much less). The Islamic Conference has shown interest in the rights of the
Moros, though it seems that Gaddafi has been the main supplier of arms and
funds. By 1974 the MNLF was able to put between 50,000 and 60,000
guerrillas into the field, with arms from Libya pouring in via Malaysia. An
embargo on Arab oil was also threatened.
By 1977 the guerrilla war was occupying two-thirds of the army's
combat units, and no end seemed in sight. Marcos decided to sign the
'Tripoli Agreement', granting the Moros a measure of independence. This
satisfied much of the MNLF leadership but a hardline faction, led by Nur
Misauri, continued to demand complete autonomy for Mindanao, Sulu,
Basilan and Palawan, as much as a third of the national territory of the
Philippines (Misauri has claimed that throughout the 1980s some 100,000
Moros were killed). In 1976 President Marcos, believing that Gaddafi was
the main supporter of the MNLF, decided to send his wife Imelda to Libya
'to charm' Gaddafi into helping to find a solution to the Moro problem.39
Talks were launched between Philippine government representatives, Nur
Misauri, and envoys from the Islamic Conference, leading to the signing of
a 'preliminary' accord on 30 December 1976.
The Moros were nominally given their own institutions, including a
representative assembly and Muslim courts, but these would remain under
the control of Manila. It was declared that the various parties to the agree-
ment would return to Libya to sign a final document in early 1977 while a
commission - comprising MNLF and Philippine representatives and a four-
man committee from Libya, Somalia, Senegal and Saudi Arabia - was
delegated to control the cease-fire. However, on 4 January the Philippine
government announced that a referendum would be held in the southern
provinces to ascertain which wanted to be autonomous; other areas could
have their own referenda, so diluting the Muslim character of the south.
Gaddafi did not like the sound of this, and the MNLF flatly rejected the idea
of a referendum. To sweeten the pill Marcos promised a conditional am-
nesty for Muslim rebels in the south and then promulgated new laws for a
Muslim court system. The fresh talks in Tripoli collapsed, the Marcos
envoy returned to Manila, and the MNLF threatened to resume hostilities;
by now the Moros were demanding their own flag, their own army, and the
incorporation of three Christian provinces (offering offshore oil and good

farmland) into the Muslim area. On 7 March 1977 fighting resumed be-
tween the MNLF and government forces whereupon Imelda Marcos was
sent back to Tripoli. In one account the chemistry between Imelda and
Gaddafi 'evidently worked, because Gaddafi stopped funding the Moros
after Imelda's second visit'.40 The head of the CIA, William Casey, visited
Imelda Marcos to debrief her.
Gaddafi then offered a fresh peace plan involving the granting of a new
autonomous area and a provisional administration to monitor the referen-
dum (still rejected by the MNLF). He suggested to President Marcos that
such an agreement would 'open a new page in the relations between the
Philippines and the Islamic States'; and in a marathon television and phone-
in broadcast on 29 March Marcos declared that Christians would pre-
dominate in the provisional administration, that it would be subordinate
to the martial-law regime, and that Gaddafi would persuade the MNLF to
accept the plan. In fact Misauri, in exile in Tripoli, stated that he disap-
proved of the entire scheme. When the referendum was held it was claimed
that 97.93 per cent of votes were against autonomy under MNLF rule,
though perhaps such a figure should be viewed with some circumspection.
Subsequent talks in Manila broke down, the Islamic Conference condemned
the role that Marcos had played, and Misauri declared that now the MNLF
would battle for complete independence.
However, the MNLF then split into two (and later three) factions. Misauri,
still with Libyan support, stayed in Tripoli; his aide, Hashim Salamat, began
separate MNLF activities in Cairo; and later a third group of Moro exiles
enjoyed congenial asylum in Saudi Arabia. King Hassan of Morocco then
stepped in to say that he would help in any way he could, while Gaddafi,
perceiving that the whole situation was becoming unmanageable, decided
to opt out. He was further discouraged by reports that the Moros had
become associated in the early 1980s with the Maoist New People's Army,
a branch of the banned Philippines Communist Party (PKP). Gaddafi has
never welcomed the contamination of Muslim movement by atheistic
communism.
When President Aquino took power in 1986 she quickly ananged a truce
with the MNLF and persuaded Nur Misauri to return to the Philippines. A
new constitution was drawn up in 1987 to offer a degree of autonomy for
the Moros in Mindanao, but the new scheme was never implemented.
Manila has exploited divisions in the MNLF, offering political posts and
other jobs to Moro leaders and so exacerbating splits in the movement. The
Libyan-backed dream of an independent unified Muslim state in the south-
ern provinces of the Philippines is dead.
IRISH REPUBLICAN ARMY (IRA)
Gaddafi's support for the IRA began more than two decades ago. In 1970,
at a meeting with Nasser and Mohammed Heikal, Gaddafi declared that he
had decided to help the IRA in order to fight British colonialism. At that
time Heikal protested that the IRA was not a genuine liberation movement,
but Gaddafi was not convinced.41 In June 1972 he gave a speech declaring
his support for the 'revolutionaries of Ireland who oppose Britain and are
motivated by nationalism and religion'. Here Gaddafi was keen to advertise
his 'pan-religious' philosophy, proud of his capacity to support committed
theists even though they were not Moslems: any religion, in his view, is
better than none at all. In August, two members of the Provisional IRA flew
to Warsaw to meet a representative of Libya's Foreign Ministry, and Ed
Moloney of the Irish Times later described the 'quite extraordinary' deal
that was agreed. The Libyans suggested that the IRA representatives be
established on a permanent basis in Tripoli with semi-diplomatic status; and
at the same time substantial economic aid was promised. In due course three
IRA people went to Tripoli in the guise of English teachers.42 In January
1973 the new 'diplomats' began the negotiations that were to yield the
Claudia gun-running fiasco.
In March 1973 the Irish navy halted a fishing vessel, the SS Claudia, off
the south-east coast of Ireland. When the ship was searched the authorities
found rifles, other small arms, and anti-tank weapons, along with Joe
Cahill, a leading IRA figure later sentenced to three years' penal servitude
but released because of ill health. According to a German businessman, the
middle man in the deal, three IRA men in Tripoli had made the necessary
arrangements but the deal had not worked out: 95 tons of arms out of the
planned 100 tons had gone missing. Also, as the Claudia approached
Ireland, Gaddafi invited the IRA men in Tripoli to broadcast their revolu-
tionary message on the radio, an act of bravado that probably alerted the
British and Irish authorities.
On an earlier occasion a freelance arms dealer flew a batch of arms from
Libya to Ireland. He landed his plane on a small remote airfield where the
guns were unloaded. Then, against the advice of his colleagues, he took off
with the intention of flying to the United States. His plane disappeared over
the Atlantic and it is assumed that he ran out of fuel and crashed.43 In 1986
a large cache of Libyan arms was found in the Republic of Ireland; and in
1988 the French navy intercepted a Panamanian ship, the Eksund, carrying
a cargo of 150 tons of Libyan arms for the IRA; this cargo included surface-
to-air missiles, Kalashnikov rifles, and large quantities of explosives. How-
ever, despite such evidence it has been suggested that Libyan aid for the
IRA had been relatively small in scale.
After the Claudia episode Gaddafi seems to have halted the bulk of his
attempted arms shipments to Ireland and to have confined himself to his
much-declared 'moral and political' support for the IRA. A senior officer in
Scotland Yard's anti-tenorist squad had commented that Libyan support for
the IRA has been 'very minor indeed. It can be counted in the thousands
of pounds, but certainly not in hundreds of thousands and any talk of
millions of dollars is ludicrous.'44 Noraid, the US group supporting the IRA,
has contributed very much more than Libya over the years.
Members of the Ulster Defence Association (UDA) also visited Libya in
an effort to gain support of one kind or another. They achieved little but
claim to have opened the Libyans' eyes as to the real nature of the IRA ('We
told them . . . that the Provos weren't just shooting military targets, but
ordinary Protestant people as well').45 The IRA itself sent some young
recruits to Libyan training camps but was uneasy about links with what was
seen as a fundamentalist Moslem country that was at the time building up
its Moscow connection. It appears that the Libyan supply of arms dried up,
and even when equipment arrived there were often problems: one batch
of Libyan rocket launchers arrived with detailed instructions printed in
Arabic. There was also the matter of interpreting arms finds accurately:
Libyan arms found in Eire or Northern Ireland may not have been sent by
the Libyans but may have come from the illegal gun markets of the world.
However, there can be no doubt that Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher
was ready to support Ronald Reagan's bombing of Libya in 1986 because
of Gaddafi's oft-stated support for the IRA.
There are many signs that Gaddafi has moderated his attitudes in recent
years. When Donald Trelford, editor of The Observer, visited Gaddafi in
1987, soon after the American air strikes, Gaddafi declared that he had
increased aid to the IRA as a means of retaliating against Britain. But in
1992 the tone was completely different: 'The IRA commit acts that we
consider to be tenorist and we do not approve of them. We give political
support to Sinn Fein, but nothing to the IRA.'46 Some observers may see
this as a specious distinction but there are other signs that Gaddafi has
changed his views (see below).
LIBYA TODAY
The most important features of modern Libya are oil and Gaddafi. In an oil-
hungry world it is impossible to relegate Libya, with its prodigious oil
resources, to the margins of the world economy. For almost two decades the
United States has maintained a tight economic squeeze on Libya but has not
been able to prevent other Western states from purchasing Libyan oil.
Libya's economic survival is as much guaranteed by the perceived self-
interest of certain developed countries as by any policies that may be
adopted by its revolutionary leadership. Oil has enabled Libya to fund
social reconstruction, to buy weapons on a massive scale, and to finance
tenorists and revolutionary groups throughout the world. Libya remains
dependent on foreign companies and foreign labour (5500 specialists from
Britain alone) and there is no sign that it will achieve the desired levels
of self-sufficiency in the short or medium term.
The development of the Libyan economy, dependent to a large extent on
foreign goodwill, necessarily impacts on Libyan foreign policy. Relations
are cultivated - as far as international political pressures will allow - with
states deemed important to Libyan investment and growth. Hundreds of
Westernfirmshave contracts for projects in Libya, from irrigation schemes
to construction, from oil-product development to the building of commun-
ication networks. Thus in 1991 the Swedish company Ericsson agreed
terms for building a 30,000-line communication network for the Murzuk
region. The Libyan market, as a well-situated hydrocarbon society, is an
attractive prospect for foreign contractors, though it appears that payments
for work are sometimes delayed when disputes arise. An outstanding claim
for payment by the Turkish Libas company which carried out $700 million
of construction work in Libya has recently been settled and outstanding
payments will be made; but in late 1991 the Yugoslav companies Hidrgardnja
and Unioninvest were still waiting for advance payments, due within one
month of signature, on contracts signed in 1990 for irrigation work. The
Spanish firms Watt, Fenovial, Cisa and Agroman completed their work in
1986, and expect to receive outstanding payments in 1992. The settlement
follows the decision of the Spanish government to allow the Libyan sub-
sidiary, Oilinvest Espana, to invest $10 million in building a network of
petrol and service stations in Spain.47
Libya remains massively dependent on foreign contractors, foreign tech-
nicians and foreign labour for all large-scale development in the country.
Dozens of firms are involved in the Great Man-made River Project (GMR)
and the complexity of this vast scheme means that there are frequent
difficulties and delays to be overcome. Thus in 1992 a dispute between the
GMR authority and the Brazilian firm Braspetro was refened to the Paris-
based International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) for arbitration. In this
case filters supplied by the Brazilian company broke down, allowing con-
tamination of the water: so far it has been found that seventy-six wells, out
of 126 drilled in the Safir area, will have to be repaired or rebuilt.
However, occasional delays in payment and other contractual disputes
appear not to discourage foreign contractors seeking work in Libya. For
example, contractors are cunently discussing irrigation and farm complexes
to be built in the Sirte and Benghazi areas; and many international com-
panies expect automatic renewal of contracts upon termination. Such eco-
nomic deals must be considered a vital part of Libya's foreign-policy
posture in the international trading community. In recent years a number of
European countries (Italy, Germany, France, Britain and Yugoslavia) have
been happy to increase their volume of imports (mainly oil) from Libya, and
others (Netherlands, Spain, Greece, Belgium, Austria and Switzerland)
have continued to take Libyan exports in substantial volumes. Libya itself
takes substantial imports from such countries as Italy, Germany, Britain,
France and Japan (Italy remains its principal trading partner, perhaps be-
cause of the indelible historical links between the two countries but mainly
because of their geographical proximity).
Libya's economic links with Europe (Table 7.1) may be seen as provid-
ing a basis for Gaddafi's evident attempts to improve his image in the
international community. Over the last two years he has entertained a range
of European dignitaries, considerably moderated his revolutionary rhetoric,
Table 7.1 Libya: Main Trading Partners, 1989-90 ($ million)
Exports Imports
1990 1989 1990 1989
Italy 4716 3072 1083 1150
Germany 2186 1622 748 679
Spain 1163 776 66 82
France 762 466 378 355
Turkey* 487 286 221 227
UK 281 186 437 392
Belgium/Lux.* 269 190 148 92
Austria* 262 152 76 60
*OECD figures.
Source: Middle East Economic Digest, 28 June 1991
and largely observed the protocols of international law, whatever the British
and the Americans may see (see Chapter One). In April 1991 Gaddafi held
talks in Tripoli with the French Foreign Minister Roland Dumas; and in
June with the Italian Prime Minister Giulio Andreotti. A foreign oil execu-
tive has been quoted as saying: 'It may not have the best press in the world,
but at the moment Libya is looking a more appealing business proposition
than Algeria.'48 On the occasion of the 1988 anniversary of the revolution
Gaddafi stated his own version of the economic liberalisation that was
sweeping the world. The impulse to nationalise all trade had disappeared:
local merchants would be allowed to import and export without restraint,
and the state's control over small-scale industrial enterprises would be
reduced. All this tokens a pragmatic accommodation to the prevailing
climate of world opinion.
A growing range of 'decadent' goods - French perfumes, Swiss watches
and Japanese electronic goods - are appearing in Libyan shops. Employee
partnerships are being formed for the first time in small commercial ven-
tures. In April 1988 the Executive Authority for Partnerships and Small
Industries was established to oversee the transfer of control of small state
enterprises to employees; today employees can buy shares in a company or
can obtain partnership loans. In theory it is now possible for mixed-sector
ventures to be created in all commercial areas, with the exception of the oil
and steel industries. One published source suggested that 292 small and
medium-size industrial ventures with total assets of $62 million had passed
into employee hands by 1991 in the Tripoli municipality alone.49 The state
continues to control the vast bulk of the economy, and members of the
revolutionary committees have protested at the modest economic reforms.
A recent article in the Libyan press, condemning consumerism and personal
wealth, was headed: 'Fancy villas with satellite dishes: time for the bull-
dozer.' The economic changes have however signalled Gaddafi's cautious
response to world changes that appear to have discredited massive state
involvement in national economies.
Gaddafi is also working to improve his relations with the rest of the Arab
world. In the past he has condemned President Mubarak as a Western
stooge, with Cairo an 'occupied capital' because of the presence of an
Israeli embassy. Today Gaddafi and Mubarak meet regularly with Gaddafi
seeking Egyptian protection from the extremes of US policy. Mubarak has
recently supported Gaddafi in the Libyan claims that the Rabta plant is a
pharmaceutical and not a chemical-weapons factory, and in Gaddafi's in-
sistence that Abu Nidal has never been in Libya. During the 1991 Gulf war,
in circumstances where Gaddafi might have been expected to adopt a
radical posture, it was significant that he chose to exert a moderating
influence: 'Unfortunately, by entering Kuwait, Iraq presented the region on
a plate to American imperialism.' A number of international observers have
been keen to emphasise what they see as an important shift of emphasis in
Gaddafi's attitudes to foreign relations. Such disparate Westminster MPs as
Tam Dalyell, Bernie Grant and Teddy Taylor have been impatient with a
British government determined to ignore the changes. And the French
Foreign Minister Roland Dumas has commented: 'Our position towards
Libya should be more positive'; and an Andreotti aide, commenting on the
June 1991 discussions, remarked that the talks 'are a turning point, which
should allow the start of conect relations with not only us but the whole of
Europe'.
Gaddafi has also made a number of conciliatory gestures to Britain and
the United States: all such approaches have been spurned. In May 1991 the
Libyan Foreign Minister Abrahim Mohammed Beshari declared (of Britain
and the US): 'They have their position, we have ours, but that should not
prevent the establishment of normal relations . . . in the framework of
mutual respect and non-interference in internal affairs.' In response a UK
Foreign and Commonwealth Office statement read: 'There cannot be any
improvement until there is convincing evidence that Libya has renounced
international tenorism, including support for the Irish Republican Army';
and the US State Department commented in June 1991 that 'We have not
seen any particular change. Libya is still supporting tenorism, destabilising
regimes and pursuing development of dangerous weapons systems. We will
need very strong signals before a review of relations can take place.'50
In mid-1991 Gaddafi also made apologies and conciliatory gestures for
the shooting of Woman Police Constable Yvonne Fletcher, after serious
demonstrations in London, from a window of Libya's embassy in 1984.51 A
number of concessions were made by the Libyans, including a cheque for
£250,000 sent to a police charity. Sir Teddy Taylor, who helped to secure
the Libyan concessions, remains convinced that news of the cheque was
'selectively leaked' in Britain to produce a negative response.52 The phrase
'Blood money' was used in many British newspapers, even though it was
Taylor and not Gaddafi who had suggested the possibility of a payment in
recompense. The upshot was that the Libyans were treated with 'discour-
tesy and contempt' and Gaddafi understandably declared that Britain and
the United States could 'go to hell'. Taylor subsequently released a copy of
the Libyan note, signed by Gaddafi that he had received:
With regard to relations with the IRA, and similar organisations, Libya
has frequently declared, and I herewith confirm, its condemnation of
tenorist activities whose victims are innocent people, and on this basis
Libya believes the so-called IRA is not worth (sic) for us to have any
contacts with, or to give it any support or backing. And that applies to
any organisation that uses tenorism as a means to further its aims.
The British government confirmed that there would be 'no response' to the
Libyan leader.53
After a visit of the British MP Bernie Grant to Libya in August 1991,
he and Sir Teddy Taylor issue a joint statement. It included the words:
Sir Teddy and I have both now visited Libya and had serious discussions
with senior figures in that country. I believe that they are serious in
having changed their position on a number of key issues, especially on
the matter of their past support for certain groups, and that progress
should now be made towards the restoration of diplomatic relations with
Libya. I note also that they have already shown a willingness to pay
compensation in relation to the death of WPC Fletcher.
Britain now appears to stand alone in Europe in its unwillingness to
work for change in its relationship with Libya. Numerous senior Euro-
pean politicians have now visited Libya and are in the process of taking
steps to bring Libya back into the community of nations. They recognise
that the situation in North Africa is of great importance for the future of
Europe, and in particular the question of immigration from the Magreb
countries has to be addressed. It is my view that Britain should not
isolate itself from Europe on this issue.
There can be little doubt that the Libyan position has changed in many
areas, though debate is still possible about the extent of the transformation.
Economic policy has discernibly shifted in the direction of liberalisation,
there is an evident move away from moral and practical help for dissident
groups throughout the world, and constructive steps have been through
discussion and real initiatives to improve relations with other countries.
It is equally clear that many countries have shown a willingness to
respond to the changed posture adopted by Colonel Gaddafi. There has been
an evident improvement in Libyan relations with a number of European
countries - notably, Italy and France (though the disputed bombing of the
UTA DC-10 over the Tenere desert has had, and continues to have, an
adverse impact); and it is obvious that relations with various Arab countries
have improved. There is still talk of a merger with Sudan, and Egypt is
emerging as a principal friend of Libya, though it is unlikely that Mubarak
would support Libya over the United States. Such developments suggest
that there is great scope for constructive dialogue with Gaddafi and the rest
of the Libyan leadership. Where this fails to take place it is clear that certain
nations are following their own hidden agenda, a set of priorities that are
never publicly expressed but which none-the-less come to shape the charac-
ter of political events. We can learn something of such covert political
pressures by considering the troubled history of relations between Libya
and the United States.
8 United States versus
Gaddafi
Why don't we give him AIDS.
George Shultz, US Secretary of State, 1986
THE US AND THE THIRD WORLD
The United States has long been accustomed to intervening in the Third
World for strategic or economic reasons. The celebrated Monroe Doctrine
was one of the clearest signs that the US considered itself entitled in the
nineteenth century to intervene in the world wherever its emerging hege-
mony would allow. The Monroe Doctrine was not the first overt expression
of this presumed right, nor was it the last; but it signalled a resolution that
weaker nations ignored at their peril. On 2 December 1823 President James
Monroe declared to the US Congress that the United States was to run the
western hemisphere, that interlopers from Europe had no right to 'extend
their system' to the New World. From the 1850s onward it was assumed
that the Monroe Doctrine entitled the United States to invade any country of
Latin America whenever it wished and for whatever reason. This principle
had a convenient simplicity and focus: it was to be refined and enlarged for
application many times in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries.
In 1962 Secretary of State Dean Rusk presented a State Department list,
'Instance of the Use of United States Armed Forces Abroad, 1798-1945', in
order to cite precedents for the use of military action against Cuba. The
following examples appear in the list:
1852-3 Argentina: marines landed and occupied parts of Buenos

Aires.
1853 Nicaragua: invasion to 'protect American lives and interests'.
1853-54 Japan: warships used to compel the opening of ports to the
US.
1853-54 Ryukyu and Bonin Islands: invasion to secure a coaling
concession.
310
United States versus Gaddafi 311
1854 Nicaragua: destruction of San Juan del Norte to avenge an
insult to the American Minister to Nicaragua.
1855 Uraguay: invasion to 'protect American interests'.
1859 China: invasion 'for the protection of American interests in
Shanghai'.
1860 Angola: invasion to 'protect American lives and property'.
1893 Hawaii: invasion to 'protect American lives and property'.
1894 Nicaragua: invasion to 'protect American interests'.
Thus by the time of the twentieth century the United States was a fully
fledged imperialist power, keen to use military forces to acquire or protect
overseas properties. Its presumed right to act in such a fashion was reiter-
ated many times, most famously by President Theodore Roosevelt in 1901:
'Speak softly and carry a big stick; you will go far.' In the nineteenth
century people throughout the world felt the weight of the American 'big
stick'; countless more were destined to do so in the twentieth.* The culture
had been well prepared, America's industrial magnates and military leaders
eager to support a policy of economic and territorial expansion. Captain
A. T. Mahan, a popular US Navy propagandist, spoke for many when he
observed that the countries with the biggest navies would inherit the earth
('Americans must now begin to look outward'). The then Senator Henry
Cabot Lodge of Massachusetts commented that 'for the sake of our com-
mercial supremacy in the Pacific we should control the Hawaiian Islands
and maintain our influence in Samoa'; furthermore, 'the island of Cuba
. . . will become a necessity'. He declared that the great nations were
absorbing 'all the waste places of the earth', and that the United States
should not be left behind: 'It is a movement that makes for civilisation and
the advancement of the race.'1 On the eve of the Spanish-American war the
Washington Post celebrated the mood of the people: 'The taste of Empire is
in the mouth of the people even as the taste of blood in the jungle.'2 The
historian J. A. Hobson, in a classic text,3 noted the capitalist need for
imperial expansion: 'It was Messrs Rockefeller, Pierpont Morgan, and their
associates who needed Imperialism and who fastened it upon the shoulders
of the great Republic of the West. They needed Imperialism because they
desired to use the public resources of their country to find profitable em-
ployment for their capital.' And he added, with uncommon prescience, that
*The United States, not uniquely perfidious, has simply exploited the de facto privileges that
are characteristic of all hegemonic powers.
'Cuba, the Philippines, and Hawaii were but the hors d'oeuvre to whet an
appetite for an ampler banquet.' Hobson, writing in 1902, was already
charting the course of the decades to come.
At the end of the nineteenth century the US Navy Department observed
that the possibility of war in Cuba was encouraged 'by the contractors for
projectiles, ordnance, ammunition and other supplies, who have thronged
the department'. The banker Russell Sage, in comfort and security, declared
that if war came there would be no question 'where the rich men stand'; it
was reported that Astor, Rockefeller and Ryan were 'feeling militant', and
that Morgan reckoned that further talk with Spain would be pointless. In
March 1898 an advisor to President McKinley declared that all the big
corporations would welcome war.4 Soon afterwards the US invaded Cuba;
the Spanish forces collapsed within three months, after what John Hay, the
US Secretary of State, had dubbed 'a splendid little war'. American busi-
ness moved quickly to take over Cuban assets, and the war also had other
consequences. The United States took Puerto Rico by military conquest and
in July 1898 annexed the Hawaiian Islands. Wake Island, on the route to
Japan, was occupied; as was the Spanish possession of Guam, near to the
Philippines. By 1899 the United States had forced Spain to hand over
Guam, Puerto Rico and the Philippines. On the acquisition of the Philip-
pines President McKinley remarked that 'there was nothing left for us to do
but to take them all and to educate the Filipinos, and uplift and civilise and
Christianise them .. .' The upshot was a bloody war of conquest fought by
the superior US forces against ill-equipped guerrilla bands. General Arthur
MacArthur admitted that the guerrilla tactics of the peasant Filipinos 'de-
pended upon almost complete unity of action of the entire native popula-
tion'. It was a pattern that American commanders would learn to recognise
throughout the world.
It is obvious that US imperialism was well entrenched before the start of
the twentieth century. In addition to the interventions cited by Dean Rusk,
and the major nineteenth-century invasions of Cuba and the Philippines, we
can also mention without comment the military incursions into Korea (in
1871, 1888 and 1894-6), into Panama (1865 and 1886), into Columbia
(1868, 1873 and 1895), into Brazil (1894), and into Egypt (1882). The US
development of an imperialist culture is often acknowledged by American
observers. Thus J. William Fulbright, one of the most distinguished and
influential senators, wrote of the 'anogance of power'5 and the 'price of
empire';6 and the celebrated American writer Steele Commager observed
that it was the West, not Communist countries, 'that invented imperialism
and colonialism . . . We should remember that in the eyes of the 19th
century world it was the United States that was pre-eminently an expansion-
ist and aggressive nation . . . in half a century we trebled our territory at the
expense of France, Spain, Mexico and Britain.'7
The American experience of imperialist expansion in the nineteenth
century came to have increasing relevance in the twentieth. The way had
been prepared, the slogans conjured, the military technologies massively
improved. A procession of US governments rejoiced in their Manifest
Destiny, assumed the burdens that Fate had put on the shoulders of God's
Own Country, and resolved - 'whatever the price' - to uphold freedom and
democracy throughout the world. Sometimes the words slipped into absurd-
ity - as with 'intervening to preserve independence' or justifying (as did
Francis P. Matthews, the Secretary of the US Navy, on 25 January 1950) the
US role as 'aggressors for peace'. However, the slogans were less important
than the practical actions in the world. Here we cannot profile the many US
interventions throughout the twentieth century but it is worth recalling such
events as the intervention in Guatemala in 1954 to overthrow the demo-
cratically elected Jacobo Arbenz government, the use of the CIA to over-
throw the Iranian Prime Minister Mossadeq in 1951, the imposing of the
military dictator George Papadopoulos in Greece in 1967, the invasion of
Lebanon in 1958, support for the anti-Sukarno coup in Indonesia in 1958,
the provision of arms between 1975 and the 1990s for the Indonesian
occupation and suppression of East Timor, support for the 1961 invasion of
Cuba, support for the overthrow of Patrice Lumumba in the Congo in 1960,
CIA involvement in the sacking of the Labour premier Gough Whitlam in
Australia in 1975, support for the military coup against President Joao
Goulart of Brazil in 1964 and the democratic Chilean leader Dr Salvador
Allende in 1973, the invasion of the Dominican Republic in 1965, and
efforts to destabilise the elected government of Michael Manley in Jamaica
through the 1980s.8 It is clear that US intervention can take many forms,
involving diplomatic pressure on governments, the manipulation of interna-
tional bodies, economic sanctions and blockade, the arming and supply of
military proxies ('freedom fighters'), and the use of American covert or
overt forces. The United States, like other nations, relies upon comprehen-
sive intelligence services and is willing, like other nations, to spread lies via
pliant or manipulated media in the furtherance of its objectives.
The US strategy against Colonel Muammar al-Gaddafi of Libya has so
far involved the spreading of disinformation (lies), economic sanctions, and
the bombing in 1986 of major cities. It is important, in considering the on-
going US intervention in Libyan affairs, to remember the context of Amer-
ican involvement throughout the world in recent decades. The Libyan
question is not an isolated event, but part of a broader picture in which a
powerful hegemonic state adumbrates to itself the right to define moral
right and international law in its own perceived interests. This is the context
in which US policy on Libya will unfold, in circumstances in which the
constraints on the freedom of action of the world's one superpower -
following the collapse of the Soviet Union - have been massively reduced.
The consequences of the US-defined New World Order (see Chapter One)
will be increasingly felt across the globe, but most of all in the Third World.
FIRST LIBYAN/US CONFLICT
The first confrontation between Libya and the United States (1801-5)
resulted from the US refusal to increase payments of tribute to the pasha of
Tripoli for the protection he offered against pirate raids. At that time the
trade between Europe and North Africa (the Barbary states) was flourish-
ing: stones were obtained from Leptis Magna for the building of Versailles
and St Germain des Pres.9 The Barbary states derived a substantial income
from their pirate ships as well as from the wide-ranging commerce that
served as an extension of Turkish naval strategy in the region.10 The activ-
ities of the pirates were supported by local rulers, such as Yusuf Karamanli
of Tripoli, who provided political support and an effective market for the
pirate loot. The rulers in turn benefited from the acts of piracy, acquiring
treasure and produce from the seized European and American ships, and
obtaining slaves and hostages for their own purposes: erstwhile crews could
be forced into labour or sold as hostages. It was difficult to defeat the pirates
in naval confrontation since they were relatively close to their own bases
and in any case enjoyed the support of the local tribal leaders. The other
option was for traders (or their governments) to pay protection money: in
1799 the administration of President John Adams began the practice of
paying annual tribute to the local rulers in North Africa to guarantee
immunity for US merchant ships. At that time Yusuf Karamanli was receiv-
ing $18,000 a year for that purpose.
In September 1800 the frigate George Washington was sent by Adams
to Algiers with tribute for the dey, the Ottoman sultan's representative.
Captain William Bainbridge was then ordered by the dey of Algiers to carry
an ambassador and tribute to the sultan in Constantinople. Bainbridge
refused, whereupon the dey declared: 'You pay me tribute, by which you
become my slaves. I have a right to order you as I may think proper.'11
Bainbridge, under threat of death, was forced to accept the mission, a
prelude to further demands that would be made by the local potentates.
Early in 1801 Karamanli increased the annual tribute to $250,000, which,
quite apart from representing a considerable burden on the US treasury,
began to dent American pride. President Thomas Jefferson objected to
having to pay protection money to distant pashas and pirates, and so
decided to resort to the type of military means that had worked well
elsewhere in settling disputes with foreigners.
In 1804 Jefferson sent a fleet of US ships to punish the Barbary pirates
and their protectors, but efforts to blockade Tripoli and the rest of the
Libyan coast were generally seen as unsuccessful. The US frigate Philadel-
phia was trapped outside Tripoli when the ship hit a shoal whereupon the
crew and vessel were captured by the Libyans. In February a commando
raid led by Lieutenant Stephen Decatur succeeded in infiltrating the harbour
and blowing up the Philadelphia, so rendering it unusable by the Libyans as
a gunship guarding the harbour. This early raid by the US Marine Corp
inspired the words 'from the shores of Tripoli' in their celebrated hymn.
The raid, successful in its mission, stimulated resistance by the Libyans
and prolonged fighting began. The American ships subjected Tripoli to a
massive bombardment with Karamanli, supported by the Ottomans and
the Knights of St John, well protected by thick walls. The crew of the
Philadelphia were set the task of reinforcing the ramparts while the fighting
continued.
The US government then sent reinforcements. The former US consul in
Tunis, Cyrus Eaton, was asked to carry out a plan for the overthrow of
Yusuf Karamanli and to put his older brother Hamed in his place (Hamed
was ambitious and prepared to accept help from any quarter). In 1805
Eaton, Hamed and a bunch of mercenaries marched with the US marines
from Alexandria westwards across six hundred miles of desert. The US
ships continued to bombard the coast, and in due course the mixed military
force managed to capture the Cyrenaican port of Derna. Karamanli then
perceived the wisdom of negotiations, dropping his demand for regular
tribute payments but asking $60,000, half his original demand, for the
ransom of the Philadelphia crew. The United States, though denied outright
victory, decided to accept the deal and brought to an end the American
support for Hamed (puppets could always be abandoned with shifts in US
policy). A qualified success had been achieved, though the Libyans had
managed to secure some further bounty. The pirates continued to operate
off the Barbary coast; and US operations against the corsairs were staged
until 1815.12
For well over a century the United States had little further interest in
the area. It was not until the Second World War, when the Allied armies
fought against the Axis forces in North Africa, that Americans would again
confront Libyans, this time the collaborators with Benito Mussolini. This
in turn led to the US acquisition of the Italian airbase that was to be re-
named Wheelus Field, a secure site until the collapse of the pro-West Idris
monarchy.
GADDAFI AND THE US
When Gaddafi assumed power in Libya in 1969 he moved quickly to attack

what he saw as the nation's colonial inheritance. In 1970 the property of
Italians and non-resident Jews was appropriated; the Italian Foreign Minis-
ter Aldo Moro - later assassinated by the Red Brigades supported, some
say, by the Libyans - protested but the expropriations went ahead and much
of the 13,000-strong Italian community left the country in the summer of
1970. At the same time Gaddafi was snubbing the West by insisting on an
improved price for oil, and urging the colonial powers to vacate their
military bases in Libya. In September 1970 Gaddafi broke off diplomatic
relations with the pro-West King Hussein of Jordan after Jordanian troops
had attacked Palestinian guerrillas in Jordan. By 1971 Gaddafi had nation-
alised foreign banks and imposed various regulations on other foreign
companies operating within the country. Diplomatic ties with another pro-
West government, that of King Hassan in Morocco, were broken off after
Gaddafi gave premature support to an anti-monarchy coup attempt. How-
ever, the Western policy had not yet settled down into its resolute anti-
Gaddafi mode. The United States was prepared to tolerate and even support
(see below) the new Libyan regime: Gaddafi was, after all, just the sort
of authoritarian anti-communist that Washington tended to welcome on
the world stage. For a time Gaddafi enjoyed some US support, being
allowed to purchase Western weapons and even being warned against coup
attempts. The honeymoon did not last long.
Within a short time Gaddafi had demonstrated that he was far from being
a pliant puppet of the West, the usual role adopted by anti-communist
authoritarian leaders in the Third World. He nationalised the Libyan hold-
ings of British Petroleum in December 1971, and followed this with further
nationalisations in 1972-3. He further irritated the British by supporting
Dom Mintoff in his dispute with Britain over bases in Malta; and by
declaring in June 1972 that 'We are making war on Great Britain, and if the
Irish revolutionaries want to liberate Ireland we will back them to the hilt.'
Gaddafi was rapidly developing as a thorn in the Western flesh, a role that
he now finds it hard to live down as a more moderate leader in the 1990s.
The United States had been prepared to offer Gaddafi a measure of
protection immediately after the fall of the Idris monarchy, but it seems that
Gaddafi paid no attention to this in organising his domestic and foreign
plans. In 1977 the Americans learned about a Libyan-supported assassina-
tion plot against Herman Frederick Eilts, the US ambassador in Cairo
seconded to work with Henry Kissinger on Sadat's ground-breaking shift to
collaboration with the United States. Gaddafi was upset at what he saw as
a betrayal of the Arab cause. One theory was that a 'mole' in Gaddafi's
tenorist organisation had learned of the assassination plans and informed
Washington. President Carter thereupon sent a personal letter to Gaddafi,
informing him that he knew of the plot and offering details to substantiate
the claim. It was hoped that this bare communication would be enough to
thwart the scheme. For a time Gaddafi hesitated and then protested that the
charge was absurd: there was no such plot, the accused Libyans were
innocent, and Gaddafi himself was obviously the victim of disinformation.
Whatever the truth, 'Operation Eilts' never got off the ground; but it served
in particular to establish the framework within which US/Libyan relations
would be conducted in the years ahead. Carter had decided that Gaddafi
could not be trusted and no American leader was prepared to dissent from
this judgement. In 1980 President Carter wrote: 'There are few govern-
ments in the world with which we have more sharp and frequent policy
differences than Libya. Libya has steadfastly opposed our efforts to reach
and carry out the Camp David Accords between Israel, Egypt and the
United States, signed in 1978 and 1979. We have strongly differing atti-
tudes toward the PLO and the support of tenorism.'13 Carter's personal
approach to Gaddafi had in fact impressed him, and in 1977 he had attempt
to improve co-operation with the United States, to little avail.
In March 1978 the Libyan Foreign Liaison Bureau had launched a series
of 'people-to-people' visits which it was hoped would improve the US/
Libyan diplomatic climate. Gaddafi was particularly keen to secure the
granting of US export licences for Boeing 727s which the American admin-
istration insisted had military potential. It was these circumstances that
led to the Billy Carter Hearings and to President Carter's declaration of
policy differences with Libya.
The Libyan Bureau decided to contact President Carter's brother, Billy,
in the hope that his opinions would carry weight with the US administra-
tion. He was eventually contacted via a circuitous route by the former
Libyan ambassador to Italy, Jibril Shalouf, who had worked at cultivating
Billy's business partners.14 Billy naively accepted an invitation to Libya,
having been told that such a visit would be useful to his own business
ventures. In January 1979 he hosted Libyan dancers in Georgia and estab-
lished the Libyan Arab Friendship Society. At the same time, by seeming
chance, the US administration decided to issue export licences for the
Boeing 727s. In November the Libyan government attempted to influence
the Iranian authorities into releasing the US hostages in Teheran. The
attempt failed and relations between Libya and the United States went into
a steep decline towards the end of the Carter presidency. One key factor was
the burning of the US embassy in Tripoli on 2 December, a reaction to the
US decision to freeze Iranian assets.
On 7 May 1980 Washington expelled members of the Libyan People's
Bureau on the ground that they had been persecuting dissident students; and
in August, Washington announced - as an obviously provocative act - that
it intended to hold Sixth Fleet exercises in the Gulf of Sirte which Libya
claimed as sovereign waters. When, one month later, the exercises began
the fleet was ordered to stay outside the zone claimed by Libya but a US
C-135 electronic surveillance plane 'flying at the edge of Libyan airspace'
and escorted by an F-l4 fighter squadron, was confronted by Libyan jets
twice in a week. The aim on that occasion was to send a clear signal to
Gaddafi without starting a military conflict.
When in January 1981 Ronald Reagan took over the White House
(which may not have happened had Gaddafi been able to secure the release
of the US hostages), the relations between Libya and the United States,
already on the slide, worsened still more. Washington was already smarting
from a number of foreign-policy reverses: the humiliating failure of the
helicopter rescue mission, which crashed to abject disaster in the Salt
desert; the fall of the Shah of Iran; the collapse of the Somoza dictatorship
in Nicaragua; the burning of the US embassy in Pakistan; and a pro-Soviet
coup in Afghanistan followed by an invasion by Soviet troops. Ronald
Reagan came to the White House in an atmosphere of chauvinism and
militancy, determined to ensure that the United States 'walked tall' again.
The scene was set for a dramatic reassertion of the global authority of the
US, which in practice meant no more than bullying weaker nations into
acquiescence when confronted with American demands. A key task, in the
1990s being systematically implemented throughout the world, was to
establish American dominance over the developing countries, to demon-
strate the unambiguous power of the US over the Third World. At the start
of the Reagan presidency in the early 1980s this may have seemed a
daunting task: the existence of a still powerful Soviet Union, prepared to
fund anti-West subversion, represented an unavoidable brake on Western
initiative. One of Reagan's first tasks was to launch a campaign against
Soviet-sponsored tenorism, and at the same time Gaddafi came in for
special attention.
Libya was dubbed 'a base for Soviet subversion', with Gaddafi himself
'the most dangerous man in the world'.15 Psychological pressure was put on
Gaddafi by spreading rumours about assassination attempts against the
Libyan leader, and provocative naval manoeuvres were begun in March
1981 off the coast of Libya. This time the Sixth Fleet moved within the
disputed Gulf of Sirte: for a period of four days exercises were conducted
by two US aircraft carriers, ten other ships and several squadrons of carrier-
borne F-l4 aircraft. The Libyans took care to avoid a military confrontation.
Next Washington tightened the noose around Libya by promising to fund
anti-Gaddafi forces in Africa: on 8 July 1981 Chester Crocker, the Assistant
Secretary of State for African Affairs, declared to Congress that the US
government would provide arms for African opponents of Libya 'to help
those who see the problem as we see it'.16 The US administration moved to
supply arms to factions across Libya's borders that could be relied upon to
present a military threat to Gaddafi. Thus Washington announced its will-
ingness to provide Tunisia with fifty-four M-60 tanks; and Frank Carlucci,
the Deputy Defence Secretary, visited Algeria to whip up anti-Gaddafi
feeling and to offer to supply C-130 transport aircraft for the Algerian air
force.17 American strategists also speculated on how the US might take over
the Libyan oilfields, observing that it would be preferable to assume control
of Gaddafi's oil resources than to take over the oilfields in the Gulf.18
The mounting US hostility to Libya also had a broader purpose. Gaddafi,
it was widely assumed, had funded anti-American subversive groups through-
out the world, so any destabilisation policy directed at the Libyan govern-
ment would indirectly help American client states across the globe. In
recent years the US administration had already witnessed the fall of Somoza
in Nicaragua and the Shah of Iran; to attack Libya would be seen as a
worthwhile demonstration of Washington's commitment to surviving US
puppets. With a more robust government in Washington it would be harder,
so the argument ran, for Gaddafi to encourage the collapse of unpopular
pro-US regimes in Central America, Africa, Asia and elsewhere.
The provocative naval exercises off the Libyan coast, thousands of miles
from the United States, were deliberately designed to lead to a military
confrontation; and in this aim they succeeded. A massive Sixth Fleet battle
group, including the nuclear-powered aircraft carrier Nimitz, sailed into the
Gulf of Sirte. On 19 August two Libyan SU-22 bombers took off to monitor
the movements of the US battle formation - and were promptly shot down
by Nimitz-based fighters. The Pentagon subsequently admitted that it had
no evidence that the Libyan pilots had received orders to act in a hostile
way, and it has been suggested that the Libyans' MiG or Mirage aircraft
would have been better suited than SU-22 bombers for offensive action.19
It was also significant that the Americans gave various inconsistent ac-
counts about their proximity to the Libyan coast. Having earlier declared
that the incident occurred sixty miles out, Rear Admiral James E. Service
stated that 'About the closest we came was about 25 miles to their coast.'20
Few independent observers doubted that the American posture throughout
this period was intentionally provocative, designed to give Gaddafi a
'bloody nose'.
There was also evidence that Washington was encouraging a military
confrontation between Egypt and Libya. Sadat was said to favour a military
incursion into Libya though some of his senior officers opposed the idea;
when some of these officers, including the Defence Minister General Ahmed
Bedawi, were killed in a mysterious helicopter crash on 2 March 1981
Sadat's position was strengthened.21 French intelligence sources were quoted
in July as stating that an Israeli working group was helping Sadat produce
a plan for the invasion of Libya, and it had already been made clear that
Sadat could reasonably expect US support in the implementation of such a
plan. When Sadat was assassinated in October 1981 the idea of an Egyptian
invasion of Libya was dropped: Hosni Mubarak, seen in the 1990s as a
friend of Gaddafi, was confronted with a domestic crisis and would have
had no stomach for any inherited plan for hazardous foreign adventures.
On 10 March 1982 President Reagan, in a further move to isolate Libya,
declared an embargo on the US importation of crude oil from Libya. At the
same time he also initiated a ban on the export to Libya of a wide range of
technological products, a move designed to weaken not only Libya's milit-
ary capability but also its capacity for industrial development. It was sug-
gested by Washington that Libyan 'hit squads' were loose in the United
States with a mission to assassinate Reagan himself: the FBI later admitted
that no signs of such groups had ever been detected. Nonetheless the import
embargo and export ban remained in place in the hope that these would
seriously impact on the Libyan economy. At the time the United States had
been buying about a third of Libya's crude oil and it was assumed that
Libya would be drastically affected by the loss of such a significant market.
In the event other markets were found and the damaging consequences were
contained. US oil companies were encouraged to bring home their person-
nel working in Libya and in due course the pressure from Washington was
strengthened by a presidential edict: 3000 Americans came home though
nearly a half of these subsequently returned. It was clear that the American
workers and technicians had little sympathy with the pressure from Wash-
ington. The companies responded 'reluctantly and under protest',22 and
when one observer visited Tripoli just before Christmas 1981, 'several
hundred of the Americans had glumly complied. None said they felt threat-
ened in any way.'23 The Libyan Oil Ministry was soon recruiting Iranian,
Canadian, Arab and European oil technicians to take the place of the
departed Americans. Since the economic measures were clearly having
little effect the Reagan administration again looked to the possibility of
military action.
In February 1983 Reagan responded to President Numeiri's claim to
have uncovered a Libyan conspiracy against him by initiating a massive
military confrontation with Gaddafi. AWAC surveillance aircraft were
immediately despatched to Cairo West airfield for reconnaissance missions
over Libya. Then Nimitz and its associated battle formation again sailed
towards the Gulf of Sirte, encouraging speculation that this time an actual
invasion would take place. Suddenly however the US backed off, with
rumours of arguments with the Egyptian government. A senior Egyptian
official commented: 'We are furious. The Americans are trying to implicate
us in things that do not involve us.'24 In the same spirit the Egyptian
Defence Minister, Field Marshal Abdul Halim Abu Ghazala, declared that
he could not see any sign of 'Libyan aggression against the Sudan'.25 The
Americans had made little effort to check the veracity of Numeiri's accusa-
tions against Libya: it was enough that the Sudanese leader had provided
a pretext for a further US confrontation with Gaddafi.
A few months later the Americans were again mobilising against the
Libyan regime, this time using the excuse of Gaddafi's involvement in
Chad. The USS Eisenhower sailed towards the Gulf of Sirte and AWACs
were again active; but yet again the Egyptian government could not be
relied upon to engage in military action against the Libyans.26 In March
1984 further Sudanese claims of Libyan hostility stimulated yet more US
manoeuvres and on this occasion Egyptian forces were sent to support
Numeiri, but Mubarak still made it clear that he wanted to avoid a military
confrontation with Gaddafi.27 There was also evidence that the US was
trying to lure Gaddafi into a confrontation with Numeiri so that Washington
could righteously respond with a 'justified' attack on Libya, just as Egypt
would be compelled to observe the terms of its 1975 defence pact with
Sudan. One observer commented that Gaddafi 'prudently ignored the bait
offered him'.28
By the mid-1980s the Reagan administration had done all it could, short
of a US invasion of Libya, to topple Gaddafi. At that time, as doubtless
today, there did exist a plan for the US forces with Egyptian support to
invade Libya, though the Egyptian government was not prepared to co-
operate in such a scheme.29 There were evident tensions between Egypt and
Libya but Washington was never able to exploit these to the point of
generating an actual military conflict. That would come - with the 1986
bombing of Benghazi and Tripoli - but before profiling that onslaught on
Libya it is useful to record the paradox of US support for Gaddafi set
against the escalating campaign for the destabilisation of the Libyan re-
gime, a campaign run by the CIA and other institutions at the heart of the
American establishment. After the brief honeymoon with Washington,
Colonel Gaddafi became increasingly insecure through the 1980s.
US SUPPORT FOR GADDAFI
For a brief period after the fall of the pro-West Idris monarchy there were
elements in the US administration prepared to see Gaddafi as a nationalist
and anti-communist, and as such a force that could be viewed with sym-
pathy (we have already seen that mainstream opinion in Washington was
hostile to the new Libyan leader). It has even been emphasised that the US
and Western European intelligence services protected Gaddafi from his
enemies, 'and most assuredly helped him to remain in power'.30 In the early
days of the Libyan revolution, some factions in Washington were pleased to
note that Gaddafi was taking a number of anti-Soviet and anti-communist
actions. He was wont to criticise the Soviet Union, a self-proclaimed atheist
society, in his early speeches and in particular he had condemned the
involvement of the Soviets in the 1971 Indo-Pakistan war as signalling
'Soviet imperialist designs in the area'. He also criticised the 1972 Soviet/
Iraqi treaty, even though Gaddafi himself had signed a trade and technical
(though not yet an arms treaty) with the Soviet Union a short time earlier.
(It is significant that Gaddafi was to side with Iran in the Iran/Iraq war as a
further sign of his resentment of great power influence - this time Washing-
ton's - in the region.) The US was pleased to note also that Gaddafi had
applauded Sadat's expulsion of Soviet military forces from Egypt in July
1972. There were even signs in these early days of 'CIA protection of
Qaddafi's regime and person'.31
The evident US protection of Gaddafi was demonstrated when splits
began to appear in the Revolutionary Command Council (RCC) soon after
the fall of the monarchy. Two Libyan colonels, late appointees to the RCC,
were arrested after the US had warned Gaddafi that they were plotting
against him: Adam al-Hawaz and Musa Ahmed were seized after the CIA
warned the Libyan leader that the two men, pro-Western officers, could not
be trusted.32 At around the same time an Arabic translation of a Soviet book
highly critical of Islam began circulating in Tripoli. The Soviets did not
deny the book's authenticity but declared that it had only been intended for
use in the Soviet Union. Such events combined to create the impression that
Gaddafi was prepared to conspire with US schemes in the region. To some
limited extent the impression was accurate. Gaddafi had sent aircraft to
Pakistan to counter the Soviet support for India in the 1971 war; and he had
forced down in Libya a plane carrying communist coup plotters against
President Numeiri (they were subsequently hanged in Khartoum). Gaddafi
himself, in banning all political parties, had prohibited all political meetings
between socialists, communists and other groups hostile to the United
States: this all had a pleasant ring to Washington. Perhaps Gaddafi was a bit
wild in his support for the Palestinians and tenorists elsewhere but there
were influential factions in Washington prepared to see Gaddafi's author-
itarian anti-communism as one of the blessings of the area. In such circum-
stances it was surely worth protecting Gaddafi from attempted coups in his
own country.33
The Libyan leader was also greatly assisted by erstwhile CIA operatives,
a set of free enterprise initiatives that eventually incurred the wrath of
Washington. Such events relied upon the relationship between the CIA and
the clandestine operations of the Sydney-based Nugan Hand Bank, an
employer of retired CIA agents and heavily involved in drugs trafficking.34
The Bank became involved with a network of former CIA agents run by
Edwin Wilson and conveniently situated in Libya. Himself formerly with
the CIA, Wilson prospered in the private sector.35 Between June and
September 1976 Ed Wilson was able to supply Libya with thousands of
CIA-designed bomb timers and in excess of twenty-one tons of Composi-
tion C-4, the 'most powerful non-nuclear explosive in America's arsenal'.36
Wilson also recruited US Green Berets to train Libyan commandos, and is
even said to have ananged assassinations in various countries for Gaddafi.37
The CIA was informed of Wilson's activities by one of his erstwhile CIA
employees, Kevin Mulcahy, but Theodore Shackley, then CIA deputy dir-
ector of clandestine services and an old friend of Wilson, decided to block
any internal investigation. In such a fashion the CIA, against the policy
thrusts of other departments of the US administration, protected Gaddafi
and sanctioned his acquisition of the accoutrements of modern tenorism.
In April 1977 The Washington Post publicised Wilson's activities and
commented that he 'may have had contact with one or more cunent CIA
employees'. The article stimulated the new CIA director Admiral Stansfield
Turner into launching his own enquiry, which in due course led to the
transfer of the high-ranking Thomas Clines and Theodore Shackley to
lower-grade jobs. Soon afterwards Clines resigned from the CIA, bonowed
$500,000 from Wilson to create his own company, and won a $71 million
contract with Egypt for the delivery of arms; Shackley resigned soon after
and became a consultant. Wilson himself was eventually convicted of
supplying Gaddafi with explosives, timing devices, and military training.39
The US support - overt or clandestine - for Colonel Gaddafi must be
seen as a brief distraction from the main business. Elements in Washington
had flirted with the idea that Gaddafi could be promoted as a useful anti-
communist tool, and some small quantities of military hardware were
exported from the US to Libya over the years. In 1970 Gaddafi was
supplied with eight Lockheed C-130 Hercules aircraft, in 1978 with a Bell-
121 helicopter, and in 1981 with two further C-130 Hercules aircraft; but
such deliveries were inconsequential departures from the principal policy
that has now been sustained for more than two decades. Few in Washington
doubted that the only sane policy was to target Gaddafi for destabilisation.
TARGETING GADDAFI
Just five days after the start of the first Reagan administration, on
26 January 1981, CIA chief William Casey visited the White House to give
his first full presentation since accepting office. His theme was the world-
wide threat of tenorism and how it was being fomented by states like Syria,
Iran and Libya. Casey, well aware of what appeared to be a new vigour
in the White House, had decided to seize the moment; now, if ever, was
the time to reassert American dominance across the world. This was to be
the start of the US resurgence, the beginning of new policies that would
anest the drift and disasters that had been all too plain under the previous
administration. Casey was to be preoccupied with the 'Libyan question' on
many occasions through the 1980s. In 1984 it was alleged that Gaddafi's
hand was discernible behind unrest in Egypt, Tunisia and Algeria; and his
People's Bureaus were fomenting trouble in capitals across Europe. In the
White House a sub-group created by Robert McFarlane, Reagan's new
National Security Advisor, was preparing plans for covert action against
Gaddafi, or against anyone else who threatened the interests of the United
States. One of the most vocal voices in the sub-group was that of Oliver
North.
In May 1986 William Casey reiterated the familiar claim that 'Libya,
Syria and Iran use tenorism as an instrument of foreign policy.' Such
countries 'hire and support established tenorist organisations . . . These
countries make their officials, their embassies, their diplomatic pouches,
their communications channels and their territory as safe havens for these
criminals to plan, direct and execute bombing, assassination, kidnapping
and other tenorist operations.'40 It was by now part of the conventional
wisdom that Libya, along with one or two other states, should be viewed as
a 'pariah' nation, to be combated in every way possible. The Heritage
Foundation, one of the main foreign policy advisory bodies to the Reagan
administration, called for the overthrow of nine governments: those of
Nicaragua, Angola, Cambodia, Afghanistan, Laos, Vietnam, Ethiopia, Iran
and Libya.41 In fact this demand was simply reiterating established US
policy: as early as March 1981 William Casey, talking to a sympathetic
administration, had presented detailed plans for covert operations against
Nicaragua, Afghanistan, Laos, Cambodia, Grenada, Iran, Cuba, and Libya.42
In July 1981 a CIA plan had been presented for the specific overthrow of
Colonel Gaddafi,43 though, as we have seen, Egypt refused to go along with
plans that involved them. Then psychological warfare was chosen as a
major tool for the destabilisation of the Libyan regime. This 'psyops'
campaign against Gaddafi finally led to the resignation of Bernard Kalb,
State Department spokesman and highly regarded journalist, in protest
against the deliberate lies about Libya being disseminated by a compliant
US press.
The systematic propaganda campaign against Libya was part of a larger
programme of deception aimed at linking Middle East tenorism to Nicara-
gua, Cuba and the Soviet Union. Thus in 1985 Reagan declared to the
American Bar Association: 'Most of the tenorists who are kidnapping and
murdering American citizens and attacking American installations are be-
ing trained, financed and directly or indirectly controlled by a core group
of radical and totalitarian governments, a new international version of
Murder, Inc.' The core group of governments were Iran, Libya, Cuba,
Nicaragua, and North Korea, an identifiable confederation of outlaw tenor-
ist states engaged in outright war against the United States; Reagan also
noted the involvement of the Soviet Union.44 In 1986 the capital of Nicara-
gua, Managua, was portrayed by the Reagan administration as a place
where Palestinians, Libyans, Cubans and Iranians plotted against innocent
US citizens and for the overthrow of the US government.45 In this way
Nicaragua has been characterised as a major base for Libyan operations in
the Western hemisphere.
In the early summer of 1986 various US intelligence reports were made
available to the British Foreign Office to suggest that Libyan tenorists and
the sunogates were planning to hit targets in Europe and US targets in
Malta and Crete. British diplomats were given the impression that the US
government 'intended to take further military action against Libya'.46 The
Foreign Office was not impressed with the 'evidence', which was moreover
accompanied by 'wild assertions'.47 The bombing of Libya had taken place

a few months before (see below) and now, the bombs having failed to kill
Gaddafi, the US administration was contemplating further raids. In fact the
principal US strategy was to destabilise the Libyan regime by suggesting
that Washington and Gaddafi were again on a collision course. The military
strike had failed and something had to be done. In August, Admiral John
Poindexter, the US National Security Advisor, sent President Reagan a
secret memorandum recommending a 'disinformation' programme involv-
ing 'a series of closely co-ordinated events involving covert, diplomatic,
military and public actions'. This was the latest phase in Washington's
strategy for the subversion of the Libyan regime. In fact at the time the
Americans were forced to admit that Gaddafi was not active in world
tenorism. Poindexter had been forced to admit in his memo to Reagan that
Gaddafi was 'temporarily quiescent in his support of tenorism' - but no
doubt this evident quiescence could not be relied upon ('he may soon move
to a more active role'). So Gaddafi was damned if he supported tenorism
and equally damned if he did not.
Some of the National Security Council staff (including Oliver North)
hoped that the policy of disinformation would scare Gaddafi and possibly
even inspire a coup. However, the Washington press establishment became
alarmed when Bob Woodward of the Washington Post suggested that the
US administration had succeeded in planting this disinformation on the
front page of the Wall Street Journal (25 August 1986). The planted lie was
that the United States and Libya were again on a 'collision course', with the
implication that soon Washington would be forced to act. Now however the
cynical policy of manipulating the press had been spelt out in a government
memorandum that had reached the public domain, and this 'touched off a
furor'.48 Reagan compounded the situation by seeming to endorse the policy
of lying to the press: 'Our position has been one which we would just as
soon have Mr Qadhafi go to bed every night wondering what we might
do.'49 But he had misjudged the public feeling and soon there was talk of
possible House and Senate investigations into the NSC disinformation
campaign on Libya.50 The Woodward revelations were not quite on the
Watergate scale but again the complacent assumption of the White House
that lies make good policy had been shaken. In fact Bob Woodward has
taken pains to chart Washington's confused and mendacious policy on
Libya over many years.51
As early as 1980 the then Director of the CIA, Admiral Stansfield
Turner, had suggested covert operations to topple Colonel Gaddafi. On one
occasion, without reference to the White House, he had asked the Deputy
Director of Operations what steps would be taken to remove three leaders
who threatened US interests: Fidel Castro in Cuba, the Ayatollah Ruhollah

Khomeini in Iran, and Muammar al-Gaddafi. At that time the assassination
of foreign leaders was banned, following an executive order signed by
President Ford and reaffirmed by Carter. What Turner had in mind was the
provision of funds or supplies to groups outside the countries in question: if
such groups managed to kill the particular leaders then that was another
matter, nothing to do with Washington. In the event the DDO decided at
that time that there were no groups that could be usefully supported (some
money was being passed to anti-Khomeini factions but the overthrow of the
Ayatollah was deemed unlikely).52 However, it was not long before can-
didates emerged who were seen as suitable recipients for American aid
designed to accelerate the fall of Gaddafi. Hissene Habre in Chad (see
Chapter Seven) was, amongst others, reckoned a likely candidate.
There were some doubts about Habre. Some congressmen pointed out
that he had been involved in massacres, others that he had on occasions
expressed admiration for Castro, Mao and Ho Chi Minh. He had even
demanded 'revolutionary ferment in all of Africa'. In the past he had been
supported by Gaddafi and, some argued, it could not be assumed that
similar accommodations would not be made in the future. Differences
between the House committee members resulted in a letter of protest being
sent to President Reagan, and before long reports were appearing about
policy disputes concerning an unnamed state in Africa. Clement J. Zablocki,
the then Chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee and a member
of the House Intelligence Committee, leaked to the press a story which
Newsweek titled 'A Plan to Overthrow Qaddafi'. Here it was claimed that
the CIA was soon to launch 'a large scale multiphase and costly scheme to
overthrow the Libyan regime . . . To members of the House Intelligence
Committee who reviewed the plan, that . . . seemed to imply Qaddafi's
assassination.' William Casey, then CIA chief, was incensed at the leak. A
detailed plan had been drawn up, with France and Egypt already implicated,
so the White House decided to deny the Newsweek story. This did not stop
massive amounts of military aid going to the anti-Gaddafi forces in Chad.
If covert CIA plans were put into effect they did not succeed in toppling the
Libyan leader.
The US administration continued to be preoccupied with the 'Libyan
question'. The Libyan diplomatic and intelligence codes had been cracked
and Gaddafi often spoke on insecure telephone lines: soon the CIA had built
a bulging file on Gaddafi. It was known, for example, that the ostensible
passenger and cargo air carrier, United African Airlines (UAA), was the air
transport facility of the Libyan armed forces and the Libyan Intelligence
Services (LIS).54 CIA reports suggested that Gaddafi was working to ac-
quire a nuclear weapon: the Soviets had delivered enriched uranium to a
research centre outside Tripoli and uranium yellowcake was being obtained
from Niger (one secret intelligence memo of 5 July 1981 was headed
'Niger: Libya's next target'55). There then followed the first of the military
confrontations in the Gulf of Sirte (see above).
The US intelligence services were soon claiming to have uncovered a
host of anti-American plots concocted by Gaddafi. It was declared that he
was sending hit squads to kill Reagan and other leading members of the
administration; he was about to launch tenorist attacks against American
targets in Europe and elsewhere; there was a Libyan plan to kidnap or
murder Maxwell Rabb, the American ambassador to Italy; and Gaddafi
was about to launch a suicide mission against the USS Nimitz, off the
coast of Libya. An 'informant with demonstrated access to senior Libyan
intelligence personnel' declared that Libyans had been sent to attack the
US embassies in Paris and Rome; six days later the informant added the
embassies in Athens, Beirut, Tunis, Madrid and London to the target list.56
Libyans were reported in Rome, and Rabb was flown back to the United
States for his own safety. An informant who said he was from one of
Gaddafi's training camps - and who passed a polygraph test - declared that
if Reagan proved too difficult a target the Libyans were expected to go after
Vice-President Bush, Secretary of State Haig or Defence Secretary
Weinberger. Moreover, Gaddafi's support for such radical states as Ethio-
pia and South Yemen was adding further irritation to a US administration
that seemed powerless to control what it saw as the wild posturing of a
Third World upstart.
On 4 December 1981 The New York Times reported that a five-man
Libyan hit squad had entered the United States; within three days reports
upped the squad to ten men. The Immigration and Naturalisation Service
sent detailed instructions to airport offices and major border-crossing points;
and composite sketches of five of the alleged would-be assassins were
shown on television. Fresh reports that there were now fourteen Libyan hit
men in the United States were leaked by the US administration and anti-
sniper patrols were seen crouching on the roof of the White House.57
Reagan and Bush were protected by such artifices as decoy limousines and
phony motor-cycle escort convoys.
The reports of Libyan assassins were never confirmed by any real-world
events; no Libyans were ever anested and no Gaddafi-inspired assassina-
tion attempts were ever uncovered in the United States. To many foreign
observers the hit-squad claims were little short of ludicrous. However,
together with the more likely reports of Libyan tenorist and political moves
elsewhere in the world, they served to justify further plans for the overthrow
of Gaddafi. Defence Secretary Haig quickly approved an option presented
to him by Robert C. 'Bud' McFarlane, a former marine lieutenant colonel
who had been given the job of co-ordinating the policy on Libya: 'Work
with the Defense Department and CIA to develop responses to Libyan
provocations that involve US and Egyptian forces in covert, tactical air and
commando operations.'58 Haig wanted to discourage a 'major ground force
operation' but all other options were open.
Surveillance flights over Libya were to be increased and other measures
were put in train: Reagan asked for plans to be developed for 'a military
response against Libya in the event of a further Libyan attempt to assas-
sinate American officials or attack US facilities'. Haig, Carlucci and Casey
drafted a TOP SECRET memorandum on 'counter-tenorist planning to-
ward Libya', intended to cover all relevant aspects: from a plan for handling
the media and Congress to economic sanctions against Libya. The President
was urged to 'immediately direct the Joint Chiefs of Staff to ready assets to
carry out military action against Libya in self-defense, following a further
Libyan provocation'. A TOP SECRET chart showed the 'graduated re-
sponses': these involved a direct attack on tenorist training sites in Libya;
a strike at Libyan airfields; a strike at Gaddafi's naval forces; the destruc-
tion of his military-equipment stockpiles; and a Navy Seal attack on Libyan
naval vessels in port.59
On 6 December 1981 Colonel Gaddafi appeared on the live ABC Tele-
vision show This Week with David Brinkley: from Tripoli, Gaddafi denied
all the American charges concerning hit squads and assassination teams,
and he challenged the administration to produce the evidence. He called the
Americans 'silly people' and Reagan 'a liar', remarks that provoked a
response from the Vice-Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee,
Daniel Patrick Moynihan, that Gaddafi was a liar and a mad dictator.
Reagan said publicly that T wouldn't believe a word [Gaddafi] says if I
were you'; and then sent a TOP SECRET EYES ONLY threat to the Libyan
leader: 'I have detailed and verified information about several Libyan-
sponsored plans and attempts to assassinate US government officials and
attack US facilities both in the US and abroad. Any acts of violence directed
by Libya or its agents against officials of the US at home or abroad, will be
regarded by the US government as an armed attack upon the US and will
be met by every means necessary to defend this nation in accordance with
Article 51 of the United Nations Charter.'60 It seemed that the threat bore
fruit: within a week a Libyan envoy had visited the United States to say
that Gaddafi was 'desperate' to open a channel to the United States and that
there would be no tenorist operations.
Before long the Americans themselves were expressing doubts about the
accuracy of the earlier reports on Libyan tenorist activities. The CIA

suddenly decided that a former 'excellent source' had a credibility that was
'open to question'; reports of Libyan plans to attack US personnel were
'most later discounted', with the observation that it was likely that 'report-
ing breeds reporting where the US is perceived to have an interest'. Now it
was decided that 'all the hit-squad reports may have been misinformation
feeding off itself (italics added).61 In short, a massive deception had been
planned to justify the possibility of a military attack on Libya. The US
administration was party to a wide-ranging fabrication that was to yield
results in the future: a climate had been created in which the American
people would be quick to applaud the bombing of Libya in 1986.
The American intelligence community continued to collect information
about Libya, much of it of dubious accuracy and dubious value. Some anti-
Gaddafi successes were chalked up - for example, seventy tons of weapons
and ammunition destined for Nicaragua were intercepted - but the Libyan
leader seemed as secure as ever. The possibility of enlarged economic
sanctions was contemplated but it was acknowledged that the relatively
primitive Libyan economy was hard to hurt. Communication intercepts,
satellite information and some human testimony revealed that Gaddafi was
intervening in Sudan and had designs on Egypt. He had also signed a naval
agreement with Greece, a NATO member, which suggested to the Ameri-
cans that Gaddafi would soon have access to vital Western secrets. The FBI
claimed to have concrete evidence that a Libyan students' committee in a
Washington suburb was deeply involved in terrorist activities and intelli-
gence work. Yet another report, 'Countering Libyan Tenorism' - this time
initiated by Schultz's deputy, Kenneth W. Dam - was produced by the State
Department's intelligence branch. The options ranged from 'do nothing' to
such possibilities as 'Mount a programme of covert actions . ..' and 'Seek
a regime change'. Soon the CIA, the DIA and the NSA were busy estimat-
ing the threat posed by Gaddafi to US interests, identifying his weaknesses,
and estimating how US policy might be designed and implemented to have
an impact. Attention was given to Gaddafi's own psychology, his life style,
his relations with neighbouring countries, and the strength of the anti-
Gaddafi factions in exile.
In March 1985 William Casey issued 'Libya's Qaddafi: The Challenge
to the United States and Western Interests', a Special National Intelligence
Estimate. This again suggested that before long Gaddafi would be stirring
up trouble across the globe; already intelligence had revealed that Libya
provided 'money, weapons, a base of operations, travel assistance or train-
ing to some 30 insurgent, radical or tenorist groups'.62 On 14 June TWA
Flight 847 taking off from Athens was hijacked by two Lebanese men who
forced the plane first to land in Beirut and then to fly to Algiers. William
Casey was quick to point the finger at Gaddafi though the CIA chief was not
yet certain who was behind the hijacking. Here was an event that served
nicely to confirm the predictions in the March report: an elaborate fold-out
map of the world showed how Gaddafi was infiltrating dozens of countries
across the globe. On 30 April President Reagan signed a National Security
Decision Directive, 'US Policy Toward North Africa', in which a special
group was charged with the task of containing 'Qaddafi's subversion activ-
ities'; one key order was that the Department of Defence would review the
Stairship Exercise for naval manoeuvres off the coast of Libya. Extensive
surveillance revealed Libya's arms build-up and confirmed that Libyan
exiles posed little threat to Gaddafi's security: despite this, the CIA 'Tulip'
covert operation (under the 'Rower' range of anti-Gaddafi plans and opera-
tions) was developed to topple Gaddafi by providing support to anti-Gaddafi
exile movements. The Ford ban on the assassination of foreign leaders
would be circumvented: 'The President said that they should not worry
about the assassination prohibition. He would personally take the heat
on that if Qaddafi were killed.'63 A speech was drafted for Reagan to
announce a 'preemptive or retaliatory' attack on Libya.
Two days after Christmas 1985 there were tenorist attacks at the Rome
and Vienna airports; nineteen people were killed, including five Americans.
It was suspected that Abu Nidal, then in Libya, was responsible. The CIA
and the National Security Council were keen to implicate Gaddafi but the
only evidence they had was a transfer of $1 million made by Gaddafi agents
to an Abu Nidal bank account in Bulgaria some years earlier. The US
administration began to lay plans for the bombing of Libya though there
was some concern expressed at the presence of 1500 Soviet advisors in the
country: what would happen if some of them were killed in a US air strike?
The decision to bomb Libya was postponed.
On 14 March 1986 President Reagan ordered three carrier battle groups
to assemble off the Libyan coast for Operation Prairie Fire. If Gaddafi were
to attack any of the US planes and ships converging on Libya there would
be a proportionate response from the American forces. If there was a single
US casualty the President would authorise the bombing of military targets;
and if Gaddafi were to adopt generally aggressive tactics then US aircraft
would bomb a range of Libyan targets inland, hitting oil pumping stations
and other economic facilities. There was debate within the US administra-
tion as to how hard the American forces should hit the Libyan military: one
view was that there should be no unnecessary destruction but others coun-
selled that if the Libyan military were hard hit there may be an armed-forces
rebellion against Gaddafi. In the event, gale-force winds in the Gulf of Sirte
delayed the start of Operation Prairie Fire to 23 March, when a vast
American armada appeared off the coast of Libya: forty-five ships, 200
aircraft, and nuclear-powered submarines. More than one hundred US air-
craft flew overhead to protect the fleet.
The Libyans, facing impossible odds, launched two SA-5 missiles at US
reconnaissance planes; these missiles, and subsequent ones, all missed their
targets. Then the American forces responded by launching HARM missiles
to lock on to Libyan radar and destroy the sites, and by sinking over the next
two days at least two Libyan patrol boats. US intelligence reports suggested
that seventy-two Libyans had been killed, against no American casualties.
On 26 March the Prairie Fire operation was terminated.
The American forces had flexed their muscles, destroying military equip-
ment and killing a few dozen Libyans. However, the Libyan regime was
intact: there had been no rebellion against Gaddafi and he seemed as secure
as ever. A more drastic course of action was needed.
REAGAN, TERRORISM AND NATO

A key element of the Reagan Doctrine was that the United States should be
prepared to intervene in the Third World whenever there was a perceived
threat to American interests. The American establishment was still smarting
under the impact of the 'Vietnam syndrome' (still not exorcised despite the
crushing of Iraq) and there were other reverses, not least the bomb blasts in
Lebanon in 1983 that killed 236 American servicemen and officials. The
Reagan response in these circumstances was not to concede the limits of
American power (and certainly not to examine the ethical or legal propriety
of US interventions across the globe), but simply to up the ante. The ratchet
of the Cold War was turned another notch, the 'evil empire' was pro-
claimed, and a virtual Third World War - against Soviet-backed 'tenorism'
in the Third World - was declared. The Reagan Doctrine demanded that
tenorists ('freedom fighters') be supported wherever they were struggling
to overthrow left-leaning governments, and that freedom-fighters ('terror-
ists') be crushed wherever they were striving to topple right-leaning re-
gimes. Thus the policy involved supporting tenor and subversion in such
countries as Nicaragua, Angola, Cambodia, Laos and Afghanistan; and
working to overthrow regimes such as Colonel Gaddafi's in Libya. The
support for various Libyans-in-exile groups and the US military actions
against Libya were part of a global pattern, the reassertion of American
power by a macho US administration subconsciously troubled about its
virility. The US response to the Beirut killings was the invasion of Grenada;
the response to tenorists acts in various countries was the flamboyant
Prairie Fire operation and the later onslaught on Libya that was dubbed
Operation El Dorado Canyon (see below).
The United States was now evolving a mode of military response that
would be more politically acceptable than the deployment of large numbers
of men and vast quantities of armaments. Large-scale conflict with the
Soviet Union was ruled out (there were less costly ways of subverting that
regime), and instead there would be 'brush-fire' conflicts, 'low-intensity'
actions, 'policing' initiatives and the like. The United States would assess a
threat to its interests, decide a course of action, and cite UN resolutions or
Charter articles (as appropriate) to sanction this or that military intervention
in this or that Third World country. Where Reagan claimed to have evid-
ence of a conspiracy of 'tenorist' states he actively sought a collaboration
of 'contra' forces drawn from various areas of conflict. Thus in June 1985
'contras' from Nicaragua, Angola, Laos and Afghanistan met in Angola to
form what came to be known as the 'Democratic International': the meeting
was organised by multimillionaire Lewis Lehrman, a close friend of Reagan,
who later declared 'their goals are our goals'. A principal aim was to
develop a capacity for 'low-intensity warfare' so that pro-West tenor and
subversion could be sustained whenever deemed necessary. This was, ac-
cording to the US Army, the 'limited use of power for political purposes'.64
The American military actions against Libya served various purposes.
Macho elements in the administration and the armed forces were temporar-
ily mollified (Reagan himself had been known to pretend to draw imaginary
six-guns when given the results of the latest confrontation); military pro-
cedures and weaponry were conveniently tested in real-world situations; the
American public was shown America 'walking tall' (which gave a pre-
election Bush a reason in 1991/92 for further confrontation with both
Saddam Hussein and Muammar Gaddafi); and allies and client states of
America were forced to concur with US policy, becoming 'locked in' to
Washington's Third World policies. This last desideratum inevitably meant
that NATO, originally set up to contain what was proclaimed to be an
expansionist Soviet Union, was to become an accomplice in Washington's
Third World War against 'tenorism' in poor countries across the globe.
Britain, as a leading NATO member, was thus induced to conspire with the
United States in the 1986 bombing of Tripoli and Benghazi (below). Thus
the British government agreed to a NATO exercise at US bases in England
to mask the preparations for the attack; this involved disguising the work
involved in loading the American F-l 11 aircraft with hundreds of bombs.
Independent observers of such events were confirmed in their suspicions
that NATO in the 1980s was moving towards a Third World 'policing' role
in defence of Western interests. The collapse of the Warsaw Pact and the
Soviet Union, and the associated 'democratisation' of Eastern Europe,
meant that the easy certainties of the Cold War could no longer be used to
justify the existence of a NATO alliance designed primarily to sustain
American hegemony. The hapless Third World was selected as the new and
improved justification. It was clear in the late 1980s and early 1990s that
Britain and the United States were increasingly willing to countenance a
NATO 'out-of-area' role. Iraq and Libya were and remain (in 1992) the
main beneficiaries of this developing policy.
OPERATION EL DORADO CANYON
Prelude
In the mid-1980s a number of events combined to concentrate the collective

mind of the US administration. Gaddafi remained a thorn in the flesh of the
world's most powerful nation and the resulting irritation stimulated one
reaction after another in the body politic. The naval and air confrontations
had done no more than tweak Gaddafi's nose and Washington had much
greater ambitions than that. The important task was to find a pretext for a
more effective military attack, one in which Gaddafi's 'fortuitous' death
would nicely conform with the Ford edict banning the deliberate murder of
foreign heads of state. The hijacking of TWA Flight 847 to Beirut by Arab
gunmen in June 1985, when twenty-nine Americans were held hostage, had
effectively humiliated the Reagan administration. There was a pressing
need to find some face-saving course of action; the requirement was for a
target that could be attacked with low risk to American personnel, and with
good chances of improving the image of the United States in the world.
Libya fitted the bill.
Washington had no doubt that Gaddafi had funded tenorism all over the
world. It was of little concern that no Libyan link with the TWA hijacking
had been discovered; Gaddafi was guilty enough on other counts. The
journalists Lou Cannon and Bob Woodward, with access to officials in the
administration, drew attention to how the TWA incident brought Libya
back into the limelight: 'Sources said it was the TWA hijacking that brought
anti-Libyan and anti-tenorist policies together. The secret planning led to a
number of military options in which Libya was increasingly singled out as
the main target, even though several other nations, notably Syria and Iran,
were also considered to be centres of tenorism.'65 The USrightwas urging

reprisals against the Arabs; it seemed that any Arabs would do. George
Shultz was one of the influential protagonists who was constantly pressing
for military action against Arabs who sought to frustrate US plans in the
area.66 He was supported by Zionists, certain business interests and Repub-
lican militarists. In July 1985 Reagan signalled his acceptance of the Shultz
position by giving his notorious 'misfits and loony-tunes' speech, in which
he denounced the 'tenorist' states of Iran, Cuba, Nicaragua, North Korea
and Libya.
It was easy to list the tenorist events but more difficult to demonstrate
the guilt of any particular faction or state. The US administration, horrified
by particular tenorist actions (such as the TWA hijacking, the take-over of
the Italian cruise liner Achille Lauro by a PLO faction, the hijacking of an
Egyptairflightto Malta, and the Abu Nidal killings at the Rome and Vienna
airports), exploited such events to prepare the ground for an attack on
Libya. Direct Libyan involvement in most of the tenorist events could not
be demonstrated by the US administration, but 'Libya's guilt was largely
pre-determined' .67 In January 1986 Washington published a document headed
'Libya Under Qadhafi: A Pattern of Aggression': here were listed various
acts of violence that were attributed to the Gaddafi regime, though only the
1979 sacking of the US embassy in Tripoli was cited as evidence of Libyan
violence against Americans. The document claimed that Gaddafi uses ter-
rorism 'as one of the primary instruments of his foreign policy', but no
concrete evidence was provided; the story of Libyan hit squads in the US
was reiterated with no reference to the many expressed doubts that any such
teams ever existed. Libya was again being selected for special attention, not
because it had a tenorist record demonstrably worse than that of certain
other states but because it was a convenient target. The black propaganda
had done its work. Who could complain if a 'loony-tunes' character such as
Gaddafi was bombed from the air and perhaps even killed?
After the staged intimidation of Libya by the Prairie Fire armada in the
Gulf of Sirte (and the killing of seventy-two Libyans), Washington sur-
mised that Gaddafi might try to retaliate by organising tenorist acts. It was
reported that the security service in Tripoli sent coded instructions to a
number of its People's Bureaus urging them to make preparations for
attacks on US military targets.68 One of these messages was allegedly sent
to the People's Bureau in East Berlin. Soon afterwards, a bomb exploded in
La Belle discotheque in West Berlin, a place frequented by American
servicemen: this explosion, on 5 April 1986, killed three and injured 230
others. The US administration quickly claimed that interception of coded
messages proved Libyan involvement in the atrocity, a claim that has since
been questioned by many independent observers (see below). Washington
had been desperate to pin some tenorist act on Gaddafi, and now it claimed
to have the smoking gun. The pretext for the bombing of Libya had been
established.
The Bombing
President Reagan, famously fond of Rambo feature films, had been saying
to aides for more than a year that he was looking for 'a clean shot' against
tenorism. Now he had his opportunity. On 9 April he attended a press
conference and demonstrated his remarkable communication skills by de-
nouncing Gaddafi as 'the Mad Dog of the Middle East'.69 The countdown
was on.
For some time the president's aides and the military planners had been
preparing for an attack on Gaddafi, but they wanted to discourage specula-
tion. Oliver North therefore set about creating the conect climate of min-
imum expectation, telling the NSC aide Johnathan Miller (who enjoyed
good press relations) that action against Libya was unlikely: the United
States did not want an incident, the right ships were not available, and in
any case the French would not approve overflights. Miller then called John
McWerthy, the State Department conespondent for ABC News, to offer
details of the story. The ABC anchorman then included a report in his show
stating that a retaliation against Gaddafi was unlikely. Oliver North re-
marked to Miller afterwards: 'That was the best disinformation I've ever
seen.'70
On 15 April 1986, at 2 a.m. Libyan time, aircraft from the US Air force
and Navy struck at six main targets in Tripoli and Benghazi. The US
officially stated that a total of thirty-six people were killed, but journalists
in Tripoli estimated that there were more than 100 dead and twice as many
wounded.71 The casualties included Gaddafi's wife Safia and three of the
couple's children, all of whom suffered pressure shock from a 20001b
bomb which hit their accommodation. The injured children were rushed
to hospital and some hours later Gaddafi's sixteen-month-old adopted
daughter, Hanna, died from severe brain damage. His two sons, Saef al-
Islam and Khamees, were kept in intensive care for several days.72 Gaddafi
survived unhurt but was emotionally shaken.
The American bomber force comprised F-l 1 Is flying from British bases
and A-6s flying from aircraft carriers in the Meditenanean. The targets
included the Aziziya Banacks where Gaddafi and his family were sleeping;
the Al Jamahiriya Banacks which houses the Muslim League, a para-
military force of many nationalities; two airfields; and anti-aircraft sites.
France and Spain had refused to allow use of their airspace and so the UK-
based F-l 11 bombers were forced to fly 2800 nautical miles across the
Atlantic and through the Gilbraltar Straits; thirty KC-135 tankers were used
en route for refuelling purposes. Television viewers were shown horrifying
pictures of the dead and the wounded and of the damage to property (the TV
broadcasts were later condemned by Tory MPs keen to support the Amer-
ican action). Several houses were destroyed and the French, Austrian and
Finnish embassies were damaged. Eight or nine F-l 11s had intended to
drop their laser-guided bombs on Gaddafi's compound but the planes had
mechanical problems and only two of the bombs were dropped as planned;
one F-l 11 bomber and its two crewmen were lost. The much-lauded 'smart'
bombs had succeeded in demolishing ordinary houses, killing innocent
civilians, and damaging foreign embassies. Gaddafi was alive but few
people doubted that the US raids were an assassination attempt.
President Reagan had claimed that 'we were not out to kill anybody', an
assertion that was amply contradicted by his own officials. Sources within
the US administration have revealed that the bombing of the Aziziya Bar-
racks, in the first wave of a two-wave attack, was intended to kill Gaddafi.73
Officials of the National Security Council had drafted a prior statement
describing Gaddafi's death as 'fortuitous',74 and an administration official
who had been intimately involved in planning the bombing raids admitted
that 'We hoped to get him. But nobody knew his whereabouts.'75 There was
also the hope that, if the raids failed to kill Gaddafi, his reputation would be
so weakened that the Libyan army would stage a coup. Secretary of State
George Schultz observed that the targets were chosen to leave an 'impres-
sion' on the Libyan military and that a coup would be 'all to the good'.76
Military sites had been attacked to give the Libyan officers their chance:
they did not take it. The bombing raid had failed in its primary purpose and
the US administration had again misjudged Libyan politics.
The Thatcher Role
At the beginning of 1986 Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher issued a warn-

ing against what she regarded as illegal measures that might be used
to combat international tenorism. The tenorist attacks at the Rome and
Vienna airports had occuned not long before and it was already clear that
opinion was being whipped up in the United States for a raid on Libya.
Michael Heseltine had resigned the day before Thatcher spoke to American
conespondents, and she had her own problems to contend with. Reagan was
urging a united NATO stand against Gaddafi but Thatcher, at that time,
refused to join the stampede towards hasty action. They declared that
sanctions 'don't work' as an instrument of foreign policy and in any case

there would be no chance of getting a European consensus. However, she
stressed in particular her opposition to a military strike against Libya: T do
not believe in retaliatory strikes that are against international law.' Such
measures might produce 'much greater chaos' than tenorism itself: 'Once
you start to go across borders then I do not see an end to it. I uphold
international law very firmly.'77
In early April President Reagan informed Thatcher, following the Berlin
outrage, that he intended to strike against Libya. He declared that the action
would proceed, whatever Thatcher's opinion, but that it would be useful
to be able to fly the F-l 11 bombers from their British bases. This would,
Reagan claimed, mean fewer casualties in Libya since the F-l 11s could
achieve more accurate results than the carrier-based aircraft in the Medi-
tenanean. It seemed clear that Reagan was asking Thatcher to conspire in
actions that she had only recently denounced as violations of international
law.
Suddenly Thatcher seemed less concerned about legal obligation, seeing
the immediate task as being able to find a way of justifying the proposed
American action. The British Attorney-General Michael Havers was asked
whether the proposed bombing of Libya might not be accommodated by
Article 51* of the UN Charter, which permitted military action for the
purpose of self-defence. The advice was seemingly that such action could
be justified under the Charter, whereupon Thatcher had no problem agree-
ing to the proposed bombing raids. However, she did suggest that only
'tenorist' targets should be hit and that civilian casualties should be kept to
a minimum, her only concessions to the demands of international law that
she had viewed very differently a short time before. Only a small number of
British cabinet ministers - Foreign Secretary Howe, Defence Secretary
Younger and Lord Whitelaw - were involved in the decision, and they all
had reservations. When Geoffrey Howe voiced some Foreign Office doubts
about the plan, Thatcher interrupted him, according to one minister, 'shriek-
ing about the need to support the Americans and the need not to be fair-
weather friends'.78 Younger broadcast some of his anxieties on a Scottish
•Article 51: 'Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or
collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until
the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and secu-
rity. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be imme-
diately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and
responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action
as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security.'
radio programme, and Whitelaw tried to make a distinction between agree-
ing a request from an ally and enthusing about every action that an ally
might take. When the rest of the cabinet were told about the American
request Chancellor Nigel Lawson and party chairman Norman Tebbit ex-
pressed reservations, as did a number of other Tory ministers. Soon after
this wide range of dissent had been expressed, Thatcher declared that
it would have been 'inconceivable' to have turned down the American
request.
Debate in the House of Commons showed Thatcher vigorously defend-
ing an American policy that she had roundly condemned a few months
before. One characteristic exchange was with Leo Abse, MP for Torfaen:
Mr Leo Abse (Torfaen): Is it not clear from all the statements the Prime
Minister has made that her passionate political infatuation with Reagan
is leading her to the misjudgments of a giddy girl? Why is she feeding
the paranoia of Gaddafi? Why is she providing him with corroboration of
his crazy conspiratorial theories? Why does she provide him with a
theatre in which he can place his self-immolating tenorists and allow
them, as they obviously now will, to come into this country? Is it not
abundantly clear that the real immediate effect of her collusion is in-
evitably the importation of greater tenorist violence into Britain?
The Prime Minister: The United States stands by the NATO alliance,
this country and Europe in defence of freedom. For that purpose it keeps
hundreds of thousands of troops in Europe. In that capacity, American
forces have been subject to tenorist attacks: and the complicity of Libya
in these attacks is beyond doubt. Yet the Hon. Gentleman is asking me
to refuse the United States, in the face of those attacks and planned
tenorist attacks, any right of self-defence, to use its own planes and its
own pilots to defend its own people. It would be ridiculous to refuse it.79
It was clear that Prime Minister Thatcher would hear no criticism of the
American decision to bomb Libya, despite her earlier comments on interna-
tional law: Reagan, at least according to Thatcher's public utterances, could
do no wrong. But Thatcher did not escape criticism on this issue: her
position on Libya - along with her deceits over the Belgrano and Westland
affairs - were most tellingly exposed by the tenacious Labour MP, Tam
Dalyell.80
Dalyell (MP for Linlithgow) quotes the Thatcher speech justifying the
American action and then subjects her remarks to scrutiny.81 He explores in
particular her suggestion that UK-based F-l 11 bombers had to be used
in order to minimise 'collateral' (civilian) damage in Libya: was Thatcher
really acting on humanitarian grounds? She was trying to argue that 'con-
tainment of killing' was her justification for agreeing the use of British
bases sited in the United Kingdom. Dalyell draws attention to American
sources to indicate the real reasons for the use of the F-l 1 Is, especially the
need to provide a proving ground for weapons. An ex-Pentagon analyst is
quoted: 'The budget, in short, is the mission. "It all comes back to the
budget," says one ex-Pentagon analyst. "For years we've being saying that
radar, infra-red, and smart bombs are the way to go. We've spent billions on
night-mission avionics, so we had to try to use them, even if a daylight
strike would have been better." '82 In a similar vein, one reputable aviation
journal noted that the attack on Libya 'provided a good proving ground
for the F-l 11s to be flown in the Meditenanean, and gave the Air Force
a chance to demonstrate its capabilities'.83 Nor was it true, as Thatcher
had implied, that the F-l 11s were superior to the carrier-borne A6s and
A7s: both were equipped with the high-technology TAM system or its
equivalent.
There were also other influential considerations that Thatcher failed to
cite in her attempted justification. There was, for example, the inter-service
rivalry between the US Navy and the US Air Force. Dalyell instances the
words of a senior Pentagon official quoted in Aviation Week: 'Understand-
ably, after the all-Navy action in Libya last month, the Air Force wanted a
piece of the action.' Moreover, a powerful Pentagon lobby was pushing the
idea of joint-service operations, particularly the use of land-based aircraft in
support of naval operations. And there were other aspects of internal Amer-
ican politics that received no acknowledgement in the Thatcher justifica-
tion. Again Tam Dalyell highlights the comments of Rear Admiral Eugene
Canoll Jr of the Center for Defense Information in Washington. When
asked whether it would have been practical to use the F-l 11s and ask the
British afterwards the Rear Admiral replied: 'That was the basis on which
the plan was prepared.'84 The implication was that the United States could
act in any way it pleased, using the territory of an ally as necessary and
without prior consultation, with the assumption that the ally could be
bounced into compliance after the event.
Tam Dalyell raised other matters of crucial importance, not least the
reason advanced by Washington in justification for their bombing strikes:
namely, the supposed Libyan complicity in the outrage at La Belle disco-
theque in West Berlin. Even if the Libyans were involved there was the
matter of proportionality of response but that consideration can be left on
one side: if Libyan complicity could not be established then no US action,
proportionate or not, could - even in Washington's terms - be justified.
Were the Libyans involved in the bombing of La Belle discotheque?
La Belle Justification?
After the naval actions of March 1986 the US searched for signs of Libyan-
inspired tenorist activities. We have seen that Washington claimed to have
intercepted messages from Tripoli to various People's Bureaus, leading to
the suspicion that Libya was working to organise further tenorist outrages.
One message in particular was seen as crucially important, a coded instruc-
tion allegedly received by the People's Bureau to East Germany in East
Berlin. The American claim is that on receiving this instruction the Libyan
security personnel at the Bureau felt authorised to proceed with a tenorist
operation against US servicemen in West Berlin, and La Belle discotheque
was chosen as the target. The day before the incident, the East Berlin bureau
had reportedly sent a message to Tripoli informing the security authorities
that they would 'be very happy' when they saw tomonow's headlines.85 A
further message, sent within minutes of the explosion, said - the US alleges
- that an operation 'was happening now'.86 President Reagan claimed that
the intercepted and decoded cables were 'inefutable proof of Libyan
involvement in the tenorist outrage. However, sources within the US ad-
ministration and what was claimed to be a West German translation of the
intercepted cables testified that the Libyan leadership neither authorised the
bombing nor specified the target.87
The US authorities have been unwilling to clarify the precise nature of
the Libyan involvement in the West Berlin outrage, or to release the full text
of the decoded and translated cables. Such reticence is conveniently ex-
plained by Washington in terms of national security, but there is a wide-
spread suspicion that the US administration has deliberately sought to
obscure the wording of the intercepted messages because they cannot be
relied upon to support an interpretation that would have gone some way to
justifying the bombing of Libya. In one interpretation, 'President Reagan
merely infened the responsibility of the Libyan leadership from evidence
his advisors knew to be ambiguous.'88 Washington tried to secure a trade
embargo against Libya, following the discotheque bombing, but could not
secure the agreement of its European allies: the Bonn government, for
example, expelled two Libyan diplomats but would not agree to a trade
embargo. A frustrated White House decided that a military strike - Opera-
tion El Dorado Canyon - was the only option: five days later, Tripoli and
Benghazi were bombed.
Tam Dalyell has also worked to expose the weakness in La Belle Justi-
fication. In particular, he reproduces a timetable prepared by Richard Ware
and Christopher Bowlby, impartial scholars in the British House of Com-
mons Library. This important chronology is headed 'Progress of investiga-
tions into responsibility for bomb at La Belle discotheque in Berlin on
5 April 1986'; it serves to show the fragility of the US justification for the
air strikes on Libya. It is useful to quote some of the elements of this
chronology:
5 April 1986: Bomb at La Belle discotheque in Berlin.

14-15 April 1986: US raid . . . Reagan asserts 'inefutable' evidence
of Libyan connection with tenorism and refers to
intercepted messages . . . 'The evidence is now
conclusive that the tenorist bombing of La Belle
discotheque was planned and executed under the
direct orders of the Libyan regime.'
17 April 1986: Bomb attack on El Al plane foiled at Heathrow
airport.
18 April 1986: Arrest in London of Nezar Hindawi in connection
with El Al attempted bombing; Ahmed Hasi ar-
rested in Berlin on suspicion of involvement in
La Belle attack.
21 April 1986 Der Spiegel quotes Berlin state security chief
Manfred Ganshow's statement to a Bundestag
home affairs committee that the Libyan connec-
tion is still only one important lead among sev-
eral. Christian Lochte, head of the Hamburg
Verfassungsschutz, is quoted as saying that there
is as yet 'no concrete evidence' of Libyan in-
volvement . . . Local criminal police are invest-
igating 'in all possible directions', including the
theory that rival disco-owners or drug dealers might
have had a motive for the attack on La Belle.
25 April 1986: The West Berlin Morgenpost reports that the docu-
ments found in Hasi's flat 'have turned out to be
insufficient grounds for keeping Hasi in jail' . . .
unidentified police sources tell Associated Press
that there has been 'no progress' on solving La
Belle bombing.
27 April 1986: The Observer, drawing on Washington and Bonn
sources, reports that the US administration has
'massaged' the intercepts . . . in order to make
their relevance more clear-cut.
6 May 1986: West German police do not now think that (Hasi
and his associate Salameh) were involved in La
Belle attack.
22-23 May 1986: . . . Die Welt and Bild report an alleged connection
between the La Belle bombing and a Libyan shot
dead in East Berlin . . . According to unidentified
Intelligence sources Mohammed Ashour, a former
Libyan diplomat, was killed on the orders of
Colonel Gaddafi because he had passed informa-
tion on La Belle bombing to the CIA. US diplo-
matic sources and the West German government
discount the story . . .
17 November 1986: . . . the Guardian conespondent reports that 'the
La Belle investigations have reached a dead end'.
18 January 1987: . . . Morgenpost cites anonymous justice depart-
ment sources as saying that a letter found on . . .
Hindawi . . . refened both to the La Belle disco-
theque and a Syrian intelligence agent . . .
These chronological extracts are quoted, not to demonstrate that a clear

solution to the discotheque bombing is at hand but, quite the reverse, to
show that it is impossible at this stage to establish that any group of
individuals - or any state - is uniquely culpable. It is obvious that Reagan's
'inefutable' evidence was no such thing. This should be borne in mind in
considering the 1991/92 claims of the Bush administration that there was
inefutable evidence of Libya's sole responsibility for the Lockerbie outrage
(Chapter One).
The Response
The international response to the bombing of Libya was to a large extent

predictable. President Reagan had made clear, in characteristic fashion,
what his purposes were: he had bombed Libya as a way of 'contributing to
an international environment of peace, freedom and progress within which
our democracy - and other free nations - can flourish'.90 However, the US
administration had not been confident enough of the US public's reaction to
the bombing to neglect necessary attention to news management. The 1986
air attack on Libya 'was a brilliantly staged media event, the first bombing
in history scheduled for prime-time TV, for the precise moment when the
networks open their national news programs'.91 Anchor men were able to
switch at once to Tripoli so that the exciting events could be viewed live.
Then followed the carefully conceived news conferences and White House
statements. It was firmly explained that the bombing of Tripoli and Benghazi
was 'self-defense against future attack',92 a measured reaction to the disco-
theque outrage in Berlin ten days before. The media knew that the evidence
for Libyan complicity in the discotheque bombing was slight but such an
inconsequential detail was suppressed in the general applause for Reagan's
decisive action.
In fact a report from Berlin, just half an hour before the US attack, had
stated that US and West German officials had no evidence, only 'suspi-
cions', of Libyan involvement. This contradicted earlier government claims
of certain knowledge, again a minor inconsistency that the White House
press corps resolutely ignored. Within a short time leading West German
publications, and obscure ones in the United States, carried the information
that the German intelligence team investigating the bombing at La Belle
discotheque had no knowledge whatever of any Libyan complicity. This
information was largely suppressed in the United States. And there was
more. The US administration had put out a story that, having intercepted the
Libyan messages, efforts were made to warn the US servicemen at the
discotheque but that the alert called in West Berlin had failed by fifteen
minutes. The West Berlin police informed the BBC that no alert had been
called: the American story was pure fabrication. Yet the pliant US media
continued to carry the disinformation. Thus the Pentagon conespondent of
Business Week was able to write that 'by ordering the 1986 bombing of a
West Berlin disco in which two American servicemen were killed, Gadaffi
provoked a violent response - a massive air raid'.93
The systematic campaign of disinformation and news management
achieved its purpose. Reagan's popularity in the United States soared as he
was engulfed in a wave of adulation. High-technology weapons had been
given their first trial by fire and, despite the unimpressive results, arms
stock prices shot up immediately after the bombing. Liberal opinion in
America might have been shocked by the US onslaught on a sovereign state
but the action had supposedly had 'chilling effect on state-sponsored tenor-
ism and had demonstrated the President's resolve to the world'.94 The
response in Britain to the bombing of Libya was mixed, with a substantial
number of observers sceptical or disapproving. Even some committed Con-
servative columnists withheld their support from the Thatcher-approved
American action. Thus Ferdinand Mount, who had run Thatcher's policy
unit for two years bridging the 1983 election, ridiculed the idea that 'care-
fully selected targets' designed to minimise civilian casualties, could in-
clude a site right in the centre of Tripoli; and he commented that perhaps the
event would cost the Tories the next election. A resolution introduced in the
US Congress had offered Thatcher the 'highest praise and thanks' for
supporting the American action but in the UK the episode made her deeply
unpopular. There was concern that Libya would retaliate with tenorist
operations: not much happened but pro-Libyan activists killed two British
hostages, Leigh Douglas and Philip Padfield, and the American Peter Kilburn
in Beirut.95
The response in Europe was deeply hostile. A round-the-clock protest
was begun outside the US embassy in London; two thousand people held a
candlelit vigil outside Downing Street; and there were demonstrations out-
side government buildings and at the four US bases - Upper Heyford,
Lakenheath, Fairford and Mildenhall - from which the F-l 11 bombers had
flown. About 10,000 people demonstrated in West Germany, and in Italy
3000 people attended a Communist Party youth protest. Polls suggested that
65 per cent of people in Britain and 75 per cent in West Germany opposed
the bombing; in France 66 per cent were in favour but 63 per cent approved
the government's decision not to let the US bombers use French airspace
(by the end of April the figure opposing the American attack had risen to 56
per cent with 79 per cent approving the ban on the use of airspace).96 The
day before the US bombing the European Economic Community had under-
lined 'the need for restraint on all sides', and when the bombing went ahead
there was speedy condemnation from many European capitals. Bettino
Craxi said that the action ran the risk of 'provoking a further explosion of
fanaticism, extremism, criminal and suicide actions', and other leaders
joined the Italian Prime Minister in condemning the US attack. Spain,
Greece, Austria, Denmark and the Netherlands expressed various degrees
of criticism, some 'deplored' the action. The Greek government accused
Britain, with its foreknowledge of the attack, of 'violating the moral rules of
political co-operation'; and Leo Tindemans, the Belgian Foreign Minister,
demanded an explanation from Geoffrey Howe.97 The official French and
West German reactions were more guarded.
There was widespread Arab condemnation of the American attack, per-
haps the most predictable foreign reaction of all, but this did nothing to dent
the enthusiasm of the American public for President Reagan's 'resolute'
stand. The way was open for further anti-Libyan initiatives.
THE CONTINUING CAMPAIGN
Soon the US administration, frustrated at their failure to kill Colonel Gaddafi,

were again considering possible options. Such key players as CIA chief
William Casey and Secretary of State George Shultz 'were determined to
finish what had been started in Libya'.98 Meetings were held between
representatives from the CIA, the State Department, the White House, and
the Department of Defence to discuss the possible courses of action. Per-
haps the Pentagon could send planes to generate sonic booms just off the
Libyan coast to unnerve Gaddafi. Casey volunteered: 'Humiliate him.'
How could this be done? How could Gaddafi's perceived paranoia be fed,
in the hope that he would fall apart? The State Department acknowledged
that the Libyan exile groups were weak and that the US must rely upon its
own direct covert action. Further disinformation plans were considered.
'Deception' should be ananged to suggest that US planes were crossing
Gaddafi's 'line of death' in the Gulf of Sirte, and there could be foreign
media placements. 'Articles should be placed to show the following: Libyan
military dissent; the existence of an underground in the Libyan Army;
combined operations planned against Libya; Soviets planning a coup; Libyan
intelligence should be provided with photography of Libyan dissidents
meeting with Soviet officials in Paris, Baghdad, etc.; US coup planned with
senior Libyan help.'99 Use could be made of clandestine radio, and rubber
rafts could be dropped on Libyan beaches to make it seem that a coup was
underway.
In August 1986 William Casey received a TOP SECRET memorandum
from John Poindexter in which further possible actions against Colonel
Gaddafi were set down. Internal dissidents could be encouraged to act, there
could be fresh covert action, rumours could be spread that the US was about
to take further military action, there could be fresh joint military exercises
(designed to 'spook' the Libyan defences), and there could be further
'deception operations'. The 'temporarily quiescent' Gaddafi must be stopped
before he moved 'to a more active role'.
On 14 August President Reagan met with Shultz, Weinberger, Casey,
Poindexter and Admiral William Crowe, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs
of Staff, to consider further actions against Gaddafi. Poindexter praised the
bombing raids and urged the need for a fresh disinformation campaign.
Crowe wondered whether it was sensible to spread rumours about possible
American actions and not carry them through. The President was soon
offering his own contribution:
'Reagan quipped, "Why not invite Qaddafi to San Francisco, he likes
to dress up so much."
Shultz retorted, "Why don't we give him AIDS."
The others laughed . . .'10°
The meeting considered many different 'harassment' options but did not at
that stage consider tenorism or fresh military options. Two days later
President Reagan authorised a deception and disinformation programme
designed to 'dissuade Qaddafi from engaging in tenorism; bring about a
change of leadership; minimize the possibility of Soviet gains in Libya'.
The classification was TOP SECRET and coded 'VEIL'.101 Soon afterwards
elements of the disinformation plan were put into effect: The Wall Street
Journal talked of the 'collision course' between Libya and the United
States, declaring that Gaddafi was plotting fresh acts of tenorism and
that the US was preparing for another air raid. Poindexter publicly endorsed
the story and White House spokesman Larry Speakes declared it
'authoritative'.
Such events should be borne in mind when we consider the Western
accusations made against Colonel Gaddafi through the 1990s.
It remains to be seen whether the new Clinton presidency will represent a

genuine 'new beginning' or whether it will remain true to the broad thrust
of US interventionism that has been maintained, virtually without pause, for
more than a century. We did not have to wait long to be given a clue as to
what to expect. On 4 November 1992 President-elect Clinton declared:
'America has only one president at a time . . . and even as America's
administrations change, America's fundamental interests do not.' There
would, he said, be 'essential continuity of American foreign policy'. With
the subsequent passing of Security Council Resolution 883 (Appendix 7) in
1993, continued US hostility to Libya, and White House threats (23 Decem-
ber 1994) of harsher anti-Libya measures in the future, no-one doubted that
illegal US attempts to destabilise the Gaddafi regime would continue.
Appendix 1
Summary of Documents Issued to the United
Nations by US, UK and France to Record
Charges Against and Demands on Libya
All the documents are cited in UN Security Council Resolution 731 (Appendix 2).
Document S/23306 - issued by France (20 December 1991)
Covering letter plus Annex
The Annex notes the attack on the UTA DC-10 and demands that the Libyan
authorities 'cooperate immediately, effectively and by all possible means with
French justice in order to help to establish responsibility for this terrorist act'.
Libya is called upon
T o produce all the material evidence in its possession and to facilitate access
to all documents that might be useful for establishing the truth'.
'To facilitate the necessary contacts and meetings, inter alia, for the assembly
of witnesses'.
'To authorise the responsible Libyan officials to respond to any request made
by the examining magistrate responsible for judicial information*.
Document S/23307 - issued by the United Kingdom (20 December 1991)
Covering letter plus text of the statement made by the Scottish Lord Advocate on
14 November 1991, text of the Foreign Secretary's statement in the Commons on
14 November 1991, and test of a statement issued by the British government
on 27 November 1991
The Lord Advocate's statement records the issuing of warrants for the arrest of
the two named Libyan nationals, details the charges (including the alleged
chronology of events), and declares that this 'does not mark the end of the
police investigation
The Foreign Secretary's statement notes the details of the Lockerbie bombing,
notes the issuing of warrants by the Lord Advocate, and comments that 'the
investigation has revealed no evidence to support suggestion of involvement by
other countries
348
Appendix 1 349
The British government statement notes the issuing of warrants and demands
that the Libyan government: surrender for trial those charged; accept complete
responsibility for the actions of Libyan officials; disclose all it knows of the
crime; and pay appropriate compensation. 'We expect Libya to comply promptly
and in full.'
Document S/23308 - issued by the United States (20 December 1991)
Covering letter plus statement from US government and joint declaration from
government of United States and United Kingdom
The statement notes that the indictments have been conveyed to the Libyan
government and introduces the joint declaration. The declaration demands that
Libya: surrender for trial those charged; accept responsibility for the actions of
Libyan officials; disclose all it knows of the crime; and pay appropriate com-
pensation. 'We expect Libya to comply promptly and in full.'
Document S/23309 - issued by France, the United Kingdom and the United States
(20 December 1991)
Letter plus tripartite declaration condemning terrorism and noting the demands on
Libya. 'Libya must promptly, by concrete actions, prove its renunciation of
terrorism.'
Document S/23317 - issued by the United States (23 December 1991)
Covering letter plus copy of the indictment handed down by the United States
District Court for the District of Columbia on 14 November in connection with
the bombing of Pan Am flight 103. The indictment lists the alleged chronology of
events, gives details of the alleged conspiracy, describes the manner and means
used by the alleged conspirators, records specific alleged acts, and names the
alleged conspirators. The indictment also lists all the victims of the Lockerbie
bombing and lists separately the nationals of the United States who died as a
result of the bombing.
Appendix 2
UN Security Council Resolution 731 (1992)
Also before the Council is a draft resolution (Document S/23422) sponsored by
France, the United Kingdom and the United States, which reads as follows:
'The Security Council,
'Deeply disturbed by the world-wide persistence of acts of international terrorism in

all its forms, including those in which States are directly or indirectly involved,
which endanger or take innocent lives, have a deleterious effect on international
relations and jeopardise the security of States,
'Deeply concerned by all activities directed against international civil aviation and
affirming the right of all States, in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations
and relevant principles of international law, to protect their nationals from acts of
international terrorism that constitute threats to international peace and security,
'Reaffirming its resolution 286 (1970) in which it called on States to take all
possible legal steps to prevent any interference with international civil air travel,
'Reaffirming also its resolution 635 (1989) in which it condemned all acts of
unlawful interference against the security of civil aviation and called upon all States
to cooperate in devising and implementing measures to prevent all acts of terrorism,
including those involving explosives,
'Recalling the statement made on 30 December 1988 by the President of the Council
on behalf of the members of the Council strongly condemning the destruction of Pan
Am flight 103 and calling on all States to assist in the apprehension and prosecution
of those responsible for this criminal act,
'Deeply concerned over results of investigations which implicate officials of the

Libyan Government and which are contained in Security Council documents that
include the requests addressed to the Libyan authorities by France, the United
Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the United States of America in
connection with the legal procedures related to the attacks carried out against Pan
Am flight 103 and UTA flight 772 (S/23306*; S/23307*; S/23308*; S/23309*;
S/23317),
'Determined to eliminate international terrorism,
'1. Condemns the destruction of Pan Am flight 103 and UTA flight 772 and the
resultant loss of hundreds of lives;
350
Appendix 2 351
'2. Strongly deplores the fact that the Libyan Government has not yet responded
effectively to the above requests to cooperate fully in establishing respons-
ibility for the terrorist acts referred to above against Pan Am flight 103 and
UTA flight 772;
'3. Urges the Libyan Government immediately to provide a full and effective
response to those requests so as to contribute to the elimination of interna-
tional terrorism;
'4. Requests the Secretary-General to seek the cooperation of the Libyan Govern-
ment to provide a full and effective response to those requests;
'5. Urges all States individually and collectively to encourage the Libyan Govern-
ment to respond fully and effectively to those requests;
'6. Decides to remain seized of the matter.'

Appendix 3
First Report (S/23574) on Libyan Crisis by
UN Secretary-General Dr Boutros Boutros
Ghali (11 February 1992)
1. This report is being submitted pursuant to paragraph 4 of Security Council
resolution 731 (1992), which requested the Secretary-General 'to seek the coopera-
tion of the Libyan Government to provide a full and effective response' to the
requests referred to in that resolution.
2. Following consultations with the Libyan authorities, the Secretary-General sent

Under-Secretary-General Vasiliy Safronchuk as his Special Envoy to Libya on
25 January 1992. The next day, Mr. Safronchuk called on the Libyan leader, Colonel
Qaddafi, and delivered to him a personal message from the Secretary-General
together with the text of resolution 731 and the related records of the Security
Council. In his message to Colonel Qaddafi, the Secretary-General noted that he was
encouraged by the assurances given to him by Minister Jadalla Belgasem El-Talhi
that Libya was ready to cooperate with him. Further, while expressing the earnest
hope that the matter in question could be resolved quickly so that peace could
prevail, the Secretary-General emphasised that he was acting under the terms of
paragraph 4 of resolution 731 and not as a mediator between the Security Council
and the Libyan authorities.
3. In responding, Colonel Qaddafi asked the Special Envoy to reiterate to the

Secretary-General his readiness to cooperate with him. Following receipt of the
charges against two Libyan nationals, Colonel Qaddafi stated that the Libyan
authorities had immediately started legal proceedings against them and appointed a
judge to try them. He added that the two Libyan nationals had hired lawyers to
represent them. Colonel Qaddafi said that the Libyan judges would require further
information and that this should be provided by the Governments of the United
States and the United Kingdom. He further suggested that if those two Governments
were dissatisfied with the Libyan judges, then they should send their own judges.
With specific reference to the requests contained in resolution 731 (1992), Colonel
Qaddafi stated that he could not take any action which would contravene the legal
system of Libya. He suggested, however, that the Secretary-General invite to Libya
judges from the United States, the United Kingdom and France, as well as repre-
sentatives of the League of Arab States, the Organisation of African Unity and the
Organisation of the Islamic Conference to observe a trial in the event that the Libyan
judges decided to try the two Libyan nationals.
4. After careful consideration of this response, the Secretary-General on 30 Janu-

ary 1992 once again received the Permanent Representative of Libya in New York
352
Appendix 3 353
and informed him that he would now need to report to the Security Council. The
Permanent Representative indicated that he would like to have a further discussion
with his leadership. He proposed to the Secretary-General to allow him five to six
days during which he would fly to Tripoli and consult with his leadership on its
final position. Upon returning from Tripoli, the Permanent Representative met the
Secretary-General on 11 February and indicated that he was mandated by his
leadership to convey the following reply:
(1) Libya had decided to accept 'the French demands since they were in con-
formity with international law and did not infringe upon the sovereignty of
Libya'. Libya requested, therefore, that the Secretary-General inform the French
Government of that decision. The Libyan authorities further requested that the
Secretary-General either take the initiative of setting up a mechanism for the
implementation of this aspect of the resolution or ask France and Libya to
negotiate such a mechanism among themselves.
(2) As far as resolution 731 as a whole was concerned, Libya was ready to
cooperate fully with the Security Council and with the Secretary-General 'in the
light of the statements made in the Security Council and in a way that would not
infringe upon State sovereignty nor violate the Charter of the United Nations and
principles of international law'. It was thus his country's view that 'a mechanism
should be created for the implementation of resolution 731 and, therefore, Libya
invited the Secretary-General to create such a mechanism or to call upon the
parties concerned to discuss among themselves and eventually agree on the
setting up of the mechanism in accordance with the spirit of resolution 731'.
5. The Secretary-General explained to the Ambassador that his own role under
resolution 731 was determined by the provisions of paragraph 4 of that resolution.
He added, however, that he would inform the Security Council fully of the position
of the Libyan authorities.
Appendix 4
Second Report (S/23672) on Libyan Crisis
by UN Secretary-General Dr Boutros Boutros
Ghali (3 March 1992)
1. The present further report is being submitted pursuant to paragraph 4 of Secu-
rity Council resolution 731 (1992), by which the Council requested the Secretary-
General to seek the cooperation of the Libyan Government to provide a full and
effective response to the requests referred to in that resolution.
2. Following the circulation of the Secretary-General's earlier report on this sub-

ject, 1/ the Secretary-General met with the Permanent Representatives of France, the
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the United States of
America on 17 February 1992. They requested the Secretary-General to convey to
the Libyan leader, Colonel Muammar Qaddafi, Leader of the First of September
Revolution, the following points on behalf of their Governments:
(a) The three Governments consider that the statement by the Libyan Govern-
ment delivered to the Secretary-General of the United Nations through the
Permanent Representative of the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya in New York, in
which the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya expresses its readiness to abide by the
Security Council resolution and to cooperate fully with their request as
referred to in resolution 731 (1992), represents a step forward only if it is
supported by action;
(b) In this connection, the three Governments support the request of the French
Government and would like to be informed of the mechanism by which the
Libyan authorities will hand over the records and documentation requested,
and whatever else may be requested by the French examining magistrate, and
of where and when the Libyan authorities intend to do so;
(c) The Governments of the States in question would further like to know the
time, place and modality of the hand-over by the Libyan authorities of
the two persons charged and the information and evidence requested and the
precise measures that the Libyan Government intends to take in order to end
support for terrorism in all its forms;
(d) The three Governments have no objection to the hand-over of the suspects
and the information requested taking place through the Secretary-General of
the United Nations in accordance with paragraph 4 of resolution 731 (1992);
354
Appendix 4 355
(e) The three Governments believe that their requests are clear and precise and
that they do not require further clarification;
(f) With regard to the question of compensation, the three States seek to obtain
assurances from the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya with regard to its responsibility
in this connection.
3. Following consultations with the Libyan authorities, the Secretary-General

again sent Under-Secretary-General Vasiliy Safronchuk to Tripoli to convey to
Colonel Qaddafi a second message containing the above points and he asked the
Libyan Leader to give him a precise and detailed reply.
4. Mr. Safronchuk first met with Colonel Qaddafi on 24 February 1992. He then
travelled to Geneva on 25 February in order to report to the Secretary-General
Colonel Qaddafi's reaction to his message. He then returned to the Libyan Arab
Jamahiriya and met again with Colonel Qaddafi on 27 February. In the course of the
two meetings the head of the Libyan State made the following points:
(a) There are constitutional obstructions preventing Colonel Qaddafi or the Libyan
administration from handing over Libyan citizens abroad for trial in the
absence of an extradition treaty;
(b) He may address an appeal to the Libyan people through the People's Com-
mittee, which might result in the removal of these obstructions. He did not
indicate how long it would take to overcome the existing constitutional
hurdles;
(c) Once the constitutional problems were solved, the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya
could be inclined to consider France as the possible venue for a trial of the
Libyan citizens; however, France had not requested that any suspects be
handed over to it for trial;
(d) Although the Libyan authorities could not forcibly hand over the suspects for
trial in a foreign country, the suspects were free to hand themselves over
voluntarily and the Government of the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya had no
intention of preventing them from doing so;
(e) The possibility of handing over the suspects to the authorities of third coun-
tries for trial may be considered. In this context Malta or any Arab country
were mentioned by the Libyan Leader;
(f) Improvement of bilateral relations between the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya and
the United States would make it possible to hand over the two suspects to the
United States authorities;
(g) The Libyan Arab Jamahiriya is prepared to cooperate in every way possible
to put an end to terrorist activities and sever its relations with all groups and
organisations that target innocent civilians. It will not allow its territory,
356 Appendix 4
citizens or organisations to be used in any way for carrying out terrorist acts
directly or indirectly. It is prepared to punish most severely anyone proven to
be involved in such acts;
(h) It is premature to discuss the question of compensation, which can result only
from a civil court decision. However, the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya will
guarantee the payment of compensation awarded as a result of responsibility
of its suspected citizens if they are unable to pay it themselves;
(i) The Libyan Arab Jamahiriya agrees to the French request. As a means of
giving effect to these requests, the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya agrees to act on
the French proposal that a judge come to the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya to
investigate the case as he may see fit. It agrees to provide the French judge
with a copy of the minutes of the investigation carried out by the Libyan
judge;
(j) The Secretary of the People's Committee for Foreign Liaison and Interna-
tional Cooperation of the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Mr. Ibrahim M. Bishari,
on 27 February 1992 addressed a letter to the Secretary-General of the United
Nations in which some of these points are reiterated (see annex I). The
Secretary-General received a second letter from the Secretary on 2 March
1992 (see annex II, enclosure).
5. On 26 February, while in Geneva the Secretary-General met with a special

envoy of Colonel Qaddafi, Mr. Yusef Debri, Head of Libyan Intelligence, with
whom the entire situation was reviewed.
6. From the foregoing, it will be seen that while resolution 731 (1992) has not yet
been complied with, there has been a certain evolution in the position of the Libyan
authorities since the Secretary-General's earlier report of 11 February 1992. \l The
Security Council may wish to consider this in deciding on its future course of action.
Annex I
Letter dated 27 February 1992 from the Secretary of the People's

Committee for Foreign Liaison and International Cooperation of the
Libyan Arab Jamahiriya addressed to the Secretary-General
[Original: Arabic]
Proceeding from the adherence of the Great Jamahiriya to the rules of interna-
tional law and to respect for the provisions of the Charter of the United Nations,
In its desire to promote international peace and security, to strengthen friendly

relations between States, to ensure stability in international relations, to condemn all
modes of the threat or use of force and to condemn international terrorism,
Appendix 4 357
Seeking to cooperate closely with the United Nations and its Secretary-General,
and basing itself on the human rights covenants and laws that regard the right to
litigation before a fair and impartial court as an essential guarantee of justice,
Understanding the role entrusted to the Secretary-General of the United Nations,

and seeking to demonstrate its sincerity in meeting its international obligations,
The Jamahiriya, despite all the technical, legal and judicial difficulties raised by
its national legislation, by international agreements, by the principles of sovereignty
and by the Charter of the United Nations, with which we deem Security Council
resolution 731 (1992) to be incompatible, nevertheless expresses its full readiness to
cooperate with the Secretary-General of the United Nations in facilitating the task
entrusted to him under paragraph 4 of Security Council resolution 731 (1992),
To that end, the Jamahiriya proposes the following mechanism:
1. It has no objection in principle to handing over the two suspects to the Office
of the United Nations Development Programme in Tripoli for questioning.
2. The Secretary-General of the United Nations should undertake to form a legal

committee made up of judges whose probity and impartiality are well attested
in order to inquire into the facts, ascertain whether the charges made against
the two suspects are well founded and conduct a comprehensive inquiry.
3. Should it become evident to the Secretary-General of the United Nations that

the charge is well founded, the Jamahiriya will not oppose the hand-over of
the two suspects, under his personal supervision, to a third party, while
stressing that they should not again be handed over.
4. The Secretary-General of the United Nations should endeavour to provide all

legal and judicial guarantees for the conduct of a just and fair trial based on the
International Bill of Human Rights and the principles of international law.
With regard to the French requests
Libya agrees to the French requests. As a means of giving effect to these requests,
the Jamahiriya agrees to act on the French proposal that a magistrate should come
to Libya to investigate the case in the manner that he deems fit. It agrees to provide
the French magistrate with a copy of the minutes of the investigation carried out by
the Libyan judge.
With regard to the issue of terrorism
The Jamahiriya affirms its outright condemnation of terrorism in all its forms and
whatever its source, and it denies the allegations concerning its involvement in any
terrorist acts. Accordingly, it is prepared to undertake the following:
358 Appendix 4
1. The Jamahiriya, denying this allegation, has no objection to the Secretary-

General or his representative investigating the facts in the Jamahiriya in order
to refute or confirm it. The Jamahiriya undertakes to provide all the facilities
and information that the Secretary-General or his representative may deem it
necessary to have in order to arrive at the truth. The Jamahiriya is of the view
that it is possible to draw up an agreement, or bilateral or multilateral agree-
ments, designating the ways and means necessary for the elimination of
international terrorism, and it is prepared to enter into bilateral or multilateral
discussions to that end.
2. Libya expresses its readiness to cooperate in any matter that may put an end
to terrorist activities and to sever its relations with all groups and organisations
which target innocent civilians.
3. Libya shall not, under any circumstances, permit the use of its territory, its
nationals or its institutions for the perpetration, directly or indirectly, of any
terrorist acts, and it is prepared to impose the severest penalties on those
against whom involvement in such acts can be proved.
4. Libya undertakes to respect the national choices of all States and to build its
relations on a foundation of mutual respect and non-interference in internal
affairs.
The proposals contained in this draft shall be binding on Libya if they are
accepted by the other party. The results arrived at, whatever they may be, shall be
binding on all, a new chapter shall be opened in relations between the two sides,
State terrorism against Libya shall end, there shall be a halt to threats and provoca-
tions against it, its territorial integrity, its sovereignty and the integrity of its
territorial waters shall be guaranteed, the economic boycott shall be ended, its
political choices shall be respected and its name shall finally be removed from the
roster of terrorism.
With regard to compensation
Despite the fact that discussion of the question of compensation is premature,

since it would only follow from a civil judgement based on a criminal judgement,
Libya guarantees the payment of any compensation that might be incurred by the
responsibility of the two suspects who are its nationals in the event that they were
unable to pay.
The Jamahiriya stresses to the Secretary-General and to the Security Council that
all parties must contribute to cooperation and not one party alone. To this day,
despite all the cooperation that the Jamahiriya has evinced and has demonstrated in
practice, the three States in question have not responded to its legitimate request for
them to provide it with the dossiers of the investigation on the basis of which the
parties concerned presume to make charges against the two suspects. Saddened as it
is at the lack of cooperation on the part of these parties, it requests you and the
Council to intercede with them in this matter.
Appendix 4 359
In conclusion, the Jamahiriya appreciates your role and salutes your contribution,
and it affirms once more its readiness to cooperate in such a manner as to ensure the
success of your endeavours.
(Signed) Ibrahim M. BISHARI

Secretary of the People's Committee for
Foreign Liaison and International Cooperation
Annex II
Letter dated 2 March 1992 from the Permanent Representative of the

Libyan Arab Jamahiriya to the United Nations addressed to the
Secretary-General
[Original: Arabic]
I have the honour to transmit to you herewith the text of a letter addressed to you
by Mr. Ibrahim M. Bishari, Secretary of the People's Committee for Foreign Liaison
and International Cooperation.
(Signed) Ali Ahmed HOUDEIRI

Permanent Representative
Enclosure
Letter from the Secretary of the People's Committee for Foreign

Liaison and International Cooperation of the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya
addressed to the Secretary-General
Since the announcement of the presumed suspicion of two Libyan nationals in the
matter of the regrettable incident involving Pan Am flight 103 - in which innocent
people were victims and with regard to which, as before, I can only express the grief
invoked in me by the incident and by the victims who died in it - the popular
authorities in the Jamahiriya have taken the measures required in such cases by the
law and by international covenants. The United Kingdom and the United States,
however, submitted to the competent Libyan authorities requests for the extradition
of the two Libyan nationals for the purpose of bringing them to trial themselves, and
they have constantly insisted, despite the proposals made by the competent author-
ities in the Jamahiriya, on requesting extradition and nothing else, thereby overstep-
ping the limits of our domestic law and international rules and customs.
As you know, the United Kingdom and the United States convened a meeting of
the Security Council on the regrettable aircraft incident and succeeded in having the
Council adopt a resolution urging the Jamahiriya to respond to their requests with
regard to the relevant legal procedures. Following the adoption of the resolution, the
Jamahiriya announced that it would respond in a manner in keeping with its sover-
360 Appendix 4
eignty and the rule of law, and it took practical steps for the implementation of the
resolution as it related to legal investigations.
In this connection, I should like to say that the Jamahiriya, a State Member of the
United Nations, did not refuse extradition in itself. The domestic institutions of the
Jamahiriya, however, whether administrative or judicial, were faced with a legal
obstacle, namely that the Libyan law which has been in force for more than 30 years
does not permit the extradition of Libyan nationals. This is a law which is fully in
keeping with all the world's legal systems. The competent authorities in the Jamahiriya
could find nothing mat would enable them to respond to the requests made by these
States other than by violating the law, and this is something that cannot be done in
any civilised State which is a Member of the United Nations. It is this that is the
obstacle, and it is, as you can see, a legal obstacle and not by any means a political
one. The Libyan authorities cannot bypass this legal obstacle or violate therightsof
citizens protected by the law.
You are aware that the United Kingdom and the United States are intimating that
they are about to convene another meeting of the Security Council in order to seek
the adoption of another resolution on the same matter. It goes without saying that the
convening of such a meeting and the adoption of a resolution, whatever its character
might be, will change nothing. The legal obstacle indicated above will remain as
it is, and it cannot be altered by a decision of the Security Council, whether a
recommendation or a binding resolution. It would be pointless to adopt such a
resolution because of its futility and the impossibility of its implementation in light
of the domestic law in force and of international rules and customs while the
competent authorities proclaim that they have no objection to extradition or to trial
in any locality.
I have sought to address this letter to you so that we may convey to you a picture
of the legal situation as it really is. I should like to advise you, however, that the
solution to this matter falls within the purview of the law and not elsewhere and that
attempts to bypass the law, even by means of resolutions, binding or non-binding,
would seem to be both unhelpful and unwarranted since there is no party that is
deliberately raising objections. It is rather the law that has objections, and it is not
rational to put pressure on the law by the adoption of resolutions by the Security
Council or by any other body.
(Signed) Ibrahim M. BISHARI

Secretary of the People's Committee
for Foreign Liaison and International Cooperation
Appendix 5
Arab League Resolution 5161
(22 March 1992)
Resolution adopted by the Council of the League of Arab States at its Resumed
Meeting at the Level of Ministers for Foreign Affairs Convened in Extraordi-
nary Session on 22 March 1992
Threats to the Great Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya
The Council of the League of Arab States, meeting in extraordinary session on

22 March 1992,
In conformity with the Pact of the League of Arab States and the covenants and
treaties emanating therefrom and supplementary thereto,
Recalling its resolutions 5156, of 5 December 1991, and 5158, of 16 January

1992, affirming support for and solidarity with Libya in the matter of the American,
British and French charges made against it,
Having regard for the principles of the United Nations and of the League of Arab
States relating to the settlement of international conflicts by peaceful means and in
a manner that does not place in jeopardy international peace and security, and
particularly for the provisions of article 52 of the Charter of the United Nations,
Welcoming Libya's expression of its readiness to cooperate with the Secretary-

General of the United Nations, as regards the legal aspects of Security Council
resolution 731 (1992), in an impartial inquiry or an impartial or international
tribunal,
Recalling the application submitted by Libya to the International Court of Justice

on 3 March 1992,
Having reviewed the most recent developments relating to the incident of the
United States Pan American aircraft and that of the French UTA aircraft and the
persistence of the United States of America, the United Kingdom and France in
escalating their campaign against the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, decides:
1. To exercise its good offices at all levels for no threats to be directed against
Libya and for an attempt to be made to solve the problem by peaceful means;
361
362 Appendix 5
2. To affirm its explicit condemnation of terrorism in all its forms, and to welcome
the readiness expressed by Libya to cooperate in any international effort to eliminate
this phenomenon;
3. To renew its call to the Security Council to resolve the conflict through negoti-
ations, mediation and a judicial settlement, in accordance with the stipulations of
Chapter VI, Article 33, of the Charter of the United Nations;
4. To urge the Security Council to avoid the adoption of any decision to take
economic, military or diplomatic measures that might increase the complications
and have an adverse impact on the region, to await a decision by the International
Court of Justice on the case submitted to it on 3 March 1992 and to allow an
opportunity for the efforts to be made by the committee established by the Council
of the League;
5. To establish a ministerial follow-up committee consisting of Algeria, Egypt,

Libya, Mauritania, Morocco, Syria and the Secretary-General of the League to be
entrusted with the task of establishing all necessary urgent contacts with the parties
concerned, with the President of the Security Council, with the States members of
the Council and with the Secretary-General of the United Nations with a view to
seeking a solution to the crisis in accordance with the provisions of the Charter and
the principles of international law;
6. To consider the Council as being in continuous session, and to request the

Secretary-General to follow up the implementation of this resolution and submit a
report to the Council on developments in the situation.
Appendix 6
The Security Council this morning voted to impose aerial, arms and diplomatic
sanctions against Libya on 15 April, until that Government complied with requests
to cooperate fully in establishing responsibility for terrorist acts against Pan Am
flight 103 and UTA flight 772.
Acting under Chapter VII of the Charter, the Council decided that, as of that date,
all States must cut air links with Libya, except those based on humanitarian needs;
prohibit the supply of parts or servicing to Libyan aircraft; prohibit the provision of
arms-related material, advice or assistance to that country; significantly reduce the
level of Libyan diplomatic representation in their territory; prevent the operation of
all Libyan Arab Airlines offices; and deny entry to or expel Libyan nationals
suspected of involvement in terrorist activities.
The Council took that action by adopting resolution 748 (1992), by a vote of 10 in
favour to none against, with 5 abstentions (China, Cape Verde, India, Morocco and
Zimbabwe).
The Council requested all States to report to the Secretary-General by 15 May on the
measures they take in response to the resolution. It established a Committee of the
Security Council to examine those reports, decide upon approval of humanitarian
flights, consider information concerning violations of the resolution and recommend
appropriate responses to such violations. The Council will review, every 120 days,
the measures contained in the resolution.
Also by the resolution, the Council said the Libyan Government must commit itself
definitively to cease all forms of terrorist action and all assistance to terrorist groups,
and that it must promptly, by concrete actions, demonstrate its renunciation of
terrorism.
Speaking before the adoption of the resolution, which was co-sponsored by France,
the United Kingdom and the United States, Ali Ahmed Elhouderi (Libya) said his
country had reaffirmed its readiness to cooperate with the Council in a manner that
would not harm its sovereignty or violate international law. The current impasse was
due to the refusal of attempts aimed at a neutral and fair investigation. He expressed
concern that the rejection of all of Libya's initiatives and the efforts to smear his
country's reputation were attempts to lead the way to further action against Libya.
Thomas R. Pickering (United States), one of the resolution's three co-sponsors, said
the international community was sending clear signals that it was prepared to take
concerted political action against the continuing defiance of international obliga-
tions and norms of behaviour represented by Libya's State-supported terrorism.
363
364 Appendix 6
Sir David Hannay (United Kingdom) said the Council would be ready to respond
positively in the event of Libyan compliance, adding that a verbal commitment to
renounce terrorism would be inadequate, as such statements had been made in the
past, 'yet the Libyan authorities, by their own admission, continued to give direct
assistance to terrorists'.
Jean-Bernard Merimee (France) said the measures called for were selective and
appropriate and did not target the Libyan people. He hoped the Libyan authorities
would make proper use of the time left before the deadline of 15 April.
Also taking part in the Council's discussion were the representatives of Jordan,
Mauritania, Iraq and Uganda, and the observer for the Organisation of the Islamic
Conference.
The following Council members also explained their positions: Cape Verde, Ecua-
dor, Zimbabwe, India, China, Morocco, Japan, Hungary, Austria, Russian Federa-
tion, Belgium and Venezuela.
SECURITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION 748 (1992)
Also before the Council is a draft resolution (document S/23762), sponsored by

France, the United Kingdom and the United States, the text of which reads as
follows:
'The Security Council,
'Reaffirming its resolution 731 (1992) of 21 January 1992,
'Noting the reports of the Secretary-General (S/23574) and (S/23672),
'Deeply concerned that the Libyan Government has still not provided a full and
effective response to the requests in its resolution 731 (1992),
'Convinced that the suppression of acts of international terrorism, including those in

which States are directly or indirectly involved, is essential for the maintenance of
international peace and security,
'Recalling that in the statement issued on 31 January 1992 on the occasion of the
meeting of the Security Council at the levels of Heads of State and Government the
members of the Council expressed their deep concern over acts of international
terrorism and emphasied the need for the international community to deal effect-
ively with all such acts,
'Reaffirming that, in accordance with the Principle in Article 2, paragraph 4, of the

Charter of the United Nations, every State has the duty to refrain from organising,
instigating, assisting or participation in terrorist acts in another State of acquiescing
in organised activities within its territory directed towards the commission of such
acts, when such acts involve a threat or use of force,
Appendix 6 365
'Determining in this contest that the failure by the Libyan Government to demon-
strate, by concrete actions, its renunciation of terrorism, and in particular its contin-
ued failure to respond fully and effectively to the requests in resolution 731 (1992),
constitute a threat to international peace and security,
'Determined to eliminate international terrorism,
'Recalling therightof States, under Article 50 of the Charter of the United Nations,
to consult the Security Council where they find themselves confronted with special
economic problems arising from the carrying out of preventive or enforcement
measures,
'Acting under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations,
'1. Decides that the Libyan Government must now comply without any further
delay with paragraph 3 of resolution 731 (1992) of 21 January 1992 regarding the
requests contained in documents S/23306, S/23308 and S/23309;
'2. Decides further that the Libyan Government must commit itself definitively to
cease all forms of terrorist action and all assistance to terrorist groups, and that it
must promptly, by concrete actions, demonstrate its renunciation of terrorism;
'3. Decides that on 15 April 1992 all States shall adopt the measures set out below,
which shall apply until the Security Council decides that the Libyan Government
has complied with paragraphs 1 and 2 above:
'4. Decides that all States shall:
'(a) Deny permission to any aircraft to take off from, land in or overfly their
territory if it is destined to land in or has taken off from the territory of Libya,
unless the particular flight has been approved on grounds of significant humani-
tarian need by the Committee established by paragraph 9 below; and
'(b) Prohibit, by their nationals or from their territory, the supply of any aircraft
or aircraft components to Libya, the provision of engineering and maintenance
servicing of Libyan aircraft or aircraft components, the certification of air-worthi-
ness for Libyan aircraft, the payment of new claims against existing insurance
contracts, and the provision of new direct insurance for Libyan aircraft;
'5. Decides further that all States shall:
'(a) Prohibit any provision to Libya by their nationals or from their territory of
arms and related material of all types, including the sale or transfer of weapons
and ammunition, military vehicles and equipment, paramilitary police equipment,
and spare parts for the aforementioned, as well as the provision of any types of
equipment, supplies and grants of licensing arrangements, for the manufacture or
maintenance of the aforementioned;
366 Appendix 6
'(b) Prohibit any provision to Libya by their nationals or from their territory of
technical advice, assistance or training related to the provision, manufacture,
maintenance, or use of the items in (a) above;
'(c) Withdraw any of their officials or agents present in Libya to advise the
Libyan authorities on military matters;
'6. Decides also that all States shall:
'(a) Significantly reduce the number and the level of the staff at Libyan diplo-
matic missions and consular posts and restrict or control the movement within
their territory of all such staff who remain; in the case of Libyan missions to
international organisations, the host State may, as it deems necessary, consult the
organisation concerned on the measures required to implement this subparagraph;
'(b) Prevent the operation of all Libyan Arab Airlines offices;
'(c) Take all appropriate steps to deny entry to or expel Libyan nationals who
have been denied entry to or expelled from other States because of their involve-
ment in terrorist activities;
'7. Calls upon all States, including States non-Members of the United Nations, and
all international organisations to act strictly in accordance with the provisions of the
present resolution notwithstanding the existence of any rights or obligations con-
ferred or imposed by any international agreement or any contract entered into or any
licence or permit granted before 15 April 1992;
'8. Requests all States to report to the Secretary-General by 15 May 1992 on the
measures they have instituted for meeting the obligations set out in paragraphs 3 to
7 above;
'9. Decides to establish, in accordance with rule 28 of its provisional rules of

procedure, a Committee of the Security Council consisting of all the members of the
Council, to undertake the following tasks and to report on its work to the Council
with its observations and recommendations:
'(a) To examine the reports submitted pursuant to paragraph 8 above;
'(b) To seek from all States further information regarding the action taken by
them concerning the effective implementation of the measures imposed by para-
graphs 3 to 7 above;
'(c) To consider any information brought to its attention by States concerning

violations of the measures imposed by paragraphs 3 to 7 above, and in that
context to make recommendations to the Council on ways to increase their
effectiveness;
Appendix 6 367
'(d) To recommend appropriate measures in response to violations of the meas-

ures imposed by paragraphs 3 to 7 above and provide information on a regular
basis to the Secretary-General for general distribution to Member States;
'(e) To consider and to decide upon expeditiously any application by States for
the approval of flights on grounds of significant humanitarian need in accordance
with paragraph 4 above;
'(f) To give special attention to any communications in accordance with Article

50 of the Charter of the United Nations from any neighbouring or other States
with special economic problems which might arise from the carrying out of the
measures imposed by paragraphs 3 to 7 above;
'10. Calls upon all States to cooperate fully with the Committee in the fulfilment
of its task, including supplying such information as may be sought by the Commit-
tee in pursuance of the present resolution;
'11. Requests the Secretary-General to provide all necessary assistance to the

Committee and to make the necessary arrangements in the Secretariat for this
purpose;
'12. Invites the Secretary-General to continue his role as set out in paragraph 4 of
resolution 731 (1992);
'13. Decides that the Security Council shall every 120 days, or sooner should the
situation so require, review the measures imposed by paragraphs 3 to 7 above in the
light of the compliance by the Libyan Government with paragraphs 1 and 2 above,
taking into account, as appropriate, any reports provided by the Secretary-General
on his role as set out in paragraph 4 of resolution 731 (1992);
'14. Decides to remain seized of the matter.'

Appendix 7
The Security Council,
Reaffirming its resolutions 731 (1992) of 21 January 1992 and 748 (1992) of 31
March 1992,
Deeply concerned that after more than twenty months the Libyan Government
has not fully complied with these resolutions,
Determined to eliminate international terrorism,
Convinced that those responsible for acts of international terrorism must be

brought to justice,
Convinced also that the suppression of acts of international terrorism, including

those in which States are directly or indirectly involved, is essential for the main-
tenance of international peace and security,
Determining, in this context, that the continued failure by the Libyan Government
to demonstrate by concrete actions its renunciation of terrorism, and in particular its
continued failure to respond fully and effectively to the requests and decisions in
resolutions 731 (1992) and 748 (1992), constitute a threat to international peace and
security,
Taking note of the letters to the Secretary-General dated 29 September and

1 October 1993 from the Secretary of the General People's Committee for Foreign
Liaison and International Cooperation of Libya (S/26523) and his speech in the
General Debate at the forty-eighth session of the General Assembly (A/48/PV.20) in
which Libya stated its intention to encourage those charged with the bombing of Pan
Am 103 to appear for trial in Scotland and its willingness to cooperate with the
competent French authorities in the case of the bombing of UTA 772,
Expressing its gratitude to the Secretary-General for the efforts he has made
pursuant to paragraph 4 of resolution 731 (1992),
Recalling the right of States, under Article 50 of the Charter, to consult the
Security Council where they find themselves confronted with special economic
problems arising from the carrying out of preventive or enforcement measures,
Acting under Chapter VII of the Charter,
368
Appendix 7 369
1. Demands once again that the Libyan Government comply without any further
delay with resolutions 731 (1992) and 748 (1992);
2. Decides, in order to secure compliance by the Libyan Government with the

decisions of the Council, to take the following measures, which shall come into
force at 00.01 EST on 1 December 1993 unless the Secretary-General has reported
to the Council in the terms set out in paragraph 16 below;
3. Decides that all States in which there are funds or other financial resources
(including funds derived or generated from property) owned or controlled, directly
or indirectly, by:
(a) the Government or public authorities of Libya, or
(b) any Libyan undertaking,
shall freeze such funds and financial resources and ensure that neither they nor any
other funds and financial resources are made available, by their nationals or by any
persons within their territory, directly or indirectly, to or for the benefit of the
Government or public authorities of Libya or any Libyan undertaking, which for the
purposes of this paragraph, means any commercial, industrial or public utility
undertaking which is owned or controlled, directly or indirectly, by
(i) the Government or public authorities of Libya,
(ii) any entity, wherever located or organized, owned or controlled by (i), or
(iii) any person identified by States as acting on behalf of (i) or (ii) for the
purposes of this resolution;
4. Further decides that the measures imposed by paragraph 3 above do not apply
to funds or other financial resources derived from the sale or supply of any petro-
leum or petroleum products, including natural gas and natural gas products, or
agricultural products or commodities, originating in Libya and exported therefrom
after the time specified in paragraph 2 above, provided that any such funds are paid
into separate bank accounts exclusively for these funds;
5. Decides that all States shall prohibit any provision to Libya by their nationals
or from their territory of the items listed in the annex to this resolution, as well as the
provision of any types of equipment, supplies and grants of licensing arrangements
for the manufacture or maintenance of such items;
6. Further decides that, in order to make fully effective the provisions of resolu-
tion 748 (1992), all States shall:
(a) require the immediate and complete closure of all Libyan Arab Airlines
offices within their territories;
(b) prohibit any commercial transactions with Libyan Arab Airlines by their
nationals or from their territory, including the honouring or endorsement of
any tickets or other documents issued by that airline;
370 Appendix 7
(c) prohibit, by their nationals or from their territory, the entering into or
renewal of arrangements for;
(i) the making available, for operation within Libya, of any aircraft or
aircraft components, or
(ii) the provision of engineering or maintenance servicing of any aircraft
or aircraft components within Libya;
(d) prohibit, by their nationals or from their territory, the supply of any ma-
terials destined for the construction, improvement or maintenance of Libyan
civilian or military airfields and associated facilities and equipment, or of
any engineering or other services or components destined for the mainte-
nance of any Libyan civil or military airfields or associated facilities and
equipment, except emergency equipment and equipment and services di-
rectly related to civilian air traffic control;
(e) prohibit, by their nationals or from their territory, any provision of advice,
assistance, or training to Libyan pilots, flight engineers, or aircraft and
ground maintenance personnel associated with the operation of aircraft and
airfields within Libya;
(f) prohibit, by their nationals or from their territory, any renewal of any direct
insurance for Libyan aircraft;
7. Confirms that the decision taken in resolution 748 (1992) that all States shall
significantly reduce the level of the staff at Libyan diplomatic missions and consular
posts includes all missions and posts established since that decision or after the
coming into force of this resolution;
8. Decides that all States, and the Government of Libya, shall take the necessary
measures to ensure that no claim shall lie at the instance of the Government or public
authorities of Libya, or of any Libyan national, or of any Libyan undertaking as
defined in paragraph 3 of this resolution, or of any person claiming through or for
the benefit of any such person or undertaking, in connection with any contract or
other transaction or commercial operation where its performance was affected
by reason of the measures imposed by or pursuant to this resolution or related
resolutions;
9. Instructs the Committee established by resolution 748 (1992) to draw up

expeditiously guidelines for the implementation of paragraphs 3 to 7 of this resolu-
tion, and to amend and supplement, as appropriate, the guidelines for the implemen-
tation of resolution 748 (1992), especially its paragraph 5 (a);
10. Entrusts the Committee established by resolution 748 (1992) with the task of
examining possible requests for assistance under the provisions of Article 50 of the
Charter of the United Nations and making recommendations to the President of the
Security Council for appropriate action;
11. Affirms that nothing in this resolution affects Libyan's duty scrupulously to
adhere to all of its obligations concerning servicing and repayment of its foreign
debt;
Appendix 7 371
12. Calls upon all States, including States not Members of the United Nations,
and all international organizations, to act strictly in accordance with the provisions
of the present resolution, notwithstanding the existence of any rights or obligations
conferred or imposed by any international agreement or any contract entered into or
any licence or permit granted prior to the effective time of this resolution;
13. Requests all States to report to the Secretary-General by 15 January 1994 on

the measures they have instituted for meeting the obligations set out in paragraphs
3 to 7 above;
14. Invites the Secretary-General to continue his role as set out in paragraph 4 of
resolution 731 (1992);
15. Calls again upon all Member States individually and collectively to encour-
age the Libyan Government to respond fully and effectively to the requests and
decisions in resolutions 731 (1992) and 748 (1992);
16. Expresses its readiness to review the measures set forth above and in resolu-
tion 748 (1992) with a view to suspending them immediately if the Secretary-
General reports to the Council that the Libyan Government has ensured the appear-
ance of those charged with the bombing of Pan Am 103 for trial before the
appropriate United Kingdom or United States court and has satisfied the French
judicial authorities with respect to the bombing of UTA 772, and with a view to
lifting them immediately when Libya complies fully with the requests and decisions
in resolutions 731 (1992) and 748 (1992); and requests the Secretary-General,
within 90 days of such suspension, to report to the Council on Libya's compliance
with the remaining provisions of its resolutions 731 (1992) and 748 (1992) and, in
the case of non-compliance, expresses its resolve to terminate immediately the
suspension of these measures;
17. Decides to remain seized of the matter.
Annex
The following are the items referred to in paragraph 5 of this resolution:

I. Pumps of medium or large capacity whose capacity is equal to or larger than
350 cubic metres per hour and drivers (gas turbines and electric motors)
designed for use in the transportation of crude oil and natural gas
II. Equipment designed for use in crude oil export terminals:
- Loading buoys or single point moorings (spm)
- Flexible hoses for connection between underwater manifolds (plem) and
single point mooring and floating loading hoses of large sizes (from 12" to
16")
- Anchor chains
372 Appendix 7
III. Equipment not specially designed for use in crude oil export terminals but
which because of their large capacity can be used for this purpose:
- Loading pumps of large capacity (4,000 m3/h) and small head (10 bars)
- Boosting pumps within the same range of flow rates
- Inline pipe line inspection tools and cleaning devices (i.e. pigging tools)
(16" and above)
- Metering equipment of large capacity (1,000 mVh and above)
IV. Refinery equipment:
- Boilers meeting American Society of Mechanical Engineers 1 standards
- Furnaces meeting American Society of Mechanical Engineers 8 standards
- Fractionation columns meeting American Society of Mechanical Engi-
neers 8 standards
- Pumps meeting American Petroleum Institute 610 standards
- Catalytic reactors meeting American Society of Mechanical Engineers 8
standards
- Prepared catalysts, including the following:
Catalysts containing platinum
Catalysts containing molybdenum
V. Spare parts destined for the items in I to IV above.
Appendix 8
UN Resolution on Independence of Libya
(21 November 1949)
1 That Libya, comprising Cyrenaica, Tripolitania and the Fezzan, shall be consti-
tuted an independent and sovereign state;
2 That this independence shall become effective as soon as possible and in any
case not later than January 1, 1952;
3 That a constitution for Libya, including the form of the government, shall be
determined by representatives of the inhabitants of Cyrenaica, Tripolitania and
Fezzan meeting and consulting together in a National Assembly;
4 That for the purpose of assisting the people of Libya in the formulation of the
constitution and the establishment of an independent government, there shall
be a United Nations Commissioner in Libya appointed by the General Assem-
bly and a Council to aid and advise him;
5 That the United Nations Commissioner, in consultation with the Council, shall
submit to the Secretary-General an annual report and such other special reports
as he may consider necessary. To these reports shall be added any memoran-
dum or documents that the United Nations Commissioner or a member of the
Council may wish to bring to the attention of the United Nations;
6 That the Council shall consist of ten members, namely (a) One representative
nominated by the government of each of the following countries: Egypt,
France, Italy, Pakistan, the United Kingdom and the United States; (b) one
representative of the people of each of the three regions of Libya and one
representative of the minorities in Libya;
7 That the United Nations Commissioner shall appoint the representatives men-
tioned in paragraph 6(b), after consultation with the administrative powers, the
representatives of the governments mentioned in paragraph 6(a), leading
personalities and representatives of political parties and organisations in the
territories concerned;
8 That, in discharge of his functions, the United Nations Commissioner shall

consult and be guided by the advice of the members of his Council; it being
understood that he may call upon different members to advise him in respect of
different regions or different subjects;
373
374 Appendix 8
9 That the United Nations Commissioner may offer suggestions to the General
Assembly, to the Economic and Social Council, and to the Secretary-General
as to the measures that the United Nations might adopt during the transitional
period regarding the economic and social problems of Libya;
10 That the administering powers in co-operation with the United Nations Com-
missioner: (a) Initiate immediately all necessary steps for the transfer of power
to a duly constituted independent government; (b) Administer the territories for
the purpose of assisting in the establishment of Libyan unity and independence,
co-operate in the formation of governmental institutions and co-ordinate their
activities to this end; (c) Make an annual report to the General Assembly on the
steps taken to implement these recommendations;
11 That upon its establishment as an independent state, Libya shall be admitted to

the United Nations in accordance with Article 4 of the Charter.
Appendix 9
Proclamation of the Libyan Republic on
1 September 1969
In the Name of God, the Compassionate, the Merciful, O great Libyan people: To
execute your free will, to realise your precious aspirations, truly to answer your
repeated call demanding change and purification, urging work and initiative, and
eager for revolution and assault, your armed forces have destroyed the reactionary,
backward, and decadent regime whose putrid odour assailed one's nose and the
vision of whose attributes made one's eyes tremble. With one blow from your heroic
army, the idols collapsed and the graven images shattered. In one terrible moment
of fate, the darkness of ages - from the rule of the Turks to the tyranny of the Italians
and the era of reaction, bribery and intercession, favouritism, treason and treachery
- was dispersed. Thus, from now on Libya is deemed a free, sovereign republic
under the name of the Libyan Republic - ascending with God's help to exalted
heights, proceeding in the path of freedom, unity and social justice, guaranteeing the
right of equality to its citizens, and opening before them the doors of honourable
work - with none terrorised, none cheated, none oppressed, no master and no
servant, but free brothers in the shadow of a society over which flutters, God willing,
the banner of prosperity and equality. Extend your hands, open your hearts, forget
your rancours, and stand together against the enemy of the Arab nation, the enemy
of Islam, the enemy of humanity, who burned out holy places and shattered our
honour. Thus we will build glory, revive our heritage, and revenge an honour
wounded and arightusurped. O you who witness the holy war of Omar al-Mukhtar
for Libya, Arabism, and Islam, O you who fought the good fight with Almad al-
Sharif, O sons of the steppe, O sons of the desert, O sons of the ancient cities, O sons
of the upright countryside, O sons of the villages - our beloved and beautiful
villages - the hour of work has come. Forward.*
* Middle East Journal, vol. 24, no. 2 (Spring 1970), from a set of translations of proclama-
tions, statements, addresses, and interviews.
375
Appendix 10
Telegram sent by Gaddafi to World Leaders
at New Year, 1975
The people of the earth, and even the angels of heaven have despaired of the
meaningless exchange over hundreds of years of the greeting, 'Happy New Year!'
Every ruler repeats this greeting, and yet goes on striving to make the year one of
misfortune, rather than happiness. Can we, therefore, stop for a moment to ponder
some verses of the scriptures: The Koran, the Torah, and the Gospels? The Koran
says, 'Assist one another in works of righteousness and piety, and assist not one
another in works of wrongdoing and transgression.' Let us remember how Christ
reproached people because they forgot the Word of God, and instead gave them-
selves to conceit. He upbraided the priests for their neglect of God's word and for
their greed. He reproached the scribes for spreading false teachings, and for aban-
doning the law of God. All this he declared in his first sermon which he preached in
Jerusalem. Now because we are without a Christ to reproach the conceited, the
greedy, those who propagate false teachings and those who oppose God's law, we
must reproach one another for our sins. We must realise that we are far removed
from the teachings of Christ, and are instead close to the teachings of Satan. The
superpowers spend large sums on producing nuclear bombs and the development of
intercontinental missiles. They are engaged in the conquest of space and the spread
of propaganda and psychological warfare, while the rest of the people of the globe
suffer the scourges of disease, hunger, and rocketing inflation. In reality, these
nations are guided by Satan and his scriptures and by the theories of Marx, and not
by any holy scripture. We are in great need of the teachings of Christ which would
command us saying, 'Lift your hands from Palestine, the birthplace of Christ, peace
be upon him, from Ireland, Southeast Asia and your colonies in Africa!' How
greatly in need is the world today of Christ, in order that it may turn away from bars
and from vain pleasures on every Christmas and New Year. People should instead
turn to houses of worship to offer prayers, seek God's forgiveness and reflect upon
His law.
With season's greetings.
376
Notes
Notes to Chapter 1: Lockerbie, Libya and the West
1. The Pentagon has drawn up a list of wars it may have to fight in the 1990s and
beyond. It makes reference to possible Resurgent/Emergent Global Threats
(REGTs) that may have to be combated and to possible 'war scenarios' that
may have to be faced: see the report in, for example, The Independent
(London), 18 February 1992. There is also the possibility that nuclear
weapons will be targeted on Third World countries: see The Sunday Times
(London), 9 February 1992.
2. I owe most of these details to David Leppard, On the Trail of Terror: The
Inside Story of the Lockerbie Investigation (London: Jonathan Cape, 1991)
Chapter 2; see also The Times (London), 23 December 1988.
3. David Blundy and Andrew Lycett, Qaddafi and the Libyan Revolution
(London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1987) p. 8.
4. Ibid., p. 10.
5. Ibid., p. 11.
6. Peter Pringle, 'View from Washington', in Kaldor and Anderson (eds), Mad
Dogs: The US Raids on Libya (London: Pluto Press, 1986) p. 54.
7. Ian Mather and Farzad Bazoft, 'How Could It Happen?', The Observer
(London), 10 July 1988.
8. Ibid.
9. Adrian Hamilton, The Observer (London), 10 July 1988.
10. Ibid.
11. Patrick Cockburn, 'US Ship Was in Iran Waters', The Independent (London),
12 December 1991.
12. Ibid.
13. Private Eye (London), 22 November 1991, p. 12, suggested that 'President
Bush certainly takes the Scottish police, the Lord Advocate, the Foreign
Secretary, and, with one or two exceptions, the entire British press for
blithering idiots - and that he is absolutely right in that assessment'.
14. Ibid.
15. Hansard, 21 March 1989.
16. Jack Anderson and Dale Van Atta, The Washington Post, 11 January 1990.
17. Alfred W. McCloy, The Politics of Heroin: CIA Complicity in the Global
Drug Trade (New York: Harper and Row, 1991).
18. The Sunday Times (London), 17 November 1991.
19. David Leppard, 'Lockerbie Trail Leads to Sweden', The Sunday Times (Lon-
don), 12 November 1989; David Leppard describes the Lockerbie enquiry,
op. cit.
20. David Leppard, 'Lockerbie Police Widen Net', The Sunday Times (London),
10 December 1989.
21. Ibid. The same report notes that relatives of the Lockerbie victims, dissatis-
fied with the course of the investigation, were considering taking the British
377
378 Notes to Chapter 1
Government to the European Court of Human Rights; and that Cecil Parkinson,
the then new transport minister, had turned down requests for a full enquiry.
22. Michael Evans, Thomas Prentice and Michael Binyon, 'Embassy Bulletin
Told of Terror Plot', The Times (London), 23 December 1988.
23. David Leppard, 'Revealed: The Lockerbie Plot', The Sunday Times
(London), 5 November 1989, pp. 1-2; Leppard, 'Lockerbie, the Tangled
Trail', p. A15.
24. Additional reporting by John Cassidy (Washington), Marie Colvin (Tehran),
and James Adams (London).
25. David Leppard and Nick Rufford, 'Police Close in on Lockerbie Killers', The
Sunday Times (London), 17 December 1989; 'Lockerbie, the Final Reckon-
ing', pp. A14-15.
26. Leppard (1991), op. cit., p. 164.
27. Ibid., p. 210.
28. Quoted by Leppard, ibid., p. 212.
29. Ibid., p. 212.
30. Ibid., p. 213.
31. These five documents are referenced S/23306-9 and S/23317.
32. Dilip Hiro, The Longest War (London: Paladin, 1990) p. 73.
33. Krasnaya Zvezda (Red Star), 26 October 1980.
34. The Daily Telegraph (London), 19 January 1983.
35. Baghdad Radio, 19 January 1981.
36. Tripoli Radio, 9 October 1980.
37. Hiro, op. cit., p. 119.
38. Newsday, 22 May 1984; quoted by Hiro, ibid., p. 120.
39. These grievances, here neither endorsed nor disputed, cannot be explored in
the present book. Useful accounts are given in Micah L. Sifry and Christopher
Cerf (eds), The Gulf War Reader: History, Documents, Opinions (New York:
Random House, 1991); Pierre Salinger with Eric Laurent, Secret Dossier:
The Hidden Agenda behind the Gulf War (translation of Guerre du Golfe: Le
Dossier Secret, Orban) (Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1991); Dilip Hiro, Desert
Shield to Desert Storm (London: Paladin, 1992).
40. The Washington Post, 4 August 1990.
41. Ibid., 18 January 1991.
42. The Guardian (London), 18 January 1991.
43. The Washington Post, 3 September 1990.
44. Adel Darwish and Gregory Alexander, Unholy Babylon: The Secret History
of Saddam's War (London: Victor Gollancz, 1991) pp. 287-8.
45. The United States was now depicted as a world 'policeman' (or by some
observers, e.g. Noam Chomsky, as a mafia don running a protection racket).
Typical headlines: 'Sheriff of the Whole World's Posse' (The Guardian,
London, 27 August 1991); 'Unrivalled Bush Set to Police the Planet' (The
Observer, London, 25 August 1991).
46. John Cassidy and Garth Alexander, 'CIA Girds Itself to Repulse the "yellow
peril" ', The Sunday Times (London), 16 June 1991.
47. Andrew Stephen, The Observer (London), 9 February 1992.
48. Adrian Hamilton, The Observer (London), 3 November 1991.
49. Rupert Cornwell, 'Bush Considers Saudi Plan to Bomb Saddam', The Inde-
pendent (London), 20 January 1992.
Notes to Chapter 1 379
50. James Adams reports in The Sunday Times (London), 9 February 1992, of
how MI6 is joining the CIA 'in secret war to topple Saddam': Bush 'wants
Saddam out before the election in November'.
51. Noam Chomsky, Deterring Democracy (London: Verso, 1991) p. 3.
52. American Policy vis-a-vis Vietnam, Memorandum of Law prepared by Law-
yers Committee on American Policy towards Vietnam, New York, inserted
into the Congressional Record by Senators Wayne Morse (Oregon) and
Ernest Gruening (Alaska) on 23 September 1965 (p. 42).
53. Daniel Patrick Moynihan, A Dangerous Place (New York: Little, Brown,
1978).
54. Associated Press, 20 December 1989
55. Leonard Doyle, 'UN Raises Stakes on Arms in Confrontation with Iraq', The
Independent (London), 20 February 1992, p. 11.
56. Bob Woodward, The Commanders (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1991)
pp. 333-4.
57. Ibid., p. 334.
58. The Independent (London), 12 February 1981, p. 1.
59. Robert Fisk, 'US Withholds Death Toll from Red Cross', The Independent
(London), 5 August 1991.
60. Victoria Brittain, 'Allies Accused of Violating War Laws', The Guardian
(London), 18 November 1991.
61. In early 1992 the United States rejected a Syrian request, as a reward for its
Middle East peace efforts, to be dropped from the US list of states which
sponsor terrorism: see The Guardian (London), 17 February 1992.
62. Le Monde, 23 September 1991. Earlier claims as to Libya's involvement
were published in L'Express, 27 June 1991, and in Le Point, 6 July 1991.
63. Judge Jean Louis Bruguiere had worked on 'Action Direct' from 1981 to
1986, had conducted the investigation into the Eksund trawler arms shipment
to the IRA, and had investigated the 1991 murder of the former Iranian
premier Bakhtiar.
64. Simon Tisdall, The Guardian (London), 14 November 1991.
65. Duncan Campbell, Nikki Knewstub and Martin Walker, 'Libya Told to Give
Up "bombers" ', The Guardian (London), 15 November 1991.
66. Michael Sheridan, Rupert Cornwell, David Black and Annika Savill, 'Libya
Blamed for Lockerbie', The Independent (London), 15 November 1991, p. 1.
67. Ibid.
68. Tim Kelsey, 'Relatives Greet Decision with Mixed Emotions', The Inde-
pendent (London), 15 November 1991, p. 2.
69. Ibid.
70. Nicholas Wapshott and Patrick Brogan, 'Allies Prepare Libya Sanctions',
The Observer (London), 17 November 1991.
71. Ibid.
72. James Adams, David Leppard, David Hughes and Nick Rufford, 'Lockerbie
Suspects Boasted about Plot', The Sunday Times (London), 17 November
1991.
73. Ian Black and Richard Norton-Taylor, The Guardian (London), 19 Novem-
ber 1991.
74. Quoted by David Hirst, 'Reprisal Plan for Lockerbie Divides Arabs', The
Guardian (London), 21 November 1991.
Notes to Chapter 1
75. Ibid.
76. Ibid.
11. Ibid.
78. Annika Savill, 'The Demands Facing Libya', The Independent (London),
27 November 1991.
79. Ibid.
80. Carol Berger, 'Gaddafi Attempts to Avert US Action', The Independent
(London), 29 November 1991.
81. Adrian Porter and Con Coughlin, 'US Planes in Dry Run to Bomb Libya',
The Sunday Telegraph (London), 1 December 1991.
82. Deborah Pugh, 'Libya Says It Holds Two Over Lockerbie', The Guardian
(London), 5 December 1991.
83. Sarah Helm and Safa Haeri, 'West and Libya Reaching Stalemate over
Lockerbie', The Independent (London), 6 December 1991.
84. Pierre Salinger, 'Accused Libyans Deny Any Role in Lockerbie Bombing',
The Guardian (London), 7 December 1991.
85. 'Dismay over Support for Libya', The Independent (London), 7 December
1991.
86. John Mullin, 'American Anger at Visit to Gadafy', The Guardian (London),
14 December 1991.
87. Reuter Report, The Independent (London), 13 December 1991.
88. David Connett, 'Libya to Seek Out Jet Bomb Evidence', The Independent
(London), 14 December 1991.
89. Leonard Doyle, 'Britain to Seek International Ban on Flights to Libya', The
Independent (London), 19 December 1991.
90. David Pallister, 'Gadafy Makes Trial Offer', The Guardian (London),
28 December 1991.
91. Douglas Hurd, 'Making the World a Safer Place: Our Five Priorities', The
Daily Telegraph (London), 1 January 1992.
92. Douglas Hurd, 'Little Peace for the Peacekeeper', The Guardian (London),
13 January 1991.
93. Hansard, 20 January 1992, pp. 153-62.
94. Ian Williams, Tribune (London), 17 January 1992.
95. Ibid.
96. Ibid.
97. Richard Norton-Taylor, 'Lockerbie Report Implicates Syria', The Guardian
(London), 21 January 1992.
98. Marc Weller, 'Lockerbie, the Law and Power Polities', The Independent
99. Leonard Doyle, 'UN to Demand Lockerbie Suspects', The Independent
100. Weller, op. cit.
101. Jane Rosen, 'UN Demands Pan Am Suspects', The Guardian (London),
22 January 1992.
102. Donald Trelford, 'Gaddafi Bids to Do a Deal with the West', The Observer
103. Annika Savill, 'Libya Denies Killing of Lockerbie Suspects', The Independ-
ent (London), 12 February 1992.
104. Ibid.
105. Ibid
106. BBC Radio, 11 February 1992.
107. ITN Television, News at Ten, 14 February 1992.
108. The Independent (London), 15 February 1992.
109. David Hirst, 'Judge Rules Out Extradition of Libyan Lockerbie Suspects',
The Guardian (London), 19 February 1992.
110. Patrick Lockburn, 'Extradition Demand "bolstering Gaddafi"', The Inde-
pendent (London), 21 February 1992.
111. Ibid.
112. Marie Colvin, 'PLO Links Iran with Lockerbie', The Sunday Times
113. Wafr Amr, 'PLO Says It Can Prove Libya Not to Blame for Lockerbie
Bomb', The Guardian (London), 17 February 1992.
114. Marie Colvin, David Leppard and Safa Haeri, 'Hitmen Hunt Lockerbie
"supergrass"', The Sunday Times (London), 1 March 1992.
115. Le Figaro (Paris), 24 February 1992.
116. Deborah Pugh, 'Mubarak Seeks Neutral Venue for Lockerbie Trial', The
Guardian (London), 25 February 1992.
117. Julian Nundy, 'Mubarak Denies Lockerbie Mediation', The Independent
118. Marie Colvin, David Leppard and Safa Haeri, 'Hitmen Hunt Lockerbie
"supergrass"', The Sunday Times (London), 1 March 1992.
119. Ibid.
120. Susan Morgan, 'Fundamentalists Wait in the Wings as US Targets Gaddafi',
The Observer (London), 1 March 1992.
121. Deborah Pugh, 'Libya Offers Deal on Suspects', The Guardian (London),
2 March 1992.
122. Saad Muhber, 'Guilty Till Judged Guilty', The Guardian (London), 4 March
1992.
123. Patrick Cockburn, 'Libya Wins Friends and Influences People', The Inde-
pendent (London), 5 March 1992.
124. Ibid.
125. Leonard Doyle, 'Ghali Finds Merit in Tripoli Shift', The Independent
(London), 5 March 1992.
126. Tony Walker, Mark Nicholson and Michael Littlejohns, 'Libya Shifts Assets
from Europe', Financial Times (London), 5 March 1992; see also Tony
Walker and Mark Nicholson, 'Much of Libya's Money Has Long Been on the
Move', Financial Times (London), 6 March 1992.
127. Martin Walker, 'Gulf Alliance Eyeing Iraq's Foreign Assets', The Guardian
128. Quoted in Patrick Cockburn, 'Nasser's Friend Voices Arab Humiliation', The
Independent (London), 11 March 1992.
129. Hella Pick, 'Britain Advises Nationals to Quit Libya as UN Acts', The
Guardian (London), 18 March 1992.
130. Robin Oakley, 'Why I Know We Will Beat Labour', 77** Times (London),
20 March 1992.
131. 'Libya Says Islamic States Weigh Pullout from UN', International Herald
Tribune (New York), 21-2 March 1992 (source: Reuter, AFP).
132. 'Arab League Role Proposed in Handover of Lockerbie Two', The Guardian
(London), 23 March 1992 (source: Reuter).
133. Hella Pick, 'Libya to Hand Lockerbie Suspects to Arab League', The Guard-
ian (London), 24 March 1992.
134. Ibid.
135. Leonard Doyle and Carol Berger, 'Libya Agrees to Hand Over Accused
Men', The Independent (London), 24 March 1992.
136. Patrick Cockburn and Leonard Doyle, 'UN Hands Libya an Ultimatum on
Suspects', The Independent (London), 25 March 1992.
137. Patrick Cockburn, 'Tripoli Hardens Stance on Lockerbie Suspects', The
Independent (London), 26 March 1992.
138. Sarah Lambert, 'Libya "will not bow to blackmail"', The Independent
139. Leonard Doyle and Sarah Lambert, 'US Tells China to Back Libya Vote or
Pay the Price', The Independent (London), 28 March 1992; see also 'China
Gets Warning on Libya Sanctions', The Guardian (London), 30 March 1992.
140. Leonard Doyle, 'UN Votes to Impose Sanctions on Libya', The Independent
(London), 1 April 1992.
141. Patrick Cockburn, 'Gaddafi Seems Ready to Turn and Fight Back', The
Independent (London), 4 April 1992.
142. Michael Simmons, 'Security Council Envoy Will Discuss Embassy Dam-
age', The Guardian (London), 4 April 1992.
143. Julie Flint, 'Gadaffi Raises Islamic Banner', The Observer (London), 5 April
1992.
144. Ibid.
145. Simon Tisdall and Deborah Pugh, 'Arafat Comes Out of Own Desert Storm',
The Guardian (London), 9 April 1992.
146. Nick Rufford, Tim Raymont, David Leppard and Ian Burreli, 'Gadaffi Builds
Huge Poison Gas Arsenal at Rabta Plant', The Sunday Times (London),
5 April 1992.
147. R. Barry O'Brien, 'Malta Will Accept Lockerbie Bomb Suspects for Trial',
The Daily Telegraph (London), 15 April 1992.
148. Tom Walker and Michael Binyon, 'World Court Rules Against Libya', The
Times (London), 15 April 1992.
149. Carol Berger, 'Egypt Offers a Way Through UN Sanctions', The Independent
150. Geoffrey Robertson, 'Jury Out on Terror Trials', The Guardian (London),
30 March 1992.
151. Marc Weller, 'Double Standards at the UN', New Law Journal, 13 March
1992, pp. 360-1.
152. 'Sanctions Send Signals' (editorial), The Independent (London), 16 April
1992.
153. Charles Richards, 'Hurd Defends Bight Ban', The Independent (London),
20 August 1992.
154. Kathy Evans and Richard Norton-Taylor, 'Spain checks Syrian link to
Lockerbie', The Guardian (London), 6 June 1992.
155. 'German Doubts Over Lockerbie', The Independent (London), 20 June 1992.
156. James Adams and Marie Colvin, 'Libya Blows the Whistle on IRA', The
Sunday Times (London), 14 June 1992.
157. David Usborne, 'US Judges Uphold Right to Snatch Suspects Abroad', The
Independent (London), 16 June 1992.
158. An extract from this memorandum is given in Third World Resurgence,
no. 21, May 1992, p. 28.
159. Marc Weller, 'The Lockerbie Case: A Premature End to the "New World
Order"?', African Journal of International and Comparative Law, no. 4,
1992, pp. 1-15.
160. Dan Atkinson, '$5bn Gadafy Gift Has a Twist in the Tail', The Guardian,
London, 20 November 1992.
161. 'Libya "Building Poison-Gas Plant" ', The Independent, London, 16 Febru-
ary 1993.
162. Alan George, 'UN's Pariah Pair Flout Embargoes to Keep Libyan Jets in the
Air', The Observer, London, 4 July 1993.
163. Adel Darwish, 'Greek Bank is EC Trojan Horse for Libya', The Independent,
London, 15 February 1993.
164. Adel Darwish, 'West Blocks Gaddafi Over Greek Bank', The Independent,
London, 2 August 1993.
165. Stephen Sackur, 'Libya Lies Back and Thinks of Oil', The Observer, London,
29 August 1993.
166. Mark Tran, 'Moscow Falls in Step Over New Lockerbie Sanctions', The
Guardian, London, 5 November 1993.
167. Ian Black, 'Politics Make Sanctions against Libya Lack Bite', The Guardian,
London, 1 December 1993.
168. David Hirst, 'Gadafy Dismisses Reports of Uprising', The Guardian, Lon-
don, 30 October 1993.
169. Charles Richards, 'Mass Arrests as Gaddafi "Crushes Army Rebellion"',
The Independent, London, 23 October 1993; David Hirst, 'Gadafy Puts
Down Rebellion Led by Army', The Guardian, London, 25 October 1993.
The Washington Post (28 October 1993) reported that Gaddafi had bombed
a force of some 650 mutineers.
170. Hugh Muir, 'Storm Over £2m "Blood Money" Offer by Gaddafi', The Daily
Telegraph, London, 8 August 1994.
171. Marie Colvin, 'Lockerbie Drama Turns to Farce', The Sunday Times, Lon-
don, 3 October 1993.
172. David Leppard, 'Lockerbie: "Libya Not Alone" ', The Sunday Times, Lon-
don, 19 December 1993.
173. Donald Goddard with Lester K. Coleman, Trail of the Octopus: From Beirut
to Lockerbie - Inside the D1A, Bloomsbury Publishing, London, 1993.
174. Erland Clouston, 'The Spy and Flight 103', The Guardian, London,
20 December 1993.
175. John Arlidge, 'Lockerbie Relatives Criticise Trial Decision', The Independ-
ent, London, 24 January 1994.
176. Ibid.
177. Erland Clouston, 'CIA Obstructing Lockerbie Film, Says Maker', The Guard-
ian, London, 23 April 1994.
178. Richard Norton-Taylor, 'Court Hears Lockerbie Bomb Claim', The Guard-
ian, London, 14 June 1994; Patrick Bishop, 'Government Rejects New
Lockerbie "Confession" ', The Daily Telegraph, London, 14 June 1994.
179. Magnus Linklater, 'Why the Lockerbie Case Must Not Die', The Times,
London, 22 December 1994.
180. Ibid.
181. The Scotsman, Edinburgh, 12 December 1994.
182. JANA News Bulletin, Jamahiriya News Agency, London, 19 January 1995,
p. 5.
183. John Arlidge, 'Lockerbie Case "Flawed" ', The Independent, London,
24 January 1995.
184. 'Justice Denied Over Lockerbie', The Independent (editorial), London,
1 February 1995.
185. Hansard, House of Commons, London, 1 February 1995, pp. 1056-65.
186. John Coates, 'Mystery of "Missing" Body at Lockerbie', The Sunday
Telegraph, London, 5 February 1995.
187. Ibid.
188. Michael White, 'Ex-Minister Seeks Lockerbie Review', The Guardian,
London, 24 February 1995.
189. Ibid.
190. Ibid.
Notes to Chapter 2: The Libyan Past
1. Gustave Glotz, The Aegean Civilisation (London: Routledge and Kegan

Paul) p. 57.
2. John Wright, Libya (London: Ernest Benn, 1969) p. 30.
3. Ibid., p. 34.
4. Herodotus, The Histories, trans. Aubrey de Selincourt (Penguin Classic
edition) first published in 1954. Most of the quotations are from Book IV.
5. Charles Daniels, The Garamantes of Southern Libya (Harrow: Cleander
Press, 1970) p. 20.
6. Ruth First, Libya: The Elusive Revolution (Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1974)
p. 33.
7. Daniels, op. cit., p. 23.
8. Wright, op. cit., p. 55.
9. Ibid., p. 70.
10. John K. Cooley, Baal, Christ and Mohammed: Religion and Revolution in
North Africa (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1965) pp. 73-9.
11. John Bagot Glubb, A Short History of the Arab Peoples (London: Quartet
Books, 1978) p. 135.
12. B. G. Martin, 'Kanem, Bornu and the Fezzan: Notes on the Political History
of a Trade Route', Journal ofAfrican History, vol. X, no. 1 (1969) pp. 15-27.
13. Glubb, op. cit., p. 251.
14. Nicola A. Ziadeh, Sanusiyah: A Study of a Revivalist Movement in Islam
(Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1958) p. 46.
15. H. A. R. Gibb, Mohammedanism (London: Oxford University Press, 1949)
p. 13.
16. E. E. Evans-Pritchard, The Sanusi of Cyrenaica (Oxford: Oxford University
Press, 1949).
17. Public Record Office, WO, 18 January 1903, 'Notes on the History of the
Sanusi', note by Colonel Count Gleichan, Dir., Intelligence, Egyptian Army.
18. Gentil Lamotte, Revue de Cercle Militaire (1902) p. 12, quoted in Cooley,
op. cit., p. 180.
19. Peter Mansfield, Nasser's Egypt (Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1965) p. 13.
20. H. J. Rose, A Handbook of Greek Literature (London: Methuen, 4th rev. edn,
1964) p. 300.
Notes to Chapter 3: The Fourth Shore

2. Enzo Santarelli, in Enzo Santarelli, Giorgio Rochat, Romain Rainero and
Luigi Goglia, Omar al-Mukhtar: The Italian Reconquest of Libya, trans. John
Gilbert (London: Darf Publishing, 1986) p. 25.
3. Francesco Malgeri, La Guerra Libica, 1911-1912 (Rome, 1970) p. 95.
4. Giorgio Rochat, // Colonialismo Italiano (Turin, 1973) p. 30.
5. Luigi Ganapini, // Nationalismo Cattolico (Bari, 1970) chapter IV.
7. Ibid., p. 124.
8. Ninetta Jucker, Italy (London: Thames and Hudson, 1970) p. 47.
9. Quoted in John K. Cooley, Libyan Sandstorm (New York: Holt, Rinehart and
Winston, 1982) p. 32.
10. Public Record Office, WO, 106/1532, Intelligence Department, War Office,
Cairo, 11 October 1913.
11. Public Record Office, WO, 106/1553.
12. Adrian Pelt, Libyan Independence and the United Nations: A Case of Planned
Decolonisation (New Haven: Yale University Press, Carnegie Endowment
for International Peace, 1970) pp. 3-8.
13. E. E. Evans-Pritchard, The Sanusi of Cyrenaica (Oxford: Oxford University
Press, 1949) p. 155.
15. Ibid., p. 142.
16. Benito Mussolini, Tl solito ricatto', // Popolo d'ltalia, 23 March 1919.
17. Santarelli, in Enzo Santarelli et al., op. cit., p. 16.
18. Vittorio Scialoja, / Problemi dello Stato Italiano Dopa la Guerra (Bologna,
1918) pp. 296, 299.
20. Giuseppe Volpi, La Rinascita delta Tripolitania (Milan, 1926).
21. John Wright, 'Libya: Italy's Promised Land', in Joffe and McLachlan (eds),
Social and Economic Development in Libya (1982), quoted by Jonathan
Bearman, Qadhafi's Libya (London: Zed Books, 1986) p. 15.
22. Jamahiriya International Report, quoted in Countries of Italian Colonisation,
vol. 2, no. 14, pp. 6-7, quoted by Bearman, ibid., p. 15.
24. Ibid., p. 157.
25. Clemente Menzio, Died Anni di Storia Cirenaica, a typewritten account for
the command of the royal corps of colonial troops in Cyrenaica, 25 December
1931; source used by Evans-Pritchard, op. cit., p. 159, and by Rochat, in

Santarelli et al, op. cit., p. 41.
26. Ibid.
27. Evans-Pritchard, op. cit., pp. 159-60.
28. Menzio, op. cit.
29. Quoted by Rochat, in Santarelli et al., op. cit., p. 43.
30. Ibid., p. 45.
31. Menzio, op. cit.
32. Santarelli et al., op. cit., p. 48.
33. Notiziario, 3 March 1928.
34. Notiziario, 1 April 1928.
35. Notiziario, 30 June 1928.
36. Quoted by Wright, op. cit., p. 160.
37. Quoted by Rochat, in Santarelli et al, op. cit., p. 69.
38. This phase is well described in Evans-Pritchard, op. cit., pp. 159-73; and in
Wright, op. cit., pp. 164-8.
39. Wright, ibid., p. 165.
40. Knud Holmboe, Desert Encounter: An Adventurous Journey through Italian
Africa (London: Harrap, 1936).
41. Ibid., p. 203.
42. Quoted by Rochat, in Santarelli et al, op. cit., p. 73.
43. Pietro Badoglio, quoted by Rochat, in Santarelli et al, op. cit., p. 76.
44. Rodolfo Graziani, quoted by Rochat, ibid., p. 78.
46. Badoglio, quoted by Rochat, in Santarelli et al, op. cit., p. 92.
47. Emilio De Bono, quoted by Rochat, ibid., p. 92.
48. Romain Rainero, in Santarelli et al, ibid., p. 145.
49. Giuseppe Bendendo, Le Gesta e la Politica del Generate Graziani (Rome,
1936).
50. Rainero, in Santarelli et al, op. cit., p. 146.
51. Rainero includes in Santarelli et al, ibid., as appendices the secret proceed-
ings in the trial at Benghazi, 15 September 1931 (comprising the interroga-
tion of Mukhtar, the typewritten account of the hearing against him, the
record of the hearing, and the list of charges); and the clandestine manifesto
of the Cyrenaican resistance celebrating the first anniversary of Mukhtar's
execution.
52 Quoted by Wright, op. cit., p. 167.
53. Emilio De Bono, quoted by Rainero, in Santarelli et. al, op. cit., p. 150.
54. Chekib Arslan, 'Omar al-Mukhtar', in el Djihad, 10 October 1931.
55. Martin Moore, Fourth Shore: Italy's Mass Colonisation of Libya (London:
Routledge, 1940) p. 132.
56. Ibid., pp. 216-17, 221.
57. G. L. Fowler, 'The Role of Private Estates and Development Companies in
the Italian Agricultural Colonisation of Libya', in Joffe and McLachlan (eds),
Social and Economic Development in Libya (1982).
58. Adrian Pelt, The United Kingdom of Libya from Colony to Independent State,
UN Bulletin, 15 February 1952.
59. Quoted by Wright, op. cit., p.180.
60. Christopher Hibbert, Benito Mussolini (London, 1962) p. 95.
61. See also Richard Griffiths, Fellow Travellers of the Right (Oxford University
Press, 1983) for details of British support for Mussolini and Hitler.
62. William L. Shirer, Berlin Diary (London, 1941).
63. Quoted in Adrian Pelt, op. cit., (1970) p. 41.
64. The ensuing events are well described by Roger Parkinson, The Desert War
(London: Hart-Davis, MacGibbon, 1976).
65. Alan Moorehead, African Trilogy (Mediterranean Front - A Year of Battle -
The End in Africa) (London: Hamish Hamilton, 1944).
66. J. F. C. Fuller, The Second World War (London, 1948).
67. Denti di Pirajno, A Cure for Serpents (A Doctor in Africa) (London: Andre
Deutsch, 1955) p. 250, quoted by Wright, op. cit., p. 187.
68. Lillian Haig Harris, Libya, Qadhafi's Revolution and the Modern State
(London: Croom Helm, 1986).
69. Paper presented by the Institute of Diplomatic Studies to a Geneva-based
seminar on 'War Remnants in Libya', May 1981.
Notes to Chapter 4: From Idris to Gaddafi
1. Majid Khadduri, Modern Libya: A Study in Political Development (Balti-

more, Md: John Hopkins, Press, 1963) p. 33.
2. Ibid., p. 61.
4. Henry Serrano Villard, Libya: The New Arab Kingdom of North Africa (New
York: Cornell University Press, 1956) p. 24.
5. Ibid., p. 24.
6. Ruth First, Libya: The Elusive Revolution (New York: Africa Publishing Co.
1975) p. 62.
7. C. Grove Haines, 'The Problem of the Italian Colonies', Middle East Journal
vol. 1, no. 4 (October 1947) pp. 417-31.
8. Villard, op. cit., p. 24.
9. John Lindberg, General Economic Appraisal of Libya (New York: United
Nations, 1952) p. 32.
11. Official Records, General Assembly, Fourth Session, First Committee, 278th
Meeting, 30 September 1949, p. 20.
12. First, op. cit., p. 69.
13. Adrian Pelt, Libyan Independence and the United Nations: A Case of Planned
Decolonisation (New Haven: Yale University Press, Carnegie Endowment
for International Peace, 1970) p. 128.
14. Ibid., p. 168.
15. Adrian Pelt, in Official Records of the UN General Assembly, Fifth Session,
1950, vol. 1, pp. 411-12.
18. Quoted by Wright, ibid., p. 226.
19. Quoted by Wright, ibid., p. 227.
21. Ibid., p. 16.
Notes to Chapter 4
22. Villard, op. cit., p. 44.

23. Robert C. Doty, New York Times, 13 February 1954.
24. John Gunther, Inside Africa (London: Hamish Hamilton, 1955) p. 167.
25. Khadduri, op. cit., pp. 240-3.
26. This episode is well described in Wright, op. cit.., pp. 230-1.
27. Richard Camngton, East from Tunis: A Record of Travels on the Northern
Coast of Africa (London: Chatto and Windus, 1957).
28. Gunther, op. cit., p. 169.
29. 'Dangers of Tribal Unrest in Libya', The Times (London), 21 October 1954.
30. Gunther, op. cit., p. 171.
33. Hansard, 2 August 1956.
34. Egypt Committee, Cabinet Minute, Action against Egypt, 1 August 1956,
HMA.
36. Quoted by Jonathan Bearman, Qadhafi's Libya (London: Zed Books, 1986)
p. 26.
37. Bearman, ibid., p. 26.
38. Wright, op. cit., pp. 239^0.
39. First, op. cit., pp. 84-5.
40. R. F. Harrison, 'Migrants in the City of Tripoli, Libya', Geographical
Review, vol. LVII (1967).
41. Hadi M. Bulugna, Benghazi through the Ages (London, 1972).
42. Recommendations quoted in J. A. Allan, K. McLachlan and E. Penrose (eds),
Libya: Agriculture and Economic Development (London: Frank Cass, 1973).
43. Quoted by Bearman, op. cit., p. 48.
44. Ronald Segal, African Profiles (Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1962) p. 383.
45. Stephen E. Ambrose, Rise to Globalism: American Foreign Policy since
1938, 5th rev. edn (Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1988) pp. 126-7.
46. Quoted by Kwame Nkrumah, Neo-Colonialism: The Last Stage of Imperial-
ism (London: Nelson, 1965).
47. Denis Healey, The Time of My Life (London: Michael Joseph, 1989) p. 322.
49. This section is largely based on Blundy and Lycett, ibid., pp. 33-56.
50. Ibid., p. 42.
51. Ibid., p. 44.
52. Ibid., p. 45.
53. Ibid., p. 48.
54. Quoted by John K. Cooley, Libyan Sandstorm (New York: Holt, Rinehart and
Winston, 1982) pp. 15-16.
55. Frederick Muscat, My President, My Son (Malta: Adam Publishers, 1974)
p. 99.
56. The text of Communique One is included in Mirella Bianco, Gadhafi: Voice
from the Desert (London: Longman, 1975) pp. 67-8.
57. Quoted by Blundy and Lycett, op. cit., p. 60.
58. Ibid.,p.6\.
Notes to Chapter 5: The Oil Factor
1. John Gunther, Inside Africa (London: Hamish Hamilton, 1955) p. 179.

2. Ruth First, Libya: The Elusive Revolution (New York: Africa Publishing Co.,
1975) p. 141.
4. Ibid., p. 269.
5. John Davis, Libyan Politics, Tribe and Revolution (London: I. B. Tauris,
1987) pp. 15-19, and Appendix 1, 'On Hydrocarbon Society', pp. 261-3.
6. J. A. Allan, Libya: The Experience of Oil (London: Croom Helm, 1981) p. 24.
7. Ibid., p. 24.
8. Peter R. Odell, Oil and World Power: Background to the Oil Crisis
(Harmondsworth: Penguin, England, 1970) p. 92.
9. Mana Saeed al-Otaiba, OPEC and the Petroleum Industry (New York: John
Wiley, 1975) p. 25.
11. Ibid., p. 246.
12. Esso in Libya (Tripoli: Esso Standard Libya Inc., 1965).
14. First, op. cit., pp. 190-1.
15. Wanda M. Jaclobski, 'Libya's Oil Pricing and Tax Dilemma', Petroleum
Intelligence Weekly, 19 April 1965, pp. 6-9.
16. Petroleum Intelligence Weekly, 13 September 1965.
17. Ibid., 28 February 1966.
18. Oil and Gas Journal, 5 December 1966.
20. Petroleum Intelligence Weekly, 9 January 1967.
21. Nasser reached a bargain with the Arab oil states - Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and
Libya - whereby all pressure on them to continue their boycott of Britain and
the US would be lifted if suitable payments (Kuwait £55 million, Saudi
Arabia £50 million, and Libya £30 million) were made to Egypt and Jordan
(who would receive respectively £95 million and £40 million) to remove 'the
traces of aggression' (i.e. to compensate for lost Suez Canal revenues): see
Peter Mansfield, Nasser's Egypt (Harmondsworth: Penguin, rev. edn, 1969)
p. 85.
22. A detailed analysis of the impact of oil revenues on the Libyan economy is
given in Allan, op. cit., esp. Chapters 4, 5 and 8.
23. First, op. cit., p. 199.
24. Oasis internal memorandum, September/October 1969.
25. Anthony Sampson, The Seven Sisters (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1975)
p. 214.
26. Abdul Amir Kubbah, OPEC Past and Present (Vienna), September 1974,
p. 54.
27. Sampson, op. cit., p. 216.
28. Ibid., p. 217.
29. Described in detail in Sampson, ibid., Chapters 10 and 11.
30. Ibid., p. 248.
31. Ian Seymour, New York Times, 1 October 1973, quoted by Sampson, ibid.,
p. 248.
32. Richard J. Barnet, The Lean Years: Politics in the Age of Scarcity (London:
Abacus, 1981) p. 43.
33. John K. Cooley, Libyan Sandstorm (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston,
1982) p. 53.
34. Ibid., p. 53.
35. Wilbur Eveland, Ropes of Sand: America's Failure in the Middle East (New
York: Norton, 1980).
36. Christopher Rand, Making Democracy Safe for Oil: Oilmen and the Islamic
East (Boston, Mass.: Atlantic-Little, Brown, 1975) p. 251.
37. A subsequent Hammer plan for a fertiliser plant was agreed with the Soviet
Union, but this scheme was interrupted when President Carter blocked agri-
cultural exports to the Soviet Union in retaliation for the Soviet invasion
of Afghanistan. Libya never got its promised Hammer fertiliser plant.
38. Rand, op. cit., p. 254.
39. David Newsome, Multinational Report (1975) p. 99; quoted by Sampson,
op. cit., p. 211.
40. Stanley Penn, Wall Street Journal, 8 February 1972, p. 1.
41. Cooley, op. cit., pp. 55-6.
42. New York Times, 11 December 1974.
43. Hammer describes his Libyan experiences (and many others) in Armand
Hammer with Neil Lyndon, Hammer: Witness to History (New York: Simon
and Schuster, 1987).
44. Ibid., p. 449.
45. Ibid., p. 465.
46. Ibid., p. 475.
47. Quoted in Ewan W. Anderson and Khalil H. Rashidian, Iraq and the Continu-
ous Middle East Crisis (London: Pinter, 1991) p. 55.
48. Petroleum Economist (Beirut), vol. 42, no. 8 (August 1975).
49. Martin Walker, The Guardian (London), 4 January 1992.
Notes to Chapter 6: Libyan Revolution
1. al-Sijill al-Qawmi (writings, speeches and pronouncements of Muammar

al-Gaddafi, appearing in yearly volumes under various auspices), vol. 8
(1976-7) p. 89.
2. Jonathan Bearman, 'The Formation and Character of the Contemporary Libyan
State', paper presented at the BRISMES Annual Conference, 12-15 July
1987, p. 1.
3. Meredith O. Ansell and Ibrahim Assoud al-Arif, The Libyan Revolution: A
Sourcebook of Legal and Historical Documents, vol. 1 (September 1969/
August 1970) (London: Oleander Press, 1972).
4. Ruth First, Libya: The Elusive Revolution (New York: African Publishing
Co., 1975) p. 132.
5. R. F. Nyrop, Libya: A Country Profile - An Area Handbook for Libya
(Washington: The American University, 1979) p. 199.
6. Muammar al-Gaddafi, The Green Book, English edition (Ministry of Infor-
mation, Tripoli, Libya, 1979) p. 47.
7. Ibid., p. 65.
8. P. Enahoro, 'Heart to Heart with Qadhafi', New African, February 1983,

pp. 37-46.
9. Bearman, op. cit.., p. 8.
10. Muammar al-Gaddafi, 'Democracy in Industry', address delivered to a rally
on International Workers' Day, 1 May 1978, Arab Dawn Essays, Arab Dawn
(London, 1978).
11. John Davis, Libyan Politics, Tribe and Revolution (London: I. B. Tauris,
1987) p. 258.
12. An 'official history' of the background, planning and execution of the Libyan
revolution appeared in Libyan newspapers in serialised instalments in Sep-
tember 1969 and over the next two years; also articles in Tripoli's al-Yawm,
5 September 1969; Gadaffi's interview with Egyptian television reported in
Libyan newspapers of 15 October 1969; and his interview with the Sudanese
al-Ayyam reported in Tripoli's al-Ra'id, 26 September 1969 and 6 December
1969.
13. Mirella Bianco, Gadafi: Voice from the Desert, trans. Margaret Lyle
(London: Longman, published in arrangement with Editions Stock, Paris,
1975) pp. 90-1.
14. Ibid., p. 92.
16. Ibid., p. 92.
17. Ansell and al-Arif, op. cit., pp. 113-14.
1982) p. 99.
19. Jonathan Bearman, Qadhafi's Libya (London: Zed Books, 1986) p. 71.
20. Ibid., p. 72.
21. J. A. Allan, Libya: the Experience of Oil (London: Croom Helm, 1981)
p. 223.
22. JIR, vol. 1, no. 9 (3 September 1982); see also The Al-Fateh Revolution: Ten
Years On (Tripoli: Secretariat of Information, 1979); and Facts and Figures
(Tripoli: Secretariat of Information, 1979).
23. Bearman (1986), op. cit., p. 75.
24. Allan, op. cit., p. 229.
25. Ibid., p. 229.
26. Muammar al-Gaddafi (Tripoli: Secretariat of Information, 1979) p. 45.
27. Arab Report and Record, no. 17 (1-15 September 1969) p. 364.
28. Frank Waddams, The Libyan Oil Industry (London, 1980) p. 251.
29. Bearman (1986), op. cit., p. 90.
30. Allan, op. cit., p. 179.
31. Ibid., p. 191.
32. I. M. Barton, 'The Effects of Imperial Favour: Septimus Severus and Lepcis
Magna', paper delivered at the Classical Conference, University of London
(1978).
33. K. Holmboe, Desert Encounter (London: Harrap, 1936).
34. R. W. Hill, 'Underground Water Resources of the Jafara Plain', in S. G.
Willimott and J. I. Clarke (eds), Field Studies in Libya (University of Dur-
ham, 1960) pp. 20-3; C. J. Cederstrom and M. Bertaiola, Groundwater
Resources of the Tripoli Area, Libya (Tripoli, Libya: USOM Report, 1960).
35. Quoted in Ansell and al-Arif, op. cit., p. 75.

36. S. Birks and C. Sinclair, 'Libya: Problems of a Rentier State', in R. Lawless
and A. Findlay (eds), North Africa: Contemporary Politics and Economic
Development (London: Croom Helm, 1984) p. 262.
37. Allan, op. cit., p. 204.
38. Ibid., p. 204.
39. 'LAR's Four Major Agricultural Projects', Arab Dawn, December 1974.
40. Adotey Bing, 'Harnessing Desert Waters', Africa, June 1985; see also The
Great Man-Made River Project, Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya,
the Management and Implementation Authority of the Great Man-made
River Project, Tripoli, Libya, 1989.
41. Ibid., p. vi.
42. Bearman (1986), op. cit., p. 274.
43. The Great Man-Made River Project, op. cit., p. 10.
44. Ibid., pp. 14-15.
45. Ibid., p. 19.
46. Ibid., p. 22.
47. M. El Mehdawi, 'The Industrialisation of Libya', in Change and Develop-
ment in the Middle East (London: Methuen, 1981); also quoted in P. Barker,
'The Development of Libyan Industry', in J. A. Allan (ed), Libya since
Independence (London: Croom Helm, 1982).
48. Pandeli Glavanis, 'State and Labour in Libya', in Lawless and Findlay (eds),
op. cit., (1928).
49. The Revolution of 1st September: The Fourth Anniversary (Benghazi: Gen-
eral Administration for Information, Annual Yearbook, 1973) p. 52.
50. Birks and Sinclair, op. cit., p. 262.
51. Africa Confidential (London), 13 March 1985, pp. 3, 4; reprinted in Joint
Publications Research Service - Near East, 15 April 1985.
52. Lillian Craig Harris, Libya: Qadhafi's Revolution and the Modern State
(London: Croom Helm, 1986) p. 117.
53. Libya, Country Report, no. 3 (1990), The Economist Intelligence Unit,
London.
54. Petroleum Intelligence Weekly, 14 May 1990.
55. Libya, Country Report, no. 4 (1991), The Economist Intelligence Unit,
London, p. 7.
56. Middle East Economic Survey, 6 September 1991.
57. Newsreport, May/June 1991, published by the Libyan opposition in exile.
58. Middle East Economic Survey, 30 August 1991.
59. Libya, Country Report (1991), op. cit., p. 14.
60. Middle East Economic Survey, 5 August 1991.
61. Davis, op. cit.
62. Koran 42:38.
63. Mahmoud Ayoub, Islam and the Third Universal Theory (London: Kegan
Paul International, 1987) p. 35.
64. Davis, op. cit., p. 20.
65. This information is largely based on Davis, ibid., pp. 19-24.
66. Ibid., pp. 19-24.
67. G Lenczowski, 'Popular Revolution in Libya', Current History, vol. 66,
no. 390 (1974) pp. 57-61.
68. Davis, op. cit., p. 24.
69. Libya, Country Report (1990), op. cit., p. 11.
70. Quoted by Wilhelm Dietl, Holy War, trans. Martha Humphreys (New York:
Macmillan, 1984).
71. Quoted by First, op. cit., p. 135.
72. Koran 7:65ff and 41:13ff.
73. Koran 9AQ.
74. Koran 10:5, 17:12 and 36:40.
75. Quoted by Ayoub, op. cit., p. 68.
76. Ibid.,p.l\.
11. Ibid., p. 12.
78. Koran 5:53.
80. Koran 49:11.
81. Koran 9:34.
83. Edward Mortimer, Faith and Power: The Politics of Islam (London: Faber
and Faber, 1982) p. 281.
84. Bearman (1986), op. cit., p. 164.
85. Davis, op. cit., p. 254.
86. Quoted by Cooley, op. cit., pp. 152, 153.
87. Arab Dawn, October 1978.
88. Bearman (1986), op. cit., p. 198.
89. Quoted by Anthony Sampson, The Arms Bazaar, Coronet, London, 1977,
p. 174.
90. Washington Post, 26 May 1976.
91. Le Monde, 25 December 1976; a more detailed account of this episode
is given by Russell Warren Howe, Weapons, Abacus, London, 1981,
pp. 424-5.
92. Ibid, p. 570.
93. There is debate about the figure. Sadat claimed it totalled $12 billion, Libya
said it was $800 million, and the usual Western estimate is $1 billion.
94. Seymour M. Hersh, The Samson Option, Faber and Faber, London, 1991.
95. Quoted by Howe, op. cit., p. 294.
96. Quoted by Leonard Spector, Going Nuclear, Ballinger, Cambridge, Mass.,
1987.
97. Washington Star, 25 November 1979.
98. Quoted by Frank Barnaby, The Invisible Bomb, The Nuclear Arms Race in the
Middle East, I. B. Tauris, London, 1989, p. 150.
99. Time, 8 June 1981, p. 31.
100. Cooley, op. cit., p. 233.
101. Ibid, pp. 237-9.
102. Barnaby, op. cit., p. 79.
103. Andrew Stephen, The Observer, London, 26 January 1992, p. 11.
Notes to Chapter 7: International Ambitions
1. Quoted by David Blundy and Andrew Lycett, Qaddafi and the Libyan Revo-
lution (London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1987) p. 69.
2. Ibid., p. 70.
3. Tabitha Petran, Syria: A Modern History (London: Ernest Benn, 1972)

p. 238; the Tripoli Federation is described in detail (pp. 254-6).
4. Jaysh Al-Shab (The People's Army), 25 November 1970.
5. Mohammed Hussein Heikal, Autumn of Fury: The Assassination of Sadat
(London: Corgi, 1984) p. 50.
6. Ibid., p. 54.
8. Ibid., p. 103.
9. Quoted by John K. Cooley, Libyan Sandstorm (New York: Holt, Rinehart and
Winston, 1982) p. 108. The submarine incident is described by Hasseinine
Haykal, The Road to Ramadan (London: Collins, 1975) pp. 192^.
10. Al-Amal (Tunis), 16 January 1974.
11. Conversations (cited by Cooley, op. cit., p. 11) with Tunisian Prime Min-
ister Muhhamed M'Zali and Foreign Minister Hassan Belkhodja (Tunis),
4 November 1980.
12. Lillian Craig Harris, Libya: Qadhafi's Revolution and the Modern State
(London: Croom Helm, 1986) p. 93.
13. Libya, Country Report, no. 4 (1991) The Economist Intelligence Unit,
London, p. 5.
14. Donald Trelford interview in Tripoli with Muammar al-Gaddafi, The
Observer (London), 26 January 1992, p. 11.
15. Patrick Seale, Abu Nidal: A Gun for Hire (London: Hutchinson, 1992).
16. Report given to David Blundy and Andrew Lycett in 1986, quoted in Blundy
and Lycett, op. cit., pp. 150-1. This report, manifestly 'evidence supporting
interest', is cited without comment.
17. Ibid., p. 150.
18. Ibid., p. 151.
19. Ibid., p. 151.
20. Wilhelm Dietl, Holy War, trans. Martha Humphreys (New York: Macmillan,
1984) p. 185.
21. Libya under Gaddafi: A Pattern of Aggression (US State Department,
January 1986).
22. International Terrorism in 1985 (Tel Aviv University, 1986).
23. Blundy and Lycett, op. cit., p. 156.
24. Ibid., pp. 146-8.
25. Peter Theroux, The Strange Disappearance of Imam Moussa Sadr (London:
Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1987); the Libyans disclaim all responsibility for
Sadr's disappearance, claiming that he took a flight out of Tripoli.
26. Richard Adloff and Virginia Thompson, Conflict in Chad (California: Hurst,
1981) p. 4.
27. Cooley, op. cit., pp. 98-9.
28. Adloff and Thompson, op. cit., p. 55.
31. Philippe Rochot, La Grand Fievre du Monde Musulman (Paris: Sycomore,
1981) pp. 126-7.
33. Bearman, op. cit., p. 217.
34. Patrick Brogan, World Conflicts (London: Bloomsbury, 1990) p. 24.
35. Ibid., pp. 24-5.
36. Richard Dowden (Africa editor), The Independent (London), 4 January 1992.
37. Brogan, op. cit., p. 103.
38. Ibid.,p.\01.
40. Blundy and Lycett, op. cit., p. 23. Imelda told William Deedes, then editor of
The Daily Telegraph, that Gaddafi had given her a romantic telegram and a
signed copy of the Koran, and asked her to become a Muslim.
43. Jack Holland, The American Connection (New York: Viking Penguin, 1987)
p. 109.
45. Ibid., p. SI.
46. Donald Trelford interview in Tripoli with Muammar al-Gaddafi, The
Observer (London), 26 January 1992, p. 11.
47. Libya, Country Report (1991), op. cit., pp. 16, 17.
48. Angus Hindley, Middle East Economic Digest, 28 June 1991, pp. 4-5.
49. Ibid., p. 4.
50. Ibid., p. 5.
51. This episode is described in Blundy and Lycett, op. cit., pp. 160-79.
52. The Independent on Sunday (London), 23 June 1991.
53. The Guardian (London), 11 June 1991, observed that: 'It would have been
more sensible to reserve judgement - and comment - while the strength of
these overtures was being tested.
Notes to Chapter 8: United States versus Gaddafi
1. Howard Zinn, A People's History of the United States (London: Longman,

1980) pp. 291-2.
2. Ibid., p. 292.
3. J. A. Hobson, Imperialism (London: Unwin Hyman, 1902).
4. Zinn, op. cit., pp. 297-8.
5. J. William Fulbright, The Arrogance of Power (London: Jonathan Cape,
1967).
6. J. William Fulbright with Seth P. Tillman, The Price of Empire (London:
Fourth Estate, 1989).
7. Steele Commager, The New York Times Magazine, 12 March 1967.
8. There is a massive literature covering these events. Accessible and well
documented publications include: William Blum, The CIA: A Forgotten
History (London: Zed Books, 1986); Thomas Bodenheimer and Robert Gould,
Rollback! Right-wing Power in US Foreign Policy (Boston: South End Press,
1989); John Weeks and Phil Gunson, Panama, Made in the USA (London:
Latin American Bureau, 1991).
1982) p. 26.
10. Majid Khadduri, Modern Libya: A Study in Political Development (Balti-
more, Md: John Hopkins University Press, 1963) p. 71.
11. Nathan Miller, The US Navy: An Illustrated History (New York: American
Heritage Publishing, US Naval Institute Press, 1977) p. 45.
13. Carter reply to Senator Birch Bayh, Chairman, Subcommittee of the Commit-
tee on the Judiciary, an Inquiry into the Matter of Billy Carter and Libya (the
'Billy Carter Hearings'), 4 August 1980, hearings to investigate the activities
of individuals representing foreign governments, Ninety-sixth Congress, 2nd
session, vol. 3, appendix, p. 1479; quoted by Cooley, op. cit., p. 82.
14. Billy Carter Hearings, US Senate, 2 October 1980.
15. 'The Most Dangerous Man in the World', Newsweek, 20 July 1981.
16. Emirates News, UPI Report, 10 July 1981.
17. Newsweek, 20 July 1981.
19. Ibid., pp. 230-1.
20. Jamahiriya Review, September 1981.
21. Third World Reports, From El Salvador to the Libyan Jamahiriya: A Radical
Review of American Policy under the Reagan Administration (London: The
Main Event Ltd, 1981) p. 63.
23. Ibid., p. 269.
24. The Times (London), 21 February 1983.
25. Ibid.
26. The Guardian (London), 4 August 1983.
27. The Guardian (London), 20 March 1984; The Guardian (London), 21 March
1984.
28. Patrick Seale, The Observer (London), 13 March 1984.
31. Ibid., p. 83.
32. Ibid., p. 84.
33. One such coup attempt is described, albeit with some proper names changed,
in Patrick Seale and Maureen McConville, The Hilton Assignment (New
York and Washington: Praeger, 1973), Cooley, ibid., (pp. 86-96) profiles
these events and comments that the Seale/McConville narrative 'leads almost
to certainty that the CIA, working with British and Italian services, thwarted
an elaborate plot to assassinate Qaddafi'.
34. The Nugan Hand Bank crops up in many accounts of espionage, subversion
and drug trafficking. See, for example, Alfred W. McCoy, The Politics of
Heroin: CIA Complicity in the Global Drug Trade (New York: Harper and
Row, 1991) pp. 461-78.
35. Jonathan Kwitny, The Crimes of Patriots (New York: Simon and Schuster,
1987) pp. 100-1.
36. McCoy, op. cit., p. 471.
37. Kwitny, op. cit., pp. 89-93, 122-3, 162^4.
38. Peter Maas, Manhunt (New York: Random House, 1986) pp. 6-9.
39. J Marshall et al., The lran-Contra Connection (Boston: South-End Press,
1987) p. 194; 77M? New York Times, 14 July 1981.
40. The Washington Post, 22 May 1986.
41. S. Butler et al., Mandate for Leadership II (Washington, DC: The Heritage
Foundation, 1984) p. 285.
42. The Miami Herald, 5 June 1983.
43. Noam Chomsky, 'Libya in US Demonology', Covert Action Information
Bulletin (Summer 1986) pp. 15-24.
44. The New York Times, 9 July 1985.
45. Conservation Digest, June 1986.
47. Ibid., p.2\\.
48. Jane Mayer and Doyle McManus, Landslide: The Unmaking of the President,
1984-1988 (London: Fontana, 1989) p. 405.
49. Ibid., p. 406.
50. Donald T Regan, For the Record (London: Hutchinson, 1988) p. 29.
51. Bob Woodward, Veil: The Secret Wars of the CIA, 1981-1987 (London:
Simon and Schuster, 1987).
52. Much of this is based on the account in Woodward, ibid.
53. Quoted in Woodward, ibid., p. 158.
54. Woodward, ibid., p. 166, cites a secret memorandum of 17 August 1981
headed 'Libya: Covert Airline Operation'.
55. Ibid., p. 166
56. Ibid., p. 182.
58. Woodward, op. cit., p. 184.
59. Ibid., pp. 184-5.
60. Quoted by Woodward, ibid., p. 185.
61. Ibid., p. 186.
62. Ibid., p. 409.
63. Ibid., p. All.
64. Quoted by Ben Lowe, 'Libya and NATO's Out-of-Area Role', in Mad Dogs:
The US Raids on Libya (London: Pluto Press, 1986) p. 87.
65. Lou Cannon and Bob Woodward, 'Raid Called Outcome of Long Debate',
International Herald Tribune, 17 April 1986.
66. Marcelino Komba, 'Precarious Initiatives', Africa: The International Busi-
ness, Economic and Political Magazine (June 1985), pp. 28-9.
68. Bob Woodward, 'Cables Point to Gadaffi Link', The Guardian (London),
23 April 1986.
69. Mayer and McManus, op. cit., p. 325.
70. Ibid., p. 325.
71. Robert Fisk, The Times (London), 15-17 April 1986.
72. Fisk, op. cit., 15 April 1986.
74. George Wilson, 'Colonel "was the target" ', The Guardian (London), 19
April 1986.
75. Ibid.
76. Christopher Thomas, 'Shultz Hoping for a Military Coup', The Times
11. The New York Times, 11 January 1986.

78. Hugo Young, One of Us (London: Pan Books, 1990) p. 476.
79. Hansard, 15 April 1986.
80. He records these episodes in Thatcher: Patterns of Deceit (London: Cecil
Woolf), 1986); and Misrule (London: New English Library, 1987).
81. Dalyell (1987), ibid., pp. 105-27.
82. William Broyles Jr, 'The Politics of War', US News and World Report,
12 May 1986.
83. Aviation Week, 21 April 1986.
84. Sanity, April 1986.
85. Bob Woodward, The Guardian (London), 23 April 1986.
86. Quoted by Bearman, op. cit., p. 295.
87. Bob Woodward, The Guardian (London), 23 April 1986.
89. Reproduced in Dalyell (1987), op. cit., pp. 113-18.
90. Michael Gordon, The New York Times, 31 January 1990.
91. Noam Chomsky, Necessary Illusions: Thought Control in Democratic Soci-
eties (London: Pluto Press, 1989) p. 272.
92. Ibid., p. 212.
93. Ibid., p. 213.
94. Regan, op. cit., p. 329.
95. Mayer and McManus, op. cit., p. 357.
96. Sheena Phillips, 'The European Response', in Mad Dogs, op. cit., p. 41.
97. Ibid., p. 43.
98. Woodward (1987), op. cit., p. 471.
99. Ibid., p. 412.
100. Ibid., p. 474.
101. Ibid., p. 475.
Bibliography
Adloff, Richard and Thompson, Virginia, Conflict in Chad (California: Hurst,
1981).
Allan, J. A., Libya: The Experience of Oil (London: Croom Helm, 1981).
Ambrose, Stephen E., Rise to Globalism (Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1988).
Anderson, Ewan W. and Rashidian, Khalil H., Iraq and the Continuing Middle East
Crisis (London: Pinter, 1991).
Anderson, Lisa, 'Qaddafi's Islam', in Voices of Resurgent Islam, ed. John L.
Esposito (London: Oxford University Press, 1983).
Askew, William, Europe and Italy's Acquisition of Libya, 1911-1912 (Durham,
N.C.: Duke University Press, 1942).
Ayoub, Mahmoud, Islam and the Third Universal Theory: The Religious Thought of
Mu'ammar al Qadhdhafi (London: Kegan Paul, 1987).
Bearman, Jonathan, Qadhafi's Libya (London: Zed Books, 1986).
Bennett, Ernest N., With the Turks in Tripoli (London: Methuen, 1912).
Berque, Jacques, The Arabs (London: Faber and Faber, 1964).
Berque, Jacques, French North Africa: The Maghreb between Two World Worlds
(London: Faber and Faber, 1967).
Birks, S. and Sinclair, C, Arab Manpower: The Crisis of Development (London:
Croom Helm, 1980).
Blum, William, The CIA: A Forgotten History (London: Zed Books, 1986).
Blundy, David and Lycett, Andrew, Qaddafi and the Libyan Revolution (London:
Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1987).
Bodenheimer, Thomas and Gould, Robert, Rollback! Right-wing Power in US
Foreign Policy (Boston: South-End Press, 1989).
Bresheeth, Haim and Yuval-Davis, Nira (eds), The Gulf War and the New World
Order (London: Zed Books, 1991).
Briggs, Lloyd Cabot, Tribes of the Sahara (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University
Press, 1960).
Brittain, Victoria (ed), The Gulf between Us: The Gulf War and Beyond (London:
Virago, 1991).
Brogan, Patrick, World Conflicts (London: Bloomsbury, 1989).
Bromley, Simon, American Hegemony and World Oil: The Industry, the State
System and the World Economy (Cambridge: Polity Press, 1991).
Bulloch, John, and Morris, Harvey, Saddam's War: The Origins of the Kuwait
Crisis and the International Response (London: Faber and Faber, 1991).
Cachia, Anthony J., Libya under the Second Ottoman Occupation (1835-1911)
(Tripoli: Government Press, 1945).
Carrington, Richard, East from Tunis: A Record of Travels on the Northern Coast of
Africa (London: Chatto and Windus, 1957).
Chomsky, Noam, Necessary Illusions: Thought Control in Democratic Societies
(London: Pluto Press, 1989).
Chomsky, Noam, Deterring Democracy (London: Verso, 1991).
Cooley, John K., Baal, Christ and Mohammed: Religion and Revolution in North
Africa (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1965).
399
400 Bibliography
Cooley, John K., Libyan Sandstorm (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1982).
Corm, Georges, Fragmentation of the Middle East (London: Hutchinson, 1988).
Dalyell, Tam, Thatcher: Patterns of Deceit (London: Cecil Woolf, 1986).
Dalyell, Tam, Misrule (London: New English Library, 1987).
Daniels, Charles, The Garamantes of Southern Libya (Harrow, England: Oleander
Press, 1970).
Darwish, Adel and Alexander, Gregory, Unholy Babylon: The Secret History of
Saddam's War (London: Victor Gollancz, 1991).
Davis, Brian, Qaddafi, Terrorism and the Origins of the US Attack on Libya (New
York: Praeger, 1990).
Davis, John, Libyan Politics, Tribe and Revolution (London: I. B. Tauris, 1987).
Deeb, Marius K. and Deeb, Mary-Jane, Libya since the Revolution: Aspects of
Social and Political Development (New York: Praeger, 1982).
Denti di Pirajno, Alberto, A Cure for Serpents: A Doctor in Africa (London: Andre
Deutsch, 1955).
Dietl, Wilhelm, Holy War, trans. Martha Humphreys (New York: Macmillan, 1984).
Evans-Pritchard, E. E., The Sanusi of Cyrenaica (Oxford: Oxford University Press,
1949).
Eveland, Wilbur, Ropes of Sand: America's Failure in the Middle East (New York:
Norton, 1980).
Falk, Richard A. (ed.), The Vietnam War and International Law (Princeton, N.J.:
Princeton University Press, 1968).
al-Falhali, Omar and Palmer, Monte, Political Development and Social Change in
Libya (Washington D.C.: Lexington Books, 1981).
el-Fathaly, Omar, Palmer, Monte and Chackerian, Richard, Political Development
and Bureaucracy in Libya (Lexington, Mass: D. C. Heath, 1980).
Fergiani, Mohammed B. (compiler), The Libyan Jamahiriya (London: Darf Publish-
ers, 1983).
First, Ruth, Libya: The Elusive Revolution (New York: Africa Publishing Co.,
1975).
Furlonge, Geoffrey, The Lands of Barbary (London: John Murray, 1966).
Glubb, John Bagot, A Short History of the Arab Peoples (London: Quartet, 1978).
Goddard, Donald with Coleman, Lester K., Trail of the Octopus (London:
Bloomsbury, 1993).
Gunther, John, Inside Africa (London: Hamish Hamilton, 1955).
Habib, Henri, Politics and Government of Revolutionary Libya (Montreal: Le Cercle
du Livre de France, 1975).
Hajjaji, S. A., The New Libya (Tripoli, 1967).
Haley, Edward P., Qaddafi and the US since 1969 (New York: Praeger, 1984).
Hammer, Armand with Lyndon, Neil, Hammer, Witness to History (London: Coronel,
Hodder and Stoughton, 1987).
Harris, Lillian Craig, Libya, Qadhafi's Revolution and the Modern State (London:
Croom Helm, 1986).
Haykal, Muhammed Hasseinine, The Road to Ramadan (London: Collins, 1975).
Haykal, Muhammed Hasseinine, Autumn of Fury: The Assassination of Sadat
(London: Corgi, 1984).
Herodotus, The Histories, trans. Aubrey de Selincourt (Harmondsworth: Penguin,
1954).
Hinnebusch, Raymond A., 'Libya: Personalistic Leadership of a Populist Revolu-
Bibliography 401
tion', in Political Elities in Arab North Africa: Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, Libya
and Egypt, ed. I William Zartman et al., (New York: Longman, 1982).
Hiro, Dilip, Islamic Fundamentalism (London: Paladin, 1988).
Hiro, Dilip, The Longest War: The Iran-Iraq Military Conflict (London: Paladin,
1990).
Hiro, Dilip, Desert Shield to Desert Storm: The Second Gulf War (London: Paladin,
1992).
Hollis, Christopher, Italy in Africa (London: Hamish Hamilton, 1941).
Holmboe, Knud, Desert Encounter: An Adventurous Journey through Italian Africa
(London: Harrap, 1936).
Howe, Russell Warren, Weapons (London: Abacus, 1981).
Joffe, E. G. H. and McLachlan, K. S. (eds), Social and Economic Development of
Libya (Cambridgeshire, England: North Africa Studies Press, 1982).
Kaldor, Mary and Anderson, Paul (eds), Mad Dogs: The US Raids on Libya
(London: Pluto Press, 1986).
Khadduri, Majid, Modern Libya: A Study in Political Development (Baltimore, Md:
John Hopkins University Press, 1963).
Kubbah, Abdul, Libya, its Oil Industry and Economic System (Baghdad: Arab Petro-
Economic Research Centre, 1964).
Lawless, Richard and Findlay, Allan, North Africa: Contemporary Politics and
Economic Development (London: Croom Helm, 1984).
Leppard, David, On the Trail of Terror (London: Jonathan Cape, 1991).
Mansfield, Peter, Nasser's Egypt (Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1965).
Ma'oz, Moshe, Assad: The Sphinx of Damascus (London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson,
1988).
Mayer, Jane and McManus, Doyle, Landslide: The Unmaking of President Reagan
(London: Fontana, 1989).
McCoy, Alfred W., The Politics of Heroin: CIA Complicity in the Global Drug
Trade (New York: Lawrence Hill Books, 1991).
McDermott, Anthony, Egypt from Nasser to Mubarak: A Flawed Revolution
(London: Croom Helm, 1988).
Miller, Nathan, The US Navy: An Illustrated History (Annapolis: American Herit-
age Publishing, US Naval Institute Press, 1977).
Moore, Martin, Fourth Shore: Italy's Mass Colonisation of Libya (London: Routledge,
1940).
Odell, Peter R., Oil and World Power: Background to the Oil Crisis (Harmondsworth,
Penguin, 1970).
Owen, Roger, Libya: A Brief Political and Economic Survey (London: Chatham
House, 1961).
Parker, Richard, North Africa: Regional Tensions and Strategic Concerns (New
York: Praeger, 1984).
Pelt, Adrian, Libyan Independence and the United Nations: A Case of Planned
Decolonisation (New Haven: Yale University Press, Carnegie Endowment for
International Peace, 1970).
Porath, Yehoshua, In Search of Arab Unity, 1930-1945 (London: Cass, 1986).
Rand, Christopher, Making Democracy Safe for Oil: Oilmen and the Islamic East
(Boston, Mass.: Little, Brown, 1975).
Regan, Donald T., For the Record: From Wall Street to Washington (London:
Hutchinson, 1988).
402 Bibliography
Ridgeway, James (ed), The March to War (New York: Four Walls, Eight Windows,
1991).
Rodinson, Maxime, Israel and the Arabs (Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1968).
al-Sadat, Anwar, In Search of Identity: An Autobiography (New York: Harper and
Row, 1977).
Salinger, Pierre with Laurent, Eric, Secret Dossier: The Hidden Agenda behind the
Gulf War (Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1991).
Sampson, Anthony, The Arms Bazaar (London: Coronel, Hodder and Stoughton,
1977).
Sampson, Anthony, The Seven Sisters: The Great Oil Companies and the World
They Made (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1975).
Santarelli, Enzo; Rochat, Giorgio; Rainero, Romain and Goglia, Luigi, Omar al-
Mukhtar: The Italian Reconquest of Libya (London: Darf Publishers, 1986).
Sanders, J. J., A History of Medieval Islam (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul,
1965).
Seale, Patrick and McConville, Maureen, The Hilton Assignment (New York: Praeger,
1973).
Seale, Patrick, Abu Nidal, A Gun for Hire, London: Hutchinson, 1992.
Segal, Ronald (ed.), African Profiles (Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1962).
Sifry, Micah L. and Carf, Christopher (eds), The Gulf War: History, Documents,
Opinions (New York: Random House, 1991).
Soames, Jane, The Coast of Barbary (London: Jonathan Cape, 1938).
Sterling, Claire, The Terror Network: The Secret War of International Terrorism
(New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1981).
Stookey, Robert W., America and the Arab States: An Uneasy Encounter (London:
John Wiley, 1975).
Taheri, Amir, The Cauldron: The Middle East behind the Headlines (London:
Hutchinson, 1988).
Theroux, Peter, The Strange Disappearance of Imam Moussa Sadr (London:
Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1987).
Tibi, Bassam, Arab Nationalism (London: Macmillan, 1981).
Tugendhat, Christopher, Oil: The Biggest Business (London: Eyre and Spottiswoode,
1968).
Villard, Henry Serrano, Libya: The New Arab Kingdom of North Africa (New York:
Cornell University Press, 1954).
Waddams, Frank C, The Libyan Oil Industry (Baltimore: John Hopkins University
Press, 1980).
Woodward, Bob, Veil: The Secret Wars of the CIA, 1981-1987 (London: Simon and
Schuster, 1987).
Woodward, Bob, The Commanders (London: Simon and Schuster, 1991).
Wright, John, Libya (London: Ernest Benn, 1969).
Wright, John, Libya: A Modern History (Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press,
1982).
Yergin, Daniel, Prize: The Epic Quest for Oil, Money and Power (London: Simon
and Schuster, 1991).
Young, Hugo, One of Us (London: Pan, 1990).
Ziadeh, Nicola A., Sanusiyah: A Study of a Revivalist Movement in Islam (Leiden:
E. J. Brill, 1958).
Zinn, Howard, A People's History of the United States (London: Longman, 1980).
Index
Al Abas 85 Almohad tribe, 103
Abatcha, Ibrahim, 288, 289 see also Berbers
ABC News, 336 Almoravid tribe, 103
abolition of political parties, 158, 210, see also Berbers
240 Al Qalah camp, 39
Abse, Leo, 339 Amal Militia, 285
Abu Musa faction, 281 Amerada, 192
Abyssinia, see Ethiopia Amin, Idi, 282-3
Achille Lauro, 335 Ammerman, Bert, 41
Action Directe, 282, 283 Amnesty International, 285
Action Franqaise, 112 Amoseas, 192-3
Acyl, Ahmed, 291 Andreotti, Giulio, 306
Adams, John, 314 Anglo-American Tobacco, 231
Adera Inc., 258 Anglo-Libyan Treaty (1953), 180, 223
Adie, Kate, xxv Angola, 22, 311, 325, 332, 333
Adyrmachidae tribe, 98 al-Ansari, Mahfouz, 35
Aegis missile system, 7 anti-trust laws (US), 193, 200, 205
Aerospace Communications Complex Aouzou Strip, 286, 289, 290, 294, 295
(AIRCOM), 169 Aquino, Corazon, 301
Afghanistan, 318, 325, 332, 333 Arabian Gulf Oil Co., 238
Afrika Korps, 139 Arab Hellenic Bank (AHB), 72
Agip, 238 Arab Islamic Republic, 271
agricultural credits, 167, 226 Arab/Israeli war (1973), 254-5, 256
agricultural reform, 182^, 185, 187, Arab League, 16, 17, 18, 19, 40, 43,
224, 225-35 58, 60, 66, 71, 82, 87, 152, 158,
see also Great Man-made River 271
project Arab Legion (Jordan), 149
Ahmed, Musa, 322 Arab Liaison Bureau, 280
Ahmed, Pasha, 108 Arab oil exporting countries (OAPEC),
aid, Western, 164, 165, 169 201
air ambulances, xi, 77 Arabs, 100, 101, 102-3, 105, 108,
airliner (Libyan) shot down, 273-4 115-16, 117, 118, 130, 168,287,
Alexander the Great, 93, 94 288, 289, 298, 335
Algeciras Conference (1906), 113 see also Bedouins
Algeria, 18, 19, 20, 42, 106, 108, 111, Arab Socialist Ba'ath Party, 161, 166
143, 160, 190, 199, 200, 205, see also Ba'athism; socialism
232, 257, 272, 282, 297, 298, Arab Socialist Union (ASU), 216, 219
306, 319, 324 arab unity
Ali Fethi Bey, 114 see Pan-Arabism
Ali, Mohammed, 105 Arafat, Yasser, 51, 63, 64, 267, 276,
al-Alim, Mohammed Abu, 144 277
Al Jamahiriya Barracks, 336 ARAMCO Group, 190
Allende, Salvador, 313 Arbenz, Jacobo, 313
403
404 Index
Arcesilaus (first), 96-7; (second), 97 Bahrain, 18
Aref, Abdul Jilal, 283 Bainbridge, William, 314
Argentina, 310 Baker, James, 26, 27-8, 30, 31
Arlidge, John, 84 Bakkar, Ibrahim, 52
armaments, 235, 236, 254-9 Balbo, Cesare, 112, 134
biological weapons, 254 Balfour Declaration, 171
C-130 aircraft, 255 Balladur, Edouard, 73
chemical weapons, 254, 259 Banco di Roma, 111, 221
Ml-8 helicopters, 256 Barbarossa
MiG aircraft, 255, 256, 294, 319-20 see al-Din, Khair
Mirage aircraft, 254-5, 256, 271, Barbary states, 314
272, 319-20 Barran, David, 199
missiles, 256, 258-9, 284-5, 294, Barth, Heinrich, 91
302, 332 Baruni, Sulaiman, 118, 119
nuclear weapons, 257-9, 284, 327-8 bases, foreign (in Libya), 166, 168,
submarines, 256, 274 169-70, 172, 180, 210, 215
tanks, 256, 292, 294 see also El Adem airbase; Wheelus
Tu-22 bombers, 256 airbase
Star-Tron (night-seeing), 255 al-Bashir, Omar, 277, 297
Armenian Secret Army, 281 basic people's congresses (BPCs), 213,
Arms Control and Disarmament 214
Agency, 255 Basilan, 300
Arria, Diego, 59 Basque Separatist Movement, 281
al-As, Omar Ibn, 102 Battus (first), 95-6, 97; (second), 97
Ashour, Mohammed, 343 Bedawi, Ahmed, 320
al-Assad, Hafez, xxv, 30, 31, 268-9, Bedendo, Giuseppe, 132
282, 285 Bedouins, 104, 106, 107, 128-9, 157,
see also Syria 170, 212
assassination ban, presidential, 317, Beleidy, Adnan, 64
331, 334 Belgium, 66
Asser Institute of International Law, Belgrano sinking, 339
80 Belisarius, General, 101
al-Athir, Ibn, 103 Benghazi, 5, 6, 37, 77, 114, 119, 131,
Atkins, Jim, 200 135, 137, 139, 144, 153, 154,
Augustus, Emperor, 101 155, 158, 159, 162, 166-7, 168,
Auses tribe, 98 174, 175, 177, 178, 217, 221,
Australia, 313 232, 238, 256, 279, 305, 336,
Austria, 110, 112, 113,305,345 341, 344
Awlad Slaiman tribe, 108 Benghazi University, 211-12, 218, 223
Aziz, Abdel, 299 Beni Hilal tribe, 102, 103
Aziziya Barracks, 5, 177, 336, 337 Benin, 13
Aziz, Tariq, 16, 17 Beni Salim tribe, 102, 103
Azzam, Abdel Rahman, 116, 118 Berbers, 91, 92, 100, 101, 102, 103,
115, 117, 119, 170
Ba'athism, 165-7, 218, 269 Berenice (later Benghazi), 93
Babcock, Tim, 204 Berlin, 341, 343, 344
Bader-Meinhof gang, 281 Beshari, Ibrahim, 39, 40, 42, 44, 53,
Badoglio, Petro, 121, 127, 128, 258, 277, 307, 356-60
129-30, 131, 133, 135 Bevin, Ernest, 145
Index 405
Bevin/Sforza plan, 145-6, 147, 148 Bureau for the Export of the
Bharat Heavy Electric Co., 258 Revolution (Maktub Tasdir al-
Billy Carter Hearings, 317 Thawra), 280, 296
biological weapons, 254 Bush, George, xxvii, 9, 10, 20, 26, 28,
Bishari, Ibrahim 30, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 40, 41,
see Beshari, Ibrahim 42, 45, 46, 55, 62, 208, 328, 333,
Black, Robert, 80 343
blacklist (companies), US-defined, 239 Bushwairib, Saad, 179
'Black Prince' conspiracy, 220-1
Black September faction, 281 C-130 aircraft, 255
Blix, Hans, 48, 258 Cadman, Martin, 81
Bollier, Edwin, 78, 79, 84-5, 86 Caetani, Leone, 111
Bolshevism, 117 Cahill, Joe, 302
see also communism; Marxism Cairo summit (August 1990), 20
bombing of Libya, California Asiatic, 192
see Operation El Dorado Canyon Callimachus, 99
Bongiovanni, Luigi, 123 Cambodia, 325, 332
Botha, Pik, 79 Cambyses, 94
Boucher, Richard, 50 Camp David Accords, 317
Boumedienne, Houari, 247, 272 Camperio Manfredo, 111
Bourguiba, Habib, 164, 269, 271-2, Cannistraro, Vincent, 13-14, 49, 78, 85
275 Cannon, Lou, 334
Bourguiba (frigate), 275 Cantalupo, Roberto, 133
Boutros-Ghali, Boutros, 43, 48, 50, 55, Cape Verde, 60
56, 57, 58, 60, 64, 66, 70, 299 Carlsson, Bernt, 79
Bowlby, Christopher, 342 Carlucci, Frank, 319, 329
Boyle, Francis, A., 68 Carmon, Yigal, 35
Braspetro, 305 Carroll, Eugene, 340
Brazil, 312, 313 Carter, Billy, 317-18
Britain, xxv, xxvi, 5, 14, 23, 27, 34, Carter, Jimmy, 317, 328
36, 37, 38, 41, 43, 46, 47, 48, 49, Carthage, Carthaginians, 93,94,95,101
50, 54, 57, 59, 72, 73, 77, 80, Casey, Richard, 140
112, 113, 116-17, 133, 138, 141, Casey, William, 285, 301, 324-5, 329,
145, 147, 148-9, 150, 151, 155, 331,346
156, 161, 163, 165, 168, 180, Castro, Fidel, 327
191, 197, 214, 223, 254, 255, cave art, 91, 92, 95
256, 258, 263, 296, 297, 305, Center for Defense Information
307, 308, 313, 333, 334 (Washington), 340
British Families Flight 103, 79 Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), 10,
British Petroleum (BP), 189, 199, 224 12, 13, 14, 21, 27, 34, 39, 45, 49,
Brotherhood Bureaus, 280 78, 80, 81, 82, 259, 270, 284,
see also Libyan People's Bureaus 285, 301, 313, 322, 323, 324,
Brown & Root (Consultants), 238 325, 326, 327-8, 329, 330, 331,
Bruguiere, Jean Louis, 31, 32 343, 346
Brunei, 184 Centre for the Protection of Women,
Bulgaria, 331 253
Bundesmat fur Verfassungsschutz Chad, 4, 70, 107, 129, 140, 143, 220,
(BKA), 13 265, 276, 282, 286-95, 296, 327
Bunker Hunt, 224 changes in Libya, 304-9
406 Index
Chanon, Paul, 9, 10 Conseil de Commandant des Forces

Chapman, Dudley, 200 des Armees du Nord (CCFAN),
chemical weapons, 254, 259 290
see also Rabta chemical plant Conseil Superieur Militaire, 290
Chile, 313 Constantine, Emperor, 100, 102
China, 27, 34, 41-2, 56-7, 58, 59, 60, constitution, Libyan, 151, 152-4, 155,
61,65,74,217,257,311 156, 157
Chomsky, Noam, 22 Continental Oil, 192
Christianity, 100, 102, 104, 105, 106, 'contra' forces, 333
221,235,247,299,301,312 Coughlin, Con, 84
Christopher, Warren, 71 Council of the Revolution, 215
Churchill, Winston, 138, 140, 163, 189 coup d'etat, 176-9, 209, 210, 214,
Circassians, 170 268, 346
civil engineering Craxi, Bettino, 345
see Great Man-made River Project; Crete, 325
housing reforms Crispi, Francesco, 110
Clarrige, Duane R., 284 Crocker, Chester, 319
Claudia, 302, 303 crops, 287
Clines, Thomas, 323-4 see also agricultural reform
Clinton, Bill, 70, 73, 81 Crowe, William, 7, 8, 346
Cohen, Susan, 33, 78 Crown Prince (Libyan), 178, 179
Coleman, Lester, 78 Crusaders, 103
colloque (organised by Le Monde), 220 Cuba, xi, 16, 27, 41, 75, 311, 312,
Colosimo, Gaspare, 120 313, 325, 327, 335
Columbia, 312 cultural revolution, 209, 211, 217
Colvin, Marie, 78 Currie, Tom, 34
Commager, Steele, 312 Cyprus, 97, 169
Commonwealth of Independent States Cyrenaica, 91, 93, 94, 99, 100, 102,
(CIS), 53 103, 104, 106, 107, 111, 113,
communism, 218, 269, 301, 312, 322, 114, 115, 116, 118, 119, 121,
323 122, 123, 124, 125, 127, 128,
see also Bolshevism; Libyan 129, 130, 134, 136, 139, 140,
Communist Party; Marxism 141, 143, 144, 145, 148, 149,
Compagnie Francaise des Petioles 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 163,
(CFP), 189 165, 183, 227
computers, 227, 230 Cyrenaican Defence Force (CYDEF),
concentration camps (Italian), 122, 123, 172, 178, 179, 180
128-9, 130-1, 132, 133, 225 Cyrene, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 99
concessions, oil, 191-2, 194, 195-6, see also Cyrenaica
200-1, 203
Congo, 4, 313 al-Dabari, Youssef, 38
conquests of Libya, Dalgeli, Jalal, 173
Arab, 102-3 Dalkamoni, Hafez Kassem, 11, 12
Greek, 93-99 Dalyell, Tam, 44, 45, 47, 71, 75, 81,
Italian, 114-19 83, 84-5, 86, 87, 307, 339^0,
Phoenician, 92-3 342
Roman, 99-102 Dam, Kenneth W., 330
Turkish, 103-8 Darfur, 295-6
see also reconquest of Libya, Italian Daza tribe, 286
Index 407
De Bono, Emilio, 131, 132, 134 economic reforms, 224, 231-9, 306
Deby, Idris, 295 see also agricultural reforms
Decatur, Stephen, 315 Ecuador, 60
Declaration of Independence (Libyan), Eden, Anthony, 139
154 education reforms, 222-3, 224
De Gaulle, Charles, 220 Efay, Mahmoud, 171, 172
Delphi (oracle), 95-6, 97 Egypt, 18, 26, 37, 57, 61, 65, 66, 70,
democracy, 240-^4 71,75,91,92,94,95, 100, 102,
'Democratic International', 333 103, 104, 105, 110, 111, 113,
Demona reactor, 284 114, 116, 119, 122, 123, 128,
Demonax, 97 133, 139, 140, 143, 153, 155,
demonstrations, 19, 62, 163, 166, 158, 160, 163, 165, 166, 168,
171-2, 175, 180, 296, 307, 345 171, 180, 181, 191, 200, 214,
Denmark, 222, 345 217-18, 232, 254, 256, 259, 267,
Department of Land Reclamation and 268, 269, 270, 271, 272-3, 274,
Agrarian Reform, 226 276, 277, 278-9, 282, 288, 292,
Derde (judge), 286-7, 288, 289 297, 308, 312, 317, 320, 321-2,
Derna (cargo ship), 114 324, 325, 327, 330
Derna (town), 114, 129, 130, 232, 315 see also Mubarak, Hosni; Sadat,
Desai, Morarji, 258 Anwar
Desio, Ardito, 190 Egyptian Organisation for
Diab, Ramzi, 12 Industrialisation, 231
DIGOS, 284 Egypto-Libya unity, 217
al-Din, Khair (Barbarossa), 104 see also pan-Arabism
Dinka tribe, 296 Eilts, Herman, 174, 283, 317
Diocletian, 91 Eisenhower Doctrine, 164
Diori, Hamami, 290 Eksund, 302
disinformation El Adem (later Gamal Abdul Nasser)
see 'psyops' campaigns airbase, 164, 185
Diwan (royal), 155, 157, 158, 163 Elazrang, Abdallah, 31
Dix, Pamela, 59, 79 election campaign, US presidential
Djibouti, 18, 74 (1992), 21
Dominican Republic, 313 elections, 211
Domitian, Emperor, 101 see also general elections
Dong Ah Co., 229 El Salvador, 282
Douglas-Home, Alec, 199 employee partnerships, 306
Douglas, Leigh, 345 ENI, 195, 275
Dourdah, Abouzid Omar, 76 Entebbe, 255
Drake, Eric, 199 Enver Pasha, 114
Drugs Enforcement Administration Erastosthenes, 99
(DEA), 82, 85, 86 Ericsson, 304
drugs trafficking, 10, 323 Eritrea, 113, 115, 121, 146,282
Druse militiamen, 294 Esson, George, 33
Duff, Alastair, 72 ETA, 282
Dumas, Roland, 38-9, 306, 307 Ethiopia, Ethiopians, 99, 101, 137,
138, 146, 147, 155, 276, 282,
East Germany, 16 325, 328
East Timor, 24, 313 Evans, David, 8
Eaton, Cyrus, 315 Eveland, Wilbur, 202-3
408 Index
European Economic Community, 34, France, 14, 23, 32, 36, 37, 38-9, 41,
345 43, 48, 49, 50, 52, 54, 57, 59, 66,
Executive Authority for Partnerships 71,72,73, 102, 112, 113, 133,
and Small Industries, 306 138, 145, 147, 149-50, 160, 163,
197, 214, 254, 255, 256, 263,
F-l 11 fighter bombers, 283, 287, 289, 291, 292-3, 294,
practice bombings, 37 295, 297-8, 305, 313, 327, 336,
used against Libya, 5-6, 333-4, 337, 345
336-7, 338, 339-40 Franceschino, Giuseppe, 132
al-Faitouri, Mohammed Sharaf, 59-60 Franco-Italian Treaty
FarhatBey, 115 (1935), 286
fascism, Italian, 119, 120, 121-2, 129, (1955), 286
134-5, 140, 222 Francovitch, Allan, 80, 81-2, 84
see also Mussolini, Benito Frankfurt, 9, 10, 11, 12
al-Fatah, 176 Fraser, Lord Advocate (Scotland), 8-9,
Fatima (Idris's wife), 159 10, 11, 12,32-3,40,44,45,47
Fatima (Prophet's daughter), 106 Free Officers' Movement (Libyan),
Fatimid dynasty, 102 173, 177, 178, 210
fauna, 91, 92, 95, 98-9 Frolinat, see Front de Liberation
Fawzi, Mohammed, 270 Nationale du Tchad
Faya, 294 Front de Liberation Nationale du
Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Tchad (Frolinat), 288, 289, 290-1
47, 51, 320, 330 FSLN (El Salvador), 282
Federation of Arab Republics, 268, 270 Fulbright,! William, 312
see also Tripoli Pact (1969)
Fallaci, Oriana, 282 al-Gaddafa tribe, 108, 129, 170
Fenech-Adami, Edward, 64 al-Gaddafi, Aissha, 170
Fezzan, 91, 93, 100, 103, 104, 107, al-Gaddafi, Muammar see Gaddafi,
115, 122, 127, 128, 130, 131, Muammar
133, 135, 148, 149-50, 151, 152, Gaddafi, Muammar, 6, 13, 15, 16,
160, 170, 183, 184, 195, 220, 18-19, 20, 21, 22, 34, 35, 36, 37,
227, 229, 258, 286, 289 38,39,40-1,42,44,48,49,
al-Fezzani, Sanussi, 179 50-1, 52, 55, 56, 61, 62-3, 64,
Fhimah, al Amin Khalifa, 32, 33, 39, 65, 67, 69, 70, 71-2, 73, 75, 76,
78 77, 78, 108, 129, 133, 146, 205,
see also Lockerbie bombing, suspects 207
Fieldhouse, David, 87 acquiring arms, 254-9
File on Four (BBC broadcast), 8 3 ^ birth, 170
First Liberation Army, 288, 289 coup, 175-9
First World War, 116, 117 democracy, 240-4
Fitzwater, Marlin, 32, 34 early life, 170-2
Fletcher, Yvonne, 307, 308 economic reforms, 231-9
'Rower' plans (anti-Gaddafi), 331 expelled from school, 172
Food and Agriculture Organisation exporting revolution, 280
(FAO), 75 green revolution, 225-31
Foreign and Commonwealth Office joins academy, 172-3
(UK), 307, 325-6 makes revolution, 209-60
Foreign Liaison Bureau, 280 oil policy, 194, 198-9, 200-2, 224
'fourth shore', 121, 122, 134, 135 pan-Arabism, 266-80
Index 409
political approach, 214-25 Giolitti, Giovanni, 111-12, 113, 114

recent reforms, 304-8 Glotz, Gustave, 91
religion, 244-50 Goben, Mobdi, 10-11
supported by US, 316-17, 322-4 Golan Heights, 254
targeted by US, 324-47 Gomaa, Sharamy, 270
terrorism, 281-6, 299-303 Gonzales, Henry, xxvii
training in England, 174, 176 Gorbachev, Mikhail, 19
women, 250-4 Goulart, Joao, 313
Gaitskell, Hugh, 163 Grand Master (Sanussi Order), see
Gambia, 282 Grand Sanussi
Gandhi, Indira, 258 Grand Sanussi, 106
Garamantes tribe, 93, 98, 99-100, 101, see also Sanussi Order
102 Grant Bernie, 21, 44, 45-7, 307, 308
Garang, John, 296 Graziani, Rudolfo, 121, 127, 128, 129,
Garaudy, Roger, 247 130, 131, 132, 133, 140
al-Gargani, Khalid, 118-19 Great Man-made River Project,
Garioni, General, 117 75, 228-31, 236, 238, 239, 278,
Gar Yunis camp, 177, 178 304-5
Gates, Robert, 27, 259 Greece, 102, 105, 305, 345
Gauci, Anthony, 13, 83-4 Greeks, ancient, 91, 92, 93-9, 102
Gaza, 19, 254 Green Book, 212, 213, 233-5, 236,
Gebel Akhdar, 91, 106, 123, 124, 125, 240, 241, 243, 248, 249, 250-1,
126, 129, 130, 133, 135, 184 252, 253
General Assembly (UN), 22, 23, 44, 73, Green Revolution, 225-31
145, 147, 148-9, 150, 151, 152, Grenada, 22, 325, 333
155 Group of Seven (G7), 34, 43
see also Resolutions (UN); Security Guam, 312
Council (UN); United Nations Guatemala, 313
general election, Libyan guerrilla struggle
(1952), 158 against Italy, 118, 119, 121, 122-8
(1956), 160 against US, 312
General Marketing Co., 213 Gulf and General Atomics
General National Organisation for Corporation, 258
Industrialisation, 232 Gulf Co-operation Council, 15, 16
General People's Congress, 213-14, Gulf crisis peace plan (Libyan), 19-20
235, 237, 238-9, 243-4, 265-6 Gulf of Sirte, confrontations in, 318,
Geneva Convention, 29 319-20, 321, 328, 331-2, 335, 346
genocide, 24, 136 Gulf Oil (Gulf), 189
see also repression, Italian Gulf War
Gerama, 100, 101, 102 (1980-8), 14, 17, 322
Germany, 71, 73, 81, 113, 137-8, 141, (1991), 10, 14, 17, 18, 20, 23, 25,
197, 255, 296, 305, 343-4, 345 29, 185, 189, 208, 237, 278,
Ghadames, 100, 101, 160 306-7
Ghana, 204 gun-running, 302, 303
Ghanem, Hafez, 270 Gunthur, John, 182
Ghazala, Abdul Halim, 321 Gyzantes tribes, 99
al-Ghomari, Atef, 63
Giligamae tribe, 98 Habash, George, 281
Gindanes tribe, 98 Habre, Hissene, 290, 291-4, 295, 327
410 Index
hadith (reports from the Prophet), 248, Hussein, King, 267, 268, 284-5, 316
249 see also Jordan
Hadrian, Emperor, 100 hydrocarbon societies, 184, 198
Haig, Alexander, 328, 329
hajj (pilgrimage), 250, 276 Ibrahim Pasha, 114
Halim, Mustafa, 163, 164, 191 Iceland, 169
Hamadi, Sadoun, 18 Idris, King, see al-Idris, Sayyid
Hamdi, Abdel, 278 Mohammad
Hamidi, Khweildi, 178 al-Idris, Sayyid Muhammed (King
Hammer, Armand, 195-6, 198, 201-6, Idris, 1952-69), 106, 116, 117,
227 119, 120, 133, 138, 139, 140,
Hanna (Gaddafi's killed daughter), xiv, 142-3, 144, 148, 150, 151, 152,
336 156, 157-8, 159-60, 165, 166,
Hannay, David, 58 168, 171, 172, 174, 175, 177,
Hasi, Ahmed, 342 178, 180-1, 191, 195, 196, 197,
Hassan, King, 54-5, 298-9, 301, 316 203, 204, 286, 288, 289
see also Morocco ijihad (reasoning and scientific
Hatem, Abdel Qader, 218 knowledge), 247-8, 250
Havers, Michael, 338 Imandi, Marten, 10
Hawaii, 311,312 imperialism, 312-13
Hawatmeh, Naif, 281 import revenues, 235
al-Hawaz, Adam, 322 Imran, Naeb, 81
Hay, John, 312 independence campaigns, 118, 125,
Healey, Denis, 170 138, 139, 140-1, 142-3, 144-5,
health reforms, 222, 224 147-9, 150
see also women, social care see also guerrilla struggle (against
Heathrow Airport, 11, 342 Italy), (against US); nationalism
Heikal, Mohammed, 56, 302 (Arab)
Heritage Foundation, 325 Independence Day (Libyan), 154-5
Herodotus, 94-9, 100, 101, 108-9, 'independents' (oil companies), 189,
182 195, 198, 200, 205
Heseltine, Michael, 337 see also Occidental ('Oxy')
Hidrgardnja, 304 India, 59, 60, 258, 323
Higher Petroleum Council, 195 Indonesia, 24, 282, 300, 313
hijra (flight to Medina), 250 Indo-Pakistan War (1971), 322, 323
Hindawi, Nezar, 342, 343 Industrial Research Centre, 232
Hispanoil Group, 195 Inman, Bobby Ray, 285
Hitler, Adolf, 138, 163 insurers for Pan Am, xxiv
hit squads (Libyan), 325, 328-9, 335 intelligence service (mukhabarat), 275
Hogg, Douglas, 38, 46, 47, 75 International Atomic Energy Agency
Holmboe, Knud, 129 (IAEA), 48, 258
al-Houderi, Ahmed, 58, 60-1 International Chamber of Commerce
al-Houni, Abdul, 178 (ICC), 305
Houphouet-Biogny, Felix, 287 International Court of Justice, 24-5,
housing reforms, 222, 224 36, 46, 48, 55, 56, 58, 59, 60,
Howe, Geoffrey, 338, 345 64-5, 80, 86, 275, 298
Hungary, 60, 105 intifada, 277
Hurd, Douglas, 10, 27, 32, 33, 40, 43, Intisar (formerly Idris) oilfield, 204
44, 45, 49, 67, 69, 84, 85-6, 87 Iran, 9, 10, 11, 14, 15-16,17,30-1,
Index 411
37,45,51,53,63,78,79, 189, Jamaica, 313

191, 194, 197, 198, 199, 205, Jana (Libyan newsagency), 37, 44, 50,
208, 232, 275-6, 313, 318, 322, 53, 57, 68, 69
324, 325, 327, 334-5 Janissaries, 104
Iranian airliner shot down, see Japan, 21, 43, 66, 206, 281, 305, 310
Vincennes disaster Japanese Red Army, 281
Iraq, xi, xxv, 10, 14, 15, 16, 17-18, Jefferson, Thomas, 315
19-20, 21, 26-7, 29, 75, 79, 134, Jerba Declaration, 271, 272, 274
153, 156, 165, 180, 191, 194, Jewish Territorial Organisation, 113
199, 200, 201, 204, 205, 207, Jews, 170, 221, 247, 274
208, 214, 224-5, 237, 255, 257, Jiacha, Abdu Maged, 52-3, 85
276, 277, 332, 334 Jibril, Ahmed, xv, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13,
see also Gulf War (1991); Saddam 14,33,35,51,78,281
Hussein see also Popular Front for the
Iraq Petroleum Company (IPC), 194 Liberation of Palestine-General
'Iraq syndrome', 45 Command (PFLP-GC)
Ireland, 302, 303 Jidda conference, 17
Irish Republican Army (IRA), xxv, 38, Jordan, 14, 18, 19, 149, 153, 156, 267,
42, 54, 68, 239, 281, 302-3, 276, 277, 284
307-8, 316 see also Transjordan
Irwin, Jack, 200 Judaism, 102
Islam, 102, 106, 107, 137, 209, 216, Jumblatt, Walid, 294
217, 219, 220, 235, 240, 244, Justice Department (US), 82
245, 246-7, 249, 250, 268, 279,
280, 286, 296, 322 Kabazi, Fuad, 195, 203
see also Islamic fundamentalism; Kalb, Bernard, 325
Koran; Sanussi Order Kalthoum, Oum, 176
Islamic Call Society, 245, 246, 265 Karamanli dynasty, 104, 107, 108, 314
Islamic Conference, 82, 300, 301 Karamanli, Hamed, 315
Islamic fundamentalism, 15, 16, 53, Karamanli, Hassuna, 119
117,250,303 Karamanli, Yusuf, 314-15
Islamic Jihad, 284 el-Kasmi, Aballah Mohammed, 283
Islamic Legion, 292 al-Kasser, Monzer, 67
Israel, xxv, 21, 22, 26, 31, 35, 163, Kassim, abd al-Karim, 165, 194
168, 201, 206, 247, 254, 255, Kemal, Mustafa, 114
268, 272, 273-4, 276, 277, 282, Kennedy, Edward, 6
283, 284, 290, 317, 320 Kennedy, John, 174, 175, 193
Istiqlal Party, 158 Khartoum, 296, 297
Italo-Libyan Treaty (1956), 221 Khomeini, Ruhollah, 327
Italy, 43, 57, 66, 102, 110-41, 145, Khreesat, Marwan, 11, 12, 44
146, 147, 162, 164-5, 197, 225, Khums, 114
256, 305 Kikhia, Mansur, 220
Kilburn, Peter, 345
Jaber, Abu Bakr, 178, 252 Kinnock, Neil, 9
Jackson, Jesse, 71 Kissinger, Henry, 24, 207, 258, 317
Jalloud, Abdel Salem, xxv-xxvi, 13, Kleinwort Benson Securities, 76
59, 178, 187, 205, 213, 224, 271 Kleist, Heinrich, 220
jamahiriya ('Era of the Masses'), 210, Knights of St John, 103, 104, 315
213, 237, 244, 248, 252, 277, 280 Kochba, Simon Bar, 100
412 Index
Koran, 213, 215, 235, 240, 244, 245, foreign ambitions, 263-303
246, 247, 248-9, 250, 269 imposing sanctions on, 51-67
Korea, 312 in 1990s, 304-9
see also North Korea; South Korea legal position (Lockerbie), 67-9
Korean War, 23 prehistory, 91-2
Kosygin, Alexei, 256 reconquest by Italy, 117-18, 120-33
Kozyrev, Andrei, 53 revolution, 209-60
Kraftwerkunion AG (KWU), 258 supported by US, 316-17, 322-4
Kubar, Abd al-Majid, 162, 164 targeted by US, 30-51, 324-47
Kufrah, 286 see also Cyrenaica; Fezzan;
Kufrah agricultural scheme, 227-8, 229 Tripolitania
Kurds, 20 Libyan Arab Friendship Society, 317
Kusa, Musa, 31 Libyan Arab Republic, 213, 215, 216
Kuwait, 16, 17, 18, 19-21, 22, 26-7, Libyan Arab Socialist Union (ASU),
184, 199, 205, 237, 252, 307 211,213
Libyan College of Agriculture, 226
La Belle discotheque bombing, 335-6, Libyan Communist Party, 161, 269
341-3, 344 Libyan Finance Company, 78
Lake Chad, 286, 295 Libyan Foreign Liaison Secretariat,
Laos, 325, 332, 333 265, 317
law, international, 22-30, 45-8, 68-9, Libyan General Labour Union
80, 82, 83, 88, 338, 339 (LGLU), 167
see also Montreal Convention Libyan General Petroleum Corporation
(1971); Resolutions (UN) (LIPCO), 196, 197
Lawson, Nigel, 339 Libyan General Women's Federation,
League of Nations, 138 253
Lebanon, 18, 21, 22, 30, 37, 93, 134, Libyan General Workers' Federation,
153, 282, 294, 313, 332, 333 161
Lebu tribe, 91, 92 Libyan Intellectual Seminar, 220
Legwell, Ibrahim, 49, 72, 73 Libyan Liberation Committee, 145
Lehrman, Lewis, 333 Libyan National Oil Corporation
Lenin, 202 (NCC), 236, 239, 275
Leppard, David, 14 Libyan people's bureaus, 266, 267,
Leptis Magna, 93 280, 284, 318, 335, 341
Libas, 304 Libyan Producers' Agreement, 200
liberalisation policies, 237, 306, 308 'Libyan Question', xxiii, xxiv, xxvi
Liberia, 155 Libyan Special Security Forces, 265
Libya, 15, 16, 18, 19-20, 25, 26, 73 Libyan Students' Union, 166
ancient world, 92-101 Libye, 91
Arab conquest, 102-3 Lion of the Desert (film), 133
as sole culprit (Lockerbie), 10, 14, Lisette, Gabriel, 287-8
31, 33, 35, 51, 66 Lochte, Christian, 342
attributing guilt (Lockerbie), 30-51 Lockerbie Air Disaster Group, 76
bombing of, 5-7, 22-3, 37, 60, 303, Lockerbie bombing, xi, 3-4, 5, 31, 50,
330, 333, 334-47 51, 70, 83, 239
charges against (Lockerbie), 14, 32, attributing guilt, 30-51, 77, 84
36-7, 42 imposing sanctions, 51-67
conquest by Italy, 114-19 investigation, 8-14, 38, 40, 41, 42,
coup, 175-9 45-7, 54, 78-9, 80-2, 86-7
Index 413
Iranian involvement, 8, 9, 11, 12, Marathon, 192

14, 33-4, 35, 45, 51, 52, 53, Marayid, Ahmad, 121
63, 66, 82, 83, 84, 85, 87 Marcos, Ferdinand, 300, 301
Jordanian involvement, 11, 12 Marcos, Imelda, 300, 301
Palestinian involvement, xxv, 9, 'Mare Nostrum' (Mediterranean), 101,
10-11, 12-13, 14,33-34,87 110
suspects, xxv, 9, 32-3, 34, 38, 39, marriage laws, 253
49, 50, 53, 68, 72, 73, 78 Marxism, 212, 219, 220, 233, 235
Syrian involvement, 9, 14, 32, 33-4, see also Bolshevism; socialism
35,44,47, 51, 52s 53, 66, Masmoudi, Mohammed, 271
67-8, 79, 82, 83, 85, 87 Massagetae tribe, 98
Lodge, Henry Cabot, 311 Matthews, Francis P., 313
Lonrho, xxv, 78 Mauritania, 18, 19, 42, 100, 282, 298,
Lough, Ted, 173-4 299
Lumumba, Patrice, 313 Maxyes tribe, 98
May, John, 82
Ml-8 helicopters, 256 Mazzini Giuseppe, 110
Macae tribe, 98 McLaren, Richard, 200
Mac Arthur, Arthur, 312 McCloy, John Jay, 199, 200, 205
Machlyes tribe, 98, 99 McFarlane, Robert, 324, 329
Macmillan, Harold, 163 McKinley, William, 312
MacQuarrie, James, 4 McWerthy, John, 336
Magaref tribe, xxv-xxvi Mecca, 276
Maghrabi, Suleiman, 198 al-Megrahi, Abdelbaset, 32, 33, 39, 50,
Maguid, Esmat Abdel, 40, 58, 87 78, 83-4
el-Mahdi, Muhammed Saddiq, 107, Mehdawi, Omran, 283
296, 297 el-Meheshi, Omar, 172, 178, 207
Mahen, A. T., 311 Mellala airbase, see Wheelus airbase
Maid of the Seas (Boeing 747-211), 4 Meniar, Abu, 170
see also Lockerbie bombing Mercatelli, Governor, 118, 119
Maitland, Henry, 139 Merimee, Jean Bernard, 58
Major, John, 21, 32, 41, 45, 57, 68, 71, Metropole Hotels Group, 78
73 Mexico, 313
'majors' (oil companies), 189, 190, Mezzetti, General, 124, 125, 126
191, 192, 195, 196, 197, 198, Middle East Watch, 29
199, 200, 201, 203, 205 MiG aircraft, 255, 256, 294, 319-20
see also individual companies by Mildenhall airbase, 37
name Military Staff Committee (UN), 23, 28
Malaysia, 282, 300 Miller, Johnathan, 330
Mali, 282 Mindanao, 299, 300, 301
Malloum, Felix, 288, 290-1 minefields, 141, 191
Malta, 9, 10, 12, 13, 33, 39, 47, 64, Mintoff, Dom, 285, 316
66, 71, 73, 82, 103, 285-6, 316, Mirage aircraft, 254-5, 256, 271, 272,
325, 335 319-20
Malta, Giuseppe, 131 Misauri, Nur, 300, 301
Mamluks, 103 Misrata, 115, 116, 117, 120-1, 172
Manifest Destiny, 313 missiles, 5, 7, 256, 258-9, 284-5, 294,
Manley, Michael, 313 302, 332
Mansfield, Michael, 83 Mitchell, Stephen, 49
414 Index
Mitterrand, Francois, 52, 293 Mulcahy, Kevin, 323

'mixed camps', 119, 124, 125 Muntasser, Mahmud, 154-5
Moberly, John, 30 al-Muntasser, Omar, 73
Mobil Oil (Mobil), 189, 193, 196, 201 Muscat, Frederick, 171, 172
Mohammed, 212, 219, 244, 245, 246, Muslim Brotherhood, 218
247, 248, 250 Muslim League, 336
see also Koran; Islam; religion Mussolini, Benito, 110, 119, 120,
Mohtashemi, Ali Akbar, 12, 51, 83, 85 121-2, 123, 127, 130, 133, 134,
Moloney, Ed, 302 135, 137, 138, 157, 163, 315
monarchy (Egyptian), 169, 171 Myers, Dee Dee, 74
monarchy (Iraqi), 156, 165, 169
monarchy (Libyan), 152, 153, 154-60, Namibia, 22, 79
161, 168, 170, 175, 180, 194, Nasamones tribe, 98, 101
197, 210, 216, 223, 232, 254 al-Nasr, Abdel, 108, 127
see also al-Idris, Sayyid Muhammad al-Nasr, Saif Ahmed, 149-50
Monroe Doctrine, 310 Nasser, Gamal Abdul, 163, 165-6,
Monroe, James, 310 170, 171, 172,211,218,220,
Montgomery, General, 139, 140, 141, 263, 266-8, 269, 302
143 see also Egypt
Montreal Convention (1971), 46-8, 54, National Agricultural Bank, 183
60,65, 66, 68-9, 70, 71, 77, 79, 82 National Agricultural Settlement
morality, 245, 248-9 Authority (NASA), 184
Morgan, Pierpont, 311, 312 National Assembly (Libyan), 151-3,154
Mori, Fabrizio, 91 National Congress Party
Moro, Aldo, 316 (Tripolitanian), 150
Morocco, 18, 19, 24, 42, 57, 59, 60, National Security Agency (NSA), 83,
74, 106, 113, 129, 157, 160, 169, 86, 285
275-6, 297-9 nationalisation, 222
Moro National Liberation Front see also oil nationalisation
(MNLF), 281, 300, 301 nationalism (Arab), 117, 143-4, 145,
Moros ('Moors'), 299-301 147, 149, 150, 151, 152, 155,
see also Philippines 156, 157, 160, 162, 165, 169, 172
Mosey, John, 81 see also independence campaigns;
Mossad, xxvi, 33 pan-Arabism
Mossadeq, Mohammed, 189, 194, 198, National Liberation Front (FLN),
201, 313 Algerian, 297
Mount, Ferdinand, 345 National Party, 145
Moussa, Abdel Halim, 279 National Popular Assembly, 241, 242
Moynihan, Daniel Patrick, 24, 329 National Security Council (US), 17,
Mubarak, Hosni, 20, 31, 35, 37, 52, 326, 331, 336, 337
53, 56, 66, 275, 278, 279, 306, Ndjamena, 290, 291, 292, 293
308, 320 Ndoumba, Brice, 295
see also Egypt Netherlands, 52-3, 305, 345
Mufti of Tripolitania, 144, 151, 152 New People's Army, 301
Muhber, Saad, 53-4 news management, see 'psyops'
Mujber, Saeeb, 32 campaigns
al-Mukhtar, Omar, 122, 125, 126, Newsom, David, 180, 203
127-8, 129, 131, 133-4, 158, 203 New World Order, xi, xxiv, 20, 21, 30,
capture and execution, 131-3 67-9, 201
Index 415
Nicaragua, 22, 24-5, 45, 65, 282, 310, production, 187-8, 192, 195-6, 235,
311,318,319,325,330,332, 237-8
333, 335 revenues, 185, 198, 226, 237
Nidal, Abu, 9, 10, 13, 39, 81, 85, Oilinvest Espana, 304
281-2, 284, 306, 331, 335 Oman, 18, 184
Niger, 5, 257, 276, 295 Omar al-Mukhtar Sporting Society
Nigeria, 204, 208, 282, 290, 291 (later Omar Mukhtar Club), 143,
night-mission avionics, 340 156, 161
Nile International Bank, 278 OPEC, see Organisation of Oil
Nixon, Richard, 164, 201, 204 Exporting Countries (OPEC)
'No Intervention in Libya' (NIL) OPEC quotas, 17, 20, 237-8
campaign, 21 see also Organisation of Oil
Non-Aligned Movement, 82 Exporting Countries (OPEC)
Nooh, Fathi, 258 Operation El Dorado Canyon, 5-7,
Noraid, 303 22-3, 37, 60, 77, 303, 330, 333,
Normans, 103 334-47
North, Oliver, 45, 82, 324, 326, 336 Operation Jerusalem, 178, 221
North Atlantic Treaty Organisation see also coup d'etat
(NATO), 330, 333-4, 337 Operation Prairie Fire, 331-2, 333, 335
North Ireland, 79 Operation Radford, 223
North Korea, 15, 16, 31, 288, 325, opinions polls (US), 6, 8, 37
335 Orbital Transport und Rakenten-
North Sea oil, 204, 206, 208 Aktiengesellschaft (OTRAG),
Noura Hedi, 272 258-9
nuclear research/weapons, 257-9, 284, Organisation of African Unity (OAU),
327-8 82, 87, 292, 293, 294-5, 299
Nugan Hand Bank, 323 Organisation of Arab Petroleum
Numeiri, Jaafar, 267, 269, 296, 321, Exporting Countries (OAPEC),
323 201
Nuri, Pasha, 116 Organisation of Petroleum Exporting
Countries (OPEC), 191, 193, 194,
Oasis Group, 192, 197, 199, 204 195, 198, 199-201, 206, 207,
Occidental Petroleum Company 237-8
('Oxy'), 184, 195-6, 198, 199, Othman, Djabalo, 288
201-2, 203-4, 205, 206, 227 Ottomans, see Turks
O'Connor, Bonnie, 9 Ouaddai, Goukouni, 288, 289-290,
Oda, Shigeru, 64-5 291, 292-3
Oea, 93 Oumar, Ibn, 295
Ogbi, Taher, 203 Oxy (company), see Occidental
oil, 159, 161, 166, 167, 168, 182-208 ('Oxy')
concessions, 191-2, 195-6, 200-1
first finds, 190 Padfield, Philip, 345
mega-fields, 188 Pakistan, 74, 256, 257, 258, 318
nationalisation, 197, 198, 201, 204, Palawan, 300
205-6 Palestine, Palestinians, xxv, 20, 216,
OPEC, 191, 193, 194, 195, 198, 225, 267, 268, 276, 283, 316, 323
199-201 Palestine Liberation Organisation
political weapon, 207-8 (PLO), 18, 20, 51, 63-64, 267,
pricing, 196, 199-200, 205, 208, 216 277, 317, 335
416 Index
Panama, 22, 25, 312 Potsdam conference, 147

Pan Am airline, 76 Pravda (newspaper), 87
Pan Am Flight PA 103 bombing, see Pritt, George C, 256
Lockerbie bombing private enterprise, expansion of, 236-7
pan-Arabism, 156, 160, 175, 215, 217, Provisional IRA, see Irish Republican
218, 219, 245, 259, 264, 266-80, Army (IRA)
295-7 'psyops' campaigns, 49, 325, 326, 330,
Papadopoulos, George, 313 335, 344
Papandreou, Andreas, 293 Ptolemy, 94
Parti Democratique de la Cote d'lvoire
(PDCI), 287
Qatar, 18
Parti Progressiste Tchadien (PPT),
qiyas (analogical reasoning), 247
287-8
Quayle, Dan, 49
Parti National Africain (PNA), 288
Queen Elizabeth II, 21A
Pelt, Adrian, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152,
Quentin, Patrick, 31
153, 155
people's committees, 211, 213, 220
people's militia, 243 Rabb, Maxwell, 328
Perez de Cuellar, Javier, 28, 299 Rabta chemical plant, 39, 239, 259, 306
see also Secretary-General (UN) Rafsanjani, Ali Akbar Hashemi, 14, 48
Peru, 204 Ragah, Samir, 36
Petroleum, see oil Rahman, Abu Bakr, 291
Petroleum laws, 190, 191, 194, 196 Ramadan, Mohammed, 283
Petrovsky, Vladimir, 62, 63, 64 Ramirez, Carlos Ilyich, 281
Philippines, 281, 282, 299-301, 312 Rasoul, Safaa Abdel, xi
Philippines Communist Party (PKP), Rath, Volker, 68
301 Reagan Doctrine, 332
Phoenicians, 92-3, 95, 99, 101, 102 Reagan Ronald, 6, 7, 23, 34, 40, 42,
Pickering, Thomas, 25, 48 64, 72, 206, 236, 284, 285, 294,
Piper Field, 206 296, 303, 318, 320-1, 324, 325,
Pipes, Daniel, 6 326, 327, 328, 329, 330, 331,
piracy, 314, 315 332, 333, 334, 335, 336, 337,
Pliny, 101 338, 339, 341, 342, 343^t, 345,
Poindexter, John, 326, 346 346-7
Polisario Front, 298-9 Real Estate Industrial Bank, 231
political prisoners, 285 Rebu tribe, 92
Pollio, General, 114 reconquest of Libya, Italian, 117-18,
Pompidou, Georges, 254 120-33
popular assemblies (mutamarat), 241 Red Army Faction, 281
Popular Forces of April 25, 281 Red Brigades, 283,316
Popular Front for the Liberation of al-Reda, Hasan, 160
Palestine-General Command Reilley, Bernard, 144-5
(PFLP-GC), 10, 11, 12-13, 33, religion, 244-50, 302
35, 44, 78-9, 82, 281 see also Christianity; Islam; Judaism
see also Palestine, Palestinians repression, Italian, 128-31
popular local committees (lijan), 241, Resolution (Arab League), 58
242 Resolutions (UN), 21, 22-3, 26, 35,
population, 225 36,42,51,54,60
Porte, Ottoman, see Turkey Resolution 41/39, 77
Index 417
Resolution 242, 268 Russia, xxv, 56, 60, 66, 73^1

Resolution 660, 18, 26 see also Soviet Union
Resolution 661, 26
Resolution 678, 27-8, 29, 36 Sabratha, 93, 100
Resolution 687, 27 Sabri (shanty-town), 167
Resolution 731, 14, 26, 48, 49, 52, Sadat, Anwar, 217, 218, 221, 256, 269,
56-7, 58, 59 270-1, 272-4, 275, 283, 284, 292,
Resolution 748, xxiv, xxv, 60, 61, 317, 320, 322
62, 64, 65, 66, 70 al-Sadawi, Bashir, 145, 152, 158
Resolution 883, 74-5 Saddam Hussein, 15-16, 17, 18, 19,
see also General Assembly (UN); 20, 21, 22, 27, 28-9, 61, 333
Security Council (UN); United see also Iraq
Nations Sadr, Iman Moussa, 285
Revolutionary Cells Movements, 283 Safia (Gaddafi's wife), 336
Revolutionary Command Council Safronchuk, Vasily, 50, 54, 55
(RCC), 179,210,211-12,213, Sage, Russell, 312
215, 216, 219, 220, 226, 245, 322 Saharawi People's Liberation Army
revolutionary committees, 213, 214, (SPLA), 299
223, 265, 266 al-Sakisti, Mohammad, 163
Revolutionary Group for International Saladin, 103
Solidarity, 283 Salamat, Hashim, 301
Revolutionary Women's Formation, Saleh, Zoubeir, 277
253 Salim, Kamil, 151
revolution, Libyan, 209-60 Salinger, Pierre, 39-40, 77
see also coup d'etat Salmond, Alex, 86
Rezalian, Mohsen, 7 Salvemini, Gaetano, 111
Richards, James, 164 Samoa, 311
Robeno, Franc, 82 sanctions
Robertson, Geoffrey, 67 on Iraq, 19, 27
Rodger, Alan, 59 on Libya, xi, xxiv-xxv, 22, 34,
Rogers, William, 7, 8, 270 41-2, 43, 48, 49, 54, 56-7, 60,
roles, male and female, 251 61, 64-5, 66, 70-2, 73-6, 82, 83,
Roman Catholic Church, 111 87, 238, 239
see also Christianity see also Resolutions (UN), 748
Romans, ancient, 99-101, 102 Sanussi, Abdallah, 31
Rommel, Erwin, 139 al-Sanussi, Abdullah, 230
Roosevelt, Franklin D., 24 al-Sanussi, Muhammad, 106
Roosevelt, Theodore, 311 see also Sanussi Order
Rosenthal, A.M., 77 al-Sanussi, Ould Suleyman, 286
Rowland, 'Tiny' (Lonrho chief), xxv, al-Sanussi, Reda, 122, 123, 126, 127,
78 159, 160
Royal Dutch Shell (Shell), 189, 192, Sanussi Emirate, 140
199, 201, 205 Sanussi Order, 106-7, 123, 158, 210,
Royal Libyan Military Academy, 172 286
royal tensions, Libyan, 159-60 Sara tribe, 287, 288, 291
Rtemi, Mohammed Salem, 283 satellite surveillance, 259
Rumeila oilfield, 17, 20 Saudi Arabia, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 169,
Rushdie, Salman, 30 184, 187, 190, 200, 208, 237,
Rusk, Dean, 310, 312 252, 271, 276, 277, 296, 300, 301
418 Index
Sayed, Mustapha, 299 shanty-towns, 166-7, 168, 222

Scarab Four, 275 sharia (faith or law), 246, 248, 296
Schwarzkopf, H. Norman, 29 Sharif, Abu, 51
Scotland, 3-4, 9, 12, 33, 37, 49, 50, al-Sharif, Ahmed, 115, 122, 159
52, 67, 86 Shelhi, Colonel, 170, 175, 177
see also Fraser, Lord Advocate Shelhi, Omar, 180-1, 203
SEATO Treaty, 24 Shenib, Aziz, 175-6, 284-5
Sebba, 170, 171-2, 213, 220, 221, 258, Sherwood Crescent, 4, 34
289 Shevardnadze, Eduard, 27, 28
Second Liberation Army (Forces des Shiites, 20
Armees du Nord, FAN), 289-90, Shita, 167-8
291 Shultz, George, 16, 335, 337, 346
Second World War, 133, 135, 137-41, shura (consultation), 240
182, 225, 297, 315-16 Shutaywi, Ramadan, 118
Secretariat for External Security, 265-6 Siekmann, Rob, 80
Secretariat of Justice, 265 Sinn Fein, 281,303
secretariats, 241, 242, 265-6 Sirte, 93, 108, 120, 122, 126, 170, 176,
Secretary-General (UN), 19, 28, 42, 183, 192, 194, 196, 228, 229,
70, 73, 80, 83 252, 275, 278, 305
see also Boutros-Ghali, Boutros; see also Gulf of Sirte
Perez de Cuellar Sirtica, see Sirte
Security Council (UN), xi, xxiv, xxvi, Six-Day War (1967), 166, 254
9, 15, 18, 19, 23, 25, 26, 27, 28, Sixth Fleet exercises, 318, 319
30, 34, 36, 41, 42, 43, 45, 48, 49, Skinji, Fathi, 258
51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 58, 60-1, Smith, Brian, 238
62, 64-5, 67, 69, 70, 72, 73, 77, Snyder, Joe, 42-3
80, 82, 83, 87, 146, 174, 185, Social Care and Enlightenment
208, 295 Centres, 253
see also General Assembly (UN); socialism, 161, 212-13, 215, 219,
United Nations 233^1, 245, 248, 249
security forces, Libyan, 214, 265-6 see also Bolshevism; communism;
Seddik, Abba, 289, 290 Marxism
Selassie, Haile, 282 Socialist People's Libyan Arab
Senegal, 13, 282, 300 Jamahiriya, 213
Septimus, Severus, 100 social reform, 304
Serbia, 71 see also education reforms; health
Service, James E., 320 reforms; housing reforms;
settlements, Italian in Libya, 115-16, women, social care
134-6, 162, 164-5, 182, 221-2, social stratification, 166-7
226 Sofaer, Abe, 72
Sforza, Carlo, 145 Somalia, 18, 113, 146,276,300
Shaaban, Yussef, 80-1 Somoza, Anastasio, 318, 319
Shackley, Theodore, 323 sottomessi, 123, 125, 126, 127, 130,
Shakshuki, Fawzi, 238 132
Shah of Iran, 318, 319 South Africa, 22, 79, 155
al-Shalhi, Ibrahim, 159 South Korea, 61, 229
Shalouf, Jubril, 317 Soviet Union, 3, 14, 15, 16, 19, 23, 26,
Shamir, Yitzhak, 35 144, 145, 146, 147, 152, 162,
Shannaib, Omar, 155 198, 202, 204, 208, 214, 224,
Index 419
235, 255, 256, 257, 258, 259, Syria, xxv, 9, 10, 14, 15, 16, 18, 26,
265, 299, 318, 322-3, 325, 332, 30,31,37,45,51,79, 102, 103,
333, 334 134, 153, 166, 171, 180, 214,
Spain, 103, 169, 298, 304, 305, 312, 257, 268, 269, 275-6, 277, 282,
313, 337, 345 285, 324, 334-5
Spanish Sahara, 298 Syrian Progressive Front, 269
Spicer, John, xxv
Standard Oil of California (Socal/ Taher, Mohammed Ali, 288
Chevron), 189, 201 Tajura research reactor, 48
Standard Oil of New Jersey (later Talb, Mohammed Abu, 9, 10, 12
Esso/Exxon), 189, 192, 198, 201, tanks, 256, 292, 294
204 Tanzania, 283
Star-Tron (night-seeing) device, 255 Tarditi, Giuseppe, 118
starvation, xi, 75, 296-7 Taylor, Teddy, 79, 86, 307-8
Stasi secret police, 78, 85 Tebbit, Norman, 339
state capitalism, 210, 211, 232-3 Tebu Nomad Guard, 289
State Department (US), 307 Tebu tribe, 286-7, 288, 289, 293
Steel, David, 86 Teda tribe, 286
Stephen, Andrew, 259 terrorism, xxvi, 42, 48, 63, 68, 257,
Stevens, John Paul, 68 265, 266, 281-6, 300, 304, 307-8,
Stewart, Allan, 87-8 317, 318, 323, 324-5, 326, 328,
Stewart, Michael, 180 330-1, 332, 334-5, 337, 338, 344,
Strabo, 101 347
strikes, trade union, 167, 168 see also hit squads (Libyan); Irish
student movement, 168 Republican Army (IRA); La Belle
see also Libyan Students' Union discotheque bombing; Lockerbie
Su-22 bombers, 319-20 bombing; Nidal, Abu; UTA
submarines, 256, 274 bombing
Sudan, 18, 19, 91, 101, 180, 214, 267, terrorist camps, 282, 283
268, 269, 277-8, 279, 282, 287, Teruzzi, Attilio, 124, 125
292, 295-7, 308, 321, 330 Texas Oil (Texaco), 189, 192, 201
Sudan People's Liberation Army Thailand, 282
(SPLA), 296 Thatcher, Margaret, 6, 10, 42, 303,
Suez Canal, 163, 187, 196-7 337-41, 345
Sufism, 106 The Hague, 71
see also Islam The Maltese Double Cross (film), 78,
Sulu, 300 81-2
sunnah (Prophet's life), 247, 249 Third Liberation Army, 291
Sunni (orthodox Muslims), 106, 213 Third Universal Theory, 212-13, 218,
surveillance flights, 329 219, 220, 237, 244, 246, 250,
see also satellite surveillance 264, 266
suspects (Lockerbie), see Lockerbie Third World, 3, 310-14, 332-4
bombing, suspects see also individual countries by
Sutherland, Thomas, 35, 45 name
al-Suwayhili, Ramadan, 116 tifinagh (alphabet), 100
Sweden, 66, 222, 259 Tindermans, Leo, 345
Swire, James, 33, 40-1, 70, 76-7, 78, Tobruk, 114, 144, 159, 229, 256, 279
80,81 Tombalbaye, Francais, 288, 289, 290
Switzerland, 66, 73, 259, 272, 305 Torah, 247
420 Index
torture, 285 Tutwiler, Margaret, 63
trade-union movement, 161, 166, 167, TWA Flight 847 hijack (1985), 330,
168 334, 335
trading partners, 305 Tytler, James, 37
Transjordan, 134, 156
see also Jordan Uganda, 255, 265, 282-3
Trefgane, Lord, 49 ulama (sunni), 213, 248, 249-50
Treiki, Ali, 290 ul-Haq, Zia, 257, 258
Trelford, Donald, 77, 281, 303 Ulster Defence Association (UDA),
Tripoli, 5, 6, 13, 33, 37, 44, 48, 50, 51, 303
53,63,64,77,92, 103, 104, 111, umma (community of the faithful), 212
113, 114, 115, 120, 131, 135, Umma Party, 296
137, 140, 153, 155, 157, 158, UN Charter, 23, 24, 25, 28, 65, 69
162, 166-7, 168, 178, 190, 220, UN Commissioner for Libya, see Pelt,
221, 229, 247, 252, 256, 258, Adrian
259, 279, 281, 293, 301, 302, UNICEF, 27
306, 315, 318, 335, 336, 341, Unioninvest, 304
344, 345 Union Nationale Tchadienne (UNT),
Tripoli Agreement, 300 288
Tripoli Federation, see Federation of United African Airlines (UAA), 327
Arab Republics United Arab Emirates (UAE), 17, 18,
Tripoli Pact (1969), 267, 268, 269 184, 237, 252
Tripolitania, 91, 100, 101, 102, 103, United Arab Republic (UAR), 166,
104, 106, 111, 114, 115, 118, 270, 272
121, 124, 127, 128, 134, 136, United Kingdom, see Britain
141, 143, 145, 148, 149, 150, United National Front, 144, 145
153, 154, 156, 163, 183, 195 United Nations, xxiv, 3, 14, 18, 21, 22,
Tripolitanian National Congress, 145, 23, 24, 26, 30, 34, 40, 41, 44, 50,
158 57, 67, 145-6, 147-8, 151, 155,
Tripoli University, 223, 258 163, 298, 299, 338
Trucial States, 156 see also General Assembly (UN);
Truman, Harry, 169 law, international; Secretary-
trusteeships, 145, 146, 147 General (UN); Security Council
Tsairis, Aphrodite, 76 (UN); UN Charter
Tu-22 bombers, 256, 294 United States, xi, xxiii, xxiv, xxv,
Tuaregs, see also Berbers, 100 xxvi, 3, 11, 14, 15, 16-17, 18-19,
'Tulip' Operation, 331 20, 21, 22-30, 34, 35, 36, 41, 47,
Tunisia, 18, 19, 42, 57, 66, 75, 106, 48,50,51-2,53,54,55,58,59,
110, 111, 136, 160, 191,269-70, 60, 62, 63, 65, 66, 67, 68, 71, 72,
271-2, 274-5, 276, 282, 298, 319, 73,77,80,81, 113, 143, 145,
324 146, 147, 148, 151, 156-7, 163,
Tupamoros, 282 164, 169, 175, 180, 191, 193,
Turkey, 26, 113, 114, 115, 134, 169, 197, 199, 200, 201, 204, 205,
177, 232 206, 207, 208, 214, 227, 228,
Turkish Petroleum Co., 189 235, 238, 247, 252, 254, 255,
Turks, 103-9, 110, 111, 114, 115, 116, 258, 263^, 270, 272, 278, 283,
117, 133, 160,314,315 284, 292-3, 294, 296, 297, 298,
see also Turkey 306, 307, 308-9, 319, 344, 345,
Turner, Stansfield, 323, 326-7 346-7
Index 421
aid to Iraq, 16 Vincennes disaster, 7-8, 9, 10-11, 14,

attributing guilt (Lockerbie), 30-51 78, 83, 87
bombing of Libya, 5-7, 22-3, 37, Vinnell Corp., 202-3
60, 303, 330, 333, 334-47 Volpi, Giuseppe, 119, 120-1
Charter violations, 25
debt to UN, 23 Wagner, Raymond, 4
early Libyan confrontation, 314-16 Waite, Terry, 33, 35, 45
funding terrorism, 24, 319, 327 waqf (religious endowment), 250
Gulf of Sirte confrontations, 252, war crimes
318, 319-20, 321, 328, 331-2, Italian, 129
335, 346 US, 29-30
imperialism, 310-14 war crimes tribunal, 80
imposing sanctions, 51-67 Ware, Richard, 342
indifference to law, xxiii, 22-30 Warsaw Pact, 3, 334
interventions, 22-30, 310-14, 332-4 water supplies, 225-6, 227-31, 238
plans to invade Libya, 329, 331-2 Watson, Peter, 76
sanctions/embargo on Libya, xxiv, Webster, William, 32
xxv, 238, 239, 304, 320-1 Weinberger, Casper, 328, 346
support for Gaddafi, 316-17, 322-4 Weller, Marc, 47-8, 67
targeting Gaddafi, 324-32, 346-7 West Bank, 19, 254
threats against Libya, xxii, 32, 34, Western Sahara, 297-9
36-7,38,43,48,57,278,319, Westland affair, 339
321 Williams, David, 238
towards New World Order, xxiv, 20, Williams, Ian, 45
21, 30, 67-9, 201 Wheelus airbase, 143, 146, 147,
Vincennes disaster, 7-8 156-7, 159, 169, 180, 185, 223,
war crimes, 29-30 316
Universal Declaration of Human Wheelus Field (later Okba bin Nafi
Rights, 153 airbase), see Wheelus airbase
Uruguay, 282, 311 Whitelaw, William, 338, 339
USS Coral Sea, 293 Wilson, Edwin, 323-4
USS Eisenhower, 321 Whitlam, Gough, 313
USS George Washington, 314 Wilson, Harold, 180
USS John H Sides, 8 women, 245, 249, 250-4
USS Nimitz, 319, 321,328 education, 253
USS Philadelphia, 315 liberation, 252-3
USS Vincennes, see Vincennes disaster military training, 252
UTA bombing, 4-5, 31, 38, 308 rights, 253-4
roles, 251-2
Vandals, 101 social care, 253
Varzi, Mehdi, 76 status, 253
Venezuela, 60, 62, 193, 197, 204 Women's Military Academy, 252
'Vengeance Day', 222 Woodward, Bob, 326, 334
Victims of Pan Am Flight 103, 76 World Court, see International Court
Vienna, 12 of Justice
see also Austria World Health Organisation (WHO), 27
Vietnam, 23-4, 169, 325
Vietnam War, 23, 332 Yamani, Ahmed Zaki, 200
Villard, Henry, 146 Yeltsin, Boris, 73
422 Index
Yemen, 16, 18, 19, 27, 41, 265-6, 328 zakat (charitable tax), 250
Yugoslavia, 256, 305 Zaueces tribe, 99
Yom Kippur War (1973), 206 al-Zawi, Ahmed Taher, 37, 40, 49, 50,
Younger, George, 338, 339 51,53
zawiyas (Islamic lodges), 106, 107,
128, 157, 210
Zablocki, Clement, 327 Zenata confederation, 101
Zaire, 282 Zimbabwe, 59, 60

(LIDO) Libya - The Struggle For Survival

Uploaded by

Document Informationclick to expand document information

Document Informationclick to expand document information

Copyright:

Available Formats

(LIDO) Libya - The Struggle For Survival

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

(LIDO) Libya - The Struggle For Survival

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

LBYA: THE STRUGGLE FOR SURVIVAL

Also by Geoff Simons and published by Macmillan

CUBA: From Conquistador to Castro

All rights reserved. No reproduction, copy or transmission of

First edition 1993

ISBN 0-333-65470-6 hardcover

A catalogue record for this book is available

Printed in Great Britain by

PARTI LIBYA IN THE NEW WORLD ORDER 1

1 Lockerbie, Libya and the West 3

PART II THE HISTORY OF LIBYA 89

2 The Libyan Past 91

4 From Idris to Gaddafi 142

5 The Oil Factor 182

6 Libyan Revolution 209

PART III TERRORISM AND THE US RESPONSE 261

7 International Ambitions 263

Arab Unity 266

8 United States versus Gaddafi 310

1 Summary of Documents Issued to the United Nations by

Today (mid-1995) economic and other UN sanctions on Libya - first

0 100 500 miles Ndjamena

Map 1 North Africa

of France, Italy, Germany, Belgium, Japan, Sweden and Czechoslovakia

tribe of Major Abdel Salem Jalloud, Gaddafi's fiery second-in-command.

(London), 26 January 1992; Marie Colvin, interview with Muammar al-

At about 7.00 p.m. on 21 December 1988 a Pan American World Airways

On 15 April 1986 American aircraft, flying from bases in Britain and

THE VINCENNES DISASTER

On 3 July 1988 the US guided missile cruiser Vincennes mistakenly shot

On 14 November 1991 the sister of one of the Pan Am 103 victims

names the principal bombers;

Western intelligence is convinced that Iran paid millions of dollars to

While the ultimate purpose is the criminal prosecution of the individuals

GULF WARS TO NEW WORLD ORDER

circumstance which gave the United States immense power on a Security

The subsequent invasion of Kuwait led to a prompt US response in

1 Iraqi troops should withdraw from Kuwait and be replaced by UN

UNITED STATES AND LAW

The depiction of the United States as a world 'policeman' (even one

redrawn borders is also a violation of UN Resolution 687 (3) which speci-

Pierre Salinger met Gaddafi in a tent surrounded by camels and security

pay appropriate compensation.

The document (referenced S/23308) concluded: 'We expect Libya to com-

We are taking the Lockerbie bombing before the Security Council. We

The Contracting State in the territory of which the alleged offender is

It is also significant that Article 14 of the Convention states that:

Any dispute between two or more Contracting States concerning the

merly believed over a lengthy period, pointed to Syrian and Iranian - as

On 1 April Colonel Gaddafi threatened to halt oil sales and to sever

NEW WORLD ORDER?

The imposition of sanctions on Libya, with frequent threats of worse to

. . . Libya has fully discharged its obligations . . . there is no obligation

In the same vein, Marc Weller, Research Fellow in International Law at

THE COLLAPSED CASE

Britain, as a member of the United Nations Security Council, voted to set

Professor Robert Black remarked that the Government's rejection was