The recent visit of French President Nicolas Sarkozy to Libya draw multitude of criticism from some EU countries and commentators, journalists, and opposition parties, in France, in particular. The criticism, within France, focused on the military contracts signed between Libya and France during Sarkozy's short visit. Those contracts centered on Libya purchase of anti air missiles, besides, some other military hardware. Some said that Libya couldn't be trusted; while others acclaimed that no arms should be sold to that country anyway.

The noise gained extra momentum by linking Sarkozy's visit to the release of the Bulgarian medics- after spending some eight years in Libyan jail over what became known as the AIDS case. The issue received too much undue attention and commentary portraying it as, if France committed horrendous crime ,or as if Libya is under international arms embargo or some sort of EU boycott. The strongest opposition, though, came from the French socialist party, followed by the German government, and many other commentators left and right. There was some muted murmuring from others as well.

Let's look back for a moment and see the circumstances surrounding the visit and the signed contracts. France, actively, followed up on the negotiations that took nearly two years with Libya in legitimate efforts to catch part of the Libyan market. French oil giant, TOTAL, has some assets in Libya which, quietly, expanded during the American embargo on the country.

Each major European country, including the UK, not only normalized relations with Libya but rushed to do business with it. Tony Blair, the former British prime minister, made sure that one of his last international engagements be in Libya where he secured USD 900 million gas deal for British petroleum, BP, before leaving office. The former French president was amongst the first western leaders to visit Libya, immediately, after the Lockerbie case was settled few years ago.

The EU normalized relations with Libya, and whatever remained was connected to the settlement of the convicted Bulgarian medics' case. A day before Sarkozy arrived in Libya, the six Bulgarian nurses and their new fellow citizen, the Palestinian doctor, were released. Did France play part in this? Yes! The French president was very interested in the case even before being elected as president. Libya, on the other hand, is seeking to modernize its economy, defense, and infrastructure. It is a country seeking to protect its own interests just like any other one.

Furthermore, state visits are usually the best venue to sign MOU, agreements, and contracts in ceremonial settings after they have been negotiated and agreed to. That is exactly what happened during Sarkozy's visit to Tripoli. All that is normal. Very normal in international relations. So what is the fuzz about? Engineer Saif, head of the Qaddafi International Foundation, which negotiated the release of the six Bulgarian medics, stressed that the arms deal isn't connected to the release of the medics. He also confirmed that the negotiations with France took nearly two years. Mr. Sarkozy himself confirmed this fact after his visit.

One interesting critic of the arms deal is the French socialist party, which went as far as calling on the French National Assembly, Parliament, to investigate the contract, as if Libya bought half of France or France gave up its sovereignty over the Alps to the North African country!

In public all the critics say they only wanted to make sure that no quid- pro-quo took place vise-vie the medics' case. To that they add too much jawing about human rights, transparency, and ethics in international relations.

Much could be said about the fuzz over the Libyan-French arms deal. But let's be realistic, and look at the critics one by one. Let's start by the critical voices that came from within France, the loudest of which was the French Socialist party. Whatever the defeated French socialists say can be understood. Theirs is a party in disarray and it want to stick as much dirt as it could to the new master of the Elysee. They see no light at the end of the tunnel after they lost the last presidential election and their leadership went into long process of finding the right guy to lead them. 

The EU countries that opposed the deal, especially Germany, are jealous of France and envy its role in the final stages of the medics' case which peaked with their release. Some French circles also do not like to see this new president take such major step towards Libya as if Libya today is what it used to be a decade ago.

Sarkozy, on his part, wants to advance new French policies and approach towards Africa and the Mediterranean in particular. It is one of his election campaign promises: to revive the declining French diplomacy. He is keeping his promises to his people and dealing with Libya is part of that promise. The man proposed some kind of union for the Mediterranean countries; an idea still in the making but it's worth studying, and he does not want a major country, like Libya, left out of such possible regional gathering.

Another point the critics seem to forget is Sarkozy himself. This is a new politician who does not belong to the old generation of French leaders. He has new agenda and understanding of the role his country could play. He was not happy with the French retreat on the international scene. Mr. Sarkozy might be too much pro-American but he wants cooperation much more than confrontation with the world's superpower.

It is this kind of policies that will enable France to be more effective than passive. He wants France to be an active partner to the U.S. rather than a passive one, especially on the world stage, and within the United Nations. Too much credit could be given to the former president, Jacque Chirac, but in his last term as president he weakened France and made it his goal to oppose the U.S. policies regardless of the subject. This enabled America to bypass, and further marginalize France, on many issues such as Palestine, Darfur, and many others. On the contrary Mr. Sarkozy sees his country in more active and publicized role. We have seen this in the Lebanese situation where the new French Foreign minister is actively engaging various Lebanese factions.

Visiting Libya and making deals with it is only natural for the two countries, and the fuzz is really too much about nothing.

Another important fact the anti Sarkozy camp seems to forget is that Libya is the most stable country in the region. It's the only one in North Africa where terrorists do not exist, and whose social fabric is almost harmonized. Libya, over the last three decades, hardly experienced any serious destabilizing violence like what Egypt or Tunisia has seen. Not a single terror related incident has been recorded in Libya, and the country has cooperated, fully, with the American-led "war on terror". If any objective evaluation is made of Sarkozy's visit it should be appreciated and appraised; mainly because Libya now is the best ally to Europe in particular. Besides, Libya is not at war with its neighbors, for example, not to be sold arms.

The latest huge American army's sale to Gulf States, who are in the middle of the most unstable region, was not criticized by any one. Not even by the Germans who could simply say that such deal could spark new arms race in the region. That is a point worth talking about!

PHOTO CAPTION

French President Nicolas Sarkozy with Libyan leader Moamer Kadhafi in Tripoli, 25 July 2007

Source: AlJazeera.com