The politics of punishing Libya

WASHINGTON
SOONER OR later, Bush politics have a nasty habit of infecting everything, including serious Bush policy that ought to have nothing to do with politics.

Take Libya.

It's been nearly two years, but a huge breakthrough for the United States -- Libya's abandonment of all work on weapons of mass destruction after years of backstage talks that involved both the Clinton and Bush governments -- has run into a wall whose main components are purely political.

And one of the most important obstacles to further improvement -- Libya's official status as a country that supports terrorism -- remains in place for reasons that have nothing to do with terrorism.

Put it all together and the case of Libya poses a challenging question for the Bushies: Can you guys take yes for an answer? It's a big question, not only in terms of Libya but also as the even tougher cases of Iran and North Korea unfold.

It has been two years since the hideous case of Libya's involvement in the bombing of Pan American flight 103 over Scotland in 1988 was settled with a reparations payment and acknowledgement of responsibility.

It has been some 18 months since Libya and the United States disclosed their secret talks and Moammar Khadafy formally abandoned the country's long flirtation with unconventional weapons programs -- an abandonment that has since been verified by the United States.

Yet Libya continues officially to be an ally of terrorism in the American government's view, a designation that has economic consequences that are serious obstacles to the further opening of Libya's society that the United States presumably wants to see happen.

It would be one thing if the terrorism designation remained because Libya continued to support terrorism around the world. The truth, however, is that US officials say there has been no such evidence for some time. Instead, Libya continues to be on the terrorist list for reasons that have everything to do with politics.

Foreign policy can be a messy game. The very idea of accepting a settlement with a government that would be involved in something so horrendous as the bombing of Pan Am 103 is distasteful. So is the very idea of developing relations with a government with Libya's human rights and foreign policy record over the last 30 years. But the United States has security and foreign policy interests, and in the middle of a war on terrorism, dealing with countries that are prepared to deal with us and to abandon their pasts happens to be one of them.

Currently, US diplomats are working out of a hotel in Tripoli while their counterparts work out of a hotel here. Privately, some US officials hint that by the end of this year, obstacles to a relatively standard relationship will all be cleared.

Meanwhile, however, keeping Libya in the same status as countries like Iran, Sudan, and North Korea only complicates matters. Because of US law, the terrorism-supporting designation has major economic consequences. They include a ban on American exports that could have ''dual" or military application, including computers, office equipment, telecommunications products, and even drill bits for Libya's oil operations.

They also include the credit arrangements that facilitate commerce, including loans from the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, the US Export-Import Bank, and agricultural assistance.

As far as I can determine, the reasons that Libya continues to be on the terrorism-supporting list have nothing to do with terrorism. Officials cite, for example, a continuing dispute between Libya and Saudi Arabia, which claims Khadafy involvement in some plot to murder its crown prince. The evidence is shaky, bordering on spurious. It's one thing to monitor Libya's behavior closely but something else to let Saudi Arabia dictate the pace of normalization.

More nefarious is the backstage presence of the Cuban lobby. Taking Libya off the list, it is ''reasoned," would expose Cuba as another country with the official designation where there is no evidence of current involvement. Making the case that Cuba supports terrorism beyond continuing to harbor a few aged airplane hijackers from 30 years ago would be even tougher than it is regarding Libya.

Relations with Libya are even complicated by the politics of John Bolton's nomination as United Nations ambassador. Nearly two weeks ago, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice had a photo-op to celebrate the second anniversary of the Proliferation Security Initiative -- a Bolton baby from Bush's first term. She claimed several successful interceptions of nuclear-related equipment exports, including one of centrifuge components bound for Libya two years ago.

No other specifics were provided, however, and a spokesman later admitted that other US programs were involved in the interception. That is a huge understatement.

The fact is that the next steps in helping drag Libya into responsible behavior are long overdue. Saudi Arabia relations, Cuba politics, and John Bolton politics should have nothing to do with it. Those who worry that the administration may not have the sense to deal maturely with Iran and North Korea are watching.

Thomas Oliphant's e-mail address is oliphant@globe.com.