The Left Have Slowed Down Gaddafi's Departure

First, apologies for not having blogged for a few days - I decided to take a week off to clear my head from politics, but I am back now!

It looks like the Gaddafi regime in Libya may finally be over.  Although he is clinging to power, it looks unlikely that Gaddafi will last the week in the face of enormous riots and protests at his tyrannical regime.  This is marvellous news.  Unlike Egypt, where the jury is still out on what the result is going to be, and whether it will be better or worse than Mubarak, in Libya it really can't be any worse than Gaddafi.  He is one of the most toxic and evil dictators in history, is extremely anti-Western (but pro-Obama!) and is responsible for the Lockerbie bombing - the worst terrorist attack in history on British soil.

Recent pro-democracy protests in the Middle East have not helped the left-wing, especially their argument of "Ohh, people in the Middle East don't want democracy, that's a Western concept!"  Recent events have shown this argument once again to be condescending, wrong-headed, and just plain incorrect.  However, the ousting of Gaddafi causes some other rather uncomfortable problems for the British left.

You see, before Obama there was Blair.  The American left should be aware that all this "let's all get along, even if you are a nutball dictator" is not a new Obama concept - it has been tried before.  This is especially the case in Britain where it has been tried from Chamberlain to Blair.

Just before he ceased to be Prime Minister, Tony Blair (in what was an effort to make his left-wing base more comfortable after going along with the invasion of Iraq - a surprisingly right-wing move) stretched out his hand to Gaddafi, kissed and made up about what went on in the past, secured the release of the Lockerbie bomber (unknown to the public at the time), and came back with some pretty hefty oil contracts.  The moral justification of this was that Gaddafi was set to be dictator for the long term future and that we should come to terms with it.  Instead of trying to oust Gaddafi, we should try to "dialogue" with him, which would moderate him and therefore be good for both countries.

So now Gaddafi has been proven to be oust-able, it makes Britain look like a collaborator in keeping him in power for as long as he has been.  International figures have already started to comment on this, the most notable being Louis Susman - the US ambassador to London - who has blamed the British policy for keeping Gaddafi in power and giving him international legitimacy.

Susman for once is absolutely right.  The silence from the Labour party on Libya over the last week is very telling - they know that their policy on this matter was wrong, and they have egg on their faces.  They took a gamble, both morally and economically, and it has failed.  Britain's moral standing has taken a hit, and the oil deals that have been gambled upon could fall through the floor.  Libyans who have seen Britain collaborate with their now hated leader will not forget their betrayal by what is supposed to be one of the leaders of the free world.  It will make any relations with Libya an a post-Gaddafi Libya very difficult indeed for Great Britain.

Once again, under the banner of "peace", "dialogue" and "realism", the left-wing have collaborated with evil tyrants and dictators, and this time it has backfired.  It will take a long time to undo the damage that has been done, both to Libya and to Britain, by the British left.