Recently, the world and especially Europe were touched by the images of the Bulgarian medics turned hostages landing on European soil, their smiles hiding their downbeat looks after spending eight years imprisoned in Libya under the threat of the death penalty. Accused of having deliberately infected Libyan children with AIDS, the medics were arrested in 1998 and sentenced to death twice (the first decision was remanded).
At the time, many analysts commented on it as a symbol of Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi's intention of getting even closer to Western powers and everything they have to offer. Others praised the ability of the Europeans (especially French Prime Minister Nicholas Sarkozy) to deal with Libya in the case. What very few of them knew was that this case, apparently solved, would make headlines again as a symbol of yet another deal, much less noble: A supposed prisoners-for-weapons swap that granted Libya a massive US$400 million arms deal with EADS (European Aeronautic Defense and Space company), according to critics of the deal.
Furthermore, critics accuse Sarkozy of playing a major role in sealing the deal, an accusation that has led to a scandal in France and a probe from the French opposition, particularly the Socialists.
The suspicion comes, primarily, from the fact that the announcement by EADS that the deal had been concluded came only a week after the medics were released from Libyan territory. Adding to the supposed evidence, there's a memorandum of understanding between France and Libya, published shortly after the release of the medics, concerning the possible construction of a nuclear reactor in Libya, related to a water desalinization project -- not to mention Sarkozy's active role in freeing the Bulgarian doctors, to the point of sending his wife, Cecilia, as an informal envoy. On the Libyan side, there was not much of an effort to brush these suspicions off. Gadhafi's son, Saif al-Islam, reportedly said that the release of the medics did help further negotiations for the weapons contracts.
On one side of the story, it is only reasonable to wonder about the connection between the French prime minister, the Bulgarian medics and the arms deal. Sarkozy, who is traditionally not much of an EU-enthusiast, said the release of the medics was nothing more than a European diplomatic move. But why would he go so far as to send his wife to the negotiations to secure the release of another country's citizens from a country that hasn't had a good relationship with France for a long while?
Later on, after socialist leader Francois Hollande announced an opposition probe into the arms deal, Sarkozy's office declared that the prime minister supported the investigation to make sure there were no link between the release and the arms deal. Why would Sarkozy support such a probe when he is the main representative of the French government in the first place? He also was a major player in the release, so he supposedly knows the most about the deal he helped broker -- his support of the probe sends mixed messages. Speaking of mixed messages, French Defense Minister Herve Morin declared, in the wake of the scandal, that there was no reason for countries not to sell weapons to Libya, while mentioning other traditional European weapons sellers: "If it's not us, it will be others. There are a lot of countries in talks with Tripoli: the Italians, the Russians, British …"
On the other side of the deal, the French and Europeans in general must wonder: Is this deal as scary as it looks? Firstly, Libya is indeed a much more Western-oriented country when it comes to international politics. As much as some politicians try to bring back the ghost of Lockerbie, it is hard to remember the last time Libya had a negative appearance on the political scene, or the last time Gadhafi said something he shouldn't have said. The embargos of the 1990s, and the political isolation that came with them, made Libya weaker, poorer and, therefore, more peaceful. Today, even the United States has friendly talks with Libya every now and then. When it comes to international threats to security, Europe has other countries to worry about.
Secondly, the arms deal itself is not much of a worry. In a nutshell, the $400 million sale is for antitank missiles and a radio communications system, which will serve the purpose, in Libya, of modernizing its completely obsolete defense structure, packed with military junk from the 1970s. So, even if Gadhafi decided to go berserk and launch an all-out attack on Europe, or one of its neighbors, he probably wouldn't last a week before any European country or the U.S. completely nullified the Libyan army. That would be the worst-case scenario, if Libya decided to betray its Western friends. As far as Libya being a terrorist threat goes, antitank missiles and a radio system doesn't seem to be very useful for a terrorist group.
Yet, the story took on the dimensions of a scandal in Europe. And the fact that Sarkozy might have signed the deal during his visit to Tripoli (which he denies) seems to have angered the French opposition more than anyone else. Hollande, while criticizing EADS and the deal, questioned the signing of the deal with a country that "has been responsible for terrorist acts, which has been a rogue state." It doesn't exempt Sarkozy from what was a terrible political move, even if there's absolutely no connection between the medics and the missiles.
Just by letting himself be associated with such a thing by having such terrible timing, Sarkozy left an open window for all kinds of speculations. Now he must deal with a possible crisis that might damage his image just months after he became the French leader. Meanwhile, Libya, the latest "villain" in Europe, goes on happily with $400 million worth of weapons and, according to Gadhafi's son, promises of future joint manufacturing of military equipment and even joint military exercises. What was supposed to be a demonstration of diplomatic skill may have become a nightmare for France's leader.
