 |
Though the world, awestruck, is becoming accustomed to the idea of a moderate Mu’ammar Al-Qadhafi offering his friendship to the international community, Libya has maintained quieter ties with the West since the state was ostracized for terror in the 1980s.
Canada has maintained relations with the pariah North African nation since the 1960s, when Al-Qadhafi set off the country’s populist “revolution.”
From 1986 on, Canada, along with the U.N., the U.S., and other Western countries, imposed sanctions on the country following numerous Libya-sponsored terror attacks, including the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland. The U.S., Canada’s chief ally and trading partner, was perhaps the most public in ostracizing Libya: Its Libya Act punished any country trading with Libya (Iran and Cuba still have their own versions of the law).
While the U.N. only repealed its sanctions officially in 2003, when Libya paid the families of victims of Flight 103 $2.7 billion in compensation, Canada and Libya had already initiated normalized diplomatic relations in 2001, when Libya opened an embassy in Ottawa. Libya’s ambassador to Canada could not be reached for comment.
The next year Canada opened an embassy in Tripoli. Canada’s mission to Libya was run out of Egypt, Tunisia and Rome successively between 1986 and 2002.
 |
Canada never interrupted its relations with Libya, although they were “cool,” during the period that the U.N. sanctions were imposed, according to Reynald Doiron, a spokesman for Canada’s Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade. “It shows a determination by Canada in its overall interests in Libya.”
Canada is known for being quiet, within and outside of its borders. It has long maintained that its policy of “quiet diplomacy” has been effective at maintaining friendly ties the world over and for promulgating its reputation of development aid donor and human rights champion. It has also been criticized for not being aggressive in denouncing violations of international law.
“Even though economic sanctions were applied during these years, Canada did not deem necessary to sever every diplomatic relation with Libya,” Doiron said. Canada has always maintained “close contact” with allies the U.S. and Great Britain on its relations with Libya and its “treatment of the Libyan regime was on the same wavelength of that of its traditional allies.”
No doubt that one of the West’s greatest hopes for the recent rapprochement is tapping into Libya’s abundant oil reserves. While the U.S. companies readily sign contracts and Libya eagerly ships out its most sought-after resource, Petro-Canada, formerly a crown corporation and now counting 20% minority government stake, has been dealing with Libya for over 40 years.
Petro-Canada declined The Media Line’s (TML) request for an interview.
 |
Talisman Energy Inc., a private company based in Calgary, has made public inquiries into Libyan oil.
Certainly, Canada is not the first Western country to have already had financial ties with Libya through the years.
Total, a France-based oil giant, has been trading in Libya for 10 years because the U.S. law does not apply to boat operations from Europe, Thierry Desmarest, Total’s president told TML. Now that the U.S. has lifted the embargo, he is expecting an upsurge in competition, he added.
Doiron said that the U.S. and other countries did not exert any pressure on Canada when it started warming its relations in 2002, to his knowledge.
“There is no evidence” that Canada deliberately established relations against the U.S. boycott, but “I wouldn’t be surprised,” said Stephen Brown, a professor of political science at the University of Ottawa. “Canadian companies are benefiting from the [U.S.] absence.”
According to Doiron, it is difficult to extrapolate a pattern in exports over the past few years, but the sum was Can. $220 million (U.S.$167 million) in 1997 and Can. $66 million (U.S. $ 50 million) in 2003.
Doiron said that he has not noticed “ a rush to enter the market,” but “Canadian exporters are ready to take advantage of market opportunities in Libya.”
Syria is another country on the U.S.’s hit list, with sanctions newly-imposed for supporting terror. Petro-Canada, for one, is active in the Middle East country; a spokeswoman for the Canadian government said that Canada has no intention of imposing similar penalties.
Brown said that Canadian companies would certainly broaden their investments in the country if there were mutual interest on the part of the Syrians.
Countries like Sudan have been at the center of controversies involving alleged private funding of ethnic cleansing. Talisman, along with the Swedish Lundin Oil company, was under heavy pressure to withdraw its investments in Sudan as it was being accused of funding the state’s atrocities against non-Muslims.
“Canadian companies do not live up to Canada’s international humanitarian reputation,” said Brown.
When it comes to the government’s role, it could do more to prevent private investment in countries in “ethically-questionable areas,” like impose sanctions or respond more aggressively to public pressure, he added.
“The government will say these are private companies and private companies can do what they want.”
All of Canada’s current sanctions (on Afghanistan, Iraq, Liberia, Rwanda, and Sierra Leone; Somalia, the Democratic Republic of Congo and Myanmar are subject to partial bans) are in accordance with U.N. Security Council resolutions. Thus, it does not formulate its own sanctions.
“Canada’s sanctions policy is oriented towards multilateral action. This reflects our position that unilateral sanctions are generally ineffective,” said an official at Foreign Affairs Canada.
Clearly Canada, like its Western allies, faces tension between its capitalist economy and commitment to human rights and sustainable development.
The difference is that Canada’s benevolent reputation and discrete manner allow it to penetrate markets vacated by the more aggressive foreign policies of its allies.
|
By Melanie Takefman on Thursday, July 15, 2004 |