Last October, EU foreign ministers gave a green light for negotiations on a "framework agreement" between Brussels and Tripoli. EU member states should use them to start pushing for genuine reform in Libya. And that should mean not just indulging in fancy human rights rhetoric, but insisting on concrete progress on reforming Libya's judicial system and ending torture, disappearances, arbitrary detention and repression of political rights.
These, according to the US State Department's 2006 human rights report, are some of the methods of torture used by the West's newest ally in the Mediterranean: Libya. We don't know which of these methods were used against the 14 organisers of a planned peaceful demonstration who were arrested by the Libyan authorities in February last year. But it would be extraordinary if they escaped mistreatment.
There is no credible evidence that any of these men planned to use violence. But 12 of them - including one of Libya's most prominent dissidents, Idris Boufayed - are now on trial and could face execution if found guilty on charges of planning to overthrow the government, arms possession, and meeting with a foreign official.
The other two have simply disappeared. They are Abd al-Rahman al-Qotaiwi, a fourth-year medical student, and Jum'a Boufayed, who had given media interviews on the arrest of his brother, Idris. They have both been missing since their arrests. Despite repeated requests from Human Rights Watch, the Libyan government has failed to provide any information about the two men.
Libya's abysmal human rights record under Colonel Muammar Gadafy is well known. In the not-so-distant past, when Libya was seen as a foe of the West and a "state sponsor of terrorism", European and American politicians rightly excoriated Gadafy for his violent repression of all dissent. Now their tune has changed. Western leaders are queuing up to court Libya, not only as an ally in counter-terrorism but also as a rich source of oil and defence contracts.
First, it was Tony Blair whose final tour through Africa took him on a contract shopping trip to Tripoli last May. Polite words were spoken about Gadafy's cooperation on non-proliferation, counter terrorism, and immigration. Energy and defence deals were sealed, including a $2bn gas exploration project for BP.
Then, it was Gadafy's pre-Christmas visit to Paris during which President Nicolas Sarkozy had the honesty to admit that it was all about oil, gas and arms deals. "I'm really engaged in the battle for contracts," he explained to journalists before concluding a provisional agreement with the colonel to sell him 14 Dassault Rafale fighter jets.
And now, the US government has ushered in 2008 with a warm reception at the State Department for the Libyan foreign minister, Abdelrahman Shalgam. Shalgam was able to sum up the meeting thus: "We don't speak any more about war or confrontation or [Libya's support for] terrorism. No, the contrary: wealth of the people, cooperation, investments, peace and stability."
It is a sorry indicator of the state of EU and US policy towards the Middle East and North Africa that "normalisation" of relations with a country like Libya effectively means - apart from the odd rhetorical flourish - turning a blind eye to human rights abuses and systemic political repression in return for massive contracts and cooperation in combating terrorism and (in the case of the EU) illegal immigration.
The policy sends a depressing message to those courageous men and women who are struggling for reform against a dead weight of authoritarianism that essentially they are on their own. To the many victims of these repressive governments the policy says: "even if we heard your screams we wouldn't care".
Besides the moral dimension, there is also a strategic dimension to this venal and unprincipled approach to foreign policy. The war on terror is, as Gordon Brown and others have acknowledged, in part a battle for hearts and minds. Abandoning principles of human rights for the sake of arms and oil deals, or in exchange for cooperation on combating terrorism and illegal immigration, is a terrible way of waging that essential battle and may well create more terrorism and extremism.
One can understand why the present US administration might be reluctant to make too much of a fuss about Libya's record on torture. Washington itself is not blameless in this area. After Abu Ghraib, Guantánamo, and the torture memos, Washington is hardly in a position to take the moral high ground.
But the EU at least should not throw its principles out of the window as it moves to improve its relations with its Libyan neighbour. Serious progress on human rights must be an essential element of an improved EU relationship with Libya. Libyan cooperation on issues of terrorism, energy and immigration will be of dubious value if it depends on the EU ignoring the record of torture and repression in Libya.
Last October, EU foreign ministers gave a green light for negotiations on a "framework agreement" between Brussels and Tripoli. EU member states should use them to start pushing for genuine reform in Libya. And that should mean not just indulging in fancy human rights rhetoric, but insisting on concrete progress on reforming Libya's judicial system and ending torture, disappearances, arbitrary detention and repression of political rights.
