Notes
The Soviet Union is of course, second only to Libya itself in its fearless and Principled opposition to international ter- rorism. A fortnight before the attempted assassination of the Pope in May 1981, Gaddafi ended a visit to Moscow with a joint communique in which Libya and the USSR bravely rejected 'attempts by im- perialist circles to equate international ter- rorism with the liberation struggle of Peoples'. It is therefore not surprising to find them at one in their condemnation of the shocking events in St James's Square. True, the Soviet Union, with the diplomatic responsibility of a great power, has not been as outspoken as the Libyans. It has not condemned outright the British Government's cold-blooded plot to murder a defenceless British policewoman. But in an article in Tuesday's Pravda it came close to it. According to Tass's English-language summary of that article, the tragedy occur- red because 'gunfire was unexpectedly started outside the building of the Libyan ttople's Bureau' Outside. Tass explains: 'Ai.. 11 this as it transpires fully fit [sic] into the framework of a scenario worked out in advance for a large-scale provocation, the nptMaster-minds of which should be sought only in London. The provocation ob- viously coincided with the step-up of the anti-Lib,yan campaign in the USA.' Mr ,.11tiltz's statement was a 'transparent tra,rit' to Britain to break off diplomatic rela-
ls with Libya. It is always curious to ; note how the Soviet Union, when describ- ',,ag relations between the Western allies, un- consciously describes its own relations with
2 East European satellites. (For Britain p'ad Bulgaria? For St James's read St iketer's Square?) But we should not forget _,at the Soviet Union has itself just launch- Panother campaign, with tanks, bombers and helicopter gunships, against those on) it describes as 'terrorists' --the peo- of Afghanistan. Diplomatic impunity
Previous page
