Another voice

Doctor Fischer of Tripoli

Auberon Waugh

IT f the Sunday Telegraph got its facts right, the outrage in St James's Square was condoned and planned in advance by Col- onel Gaddafi in Tripoli, then one must ask oneself what he can possibly have hoped to gain — for himself, for his cause in Libya or internationally — by murdering op- ponents in this blatant way. Up to then, he had been happy to murder them in a clandestine fashion. But when he started machine gunning them from an upstairs window in St James's Square, under cover of diplomatic privilege, he was plainly mak- ing an entirely different statement.

The Sunday Telegraph's story, however, carried it even further in claiming that Gad- dafi's orders were not only to open fire on any demonstrators outside the embassy but also to shoot down any police officers who were accompanying the demonstrators. If this is true — and one can be certain that the Telegraph would not have printed it unless it had come from a quasi-official source — then the question of what Gad- dafi hoped to gain becomes even more dif- ficult.

The English have traditionally been ready to accept that any leader of a foreign nation, and especially a Third World na- tion, who opposes them, must be insane. We assume that foreigners — and especially inhabitants of the Third World — are endlessly prepared not only to put up with raving lunatics at the helm but also to adulate them. It was on this basis that Eden described Nasser as another Hitler, that Jomo Kenyatta (later recognised as the wisest and most moderate African elder statesman) was generally represented in the British popular press as a demented witch- doctor.

It is only when people begin to subscribe to my own view, that anyone attracted to politics is betraying the symptoms of a per- sonality disorder, if not mental illness, that one can see this matter in perspective. In a small, backward and poor country like Uganda a raving lunatic may easily be able to rule by terror with the assistance of a few delinquent thugs and bully-boys, but in rich, advanced and intelligent societies like Germany, Russia and (as I would maintain) Libya there must be some sort of rationale, however wrongheaded, to support the course of action adopted. In Libya, with all its apparatus of popular debate and rule by revolutionary committees, the need for a rationale is paramount. So far, the Libyan masses seem to have been misled into sup- posing that British police and Libyan exiles were involved in an attack on the embassy. This confuses the issue, but must not be allowed to obscure the fact that the decision to shoot British policemen, if it was taken at all, must have been taken by a committee in Tripoli with responsibility to other committees. What rationale could have governed such a decision, in the light of its probable consequences?

Within the context of a regime facing acute internal problems, it might be ex- plained by the need for a popular diversion. But there is no evidence that Libya faces internal problems of such magnitude. Despite a drop in oil revenues and over- commitment of expenditure in some areas, it remains an extremely rich country. Internal opposition is well controlled, and the regime would appear to have the enthusiastic support of the country's young intellectuals. Nor, as I believe, is the particular brand of cyncism which might recommend the shooting of a young policewoman in St James's Square as a diversion from domestic problems in Libya yet prevailing among the revolutionary elite of Tripoli.

Any rationale must be found within the context of Libya's driving forces: Islamic revivalism and revolutionary Marxism. In the former instance, one might enquire why no Muslim theologian of humane leanings has yet stood up to say that not all Muslims necessarily agree with Colonel Gaddafi's interpretation of the Koran as a licence to murder all who displease him politically.

But I can think of only one example where a religious contempt for wordly possessions might combine with a Marxist hatred of the rich to produce a rationale for the shooting of Policewoman Fletcher, and that is in the writings of the great Catholic novelist Graham Greene. I am not, of course, suggesting for a moment that Mr Greene would approve the shooting of Policewoman Fletcher. He is a Christian. But he might provide a more convincing ex- planation for the Libyans' behaviour than anything yet seen in all this bluster about Gaddafi's madness.

When his last novel but one appeared there were many — including myself who decided that its only real significance was the sad evidence it afforded of a great man's declining powers. By chance I hap- pened to pick up and re-read Doctor Fischer of Geneva or The Bomb Party (Bodley Head, 1980) over the weekend. Suddenly, its significance was apparent. Doctor Fischer, it will be remembered, is an immensely rich, immensely disgusting old man who delights in humiliating the toadies who surround him. These toadies are themselves very comfortably off, but are

prepared to debase themselves to almost any degree in exchange for a taste of Doctor Fischer'

s money. He explains that he is researching the greed of the rich. Fischer's last great practical joke, which misfires somewhat, is to give the toadies six crackers. Five contain enormous cheques' the sixth, he says, contains a bomb which will probably kill the person who opens it. Will the toadies be greedy enough to open their crackers? I originally judged the dilemma t°° implausible to carry much conviction. it seems to me that the Libyans, in deciding to shoot Policewoman Fletcher, must have been playing exactly the same game. They were genuinely interested to know just how far the rich countries of the West were prepared to go in sucking up to them for their oil money.

In the early stages of the crisis, it began to

look as if the Foreign Office would ie to prevent the breaking off of diplomaticlama relations between the two countries, if °B ,1„Y '" a face-saving formula could be found. fact the Foreign Office has been extra- ordinarily quiet about the whole episode not only in terms of official statements buc_ also, more significantly, in terms of 0°' ficial briefings, such as give individual Sun- day newspapers their exclusive insights' One does not need much experience of ,11.,e lobby system to see that the Sanaa,' Telegraph's story came not from the Foreign Office (whose Secretary of Statee was away in China at the time) but from.,tbr Home Office whose Secretary of State, I" Brittan, emerges as the hawkish hero: `Although the orders [to shc):t policemen] were fully intercepted )(1 Western agencies, they were not decode e and processed in time to reach the H°111 Office and police before the demons tion at which Policewoman Irv°1111.: Fletcher was killed took place. Mr ari t tan, Home Secretary, made it clear lasn night that occupants of the Libyar Bureau must leave the building, be inte; viewed by police and allow the preenis to be searched for weapons . - It is not necessary, I hope, to deny anY c:Eir-; sideration of the disreputable Bll,°cImay point that Mr Brittan is a Jew to explain,r misgivings about the whole matter. ii, more significant is the fact that Mr believe that the Sunday Telegraph, in g° like Colonel Gaddafi, is a politician.acil froewrs faith, accepted some disinformation

the Home Office: there were no ord from Tripoli to shoot British Gcerilnee_eati: The whole thing was a ghastly,

mistake. Now the politicians and official; of both sides are involved in frantic an possibly disastrous efforts to save face Doctor Fischer, for all that GrahPalli feels we should pity as much as concle,;1",t. him, remains an implausible fantasy% Daus, we should never let patriotism blina when discussing our country's quarrels, w hBoroiltitgaa:

foreigners, to the fact that both sides in every dispute are led by politicians.