What makes this ambassador tick?

Saadun Suayeh, the Libyan ambassador (left)

Saadun Suayeh, the Libyan ambassador puzzles me. I gather that he is a perfectly well-meaning and nice man.

But I never quite understood why he did not resign from his post to disassociate himself from Gaddafi's murderous regime. That is what most of his Libyan diplomatic colleagues around the world did, including those in much more important posts than his.

Instead, he kept repeating a surreal fiction: he represents the Libyan people, not Gaddafi. An ambassador, whose lifeline is correctness and meticulous adherence to rules, should be the last person to make such an argument. Ambassadors represent the state and it is the state which represents the people. The Libyab ambassador cannot appoint himself "representative" of the people, particularly when he is in the employ of a dictatorial regime inside which "the people" simply did not exist.

Alas, Suayeh did even worse. In February he was still insisting that Gaddafi "should not go" and that the dictator's "presence for the time being is definitely a guarantee for the country's unity" (Click: The Times, 23 Feb, 2011).

Now that the bloody Gaddafi show is over, leaving behind thousands of martyrs in its wake, Saadun Suayeh is wearing the rebel's colours on his lapel and reassuring us that he "kept contact with the representatives of the Libyan rebels in Malta". Whatever that means.

In self-demeaning tones he also he speaks about the fatherly advice he sought on the Libyan situation from the French ambassador. Which is a rather odd reversal of roles. It is the Libyan Ambassador who should have been briefing and guiding the French one on the state of play of the war.

There is something very odd going on here and I cannot put my finger on it.

(Click: Updated: Libyan, French ambassadors reveal 'discreet' meetings)