Moammar Ghadafi's announcement to voluntarily disarm last year was a breathtaking, if jolting, spot of good news. At the time, I drew up a list of conditions under which the sincerity of Libya's admission would be judged; one of those was liberalization. I said "if Ghadafi's intentions are good, and his programs are verifiably and permanently removed, governmental liberalization could be next on Libya's to-do list. (Much to accomplish in that category.)"

It appears Libya is again proving the success of Bush's unilateralist call for democracy in the lands least hospitable:

The son of Libyan leader Moammar Ghadafi said Wednesday Arab countries should support President Bush's campaign to promote democracy in the Middle East.

Numerous Arab governments have rejected Bush's democracy initiative, notably Egypt's and Saudi Arabia's, as an imposition unsuited to Arab culture and traditions.

"Instead of shouting and criticizing the American initiative, you have to bring democracy to your countries, and then there will be no need to fear America or your people," said Seif al-Islam Ghadafi. "The Arabs should either change or change will be imposed on them from outside."

Your first reaction will likely be wondering whether Seif naturally considers himself the prime candidate for Libya's first open election. Mine was. Again, the Ghadafis are full of surprises:

"Many Arab countries are now following the policy of inheriting the leadership, but there are hundreds of Libyans who are better (suited) than I," Seif said.

Seif even praised Israel, saying that unlike Arab countries, sons do not tend to succeed their fathers in power there.

"We don't put the appropriate person in the right place, but Israel is a democratic country," told the Al-Jazeera television station.

Let me get this straight: the son of an infamously ruthless dictator is precluding himself from power out of modesty, chastising Arab dictatorships and giving Israel a thumbs-up on Al-Jazeera? The Israel remark is especially curious. Even if Seif were simply offering lip service to Bush's combination invitation-admonition, these statements are awfully elaborate for a bluff. The Ghadafis are either very, very interested in the prosperity and stability possible with liberty or are very, very afraid of President Bush. But whatever their motivation, the dividends are already visible in Libya's disarmament, and the world is in a far better circumstance when a hardened dictatorship publicly considers giving the country's keys to its people.

Might these statements be part of the reason for Tony Blair's visit? Will the White House take Libya up on its offer and help dissolve Tripoli's totalitarian structures? This is yet another continuing story of democratization in the Near East, one we should keep an eye on - and one that would not have been possible with Saddam Hussein and the Taliban still in power.

BUT WAIT, THERE'S MORE!: We knew that Ghadafi had been offering token support to the war on terror but Blair's visit is being billed by some as the veritable signing of a mutual pact against Islamists. That would move Ghadafi toward's Pakistan's Pervez Musharraf's place in international affairs, immediately earning the allies greater leverage against terrorists in the region.

THAT'S WHAT THEY AGREED: Moammar Ghadafi, ally in the war on terror? Tony Blair seems confident; frankly, if Ghadafi relinquishes power and allows Libya to liberalize, he'll inflict the most damage on terrorism.