Freedom across the world suffered a major blow recently, and no one even knew to pause and mourn for it. The Libyan tyrant, Moammar Gadhafi, told a conference in Africa that “handing over former Liberian President Charles Taylor to an international court is an immoral act and has harmed Africa” and that “Taylor should have stayed in Nigeria according to the agreement under which he stepped down.” Translation: There is now little chance of Gadhafi or any other tyrant giving up power peacefully in exchange for asylum.

Nigeria granted Taylor asylum in 2003 in exchange for his renouncing power as part of a deal to end Liberia’s civil war. But in March, under intense international pressure, Nigeria broke that promise and handed Taylor to the United Nations-special court in Sierra Leone. The court intends to try Taylor for war crimes and crimes against humanity because of his role in Sierra Leone’s civil war.

Taylor is certainly one of the planet’s most odious men, and in a just world he’d be held accountable for his crimes, but it isn’t that simple. The debate over Taylor’s fate wasn’t just about whether the justice of an evil man paying for his crimes trumped the justice of Nigeria keeping a promise. As I warned in September 2004 in the Wall Street Journal Europe, the Taylor case was being closely followed by other dictators around the world, because “what happens in this case has direct ramifications” for them (and, thus, for their oppressed populations). “If Nigeria is forced to break its promise to Taylor, other dictators will inevitably second-guess any offer to step down on a promise of asylum. Such offers will be seen as ploys to remove them from power, after which they’re at the mercy of their hosts — who can be forced to break their word.” If Taylor was handed over, I warned, other dictators would realize the only way to secure their future would be to hold on to power at all costs.

That Taylor was handed over means that now the only way for the millions around the world living under a tyranny to enjoy freedom is through revolution or foreign intervention; a bloodless transition has been all but ruled out. Therefore, just as it was the free world that pressed for Nigeria to give up Taylor, it is the free world that owes it to those oppressed nations to follow a policy of removing every tyrant. Only then would the broken promise to Taylor not have been a disheartening mistake. If the free world isn’t prepared to do this, they’ve condemned those oppressed people to perpetual serfdom.

A policy of liberating enslaved nations across the world seems more unlikely than ever. The free world can’t even put together a force to end the genocide in Darfur; what hope is there for intervening to stop dictators who “only” murder in the thousands? The current position of Gadhafi exemplifies this sorry situation. In exchange for renouncing his nuclear program and ending his sponsorship of terrorism — neither of which should have existed in the first place — Gadhafi was rewarded by Washington with the normalization of relations. Cold comfort for those who remain locked up in Gadhafi’s totalitarian kingdom.

And so, while it’s clear that there is little chance of Gadhafi & Co. being deposed any time soon by force, handing over Taylor cut off the only other realistic avenue of escape for their oppressed populations. Gadhafi signaled last week that he understands the ramifications of the Taylor decision. No doubt it wasn’t lost on other dictators either, or on their enslaved peoples. It’s only the leaders of the free world who failed to understand this. And if they did, they could at least explain to oppressed people across the globe why getting Charles Taylor was worth squelching their hopes and dreams of freedom.

–Daniel Freedman is editor of the online edition of the New York Sun and blogs at www.itshinesforall.com.