Libya

Victor

Interesting spin "banned"

http://home.eircom.net/content/reuters/worldnews/2203467?view=Eircomnet

Libya scraps banned weapons
From:Reuters
Saturday, 20th December, 2003
By Salah Sarrar

TRIPOLI (Reuters) - A pariah for decades, Libya has asked to come in from the cold after a surprise announcement that it was abandoning illicit weapons programmes.

As the United States and Britain promised rewards, Tripoli acted swiftly on Saturday to give proof of its commitment to the world at large. Libyan officials flew to Vienna for talks with the U.N. nuclear watchdog, an international diplomat told Reuters.

Almost 15 years to the day since his agents brought down a Pan Am airliner over Lockerbie and eight months after U.S. and British troops toppled Saddam Hussein on suspicion of developing banned weapons, Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi has now opened the prospect of an end to sanctions and a return of U.S. oil firms.

Britain said Libya had been close to making an atomic bomb. Details of Tripoli's weapons capabilities were vague.

Some U.S. officials cautioned that Libya's move on arms, the culmination of secret talks with London and Washington launched around the time of the Iraq invasion and concluded a week after U.S. forces captured Saddam, still left it too early to say when, or if, Washington will lift sanctions.

Britain suggested the Iraqi leader's fate could have been different if he had cooperated. U.S. President George W. Bush, who also accuses Iran and North Korea of seeking nuclear arms, said he hoped others would follow the example set by Gaddafi, a man one of Bush's predecessors called a "mad dog".

European critics of the invasion of Iraq remarked pointedly that it showed peaceful diplomacy could bring about disarmament.

"Libya wants to solve all problems and we want to focus on development and advancing our country. This (weapons) programme does not benefit our people or country," Foreign Minister Mohamed Abderrhmane Chalgam told Al-Jazeera television.

"We want to have ties with America and Britain because this is in the interest of our people," Chalgam said.

Libyan officials were flying to Vienna for talks on Tripoli's nuclear programme with the International Atomic Energy Agency on Saturday, an international diplomat said. Libya said on Friday it was ready to accept strict IAEA nuclear safeguards.

The head of Arab League said Israel, widely believed to have a nuclear weapons capability, should do the same as Libya.

PRAISE FOR GADDAFI

Libya's move came ahead of Sunday's anniversary of the Christmas 1988 bombing of Pan Am flight 103 over Scotland that killed 270 people. British relatives of the victims welcomed the news that dialogue had brought disarmament, Tripoli's second dramatic step this year to rejoin the international community.

Libya was freed of broader U.N. sanctions this year after accepting responsibility for the Lockerbie bombing and paying billions to victims' families. Washington left its sanctions in place, alleging Tripoli sought biological and chemical weapons.

U.S. warplanes bombed Tripoli in 1986 after the bombing of a West Berlin nightclub frequented by American soldiers. The U.S. attack hit Gaddafi's home, killing his adopted infant daughter.

Washington bans most economic activity and bars visits to Libya using U.S. passports without U.S. government permission.

Echoing London and Washington, Russia, France and Germany -- opponents of the Iraq war -- praised Gaddafi, whom U.S. President Ronald Reagan once called a "mad dog".

"He needs to be applauded in unqualified terms for what he has done. I believe it is very statesmanlike and courageous," Foreign Secretary Jack Straw told BBC radio on Saturday.

"If Saddam had come to us a year ago or more...then the situation in Iraq would have been a very different one."

Gaddafi's son, Saif al-Islam, said the Iraq war had nothing to do with the timing of Libya's negotiations. "We started the cooperation before even the invasion of Iraq," he told CNN.

But he added: "It's a critical deal for Libya, because first of all we will get access to defensive weapons and no sanctions on Libyan arms imports any more. We will get access to the know-how and technology in sectors which were banned."

While praising Gaddafi, French Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin urged Libya to "implement without delay" compensation for families of victims of a 1989 bombing of a French airliner.

BUSH, BLAIR DELIGHTED

U.S. officials said Libya's nuclear programme was "much further advanced" than thought and it acknowledged cooperating with North Korea to develop long-range Scud missiles.

Libya said its move showed commitment to "building a world free of weapons of mass destruction and all sorts of terrorism".

Bush immediately praised Libya, saying: "Its good faith will be returned." He said Tripoli's progress would be monitored.

"Today's announcement shows that we can fight this menace through more than purely military means; that we can defeat it peacefully," said Prime Minister Tony Blair.

Bush added: "I hope that other leaders will find an example in Libya's announcement today."

But a senior U.S. official cautioned: "We are at the start. The Libyans want to work with the United States, but we take it one step at a time...We're not at the point of discussing how this affects the sanctions regime."

Lifting sanctions could allow U.S. oil companies back into Libya, where they once produced more than one million barrels per day (bpd) and where oil facilities could reach two million bpd within five years, the U.S. Energy Department says.

U.S. sanctions dating from 1982 and strengthened in 1986, ban the import of Libyan crude oil, as well as direct trade and commercial contracts, and keep U.S. firms out of Libya.

mr_angry

While I support fully this move, and the diplomacy behind it, I have to point out the massive contradiction in what Jack Straw said about Iraq.

"If Saddam had come to us a year ago or more...then the situation in Iraq would have been a very different one."

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it has yet to be proven that Saddam had any WMDs. And if he had "come to us a year ago" (presumably with evidence that he had no weapons), would he have been left to murder and opress his people for another 20 years or so, before passing the mantle onto his son? Forgive me for being so picky, but this seems to be in direct contrast to the whole "We got him and we're going to try him for his crimes" kind of terminology that they're trying to force down our throats at the moment. I am the only one who sees that?

Anyway, I'm sorry if I'm a bit off topic, but it was all in the article there. I'd like to applaud Gaddafi for his move towards peace.

SkepticOne

Originally posted by mr_angry
Correct me if I'm wrong, but it has yet to be proven that Saddam had any WMDs. And if he had "come to us a year ago" (presumably with evidence that he had no weapons), would he have been left to murder and opress his people for another 20 years or so, before passing the mantle onto his son? Forgive me for being so picky, but this seems to be in direct contrast to the whole "We got him and we're going to try him for his crimes" kind of terminology that they're trying to force down our throats at the moment. I am the only one who sees that?

From the point that the US started to put troops into Kuwait the war was inevitable. No action on Saddam's part could have changed that.

Although there may never be any proof one way or the other, at least part of the decision to go to war was based on the (erronious) belief by the US, that Iraq still had WMDs. The Unscom team pulled out in 1998 amid complaints of obstruction by the Iraqis and without concluding that no WMD capablity remained. The possibility of WMDs put oil supplies at risk and this would have been unacceptable to the US as the letter from Rumsfeld and others to Clinton in 1998 demonstrates:

Such uncertainty will, by itself, have a seriously destabilizing effect on the entire Middle East. It hardly needs to be added that if Saddam does acquire the capability to deliver weapons of mass destruction, as he is almost certain to do if we continue along the present course, the safety of American troops in the region, of our friends and allies like Israel and the moderate Arab states, and a significant portion of the world’s supply of oil will all be put at hazard. As you have rightly declared, Mr. President, the security of the world in the first part of the 21st century will be determined largely by how we handle this threat.

So Saddam would have had to 'come to us' a lot earlier than a year ago' and even then it probably would not have worked.

When Hans Blix's team arived with the backing of US troops in Kuwait, Saddam naturally cooperated since it would have meant instant invasion. However at this stage, the US were already committed to invasion. What could Hans Blix have produced that would have prevented invasion. All they could do is say that they hadn't yet found any WMDs. It would have been impossible for them to prove that Iraq had no WMDs, yet such proof would have been necessary for the US to withdraw its troops. All vaguely positive results from Hans Blix were consequently dismissed by the US.

Possibly if Saddam had cooperated with the Unscom team years earlier instead of obstructing and expelling them in 1997 he could still be happily torturing his people today. Possibly not, who knows? But certainly, last year was too late contrary to what Jack Straw says.

mr_angry

Woah! Hold it right there Skeptic!

I wasn't asking for an explanation of the entire war, I was merely pointing out that Jack Straw's statement seemed to be entirely at odds with the current political 'spin'.

If your answer is merely "Jack Straw is talking through his arse", then fair enough, but there is a serious contradiction in what he said.

SkepticOne

Originally posted by mr_angry
If your answer is merely "Jack Straw is talking through his arse", then fair enough, but there is a serious contradiction in what he said.

Yes. I should have put it in a separate post rather than in reply to yours.

mr_angry

Ah, don't worry about it - its not my thread anyway, I'd already just hijacked this one!

The Beer Baron

Gadaffi eh?
He was the Saddam of the 80's.
He was right up there with the USSR and Khomeni.

I guess Gadaffi has a right to be scared, and, Libya seem to be making
the right moves. But if he thinks he can promise to "decomission" (I choose this word well) whatever wmd's he might have and expect the US/UK axis to embrace him, well...he also knows what happens if you don't appease them.

It's a bit of a case of a little too late on both sides really.
And whilst his actions of late have been commendable Lockerbie was a loooooong time ago on the political timeline.

shotamoose

Surely those who supported the war in Iraq must be outraged at this appeasement of brutal dictator? After all, they've repeatedly told us that to support a policy other than enforced regime change is effectively to support the incumbent regime. Why, if we'd invaded Libya Gaddafi would be out of power now and the Lybians would be free!

Victor

Originally posted by The Beer Baron
Gadaffi eh? He was the Saddam of the 80's. He was right up there with the USSR and Khomeni.

Yes, when Saddam was on 'our' side and when Americans were shooting down airliners (google Vincennes Incident) while on Saddam's side.

Redleslie

Evil Bond villain lunatic Gadaffi was taught a lesson when his daughter (probably even more evil than he was) was bombed in 1986. He's been caving in ever since.

The same attack hit the French embassy by accident. So they say.

Frank Grimes

Originally posted by Redleslie
Evil Bond villain lunatic Gadaffi was taught a lesson when his daughter (probably even more evil than he was) was bombed in 1986. He's been caving in ever since.

That is sarcasm right? The child was no more than 18 months old.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

Frank Grimes

Originally posted by daveirl
She was adopted too afaik.

Yeah, she was.

PHB

Surely those who supported the war in Iraq must be outraged at this appeasement of brutal dictator? After all, they've repeatedly told us that to support a policy other than enforced regime change is effectively to support the incumbent regime. Why, if we'd invaded Libya Gaddafi would be out of power now and the Lybians would be free!

Thing is, theres two solutions to every problem. Direct Force, and slow agenda setting change. Most countries only use the former when the later doesn't work, hence why the U.S. never invaded South Africa.
You try to change the regime through diplomatic means, and when eventually it gets too much, you invade, but you wait as long as possible before doing so.

You seem to be implying that they wouldn't be free if we had invaded? You don't think invading and setting up a democractic government would make them free?

shotamoose

Originally posted by PHB
Thing is, theres two solutions to every problem. Direct Force, and slow agenda setting change. Most countries only use the former when the later doesn't work, hence why the U.S. never invaded South Africa.
You try to change the regime through diplomatic means, and when eventually it gets too much, you invade, but you wait as long as possible before doing so.

But we've been repeatedly told by those who wanted the war in Iraq that we must 'stand up to' dictators like Saddam and Gaddafi, and not 'appease' them with deals and bribes. I agree completely with what you're saying - there are always (at least) two ways of approaching these things. So why were so many saying that there was only one way of dealing with Saddam, only one language he would understand? The avenue of diplomacy was not exhausted - it was never properly explored. Saddam was at first aided and abbetted, then bombed and invaded.

The logical conclusion is that the aim of recent US and UK policy towards Iraq was to have a succesful war followed by regime change, with the fate of ordinary Iraqis largely incidental irrelevant except for the purposes of rhetorical justification.

You seem to be implying that they wouldn't be free if we had invaded? You don't think invading and setting up a democractic government would make them free?

Who knows if they'd be free if we had invaded? A lot of them would be dead, that's for sure. The Iraqis aren't 'free'. They may be at some stage in the future, but they're not now.

Capt'n Midnight

Originally posted by Victor
Vincennes Incident... while on Saddam's side.

Don't forget there was NO reataliation over the Stark. Anyway it's not like they shot down a Boeing or McDonald Duglas - it was a built in Europe.

And as for not 'appease' them with deals and bribes what the story with North Korea ?

The fresh water piplines in Libya were a bigger project then the channel tunnel at the time but was done by continental firms 'cos of the embargo..

At the end of the day - if you are poor in Nigeria you starve to death, in Libya you don't.

Anyone got a link to a translation of the little green book ?

sovtek

Originally posted by PHB
Thing is, theres two solutions to every problem. Direct Force, and slow agenda setting change. Most countries only use the former when the later doesn't work, hence why the U.S. never invaded South Africa.

Being that the US supported South Africa in war with Angola, to prevent the evil democratically elected communist government from staying in power...oh and there was some very precious uranuim being traded too...one would think that America would have never invaded South Africa.

ykt0di9url7bc3

PRAISE FOR GADDAFI

probably the most important message in that report...