Libya Capitulates

While you compose a post :wink:, let me add another thought:

I can only shake my head in amazement at the twists and turns in what passes for the Bush administration's foreign policy. It was just a few weeks ago that Bush was vowing to end America's past practice of overlooking the sins of evil regimes (as long as they were willing to serve U.S. interests). He even gave a pretty little speech about it to the National Endowment for Democracy:



Which is an awful lot of flowery prose to say something as Shrub-simple as:

Saddam baaaaaad. Ghadafi gooooood.

Ghadafi has been trying to reconcile for months. The announcement was timed as a "ripple effect" validation.

lybia has plenty of "sweet, light crude oil", that should "sweeten" the deal (also reported on last night's pbs news). hbg

I hear (CNN) that Libya has been in talks since the intense build up before the war--(opinion) that it is pretty easily attributable to Qaddafi's fear that someone may drop an errant bomb on him.

I think it shows Bush was correct about dominoes falling in the ME in a direction favorable to peace and reconciliation, after he knocked over the first one. I'm pretty sure most people will see it that way. I'm pretty sure most of them will vote accordingly. I didn't think anything this dramatic would have happened this quickly...

PDid-- You would have Bush..what? Bomb Qaddafi? He reveals his WMD program, and points out his mustard gas, he's paying the families of the people he killed on Pan Am... The UN gave him a seat on the Human Rights committee--so were they wrong? Or is it just Bush who's wrong for ... What is Bush wrong about regarding Qaddafi again?

It is really a shock to click on this thread and see someone take such a positive and scrabble to make it a negative.

Sofia,

He's been in talks for years. He's been asking to negotiate for years. He made the breakthrough we'd demanded before the war was an issue.

There is a difference between dominoes falling and dominoes not beinga llowed to fall till they serve a political purpose.

Case in point:

ME peace was said to be linked to Iraq because in the lead-up the admin focused their attention on the ME to appease Arab nations being courted for the war.

Thing is, the attention could have been focused regardless of whether the war took place.

Same with Lybia, they are cooperating because of the sanctions. And have been for a long time. They have been asking to be forgiven (and doing what was demanded) since before the war was ever an issue.

The US actually held up someof said concessions. Libya said that if the US maintained their position it was pointless to seek the end of sanctions from other nations. They wanted the whole package and we held it up intentionally.

There's nothing negative to me about Libya's move. But there is otright duplicity and deception in trying to relate it to Iraq to justify a policy whose initial justification fell flat.

Of course they did. They probably didn't want to be F**KING SLAUGHTERED BY THE THOUSANDS BY AN INSANE WAR CRIMINAL.

I recall some of our more tense interactions with Qaddafi... We've been dickering with him on one subject or another for as long as I can remember. Still, news reports are that intense negotiations finally including Qaddafi's admission that he may have WMDs began in March. We may have balked at different junctures in talks with him for a variety of reasons. I think forwarding the view that Clinton failed purposefully in negotiations with Qaddafi to present Bush with a special feather in his cap is pushing it a bit.

Do you really think this whole thing was put on ice to do nothing more than make Saddam's capture look even more tasty? Do you think we kept Saddam down in that hole for a low point in polling?

Nevertheless, I will read up before I say much more. Do want to read facts, if I can find them.

March is correct (for certain talks). But I don't know where you get Clinton from. I never mentioned Clinton.

I am specifically talking about events during Bush's presidency.



No. I never said that. I do think that the Bush/Blair announcement was intended to make the connection between Iraq and Libya.



No. I never said that. And why the straw men? I never said any of those absurdities. I know you are asking and not accusing but there's an implication in the question that is unwarranted.

quite a few western nations have been in the oil-exploration business in lybia for many years. while some of these dealings were probably "under the table", i think that lybia figured out that they could get a better deal by openly "co-operating" with the u.s. and the other western nations. and it seems that it suits the western nations as well. no more hissy fits or accusations ... but nice "business deals" ... forget about killings, atrocities ... instead, let's all play LET"S MAKE A DEAL ... so much nicer and cleaner ! just look how much better the u.s. and china get along, now that the u.s. has told taiwan to behave and not to annoy china (i seem to recall faintly that china at one time killed political enemies, called the army out to shoot protesters ... can't be, they are nice business partners now !) .

Craven--
When you said we'd been talking to Qaddafi "for years", I thought it expanded the period of time we were discussing to include the span of US/Qaddafi contretemps. Clinton was the only Dem Pres during that period (Reagan to present. My timeline)--and I mentioned him to show the intentional Presidential waffling in negotiations with Qaddafi for later pay-off is less realistic, IMO.

Craven-- You said you are specifically talking about events during Bush's presidency.
But why do you have such higher expectations of Bush 2 than you did of his three predecessors...2, who had eight years to straighten things out with Qaddafi? To what do you attribute Qaddafi's breakthrough? Who gets credit, in your opinion?

When you alluded to 'dominoes not be allowed to fall' it seemed as though you thought Bush and Co. manipulated the whole thing for political advantage.... You aren't saying that?

Your comment--I know you are asking and not accusing but there's an implication in the question that is unwarranted.

Well, actually, I was following the natural progression of the comments I thought you were making. I guess the 'dominoes not being allowed to fall until they serve a political purpose' really meant something different to you than it did to me. I'm still not clear on what it meant to you. Don't you think any time after the war started would connect Qaddafi's actions with Iraq?

These questions I asked (which you call straw men) were questions to help me understand exactly where you stood and what you thought, as it was unclear to me. Every question I ask does not reflect my belief that you said such a thing.

An article--
AP
President Bush announces that Libya will give up its weapons of mass destruction, a step he says will make the world safer, at the White House on Friday. MSNBC News Services
Updated: 6:41 p.m. ET Dec. 20, 2003Libya sought on Saturday to shed its pariah status, meeting with U.N. nuclear inspectors after a surprise announcement that it was abandoning efforts to build an atomic bomb and other banned weapons.

As the United States and Britain promised rewards, Tripoli acted swiftly to prove its commitment to the world at large. A top Libyan official met the head of the U.N. nuclear watchdog to discuss its proposals to eliminate weapons of mass destruction.

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

The head of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Mohamed ElBaradei, met a senior Libyan official on Saturday for a hastily-arranged meeting in Vienna.

"Dr ElBaradei met with Libya's secretary of the National Board of Scientific Research to discuss the Libyan government's desire to eliminate its weapons of mass destruction program," IAEA spokesman Mark Gwozdecky said.

Libya said on Friday it was ready to accept strict IAEA nuclear safeguards. Western diplomats said that prior to the Libyan announcement, the IAEA had been growing increasingly concerned about signs Tripoli wanted to develop atomic arms.

"Libya wants to solve all problems and we want to focus on development and advancing our country. This program 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 in the first televised comments on Tripoli's move by a top Libyan official.

Gadhafi's son also showed support for the decision on Saturday.

"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 anymore. We will get access to the know-how and technology in sectors which were banned ... and (which) Libyans were prohibited to study," Saif al-Islam Gadhafi told CNN.

"And it will pave the way for the normalization of political relations with the States and also with the West in general and also will lead to eliminate any threat against Libya from the West and from the States in particular."

Libya's most significant acknowledgment was that it had a program intended to enrich uranium for use in nuclear weapons, a senior Bush administration official said.

Libya's nuclear effort was more advanced than previously thought, the official said. U.S. and British experts inspected components of a centrifuge program to enrich the uranium, though the system was not operational, the official told The Associated Press on condition of anonymity.

Months of secret talks
Blair, speaking from Durham, Britain, and Bush, addressing reporters in the White House briefing room,

In the decision announced Friday by all sides, Libya agreed to disclose all its weapons of mass destruction and related programs and to open the country to international weapons inspectors to oversee their elimination

"Colonel Gadhafi's commitment, once it is fulfilled, will make our country more safe and the world more peaceful," said Bush.

Recalling the war in Iraq, Bush said other nations should recognize that described a process of nine months of secret talks and onsite inspections, initiated by the long reviled Libyan leader shortly after he agreed to a settlement in the 1988 bombing of a Pan Am jet over Lockerbie, Scotland.Courageous' move
On Saturday, British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw called the move by Gadhafi "statesmanlike and courageous."

"You judge people on their conduct and, knowing as I do the course of these negotiations, I believe that it is both very statesmanlike and courageous, the steps that he and his government have taken," Straw told British Broadcasting Corp. radio.

Egypt also welcomed the news on Saturday.

"Libya's decision is an example. Egypt welcomes it and hopes other states in the region will follow, Egyptian Foreign Minister Ahmed Maher said.

Maher did not name any regional states, but Egypt and other Arabs have complained in the past that the international community has ignored Israel, which is widely believed to have a nuclear weapons capability.

French Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin said that Libya's decision was an important step towards rejoining the international community.However, Villepin urged Libya to "implement without delay" its commitment to compensating families of victims of the bombing of a French airliner in 1989.

"Libya is heading down the path of disarmament. It's a success for the entire international community," Villepin told reporters at the Foreign Ministry on Saturday.

Lifting of sanctions
France had threatened to veto the lifting of U.N. sanctions against Libya in September, after Tripoli agreed to pay $2.7 billion to families of 270 people killed in the 1988 bombing of an airliner over Lockerbie.

It said it wanted more compensation for the families of 170 victims of the UTA plane bombed over Niger, but eventually dropped its opposition after a more favorable deal was reportedly struck over the UTA case.

Libya never acknowledged responsibility for the UTA bombing, but agreed to pay $34 million to families of the victims after a French court convicted six Libyans in absentia in 1999. Talks with the relatives over a more generous payout are continuing.

The U.N. Security Council ended sanctions against Libya on Sept. 12 after Gadhafi's government took responsibility for the Pan Am bombing.

Despite the end of U.N. sanctions, the United States has kept its own 17-year embargo in place and has kept Libya on the list of nations that sponsor terrorism.

On Saturday, the British foreign secretary projected the future U.S. lifting of sanctions.
"The United States is looking forward to an entirely new approach and relationship with Libya," Straw said. On sanctions, he said: "I would expect them to be lifted. I can't say exactly when."
----------------
Doesn't it seem more plausible that Bush and Co. held out for the cash for victims, and as the article said, shortly after sent in inspectors?

Lifting sanctions on Libya is not likely to generate a change in Q'adaffi's stance on human rights, so I don't see how this can be a "positive sign" for (stated) Bush policy.
BTW, how many of us (besides me) are jealous of old Moammar for his cadre of 6 foot tall 20something female bodyguards?

LYBIA
here is some interesting background information :
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Soon after the sanctions against Libya were lifted at the UN, Seif el-Islam Gadhafi, son of Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi, and head of the private fund that will hand out the UTA payouts, gave a phone interview to Le Figaro.

Seif el-Islam Gadhafi refused to give the exact amount of the payouts, raising fears among the families of the victims that Libya may retract. But he also expressed Libyan requests, conditions for the settlement of the deal.

And oh, French companies established in Libya will pay for the compensations.

Here's the translation of the entire interview:


A special fund created by the Gadhafi Foundation will be fed by voluntary contributions.

Gadhafi's son: "French companies will finance compensations".

Seif el-Islam Gadhafi, a son of the Libyan leader, head of the Gadhafi Foundation, who negotiated with the families of the victims of the attack against the UTA DC 10. Questioned on the phone in Tripoli, he disclosed to Le Figaro his reaction after the signature of the protocol.

LE FIGARO - What is the amount of the compensations according to the agreement?
Seif el-Islam KADHAFI - It's a good deal. Both parties are more than satisfied with the agreement. As for the amount of the compensations, we will publish it very soon. It is a political agreement that covers several fields. The compensations represent only one part of a general settlement with France. The UTA case was closed several years ago. When the French asked us to re-open it, we made several requests in exchange.

What are the other cases?
There is the problem of the fate of the six Libyans convicted in absentia by a French court in 1999. We think they are innocent and we're hoping for a solution. Discussions will continue with French authorities in the next 6 months about this case and others. We're asking for compensations for the three Libyans killed by the French aviation that shot down one of our bombers above N'Djamena in the 80's. We were only responding to a Chadian aggression. Finally, we offered the signing of a friendship pact with France, to celebrate a new era for our bilateral relations. On all these points, we concluded an agreement in principle.

How will the compensations be payed?
We will create a special fund, handled by both parties. It will be fed by the contributions of French companies operating in Libya.

Won't Libya pay anything herself?
The agreement wasn't concluded by the Libyan State, but with the charity I run. Since it is a non-governmental organization, we don't handle public funds as we please. It can only operate thanks to voluntary contributions. All French companies that operate in Libya should contribute to this fund.

Did you accept to pay the compensations to obtain the lifting of the sanctions at the UN?
No, we weren't really worrying about the sanctions. The main factor has been the phone conversation [at the end of August] between my father and President Chirac. Following this discussion, my father asked me to show the maximum flexibility possible, explaining to me that we had to help Chirac who always showed a lot of understanding towards Arabs.

Will you compensate Germany, following the attack against the La Belle discotheque, in 1986, in West Berlin?
We are really willing to do it. But the case is different, morally and emotionnally. After the La Belle explosion, American troops bombed Libya, killing many Libyans. We are studying the case.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
the article can be found at : www.pavefrance.com/blog/archives/000603.html

the more i dig into this, the more i think it's all just a clever business deal. as we used to say in the business ; "it's a win-win situation". (one of the signs of old-age is cynicism). hbg

I didn't say they waffled for a later payoff either. But I do see how I can be construed to have implied that.

What I did say is that we've been moving slower in the reconciliation dance than has Lybia and in theory much of this could have been achieved sooner.

That, to me, indicates that this is not an Iraq War dominoe. But I do not imply that the US/Libya relations had that in mind.

I do think the Bush/Blair announcement was intended to make the connection.



I have never said that I have higher expectations of Bush. I am only talking about Bush's presidency because he is currently the president.



I've never really thought about this in terms of "credit". Qaddafi has been changing for years and if anything I credit the sanctions imposed on him by many nations (led by the US).

The reconciliation phases of "rogue" states tends to involve the US moving towards the "make up sex" slower than the rest of the world (not neccessarily a bad thing) and I think the same was the case here.



Nah. I am saying that they have delayed reconciliation. And that had it not been delayed said dominoe might have fallen earlier. By this I mean to argue that it's falling was not related to the war but not that the delay took that into consideration..



Not as a matter of course, many things can happen after the war with no connection. But I do think just about anything positive that sounds plausible to tout as a connection will be touted as such. Just as is true with the opposite ("Bush's presidency is why I stubbed my toe").



More plaudible than what you think I have been saying? Yes. Lots of people wanted to hold out for the cash. Others wanted to hold out for more cash.

What I was saying is that Libya has been groping for the make up sex for a long, long time. And despite the circumstantial connection being drawn with the war (e.g. the article mentions the war in passing for no reason) there is no indication that this was the case.

The change in their attitude pre-dated the war. And was not inspired by the "We are not a paper tiger" war, as some argue (e.g. see Wilso's post).

just picked up from the BBC : "US oil companies are keen to get back into the north African state where they once produced more than a million barrels per day, and where the energy department estimates output could reach two million barrels per day within five years.

Companies like Marathon and ConocoPhilips are understood to still have extensive assets in Libya, which have been frozen since 1986. "

I first voted "true", only to then read PDiddies and Cravens posts - and find them pretty convincing.

- Oh, let me first say that I was very happy at the good news! Because it was, imho. The WMD are out of the picture, apparently, concerning Lybia. Now we can move on to the other Lybian issues PDiddie mentioned - just like we would have in Iraq's case, without war. -

As for the Iraq / War link. As said, Craven and PD were making sense. But on one specific Iraq-related argument, the war opponents were dealt a blow with this new development, though.

We made a lot of brouhaha (here, too) about how Iraq, which couldnt be proven to still have WMD (and seems, as it turns out, not to have had them anymore), was attacked, while North-Korea, of which we know it has them, was not.

Our argument re: this was that, if anything, the Iraq war would thus actually bolster other "rogue" regimes' determination to develop WMD themselves - the lesson being that if you make it there, you're safe, whereas if you're Iraq ...

Ghadaffi, in any case, does not seem to have followed our logic.

My father was one of the many Marathon employees who left Libya in 1969 (with me in tow, of course! ) after Q'adaffi came to power. My understanding form reading his journals is that, while not a surprise, his accession was certainly unpleasant. But,as I said before, don't expect major changese in the human rights situation. I have a feeling the US will end up supporting him as an "ally" in the region.

hobitbob wrote : "I have a feeling the US will end up supporting him as an "ally" in the region. " ... it seems that you are not the only one feeling that way, hobitbob. ... here is what a spokesperson for the lockerbie victims had to say(as reported on CNN) : "What I get from this is Gadhafi massacred 189 Americans at 31,000 feet and he's now being rewarded by the United States, where President Bush and Prime Minister Blair become willing partners," said Bert Ammerman, a spokesman for the Lockerbie victims' families and whose brother was killed in the bombing." ... is this what is called "realpolitik" ? hbg