Libya to give up all WMDs

Great Debates
61

Troublesome nations? Troublesome? When was the last time Libya was a real threat? When was the last time Libyan terrorism was a problem? When was the last time Libya said “give us billions in concessions or we’ll keep purifying uranium, and we’re this close to having a testable nuke.”

Libya isn’t now and hasn’t been a threat for almost twenty years. They weren’t close to a nuclear weapon, and they had a hundred tons of the same chemical weapons that any third world nation supported by the U.S. or Russia could have had in the past.

Or are you doing your part, Sam, to set up the next paper target for the Bush Administration?

Like the others said: when Kim Jong Il gives up his nuclear programs, I’ll credit Bush’s brinksmanship with having made the world a safer place. Qaddaffi is an old man looking for attention.

62

It must be wonderful to see the world in such simple terms. The situation is not so simple. It is just not so that Libya has suddenly done a 180 degree turn. This act comes as a continuation of a policy which wa ongoing for a long time. Ghadaffi had been in talks with the UN and with many European countries as well as with the USA and Britain. You may recall the thread some weeks ago about how evil the French were because they required Ghadaffi pay higher indemnities to their victims and thus was blocking a settlement to lift sanctions on Libya. There it was France who had higher demands for Libia than the USA and the usual suspects bashed France for it. You just can’t win. It should be noted that finally Libya agreed to the tough demand of the French governmnet and France in the UN voted for the lifting of sanctions.

Ghadaffi has also had long negotiations with Italy and with Spain (that I am aware of, probably several other European countries) in his efforts to sell natural gas in those markets. Back in September, Aznar, Spanish prime minister, visited Ghadaffi in Tripoli and they talked about Spain purchasing Libya’s natural gas and, one would assume, Libia’s behaving more nicely towards the international community. In the press conference that followed Aznar wa asked why he was so friendly with Libya now and so hostile towards the Cuban regime and Aznar answered more or less “because Libya is and has been for some time now on the path to returning to the community of nations and to civilized behavior while Cuba lately has been going in the opposite direction”.

There is no doubt that Libya has been negotiating with many countries, including the USA and the UK, for many years now in order to get sanctions lifted and to resume trade. This can be documented easily. It is also a fact that Libya has not been a serious terrorist concern for quite some time. They were not mentioned as part of the axis of evil.

To see this event as a sudden victory of the USA is simplistic and is wrong. It is part of a long process of pressure and negotiation, which has lasted many years, by the UN and by many countries including the USA, UK, France, Spain and Italy.

if anything, this is proof that patience, sanctions, pressure and diplomacy do work. At least in this case they did work. Had the USA decided to invade and occupy Libya some years ago, it would have paid a high price for something which has been obtained better and at a lower cost.

Containment and pressure through the UN are better alternatives. Countries may temporarily get all fanatical and go against the rest of the world (hell, there’s a bit of that happening in the USA right now) but, in the long term they get tired of it and they see it does not serve their interests. Iran has been like that for a generation but is slowly coming around. The Soviet empire was contained for decades and finally collapsed on its own. Vietnam was not won by war but after some decades it is coming around. Cuba and North Korea are about the only ones not coming around. Yet. If there is any lesson I deduce from Lybia is that patience, containment and negotiations do work better than aggression. Having a country turn around of its own free will is much more successful than forcing it by military force. It always has been.

63

To be fair, both internationalists and - for lack of a better term - Bush-backers, can claim victory with the Libya-US-UK accord.

The internationalists can certainly claim that UN sanctions implemented after evidence pointed to Libya’s involvement with the terrorist bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie weakened Libya (and by extension, Gadhafi himself) economically and politically to the point where he was not so much of a threat. There’s little question that the UN sanctions and political estrangement weakened his regime.

I think Gadhafi’s decision to admit Libya’s role in the Lockerbie bombing was a trial balloon to determine how further rapproachment with the international community can serve Libya’s interests, not to mention serve his own political ends within his own country.

But since it was revealed that Libya approached the UK right at the beginning of the Iraq war, those who back Bush/Blair can plausibly argue that launching the war in Iraq provided the “tipping point” for Gadhafi to make his fateful decision, a psychological shock that helped Gadhafi “wisen up.” Given Gadhafi’s reaction (utter fear) when Reagan tried to off him in 1986 after the Berlin discotheque atrocity, the Bush-backers probably have a good point.

(Aside - perhaps this is the true concept of multilateralism - the “international community” plays the good cop, the US plays the “bad cop,” instead of the “international community” and the US embarking on a fools errand to achieve commonality at the lowest common denominator. Just a thought.)

Regardless, this is a good thing, no matter who gets the credit. Those of you who are denying the significance of the announcement sound as if your hatred of Bush is blinding you to reality.

Maybe Libya has/had stockpiles of NBC weapons, maybe it doesn’t/didn’t. But there is no doubt that Gadhafi was an international pariah who has engaged in international terrorism in the past, who has openly admitted a WMD program, but who now sees the wisdom of junking the damn weapons in exchange for admission into the international community.

If nothing else, IF (and it still is a big IF) this accord provides proof that it is possible to achieve an understanding - and the requisite benefits - of rapproachment with the US/UK, it provides a blueprint to the more eminently more dangerous countries (N. Korea, Iran) that there is a better way to secure your interests and security than embarking on WMD programs and engaging in terrorism. That is the announcement’s true significance. Let’s hope it plays out that way, at least.

64

In your opinion were those sanctions working against Iraq? They had been in effect for 12 years. There has been much criticism of the sanctions on Iraq but not much against the sanctions of Libya that I am aware of. If Saddam had let the weapons inpsectors do thier work years earlier would not sanctions have been lifted if he had no WMD? Was Saddam really hurt by sanctions? Did he really care? He had an easy out & chose not to take it. Do you think the international community would have kept up sanctions indefinitly on Iraq like they have been doing with Libya?

65

So then maybe you can tell us where all those Iraqi WMDs are? What with the sanctions being such complete failures and all.

66

The sanctions were working in Iraq. Iraq was contained and not any significant threat. How long it would have been before Iraq had a government which chose to turn around is impossible to say. It took longer than 12 years in the case of Libya and it has not happened in the case of Cuba in over 40 years and yet the USA insists on that policy for a country which is no threat to anyone. In my opinion maintaining sanctions and diplomatic pressure on Iraq would have been a much better course. I do not know how long it would have taken but sooner or later Iraq would have turned around and it would have been voluntarily and mouch more successful. For now Iraq has not turned around, it has been occupied. If US forces left tomorrow Iraq would be a civil war. Libia on the other hand has not been destabilized and their coming about is much more reliable and stable. They can now engage in trade, sell their gas, and they do not want to lose that. It was brought about by common interest in trade, not by a humiliating defeat. Much better way to do it. Much more effective.

67

sailor, I do think your argument for the effect of how Libya’s concessions were a result of non-military means is valid. There is no question that the force of a united international community placed Gadhafi in an untenable situation (if he wanted to continue terrorism and WMD production), and this force was applied non-violently.

But let me point you to this Washington Post analysis for a moment:

Forget the rest of the article for a moment (which credits both the violent Iraq war and non-violent diplomatic/economic forces - and Gadhafi himself - for Libya’s decision).

If this particular snippet I quoted is true, then it represents a signal that Libya (or at least its ruling regime, given that it’s still a dictatorship) defines the current situation in the theater of conflict as one perpetuated by some of the more nasty despots/governments in the MENA region. Admittedly, from Libya’s perspective, this probably includes Israel. But Gadhafi has thus far kept pointedly quiet about his feelings of Israel possessing WMD and let Egypt’s foreign ministers openly call for the abolition of Israeli WMDs.

The point is that Gadhafi’s MENA worldview coincides quite closely with the official policy of the US. IMHO, Gadhafi has calculated that his economic interests lie in forging closer relations with the huge US/Europe market, but his political instincts tell him that the US/UK-centric geopolitical worldview has a decent chance at becoming a forceful narrative in the region.

I’ll grant you Gadhafi had been pretty much a non-player lately. Isolated as diplomatically and economically as he was, his stock with the Arab/Muslim masses hadn’t been that high.

Nevertheless, success breeds success. The fuse of urgently-needed debate and political soul-searching within the MENA has been lit. To me, there’s little question the both the Afghanistan and Iraq wars lit this fuse.

Let the fuse continue to burn.

68

I should also add that Gadhafi - who is if nothing else is a wily politician - had to know that this accord would be interpreted by the U.S. as a vindication for its current foreign policy, or at least an acknowledgment of the current power realities in the MENA region.

Had he not wanted to give Bush this affirmation, he could have relied on the Lockerbie settlement to gain partial admission into the international community, and hung on until 2004 (more likely 2008) for another U.S. president to arrive on the scene, who might adopt a more lenient approach.

69

That’s for sure. The present American Adminitration claims anything good that happens as a result of their policies and denies anything bad. They claimed the invasion of Iraq would lead to the North Koreans shitting their pants and begging for mercy, for everybody in the MENA to behave and for the immediate resolution of the israely problem. Not to mention discovering and neutralising those WMD and bringing peace, prosperity, democracy and happiness for everybody in Iraq.

It seems to me North Korea was more of a threat than Ghadaffi. Has North Korea shit their pants yet?

70

Has North Korea caved? Outwardly, no. But who knows what’s really going on in Pyongyang.

I did think this story was interesting.

Foreign donations are down to the WFP, and a lot less food aid is delivered to North Korea. This indicates to me that more people and governments are calculating that offering aid to the North Koreans only perpetuates a terrible overall situation, and amounts to “throwing good money after bad.”

Of course, it’s horrible that so many innocent North Koreans are going to starve to death, but let’s hope that horror spurs on the “international community” - especially China - to do something to alleviate the situation.

I doubt China will do much of anything since its goal seems to be to preserve the status quo and stave off even more American influence. But if things get really prickly, the U.S. always can take the leash off Japan to develop nukes (or protect the island with its own nukes), which would really freak China out.

This turns the screws a little tighter on the pompadour-boy, who also has to calculate that America has shown its willingness to suffer casualties to take down despots deemed dangerous to American security. I also suspect that Kim Jong-il saw the video from Baghdad of a disheveled dictator getting his tonsils probed, and took note.

Kim can now take note of a dictator who decided to cooperate, and some of the benefits that may come his way. Will that get him to cooperate? Maybe, maybe not. But he will witness a precedent - a former rogue terrorist who repented and reaped the benefits. Perhaps this will affect Kim Jong-il’s calculations if the North Korean situation becomes more desperate than it already is.

We already tried bribing North Korea in 1994 to get rid of WMD and bring the nation into the international community. Didn’t quite work out though, did it?

71

If Libya has WMD and Iraq does not, then why didn’t we invade Libya rather than Iraq?

72

Because if you manufacture and stockpile thousands of tonnes of WMDs, then admit to it and say you will get rid of it, that makes you statesmanlike . But if you don’t have any WMDs and say you don’t that makes you evil and dangerous . Duh!

73

How about the US? Is it really fair of us to impose the equivalent of a thousand september elevenths on the North Korean people, just because we don’t want to sign a mutual nonagression pact with an evil dictator?

74

If US had left Iraq prematurely, sure, I agree that this deal might not have gone through. But, you went father than that. In fact, you went father than just saying that the Iraq war was a factor in Gaddafi’s decision. You framed it as if the policy of pre-emption and the Iraq war caused this diplomatic break-through. That is wrong, as evidenced by the timeline. In fact, you went as far as to attribute the timing of the announcement to Saddam’s capture insinuating that Gaddafi was quaking in his shoes.

If Libya follows through, I see this as an important victory for Bush and Blair but a victory in which UN sanctions and American bilateral sanctions played a key part. The Iraq war played a part too but I don’t see that as the main force. Note that Libya is a serious oil-producer which wants to modernize and have access to US markets.

75

not if you are a christian (nobody need note that these countries are muslim (or at least i think libya is))

76

Can anyone read the following with a straight face?

cite.

He’s become a tree-hugger and people believe him, yet where convinced Saddam was full of it when claiming he had no WMD!?

77

Qaddaffi Duck is an entirely different animal than Saddam or just about anybody else, for that matter. Were it not for his occasional spasms of belligerance, he would be a somewhat amusing charcter, for a tyrant. Qaddaffi has a mystical streak that reminds one of Castro. So he probably means what he says. That he claims to promote “popular democracy” while maintaining an iron grip on his rule is a contradiction I doubt even occurs to him.

As to the future, I remain skeptical, but optimistic. The trouble with Qadaffi is not so much dishonesty as instability. However, this opening will most likely be a splendid thing for the Libyan people. No doubt the first shipload of Brittany Spears CD are on thier way even as we speak.

78

Squink

Fuck that.

America is not responsible for North Koreans starving. Those morons in Pyongyang are. Kim Jong-il, and his Stalinist system, are responsible for the plight of the North Korean people. No one else

Trying to pin the plight of the N. Korean people on the US is the epitome of complete bullshit. The US government has a responsibility to protect the American people. No one else.

I’m all for trying to find a diplomatic solution to this problem, but signing a mutual nonaggression pact with North Korea in which verification procedures are not ironclad puts American security at the whim of Kim Jong-il.

No thanks.

79

One thing I’m dying to see unfold in the next several weeks: to what extent will the US renew ties with Libya?

If we use the Administration’s current rationale for war in Iraq, it wasn’t really about WMD, it was about freeing an oppressed people.

Along comes Libya, renounces WMD, but still maintains a lousy human rights record. If the US re-establishes ties with Libya, wouldn’t that just be rewarding a tyrant?

80

I wouldn’t mind if the US got closer to Libya because it makes it easier to keep tabs on Ghadaffi. I have always had a bad feeling about him. I can’t site anything specific, but he strikes me as someone who would strike an aliance in the darkness of night. He has an ax to grind and I see him making the news in a bad way.