Sponsored Links

[DreamPipEr]

Libya Agrees to Dismantle WMD Program

Blair said Britain and the United States had been talking with Libya for nine months, after negotiating a settlement in the 1988 bombing of a Pan Am jet over Lockerbie, Scotland that killed 270 people. Libya made the overture, hoping to resolve its weapons program "in a similarly cooperative manner," Blair said in Durham, Britain.

The U.N. Security Council ended sanctions against Libya on Sept. 12 after Gadhafi's government took responsibility for the Pan Am bombing and agreed to pay $2.7 billion to the victims' families.
But the United States has kept its own 17-year embargo in place. Washington has said Libya was actively developing biological and chemical weapons, upgrading its nuclear capabilities and seeking ballistic missiles to deliver weapons of mass destruction, working with the help of countries that sponsor terrorism.

Tony Blair and Bush

The decision entitled Libya to rejoin the international community, Mr Blair said.

If Libya follows through, Bush said, "its good faith can be returned." He said the United States and Britain would make sure Libya kept its word, given its "troubled history," but he added, "As we have found with other nations, old hostilities do not need to go on forever."

Questions for Debate:

1. Do you think the war on Iraq had a significant influence on Libya’s decision? Given the time line (around March 2003) that they started talks about dismantling?
2. Should the US end its own sanctions against Libya? Is dismantling WMD’s enough of a reason to end sanctions or do they also need to prove that they are no longer sponsoring or helping terrorists?
3. Should the fact that Gadhafi is a dictator factor into our reasons?

This post has been edited by dreampiper: Dec 20 2003, 12:42 AM

[Venom]

1. Yes I believe our action in Iraq persuaded Gadhafi to come to the negotiating table. I think he saw how serious we were about WMD's and given his less than saintly past he probably decided it better to destroy them peacefully rather than the weapons and himself being removed forcefully.

2. No the US should not remove "all" of its sanctions until they start helping to fight terrorism. I think we should start moving in that direction as we see process being made.

3. Definitly. Just like Saddam Gadhafi cannot be trusted. Its going to be interesting to see this unfold.

[GoAmerica]

1. Do you think the war on Iraq had a significant influence on Libya’s decision?  Given the time line (around March 2003) that they started talks about dismantling?

Yes. Seeing as we were undoubtfully going to win and then we got around to deciding who we were going to target next, they figured they better do something about their weapons before we picked Libya out of a hat.

2. Should the US end its own sanctions against Libya?  Is dismantling WMD’s enough of a reason to end sanctions or do they also need to prove that they are no sponsoring or helping terrorists?

Not yet. Not until all weapons are destroyed and we are satisfied that they are.

3. Should the fact that Gadhafi is a dictator factor into our reasons?

Yes. We could keep the sanctions up until Gadhafi gives up power.


On a side note, i think we should watch Libya closely. I wouldn't trust them on anything and make sure they keep in check

[Ultimatejoe]

Wow, there's a whole lot of misconceptions flying around this thread. Lets stop to consider. Libya has been easing off of it's hostile anti-West position for YEARS. There's a really good article with this stuff in the November/December edition of Foreign Policy but I left it back at school so I'll have to post it in a week or two.

1. Do you think the war on Iraq had a significant influence on Libya’s decision? Given the time line (around March 2003) that they started talks about dismantling?

Not a chance. Libya has been moving away from it's role as a "rogue nation" for several years now. Ghadafi has become more mobile as a leader for efforts to unite Africa and advance their concerns, and legitimacy in the west is important for those goals.

2. Should the US end its own sanctions against Libya? Is dismantling WMD’s enough of a reason to end sanctions or do they also need to prove that they are no longer sponsoring or helping terrorists?

That all depends. Sanctions are seemingly used at a whim. They're used against Cuba because Castro had the audacity to foil an assassination attempt against himself, and they are not used against Saudi Arabia, a country with known ties to terrorism. Practically, sanctions benefit nobody.

3. Should the fact that Gadhafi is a dictator factor into our reasons?

It never has in the past, why start now?

[Beladonna]

1. Do you think the war on Iraq had a significant influence on Libya’s decision? Given the time line (around March 2003) that they started talks about dismantling?

I believe it was THE key motivator. Libya has needed the sanctions lifted for a long time. According to an article I read this morning, Gadhafi's tone had "softened toward the US in recent years" but that means nothing. He could have gone through the UN and asked for the sanctions to be lifted. Instead, he contacted Blair at the beginning of the Iraqi invasion and basically said, 'let's make a deal'.

2. Should the US end its own sanctions against Libya? Is dismantling WMD’s enough of a reason to end sanctions or do they also need to prove that they are no longer sponsoring or helping terrorists?

Of course we should. As Libya dismantles and cooperates, we should lift sanctions. Sanctions should be used a leverage. Libya gives, we give.

3. Should the fact that Gadhafi is a dictator factor into our reasons?

My understanding is that Gadhafi's rule of the land might be weakening.

Excerpts from an article:

The announcement of course reflects Colonel Qaddafi's conceit that the people actually run Libya, and Brother Leader, as he is known officially, merely acts as a kind of guide and cheerleader.

But Arab analysts and Libyan exiles said Saturday that the real inspiration behind the measure was to ensure that Colonel Qaddafi's absolute grip was not weakened. Having seen the handwriting on the wall with the fate of Saddam Hussein, and having failed after an effort of almost a decade to return himself to the West's good graces, the long ostracized, infamously eccentric Libyan leader unveiled one of his splashy measures to try to ensure that he does not suffer a similar fate.

"The Americans seem to want to make an example of Mr. Qaddafi as a rogue leader who has repented," said Ashur Shamis, a Libyan exile in England. "He is playing along because what he is concerned about is to remain in power."

Colonel Qaddafi, 61, probably will also introduce some cosmetic domestic political reforms because the United States has been talking about that too, Mr. Shamis and other analysts said.

Libya's 'Brother Leader' Pulls Another Rabbit From His Hat

Libya's announcement flies in the face of those politicians and pundits who want us to believe that removing Saddam made us no safer. The affect of removing Saddam is doing exactly what Bush said, it's changing the face of the Middle East.

[Passion51]

Libya was mentioned months ago as one of the first countries that was responding to the battle in Iraq. There is no co-incidence, the relationship is quite clear. The world has taken notice of the fact that we are no longer going to sit idlt by and wait for the next attack. Nor are we going to pray for enough intel to prevent terror states from building or buying WMDs. We are going to take action.

The fall-out from Iraq has been far from the one-sided view we get in the mainstream press. My guess is that if you look at the world 10 years from now you'll find one that is far more peaceful in gen'l, and much less threatening to freedom-loving nations.

Saudi Arabia is moving. Syria has been nudged. Iran too. Libya for sure. North Korea is proving to be difficult because they already have nukes. That should show you why it's so important to take action before that happens.

As for sanctions, I'd remove most. But I'd keep some type of pressure on until we're completely satisfied that Libya is no longer sponsoring or supporting terrorists.

As for Ghadaffi being a dictator, that's something best left to behind-the-scenes work. Our mission is not to simply topple govts or occupy countries. We are working towards giving freedom and liberty a reasonable chance to see the light of day in places that have none. We dont need to 'install' govts, we need to help the people be allowed to 'choose'.

[GoAmerica]

Libya's announcement flies in the face of those politicians and pundits who want us to believe that removing Saddam made us no safer. The affect of removing Saddam is doing exactly what Bush said, it's changing the face of the Middle East.

Yep. Now if Iran, North Korea and Syria would follow suit.

This is reminding me of the "domino effect" that seems to be working. Once the war started in Iraq, Israel and Palestine started talking peace and now that Saddam is captured, Libya will start disarming.

[Julian]

1. I am sure that the Iraq invasion didn't hurt and convinced Ghaddafi (*sigh* if only there were a convention on how to spell Arabic names in the Roman alphabet) that he was embarking on the right course, but his attempts to rejoin the world community generally and the war on terror specifically have been going on for longer than the campaign against Saddam.
Here are two links from today's Observer newspaper that indicate he has been trying to "come in form the cold" and join the US/UK side in the WoT since at least the aftermath of 9-11.
Libya ceases WMD programmes and opens up to inspection
Liyba uses it's extensive intelligence network in the Middle East to help in the fight against terrorism
His olive branches over the Lockerbie bombing go back even a little further than that.
So, while the Iraq campaign can only have solidified Ghaddafi's intent and helped convince him he was taking the right road, I doubt very much if it was the reason he has acted.

2. Yes, after a reasonable amount of time - say, 3-6 months. Perhaps after the intelligence already shared by Libya leads to some high-profile arrests, so it can be clearly seen that Liyba is now on the right side of the war on terror; the Libyans seem to have stopped actively sponsoring international terror some time before 9-11. Nor do they have the kind of tangential links that condemned Iraq- Libya doesn't use state funds to compensate the families of suicide bombers, at least as far was we know.

3. No. As has been said before, the USA and other countries have productive international relationships with dictators all the time, before and since 9-11 (so we can't pretend that everything changed then). One notable example would be the House of Saud, who have more current links to anti-Western terrorism than any other country (including Saddam's Iraq), yet are seen as allies, if not quite as trustworthy as they were.
Plus, it would be somewhat hypocritical of the USA and her allies to deny much-needed trade and aid to Libya after they have done exactly the things that the Allies said they wanted Saddam to do before the war started.
To remind you, Blair said Saddam could stay if he handed over all the WMDs; and Bush said Saddam would be permitted to go into exile with his family just days before the shooting started, not to mention his now-famous "you're either with us or against us" speech.
If Ghaddafi continues on this course, which clearly puts him in the "with us" camp regardless of his past history, Bush should stick to his end of the deal and treat Libya more kindly.
This is even more urgent, since the very fact that Ghaddafi is an unelected dictator means that the Libyan people as a whole are largely innocent of any of the wrongdoings of their government. In the current international climate, and in an election year, I suggest that GWB doesn't need more photos of starving babies in countries subject to US sanctions waved by his political opponents, especially as there is no "oil-for-food" programme analogous to the one Saddam hijacked for his own PR (at the expense of many innocent lives).

Surely America now needs as many Arab friends as it can get, if it ever hopes to win a war on terror that (so far) has been exclusively limited to Arab terrorists?

I suggest that if this administration does not visibly warm to a regime that takes steps like the Libyans have done, the whole Arab world will become more convinced that Arabs cannot win whatever they do, and that America's beef is not with terrorists, but with Arabs. And that would not only be bad politics, but would put America in the wrong and lose any moral authority it had on this issue in the eyes of most of the rest of the world, whether they be current allies or not.

Standing alone like this (well, probably with Israel) might appeal to some American ideas of exceptionalism, but it would cause more problems than it solves.

This post has been edited by Julian: Dec 21 2003, 05:30 PM

[DreamPipEr]

I agree that Libya has been trying to get away from the “rogue nation” label for some time now. Probably the Iraq conflict helped moved it forward but I am not so sure it was the driving force.
George Joffe Centre of International Studies, Cambridge University makes an interesting statement at the end of his piece for the BBC.

So the American acceptance of its offer probably says more about President Bush's success in countering his many domestic critics than about overcoming Libyan resistance to inspections of its WMD programmes.

And based upon our American responses here vs our European and Canadian response, I have to agree with George Joffee.

17 August 2003, Powell Says U.S. Will Continue Bilateral Sanctions on Libya

The lifting of sanctions at the United Nations will not affect U.S. bilateral sanctions on Libya, which will remain in place. We remain deeply concerned about other aspects of Libya's behavior, including its poor human rights record and lack of democratic institutions; its destructive role in perpetuating regional conflicts in Africa; and, most troubling, its pursuit of weapons of mass destruction and their related delivery system. Libya also remains on the state sponsors of terrorism list, which carries its own sanctions. Libya must address the concerns underlying these bilateral measures. Libya must continue to take definitive action to assist in the fight against international terrorism.

I think the sanctions should end once we are satisfied that Libya has complied with the US demands. But I also believe that we need to show some sort of give and take here. Powell states that the “most troubling” issue is its pursuit of WMD’s. Once Libya has finished with inspections and dismantling of these weapons I think the US should make some sort of “good faith” concessions. He also states that another one of the reasons is the “lack of democratic institutions”. As stated by others here, we have dealt with other non-democratic governments before and I hardly see how this should be a reason for sanctions. If that were the case then we should have sanctions against all nations that don’t have democratic institutions.

[GoAmerica]

Here is something new. This might be the real reason:

Article

Libya's promise to surrender its weapons of mass destruction was forced by Britain and America's seizure of physical evidence of Col Muammar Gaddafi's illegal weapons programme, the Telegraph can reveal.

This is a good reason to do it!

[Venom]

Here is something new. This might be the real reason:

Article


QUOTE 
Libya's promise to surrender its weapons of mass destruction was forced by Britain and America's seizure of physical evidence of Col Muammar Gaddafi's illegal weapons programme, the Telegraph can reveal.



This is a good reason to do it! 

After the last Telegraph article on a Atta-Iraq connection I will hold off on any faith in this accusation. Seems the Telegraph has been careless with its reporting as of late.

[Passion51]

Here is something new. This might be the real reason:

Article


QUOTE 
Libya's promise to surrender its weapons of mass destruction was forced by Britain and America's seizure of physical evidence of Col Muammar Gaddafi's illegal weapons programme, the Telegraph can reveal.



This is a good reason to do it! 

After the last Telegraph article on a Atta-Iraq connection I will hold off on any faith in this accusation. Seems the Telegraph has been careless with its reporting as of late.

Could you provide some documentation for this claim?

[Venom]

Could you provide some documentation for this claim?

Sure can.

Link #1 is the false story from the telegraph.

Link #2 is the MSNBC link that disproves it.

Does this link Saddam to 9/11?


Dubious Link Between Atta and Saddam

[nebraska29]

Questions for Debate:

1. Do you think the war on Iraq had a significant influence on Libya’s decision?  Given the time line (around March 2003) that they started talks about dismantling?

I would've given the war more credit for Muammar's gestures for peace if it wasn't for other actions by Libya's nefarious ruler. While I lack specifics, I somewhat recall reading that Libya had provided us with intelligence about Al-Qaeda and later, Saddam Hussein. Why would he do this? Like other autocratic dictators, he probably fears that he would be overthrown by some religious zealot of a cleric. Perhaps that is why he settled as he did in regards to the Lockerbie jet bombing. He's trying to make up for all of his deeds so as to prevent himself from becoming isolated, and becoming a target of religiously inclined clerics. So no, I don't believe the war has had a significant impact upon Muammar.

Timeline? Whatever the U.N. and only the U.N. decides.

[Beladonna]

"Libya came to us in March following successful negotiations on Lockerbie to see if it could resolve its weapons of mass destruction issue in a similarly co-operative manner."

…And today's decisions show that recent events and political determination are opening up possibilities which just a few years ago would have been unthinkable.

Tony Blair believes this to be directly related to the Iraq war.

I heard this morning on the news that the President of Spain said that Colonel Gaddafi told him he basically wanted to come clean before the Coalition came after him. I cannot find a link to back that up.

[Ultimatejoe]

So did he say this several years ago when he started relaxing his position, or more recently?

[Beladonna]

Well, "the Coalition" hasn't been in existence for "several years". So, if we are to believe what I heard, and again, I can't verify it and I've tried, this statement would have been made recently.

I do agree, after doing more research on this issue that Gaddafi has been reaching out since 2001. However, I still believe that his decision to disarm was due to the WoT and specifically the War in Iraq.

I have found these excerpts for consideration:

Paul Beaver, a defence analyst, said: "Colonel Gaddafi at the beginning of the year had started to make movements towards the West.

"His country desperately needs the support of the West. He then saw the UK and the US were solid in their resolve to remove weapons of mass destruction in Iraq."

<snip>

Pressure on Libya to co- operate with Britain and the United States, which began during talks over the 1988 Lockerbie bombing, was increased by the war in Iraq earlier this year.

<snip>

Col Gaddafi had confirmed he had been secretly seeking to develop weapons of mass destruction, including long-range ballistic missiles, but had approached the UK in March to see how the issue could be resolved.

<snip>

Gaddafi to surrender secret WMD

[amf]

"His country desperately needs the support of the West. He then saw the UK and the US were solid in their resolve to remove weapons of mass destruction in Iraq." [/i]

I get why we tied our resolving the diplomatic situation to their pursuit of WMD, but WHY does his country desperately need the support of the West? Sounds like he needs the money that we've frozen.

I see this as something that's been building in Libya for some time, not anything actually related to Iraq. You don't get in desperate straits overnight.

[Mrs. Pigpen]

I think Libya has been extending the olive branch (to borrow from Julian's phraseology) in an attempt to lift the sanctions imposed on them for quite a while now...and they stand to gain a lot when that happens, because of their tremendous oil reserves. Our war on terror has provided an opportunity for Qaddafi (that's how I spell it ) to use leverage in that direction, by disarming. He probably notes the Uzbekistan and Pakistan examples.

I don't think that the reaction from Libya was one of fear after our attack on Iraq. Libya wasn't next, or even tenth on our list of enemies for potential violent confrontation. We haven't exchanged nastygrams in years, though they were certainly very nasty at the time.

Yes, we should lift the sanctions in return.

Edited to add: Now that I think about it, Qaddafi IS extremely eccentric. If he spent a lot of time surfing the net for conspiracies against the Bush administration, he might have concluded that the war in Iraq was actually about oil, and WMD was simply the excuse to go in. This would make him next in line for takeover, so perhaps it was the war in Iraq afterall.

This post has been edited by Mrs. Pigpen: Dec 28 2003, 08:35 PM