Tuesday, February 10, 2004
CNN.com - Blair plans to meet Libyan leader
Tuesday's announcement by UK Foreign Secretary Jack Straw came on the same day as Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi prepared to meet with Gaddafi in Libya.
"We've discussed that, we are hoping very much that a visit can be arranged as soon as convenient but no date has yet been fixed," Straw told a news conference after landmark talks in London with his Libyan counterpart, Abdel Rahman Mohammed Shalgham.
Shalgham also spoke with Blair in a separate meeting Tuesday in the highest-level contact between the two nations for more than 20 years.
The talks marked a turning point in relations between the two countries after Libya said in December that it would rid itself of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons, in a bid to have U.S. economic sanctions lifted. (Full story)
Straw described Tuesday's discussions as "truly historic."
Shalgham is the first Libyan foreign minister to visit Britain since 1969, the year Gadhafi took power in a bloodless coup...
...In December, Libya announced it was halting chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs. Its cooperation has helped unravel a global network of nuclear technology proliferation, culminating with the confession this week by Pakistan's top nuclear scientist that he sold secrets...
...Many believe Libya's recent moves were prompted by concern that it could be the next target of a U.S.-led attack after Iraq.
"They (UK officials) are looking at this as something of a triumph, something of a justification for invading Iraq," said CNN's European Political Editor Robin Oakley.
"This is very much a public relations exercise at this stage," he said. "This is a signal to countries like North Korea and Iran that there is another route."...
I gotta tell ya, if the Libyans are really doing this because they're afraid they're the next to be invaded, I just don't think they're paying attention - not that I'm at all upset that that may be the case. How do I see it? I think there is no way we're sending troops into any countries on any kind of scale any time soon. The Administration has done such a bad job of keeping control of the terms of the debate, allowing it to be narrowed to questions of imminence and stocks of WMD and other issues of nit-picky press negativism that they have no reservoir of political currency to draw upon. The President had an opportunity to try to take control of the debate again with the Russert interview, but he blew it utterly, and now they're back on the flats of their feet in reaction mode, and that's not where you need to be to accomplish complex foreign policy objectives.
Am I being too negative? Maybe. But a necessary ingredient of our Terror War is a credible threat of the use of force against our enemies, and the stresses of "intelligence failures" and election year politics has been wreaking havoc on our ability to be serious with respect to these issues.
So far, I think the momentum given us by the Iraq invasion and events there and elsewhere have kept our efforts to put pressure on our enemies moving forward, but I do worry over how long it will last.
Nor should we be sending troops anywhere soon unless the situation is imminent. George has done a good job of convincing the world that he'll back up tough talk with action. The fact that he has to sit back here and defend himself and his every action is simply a sign of American politics, and not George's resolve. Don't worry too much that he is a bumbling speaker. Deep down he's a real man, and he'll fight for what's right.
Yeah, that may be too simplistic for these parts, but George is a pretty simple guy. He's not backed into any corner, the fact is that military action has to be the last resort. That's all.
You could be right. I hope you're right. Note in my entry I'm not shouting for sending troops anywhere right now. I just worry that the handcuffs are on. Maybe this is just a sign of politics temporarily bumming me out.
It's still early, but signs are at least decent that Iraq & fallout are going in a positive direction, yet the proper credit won't be given for it, and that makes it tough to pursue a siimilar path in the future, and we know what that means. Back to isolationism and appeasement - where we were on 9/10.
The truth is that the US could win 10 wars at the size of Iraq at any time it wishes. The only problem is that somewhere between 8 and 9 of them would have to be nuclear wars. Libya is not peopled with fools. They know this and always have known it. The only question was whether there was a will on the part of the West, especially the US, to think in those terms and act in those terms.
And now there is such a leader and we're going to be reaping the benefits of tyrants quaking in their boots for some time now.
On the first point, I'm not persuaded that Khadafy's primary motivation is fear of military action. I'm skeptical about Berlusconi's reported conversation ("I saw what happened in Iraq, and I was afraid"), because it doesn't sound like the good colonel--though it might be a reasonably close paraphrase. After the surprise unveiling of his nuclear ambitions (following the October interception of his centrifuge shipment), the diminishing returns of open NNPT defiance and resulting international pariah status likely made the prospect of continued efforts unattractive.
On the second, political will aside, an invasion is probably not currently militarily practicable (unlike say, Syria or Iran). But whether an invasion is feasible or not, a repeat of ElDorado Canyon (with smarter weapons) is certainly possible, and I suspect he and his family would rather not go through that again.
(And, speaking of families, congrats on the new addition TML.)
Khadafy was negotiating for weapons inspections and giving up nuclear capability back in 1999.
George W should get zero credit for this, but of course, they will be as willing to lie about this as they do about everything else.
Khadafy was negotiating for weapons inspections and giving up nuclear capability back in 1999.
George W should get zero credit for this, but of course, they will be as willing to lie about this as they do about everything else.