Over the past three decades, Libya's human rights record has been appalling. It has included the abduction, forced disappearance or assassination of political opponents; torture and mistreatment of detainees; and long-term detention without charge or trial or after grossly unfair trials. Today hundreds of people remain arbitrarily detained, some for over a decade, and there are serious concerns about treatment in detention and the fairness of procedures in several on-going high profile trials before the Peoples’ Courts. Libya has been a closed country for United Nations and non-governmental human rights investigators.
Sound familiar? By the way, today, Dec. 21, 2003 is the 15th anniversary of the Lockerbie attack that killed 270 people. Family members 
Libyan leader Col. Muammar Qadhafi's declared contempt for the United States softened in recent years as he struggled to overcome economic woes and Islamic extremists within his own country. AP FILE PHOTO, 2001of the victims are not pleased with this deal. President Bush, in his remarks on Friday, made no mention of the bombing. So America gets to overlook a history of terrorism and human rights abuses and Qadhafi likely gets full diplomatic recognition and and end to the economic and diplomatic isolation that many Libyans resented. The unintended consequence will be that Col. Qadhafi just got a new lease on his political life, since this will allow him to crack down on dissent, much of which has been of the Islamist variety.
This leads me to another point:
Pointing to the Iraq war as the driving force in getting Libya to cooperate is just an attempt to claim a success from the debacle that Iraq has become.
British Defense Secretary Geoff Hoon said, "We showed after Saddam Hussein failed to cooperate with the UN that we meant business and Libya, and I hope other countries, will draw that lesson."
Hm. Have we? And will they? A good chunk of the U.S. military is tied down in Iraq, Afghanistan or otherwise engaged. It's highly unlikely the U.S. could mount another military campaign to topple a government even if it had good reason to do so. The threat of a Iraq-sized invasion is an empty one and Iran, Sudan, North Korea and, yes, Libya know it.
Instead of fearing the Bush Doctrine of preemptive attacks, "bad guy" countries can see that possessing WMDs is a good way to wring concessions from a superpower they might not have received otherwise. Because the U.S. doesn't have any other choice. It's these rogue nations with WMDs that are arguing from a position of strength, not the U.S.
President Bush said on Friday,
We obtained an additional United Nations Security Council Resolution requiring Saddam Hussein to prove that he had disarmed, and when that resolution was defied, we led a coalition to enforce it. All of these actions by the United States and our allies have sent an unmistakable message to regimes that seek or possess weapons of mass destruction. Those weapons do not bring influence or prestige. They bring isolation and otherwise unwelcome consequences. (Emphasis added.)
Some problems with that. No Iraqi weapons of mass destruction have been found. Iraq said it didn't have them, and damned if Saddam's regime wasn't telling the truth this time. The whole world thinks the WMD charge is a MacGuffin. By the way, the resolution Bush mentioned, UNSCR 1441, said:
The Security Council, ... Decides that, in order to begin to comply with its disarmament obligations, in addition to submitting the required biannual declarations, the Government of Iraq shall provide to UNMOVIC, the IAEA, and the Council, not later than 30 days from the date of this resolution, a currently accurate, full, and complete declaration of all aspects of its programmes to develop chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles, and other delivery systems such as unmanned aerial vehicles and dispersal systems designed for use on aircraft, including any holdings and precise locations of such weapons, components, sub-components, stocks of agents, and related material and equipment, the locations and work of its research, development and production facilities, as well as all other chemical, biological, and nuclear programmes, including any which it claims are for purposes not related to weapon production or material; ...
all of which it appears now Iraq actually did. The government of Iraq said they didn't have any unconventional weapons and -- whaddya know?! -- they didn't. I was as surprised as anyone. I called the 7,000-page Iraqi declaration that the country was "devoid of weapons of mass destruction" a suicide note, and wondered what the Iraqis were up to. (Note to consistency watchers: Before the war, I believed Saddam possessed some kind of unconventional arsenal, just not one worth going to war over. Some chems, certainly, maybe some biologicals, no nukes -- that was my guess. I was wrong.) Placing the Libyan deal in the context of the Iraq war is what is so infuriating. Actually, it's this administration's shifting rationales, attempts to claim successes and cynical of-the-momentism that are really infuriating. I mean, the rationale for invading Iraq right this very minute was to disarm the country of WMDs and remove an imminent threat to the survival of the United States. When that threat (and the arsenal) were proven to be a lie -- or a gross incompetence in reading intelligence data -- the war became one of liberation. And now the United States makes a deal with an oppressive dictator who killed a lot of innocent civilians -- and a fair number of Americans -- in a string of terrorist attacks. And claims a failed policy and a quagmire were the reasons for this bit of good news. Don't get me wrong: It's a good thing that Libya has agreed to give up its unconventional weapons programs; any successes in ridding the world of nasty weapons are welcome. But let's not kid ourselves here. This is a deal with a devil, and the U.S. is making it because it has no other choice; forcible regime change is out of the question because the U.S. doesn't have the resources. This is a big win for Qadhafi, a smaller win for American and Britain, and a wash for the people of Libya who now have a leader with a softened image, but still a fist of iron. *UPDATE 12/22* Juan Cole has some "excellent thoughts":http://www.juancole.com/2003_12_01_juancole_archive.html#107199393231717277 on this issue. George over at Warblogging.com also "weighs in":http://www.warblogging.com/archives/000780.php, and includes a handy "dictator comparison chart." And Josh Marshall, again, "finds a real nugget":http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2003_12_21.html#002338 in the Pakistan connection to Libya's WMD programs.
As I recall, Qadhafi was literally bombed into previous hole hiding by we americans in the not too distant past. The bombing didn’t kill Muammar (obviously), but it killed some of his close relatives.
Purpose of the bombings were well disclosed and were to kill the guy.
Somehow your article doesn’t take this angle into consideration. I think there is more to the story about Muammar’s recent submissions than has been disclosed. I, for one, would like to now more about what the deal was and is in more detail.
Libya’s decision to give up its WMD programmes will be hailed as a victory for the new, strong US line: cowed by the example of Iraq, rogue state Libya caved in and abandoned its weapons research.
Of course if it turns out that Libya didn’t have any WMD programmes in the first place, or knew that it had no chance of bringing them to fruition, this might start to look more like Qadhafi’s little joke at the expense of the Americans. Expect other nations to follow suit, with rogue states such as Andorra and San Martino promising to stop pursuing WMDs in exchange for diplomatic and trade concessions.
It is clear that Qadhafi realized that he can’t win anymore.
With Moab, DU, clusterbombs, and many other perverted devices, why not hand your country over.
Also, the fundamentalist Muslims are a threat to his regime as well. So he used the US to get rid of the Al Qaida members.
And, the US having murdered a close realitve of his, he figures that his genes are best preserved to give up.
I’m wondering why the U.S. admin is so happy to make a deal like this, preening and strutting, instead of jumping back in disdain (a la Hussein) and shouting, “Oh no, you don’t - we can’t believe you. You are lying and are hiding huge stores of stuff that even inspectors could never find, so we’re going to have to bomb the hell outta you anyway.” Aside from our obvious inability to bomb anyone right now, I don’t see why we should be ready to kiss ‘n hug up to Libya when we weren’t willing to do that with Iraq. Unless … you don’t think there are any ulterior motives to any of this, do you?
I’m confused at why the past failed bombings of The Crazy Dude should have any bearing on this post - why does that change anything? Anyway, good luck finding out any more than Washington wants you to know, Currencia. Remember that this is the most secretive group o’ goons ever in the history of history.
A couple of points here that seem to be glanced right over. First off Saddam did not meet the UN requirements. Even if there are no WMD’s he did not declare what he did with the ones that the world knew he had. Maybe they really were destroyed, but it wasn’t documented and no proof was supplied.
As for Libya, its the same deal Iraq got over a decade ago. That nation deserves the same deal. Hopefully, the UN wont stand around for a decade this time if Libya does drag its feet.
As for the U.S. Military threat. There are over 1.5 million soldiers in the US military. Roughly 150,000 in Iraq. Roughly 15,000 in Afghanistan. Any nation who figures they have a free ride because the U.S. armed forces are over extended needs a new calculator. Don’t underestimate American resolve. We are a people who are capable of great charity… and we are a people who are capable of great destruction.
I hate to say it, but I do think taking out the Hussein regime had a lot to do with Gadafi’s move. Sure, he dabbled in reconciliation before that, but you can’t tell me it is a coincidence that this has come to a head now after decades of his shenanigans.
And if it was all diplomacy, explain Iran to me. They made a mockery of the IAEA until Hussein was taken out. Now they are cleaning up their act.
As for WMD development being a bargaining chip, hell no. The lesson of Iraq is: Don’t even look like you might have WMD’s (unless they are nukes and you already have them and are ready to use them). We may not have three divisions to send into Libya, but we can still lay a lot of firepower on them from the air and from the Mediterranean.
I would humbly suggest that those who believe Iraq was behind 9-11 aren’t the only gullible ones in this arena. Some self-appointed independent journalist commentators can be included among that throng.