Libya Monitor

Libya Monitor Archives

2009-03-09T02:31:00.011-04:00

Visit the Libya Monitor Archives at:

http://www.ymlp.com/pubarchive.php?LibyaNews

McCormack defensive response on the Condi-Gaddafi meeting

2008-11-21T03:14:00.001-05:00

State Dept: Bush’s Record On ‘Pushing For Human Rights’ Is As Good As Any Other President Or Country»
Today, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice met with Libyan leader Moamer Gadhafi’s son, Seif al-Islam. In a press briefing yesterday leading up to the meeting, reporters pressed State Dept. spokesperson Sean McCormack on whether Rice would urge Libya to release Libyan activist Fathi al-Jahmi, a political prisoner who is gravely ill.

McCormack offered a defensive response: “I have to make it very clear we are concerned not only about Mr. al-Jahmi’s case, but other human rights cases around the world.” McCormack also claimed that President Bush’s human rights record could perhaps be the best in American history:

McCORMACK: And — and one thing I do take exception to is the idea that somehow we are not attentive to pushing the issue of human rights, whether it’s in Libya or any place else around the world. I don’t think — I would put the record of this administration up against any American administration or any other government around the world in terms of promoting universal human rights and pushing for human rights.

Watch the Video

Under the Bush administration, the world has witnessed torture, rendition, and the revocation of habeas corpus rights. Amnesty International’s 2008 report rips the United States’s human rights record, citing the following Bush policies:

– Indefinite military detention
– Torture of detainees
– Imprisoning soldiers refusing to serve in Iraq on grounds of conscience.
– Government response to Hurricane Katrina

In 2005, the Center on Democratic Performance at Binghamton University gave Bush a “D” on human rights. The “D” grade was down from a “C” in 2004, due to “reports on the use of political detention without trial, torture of political detainees, and the use of secret detention of political prisoners.” Bush’s record is nothing to be proud of.

TO READ AND ADD COMMENTS SEE: http://thinkprogress.org/2008/11/20/state-human-rights-bush/

Radio interview with a Libyan American : A Libya Without the Al-Qadhafis

2008-11-21T01:44:00.004-05:00

Here is a link to a radio interview with Mrs. Asma Yousef, A Libyan American dissident, about US-Libya relationship and Seif Gaddafi's visit to the USA.

you can listen to the interview at: http://media.themedialine.org/media/081120_Libya.mp3

And now Mosa Kosa , the man responsible for Lockerbie, is coming to visit the US

2008-11-21T01:43:00.001-05:00

Libyan security officials to visit Washington

The Associated Press

TRIPOLI, Libya: Libyan officials say the country's intelligence chief and interior minister will visit Washington this weekend for talks with U.S. officials.

The visit by intelligence chief, Moussa Kossa, and Interior Minister Abdel-Fatah Younes comes a few days after U.S. President George W. Bush telephoned Libya's Moammar Gadhafi to express his satisfaction over a $1.5 billion payment that Tripoli made to settle a long-standing dispute over terror attacks, including the 1988 bombing of a Pan Am jetliner over Scotland.

The officials spoke on condition of anonymity Thursday because they were not authorized to talk to the media.

Forgotten In Libya's Dungeons

2008-11-21T01:42:00.001-05:00

Washington Post

By Mohamed Eljahmi

Thursday, November 20, 2008; Page A23

Today, Saif Al-Islam Gaddafi, the son of Libyan Col. Moammar Gaddafi and the regime's point man in dealing with the United States, is scheduled to meet with Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice at the State Department. The visit by Saif, who also heads the Gaddafi Foundation, will be the first trip to Washington by a member of Moammar Gaddafi's immediate family. Sadly, it comes as Libyan democratic dissidents suffer in the dungeons of his father, their plight ignored by the State Department.

After nearly five years of engagement with the United States, Gaddafi rules supreme in Libya and enjoys renewed legitimacy at home and abroad. The United States, which in 2006 removed Libya from its list of state sponsors of terrorism, has failed to push consistently for meaningful reform. Libya has no domestic opposition worthy of the name. There are no domestic constraints to keep Gaddafi from reverting to his old ways. Dissidents continue to disappear, and the death squads organized by Gaddafi's Revolutionary Committees remain a terrorizing force within Libyan society.

The European-educated Saif is unrepentant about the regime's reliance on terrorist tactics. Two years ago, Saif admitted, "We used terrorism as tactics, for bargaining." In a CNN interview on Sept. 11, he said, "We tried to terrorize our enemies, yes . . . Now, the Americans are our friends."

One of Gaddafi's victims who continues to suffer is my older brother, Fathi Eljahmi. Fathi, 67, is a prisoner of conscience and probably Libya's most prominent democracy activist. He has diabetes, hypertension and a heart ailment. He was first detained in October 2002 because he publicly called for national reconciliation, a free press, free enterprise and government accountability. He was released on March 12, 2004, after Sen. Joseph Biden interceded on his behalf. But just two weeks later, on March 26, Fathi was abducted by Libya's Internal Security Agency because he continued to call for reform. He is being held in isolation, under inhumane conditions, in a hospital in Tripoli. Two guards block entry to his small room 24 hours a day. Visits are rare and subject to approval by the regime. Fathi's family also suffers. Two of his three sons cannot leave the country, and all our relatives endure constant surveillance.

During a rare family visit in September, Fathi asked why officials from the U.S. Embassy had stopped visiting him, even though I have repeatedly told the State Department's Near East Bureau that embassy officials' visits help ensure humane detention. We had no answer for him.

The Libyan regime's continued intolerance of dissent was illustrated in July when an envoy of Saif's intimated that Fathi would be killed after President Bush left office. This person demanded that the Eljahmi tribe "disavow and disown Fathi Eljahmi or risk collective punishment." In 1997, Libya enacted an "Honor Law" that gives the state the right to punish a family, tribe, town, city or even a province for individual wrongdoing. In January, Saleh Abdel Salam, the head of human rights at the Gaddafi Foundation, threatened our family. "If Fathi is released and speaks, we will cut off his head and ship it in a box to the Americans," he told us, "and if he leaves the country, you will stay here and be punished if he speaks." We believe it is only because of Sen. Biden's continued interest and intervention that Fathi remains alive.

In early September, Secretary Rice paid a historic visit to Tripoli. Just days before she arrived, the regime ordered Revolutionary Committees to march with machine guns in front of Fathi's house in Benghazi. The chanting mob blocked the street for nearly an hour. No one in Libya can carry machine guns openly without explicit approval from Gaddafi. The message was chilling to the defenseless women inside the house.

In July, Sen. Biden aptly stated: "Gaddafi continues to rule by personal fiat. He may have had a change of mind about Libya's policies, but I doubt that it has been matched by a change of heart . . . It is critical that the Bush administration pursue a broader engagement with the Libyan people and civil society." Yet under the Bush administration, the State Department continues to engage Arab dictators at the expense of dissidents who support transitions to peaceful, modern societies. Our family hopes that our beloved brother and father survives -- and that President-elect Barack Obama brings much-needed change to U.S. policy toward Libya.

The writer, a Libyan American activist, lives in Massachusetts.

Gordon Brown reconsiders seeking compensation from Libya for victims of IRA

2008-11-21T01:41:00.001-05:00

PM urged to assist IRA victims

19 November 2008

PRIME Minister Gordon Brown has been urged to follow America's lead and seek compensation from Libya for victims of IRA attacks.

The call was made by Labour MP Andrew McKinlay during Prime Minister's Questions in Parliament on Wednesday.

Earlier this year, Ulster victims' hopes of compensation over terrorist tragedies appeared dashed when Mr Brown indicated in a letter to lawyers representing IRA victims he would be unwilling to seek compensation, despite the US government acting on behalf of American citizens.

In response to Mr McKinlay, the Prime Minister indicated he would "review" the matter.

Semtex originating from Libya is thought to have been used in terrorist attacks in the 1980s and 90s, including the Enniskillen Remembrance bomb.

Mr McKinlay asked Mr Brown: "Will you agree to meet a delegation of MPs including myself who lost constituents due to the use by the IRA of Semtex and other weapons which had its provenance in Libya.

"We are disappointed that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office has not yet taken the initiative of following America's example of negotiating with Colonel Gaddafi adequate compensation, and I believe that members on all sides of the House really would want to press you, along with victims' families, to address this wrong."

Mr Brown replied: "This is a very important point. I would be very happy to meet you to talk about it and then we will review what we do."

Daily Press Briefing of November 18, 2008

2008-11-21T01:39:00.000-05:00

A really pathetic State department press briefing demonstrating how this administration is completely cross-eyed when it comes to knowing the difference between credible engagement versus appeasement.

Read on and thank God these Bush bums are being thrown out in few weeks otherwise Osama Bin Laden will be their next guest.

As these bums get evicted from their offices, watch and see how this US-Gaddafi relationship will start to crumble like a house of cards.

=========================================================

Middle East Digest -- November 18, 2008
Bureau of Public Affairs
November 18, 2008

The Middle East Digest provides text and audio from the Daily Press
Briefing. For the full briefings, please visit daily press briefings.

From the Daily Press Briefing of November 18, 2008

View Video

QUESTION: Has the Secretary met the – Qadhafi’s son yet, Seif

MR. MCCORMACK: No, she has not. David Welch has met with him. He is here on
a private visit. And people have inquired as to, well, what are they going to
talk about. Well, he’s a person that has an interest in Libya’s future and
where Libya is headed. He’s going to have a variety of meetings here. You can
check with the Libyan Embassy. I believe that ranges from – all the way from
meeting with members of Congress to NGOs to Executive Branch officials.

QUESTION: But you have no plans for the Secretary to meet –

MR. MCCORMACK: No, I expect she probably will.

QUESTION: Today?

MR. MCCORMACK: She will. I’ll – again, I’ll check. You know, I didn’t look
at her schedule that closely, but you know, she will – it’s this week. It’s
this week. It’s either today or tomorrow. We’ll let you know exactly when it’
s –

QUESTION: When it’s happened?

MR. MCCORMACK: Sure.

QUESTION: And also, if you could ask specifically the question of whether
she raises human rights concerns with him.

MR. MCCORMACK: Well, it’s a private meeting. I’ll see what she wants to say
about the meeting afterwards. She has raised human rights issues when she
visited Tripoli. We as a government have and continue – and will continue to
raise human rights issues.

Look, the relationship with Libya has come a long way. But it has a long,
long way to go, specifically in terms of freedoms, universally recognized
freedoms in Libya. We’re going to continue to work on those issues. And I know it’
s come up. Various individuals said, well, you know, you’ve given up a lot by
having the Secretary visit Libya, you’ve given up a lot in terms of
establishing normal diplomatic relations with Libya. Well, Libya has done much of
what we have asked it to do to change the relationship. And in making these
kinds of decisions, you have to say, can you effect change more by having a more
normal relationship and thereby, you know, having a more reasonable
expectation of success in terms of human rights, in terms of
having those universal freedoms in Libya or not. The decision that was made
by the President and the Secretary in – you know, in part, that you can
effect change more by having that more normal relationship. And Libya has
demonstrated through its actions that it is willing to take tough steps in order to
change the relationship.

QUESTION: Sean, just a –

MR. MCCORMACK: Yeah.

QUESTION: You know, since she’s already met with the leader himself and it’
s not really that much of a surprise that she would see his son, but surely
you have a better reason for her meeting him than he’s a person who has
interests – who has an interest in Libya’s future.

MR. MCCORMACK: Right.

QUESTION: Presumably, all Libyans have an interest and she’s not meeting
with every (inaudible) –

MR. MCCORMACK: Sure. Look, of course, well –

QUESTION: Why? (Inaudible) more specifically, you know –

MR. MCCORMACK: He’s here – look, he’s here on a private visit. You can talk
to –

QUESTION: And can you tell us what –

MR. MCCORMACK: Hold on, hold on.

QUESTION: He doesn’t have any official position, so –

MR. MCCORMACK: No, he does not.

QUESTION: Right. So –

MR. MCCORMACK: No, he does not.

QUESTION: But surely, there’s got to be a – there’s got to be another
reason than he’s certainly a person who has an interest in Libya.

MR. MCCORMACK: Well, of course. Of course. He is the leader of Libya’s son.
Now, he does not hold an official government position. He’s head, I think, of
the Qadhafi Foundation. So one would reasonably expect, given just those two
facts, that he will have some influence over the course that Libya as a state
pursues over the – you know, over the next period of time.

QUESTION: So always an open door.

MR. MCCORMACK: There we are.

QUESTION: Speaking of Libya.

MR. MCCORMACK: Sure.

QUESTION: Did the Libyan Government pay the $1.5 billion into the fund –
compensation fund?

MR. MCCORMACK: Yeah. I think it’s all there.

QUESTION: Halloween?

QUESTION: Pardon?

MR. MCCORMACK: What’s that?

QUESTION: It happened on Halloween, or that’s when you announced it.

MR. MCCORMACK: Yeah, yeah. Yeah.

QUESTION: That’s not what you’re asking.

QUESTION: Oh, oh, excuse me. You’re right. You’re right.

QUESTION: I’m asking whether the Libyan Government paid the $1.5 billion.

MR. MCCORMACK: The money is all there.

Yeah.

QUESTION: You raised the issue – you said that, you know, there’s still a
long way to go with Libya in terms of human rights and other issues.

MR. MCCORMACK: Yeah.

QUESTION: What about the case of Fathi al-Jahmi that the Secretary raised
when she was there?

MR. MCCORMACK: We’re going to keep raising it. We’re going to keep raising
it and try to affect the situation. It’s a – it’s one that is – certainly
has her attention. She’s going to keep working on it.

QUESTION: But how far has she got in terms of – I mean, he’s still being
held in a hospital room. Apparently, the conditions in the hospital room are
quite dire, according to his brother. You know, cockroaches on his bed, he’s
not allowed out.

MR. MCCORMACK: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: It’s apparently a very difficult situation.

MR. MCCORMACK: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: Do you have an update on the conditions he’s being held in, for
example? Have you been inquiring?

MR. MCCORMACK: I don’t. I don’t, Sue. And you know, there are lots of
people around the world who are activists for all the right things, for greater
freedoms for people in their countries, who are – who suffer terrible
injustices. And the United States is a beacon for those people, and we very often give
voice to those people when they don’t have a voice. And we have a strong
record going back over administrations, Republican and Democrat, for being that
voice. And we’re going to continue being that voice for those people, and to
work not only to improve their personal conditions, but also to further the
causes that they are sacrificing for.

QUESTION: But did David Welch raise that particular case, for example, and
others?

MR. MCCORMACK: I didn’t talk to him about the contents of the meeting.

QUESTION: Could you ask that, please?

MR. MCCORMACK: Sure, sure.

QUESTION: Where do things stand on Mr. Cretz’s nomination to be ambassador
to Libya and on the funding for purchasing the land?

MR. MCCORMACK: Still pending up on the Hill. The Senate is in session for a
brief period of time this week. They have a lot of business that they’re
dealing with. And, obviously, what they deal with is their prerogative. We
certainly hope that we can move Mr. Cretz’s nomination and associated issues
forward. We’ll see.

Spokesman: U.S-Liyba relations have long-way to go

2008-11-20T01:22:00.000-05:00

WASHINGTON, Nov. 18 (Xinhua) -- The United States said on Tuesday that it's relations with former rival Libya has a long way to go although the Libyan government has made a 1.5-billion-dollarpayment to compensate victims of terrorism.

"The relationship with Libya's come a long way. But it has a long, long way to go, specifically in terms of freedoms, universally recognized freedoms in Libya. We're going to continue to work on those issues," State Department spokesman Sean McCormack told a news briefing.

On Aug. 14, the United States and Libya signed in Tripoli a compensation agreement for American victims of Libyan attacks and U.S. reprisals.

The agreement calls for the creation of a 1.8 billion U.S. dollars fund: 1.5 billion dollars for American victims and 300 million dollars to Libyan victims of U.S. airstrikes ordered in retaliation for the disco bombing.

Referring to reports that Seif al-Islam Gadhafi, son of Libyan leader Moamer Gadhafi is visiting Washington, McCormack said that U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs David Welch has met with Seif.

Seif, who doesn't have any official position except head of the Gadhafi Foundation, is here "on a private visit," McCormack noted, adding that "He's a person that has an interest in Libya's future and where Libya's headed."

The United States had no diplomatic relations with Libya from 1980 until after the latter pledged to abandon weapons of mass destruction programs, stop exporting terrorism and pay compensation to the families of victims of two of the three attacks.

Since renouncing terrorism and weapons of mass destruction in 2003, Libya is no longer on the State Department's list of "state sponsors of terrorism."

Lockerbie victims' families call payment repulsive

2008-11-20T01:20:00.000-05:00

Newsday.com

Lockerbie victims' families call payment repulsive

BY JENNIFER MALONEY AND KATHLEEN KERR

jennifer.maloney@newsday.com; kathleen.kerr@newsday.com

November 18, 2008

For Siobhan Mulroy, who lost six relatives when a terrorist bomb ripped apart a Pan Am 747 over Lockerbie, Scotland, the final restitution from Libya doesn't bring relief, or satisfaction, or closure. The feeling, she said, is closer to revulsion.

"It's kind of a repulsive situation to be in where people are offering money, I guess, to make you feel better," said Mulroy of East Northport, who lost her father, brother, sister-in-law, uncle, aunt and cousin.

Libya on Oct. 31 made a $1.5-billion final payment for the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 on Dec. 21, 1988, and the 1986 bombing of a German disco. President George W. Bush called Libya's Moammar Gadhafi to express his satisfaction with the payment, the White House said yesterday.

Relatives of victims yesterday said the settlement has been too long in coming - and that it offers little comfort. Each family, except for two that refused the money, will receive a final installment of $2 million, bringing the total per victim to $10 million.

"I'm glad that the president is satisfied with it. I'm certainly not," said Peter Lowenstein of Montauk, whose son, Alexander, was one of 35 Syracuse University students on the flight who had been in London for the semester. "I don't recall him losing a relative on Flight 103.

"His interest is to satisfy the oil industry, who are major supporters of his. ... He wants what they want, which is to get Libyan oil."

Daniel Tobin, who lost his brother Mark Tobin of Hempstead, said the money doesn't put the issue to rest.

"So many have forgotten us. ... I'm still concerned that Exxon Mobil and other oil companies, that they're able to do business with Gadhafi," said Tobin, also of Hempstead. "They're allowed to do business with terrorists."

Kara Weipz, president of Victims of Pan Am Flight 103, said Libya's payment - which allows Tripoli to restore its diplomatic relations with Washington - marks an important step.

"Our intent when we went into the civil suit was to find out the whole truth of what happened," said Weipz, whose brother, Richard Monetti, 20, was one of the Syracuse students.

That goal hasn't been established, but "we held them accountable for being a sponsor of terrorism," said Weipz, 35, of Mount Laurel, N.J.

On that December evening nearly 20 years ago, Siobhan Mulroy's father was returning from a business trip. Her brother and his new bride were coming from Sweden to celebrate their first Christmas together. Mulroy's aunt, uncle and 16-year-old cousin were traveling from England to the United States for the first time. They had all met in London for the flight.

"I'd rather have them than anything that could be ever paid to me," Mulroy said.

Making amends

Last month, Libya made a final $1.5-billion payment of the $1.8 billion it will shell out to settle disputes over terrorist attacks in 1986 and 1988.

$1.5 billion. For families of 270 victims of the 1988 bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland; and for the wounded and families of the dead in the 1986 bombing of a German disco that killed three, including two American soldiers.

$300 million. For Libyan victims of 1986 U.S. airstrikes on Tripoli and Benghazi in retaliation for the disco attacks.

Chronology

1986. U.S. imposes sanctions against Libya after terrorist bombing at a West Berlin club frequented by American military personnel.

DEC. 21, 1988. New York-bound Pan Am Flight 103 explodes over Lockerbie, Scotland, killing 259 on board and 11 on the ground.

1991. U.S. and Britain indict two Libyans on 270 counts of murder and conspiracy to murder.

1992-1993. UN Security Council imposes and tightens sanctions against Libya.

2000-2001. Two Libyans tried on murder charges; one is convicted, one acquitted.

2002. Libya offers to settle claims by victims' families, described as effort to lift U.S. and UN sanctions.

2003. UN Security Council lifts sanctions, clearing way for families to receive at least $4-million compensation for each victim.

2004. U.S. lifts some sanctions.

2008. Libya's $1.5-billion payment Oct. 31 clears last hurdle in restoration of diplomatic relations with Washington. The money will go into a $1.8 billion fund for victims of Flight 103 and the 1986 German disco bombing and a $300 million fund for Libyan victims of retaliatory U.S. airstrikes.

Libya: Eyeing a Transition of Power

2008-11-20T01:17:00.002-05:00

Stratfor

Libya: Eyeing a Transition of Power

November 17, 2008 | 2106 GMT

Summary
The European Union opened negotiations Nov. 13 with Libya on their first-ever partnership agreement, just days after Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi visited Russia. Both the Kremlin and the West are seeking to engage Tripoli at a time when the Gadhafi regime is beginning to face problems at home.

Analysis
U.S. President George W. Bush on Nov. 17 called Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi to voice satisfaction over a U.S.-Libyan deal to compensate victims of terrorism. Additionally, U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice plans to meet Gadhafi’s son, Seif al-Islam, later in the week. Meanwhile, the European Union launched talks Nov. 13 to establish closer political and economic relations with Libya, as part of a Western drive to boost relations with energy suppliers.

These Western moves come on the heels of similar initiatives by Russia to align closely with Tripoli. Libya, meanwhile, is trying to position itself between the two sides, with Gadhafi making a trip to Russia at the beginning of the month.

Five years after Libya shed its global pariah status and was welcomed back into the fold of the international community, the country is beginning to enjoy the attention and revenues that come from being an energy exporter. A resurgent Russia makes this a double treat for Tripoli, which used to be a key ally of the Soviet Union in North Africa during the Cold War, because Libya stands to increase its gains by playing Russia and the West off each other.

Years of isolation, however, have done considerable damage to the Libyan state. As Russia and the West vie to win Tripoli’s heart, internal instability threatens to derail the plans of all involved. The state founded by Gadhafi in 1969 is not about to wither away any time soon, but problems have begun to surface and are eroding the country’s image as a stable polity. Increased contact with the outside world will only further complicate the cracks in the system.

Gadhafi is 66 years old and, like other Middle Eastern autocrats who have ruled their countries for decades, will eventually hand over the mantle of leadership to a successor. Seif al-Islam is positioning himself to take over once his father is no more (or simply can rule no more). While the son has been advocating reform and change to ensure the continuity of the republic his father built, it is very difficult to undo 40 years of command-style political economy.

What has kept Libya going are its oil wealth and its small (and therefore easily controlled) population, which is now considered to be 6 million. But under the pressure of international isolation and the inefficiency of a peculiar brand of socialism, the various systems of the country — education, health, transportation and so on — are collapsing, and the country’s infrastructure is in desperate need of restoration. There is an implicit acknowledgement on the part of Gadhafi that the rules of his Green Book have failed.

In a Sept. 1 speech to Libya’s legislature, the Popular Congress, on the occasion of the 39th anniversary of the revolution that brought him to power, Gadhafi announced a plan to abolish all ministries with the exception of Foreign Affairs, Defense, Security and Justice. “You always accuse the popular committees (ministries) of corruption and poor management. These complaints will never end. So everyone should have their share (of oil revenues) in their pockets,” Gadhafi said. He warned, however, of “chaos” during the initial two years of the plan until society learns to take care of its own affairs rather than relying on corrupt administrations. Later, after a meeting with Prime Minister Baghdadi Mahmudi, Gadhafi said that the state body that manages oil revenue funds on behalf of the citizenry will release the cash to the masses. Gadhafi described the move as “sensitive” and “complex” and said it would require careful planning.

Amid the brewing uncertainty, one thing that works in the Libyan regime’s favor is that there is no organized opposition group that poses any challenge to it. Most secular Libyan opposition groups are based in the West and have very limited influence inside the country. Libya also is the one country in the Maghreb where jihadists have not been able to operate — even though Libyans can be found among the rank and file of the Iraqi node of al Qaeda and even in the top leadership circles of al Qaeda prime. Seif al-Islam has recently established relations with the more mainstream Islamist movement The Muslim Brotherhood, however, and has also reached out to the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, a militant Islamist group suspected of having ties to al Qaeda.

Libya has had its share of struggles with secular and Islamist opposition movements, but favorable economic and demographic conditions coupled with a robust security and intelligence apparatus have allowed Tripoli to contain unrest. That no longer appears to be the case, however. In the past week, there have been rare incidents of unrest in the country’s southeastern al-Kufrah region along the border with Egypt, Sudan and Chad, where members of the Tabu ethnic group rioted and attacked police stations. Sources tell Stratfor that the Tabu might have support from Chad, whose government recently defeated an insurgency of its own that was backed by Libya.

Given that this strife is taking place in a remote part of the country where the writ of the state is not as strong as it is in the population centers along the Mediterranean coast, the agitation does not constitute a major threat to the stability of the regime. The situation remains contained in the immediate term, but anger against the regime is not limited to a single region or a single communal group. The pending transition in power and the changes being pursued by the government have the potential to trigger unrest in the more densely populated northern areas. Up to 25 percent of university graduates reportedly are unemployed — a potent ingredient for possible agitation against the regime.

The largest threat to Libya’s regime comes from within. There are tensions between the old guard and Seif al-Islam, with Gadhafi trying to maintain a balance. Seif al-Islam’s recent move to retire from political life was designed to enhance his popular standing and to pressure the old guard, which sees its interests threatened by moves toward reform. The old guard — the security establishment, the revolutionary committees, the tribes, and the economic elite — will be the source of problems as the state approaches transition time.

But these concerns have not stopped Russia, the United States and Europe from pushing ahead with their various agendas involving Libya — nor have they stopped Tripoli from basking in the newfound international attention. But all of those agendas could face a rocky road ahead if Libya cannot keep its house in order internally.

George W. Bush to Terrorist: Thank You!

2008-11-20T01:17:00.001-05:00

By Liza Porteus Viana
Nov 17th 2008 12:40PM

President Bush called Libya's Muammar al-Qaddafi to essentially thank him for finally paying up the $1.5 billion payment that Tripoli owed to the families of those killed in terror attacks, including the 1988 bombing a Pan Am jet over Lockerbie, Scotland.

Bush and Qaddafi "discussed that this agreement should help to bring a painful chapter in the history between our two countries closer to closure," White House spokesman Gordon Johndroe said in a statement. "While we will always mourn the loss of life as a result of past terrorist activities, the settlement agreement is an important step in repairing the relationship between Libya and the United States."

Payments to the victims' families is expected to begin within days.

For those of you wondering why we are now being so friendly with the man who advocated a pan-Arab state dubbed "the Mad Dog of the Middle East" by President Reagan, you're probably not alone.

After all, Qaddafi was tied to the 1988 bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie that killed 270 people on board. His regime was also implicated in the 1989 bombing of a French passenger jet over Niger in which 171 people died. In 1986, Libya sponsored the bombing of a Berlin disco popular among U.S. servicemen, killing two U.S. soldiers. Reagan ordered U.S. airstrikes that killed 227 people in Libya, including Qaddafi's daughter.

In the early 1970s, U.S. officials say, Qaddafi established terrorist training camps in Libya and offered safe haven, arms and aid to terrorists from groups like the Irish Republican Army, Spain's ETA, Italy's Red Brigades, and the Palestine Liberation Organization. Libya was also suspected of attempting to assassinate the leaders of Chad, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Sudan and Tunisia.

But Washington and Tripoli are trying to thaw their relationship. The Bush State Department last year took the country off its terrorism list, and is satisfied that Libya's stockpiles of chemical weapons is destroyed and its secret nuclear weapons program dismantled. After the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, Qaddafi made one of the first, and strongest, denunciations of the Al Qaeda bombers by any Muslim leader.

U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice met with Qaddafi in Tripoli in September - the first time in nearly half a century an American diplomat met with the Libyan leader. "Quite frankly, I never thought I would be visiting Libya, though this is quite something," Rice told reporters.

We know Qaddafi was excited to meet with Rice, his "darling black African woman" to whom he has confessed his love. Slightly weird, I know. But for an administration who has repeatedly refused to sit down with people like Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, it must see something good in the "new and improved" Qaddafi.

Libya's Oct. 31 payment to the terrorism victims was the latest step in restoring full normalization of diplomatic relations between the two countries. The money will go into a $1.8 billion fund that will pay $1.5 billion in claims for the 1988 Pan Am 103 bombing over Scotland that killed 270 people on board, and the German disco bombing. Another $300 million will go to Libyan victims of the retaliatory U.S. airstrikes.

Libyan relations remain a challenge

2008-11-20T01:15:00.000-05:00

Swiss Info

November 16, 2008 - 6:37 PM

A Libyan-Swiss row that resulted from the arrest of Moammar Gaddafi's son is one of Switzerland's toughest challenges abroad, President Pascal Couchepin has said.
Tension was sparked between the two countries in July by the arrest in Geneva of Hannibal Gaddafi and his wife. Servants of the two had accused them of serious mistreatment.

Couchepin said on Sunday that the situation was currently one of the "most difficult" the government faced abroad and a return to normal relations would "depend above all" on the Libyan leader.

Although the charges against the couple were dropped after the servants withdrew their complaint, Libya has demanded that Switzerland apologise over the incident for "abuse of Libyan diplomats and business people by the Geneva police".

Libya took a number of measures against Swiss firms and Swiss nationals at the time. It also threatened to withdrawn all its deposits from Swiss banks and disrupt oil supplies to the country.

Negotiations have been continuing between the two sides.

Legal protection for US constitutional rights to free speech

2008-11-17T09:09:00.003-05:00

I have a simple question to those with expertise in US constitutional law.

What are the legal possibilities for suing a foreign government for trying to intimidate American citizens who are exercising their first amendment rights to free speech in the US? Can a foreign government threaten American citizens to stop them from exercising their rights in the US? ...Can an American citizen, or a group of citizens, hold a foreign government responsible for such acts of blackmail?

Hafed.alghwell@gmail.com

Ugandan parliament investigates sale of Uganda Telecom to Libyan government

2008-11-17T09:08:00.000-05:00

The Monitor

MPs query Shs25b sale of UTL to Libya

Yasiin Mugerwa

Parliament has asked the Ministry of Finance to explain the sale of Uganda Telecom Ltd to a company owned by the Libyan government at a price that MPs say was below market valuations.

The Parliamentary Public Accounts Committee is investigating the Shs25 billion sale of a majority stake in the formerly government-owned telecommunications firm to the Libya African Portfolio (LAP) Greencom in 2006.

The Parliamentary Committee has questioned the transaction on grounds that the sale of shares in the firm to the Libyans in 2006 was done secretly and below the market value. The chairman of PAC, Mr Nandala Mafabi, on October 22 wrote to Finance Minister Ezra Suruma and queried the sale of the firm without advertising for bids or carrying out any independent valuations before completing the transaction.

“The sale should have been transparent by calling on investors through advertising, this was not done putting Ugandans at a disadvantage and big loss,” Mr Mafabi said in his letter to Dr Suruma. “The Public Accounts Committee is preparing a report to Parliament about the illegal sale of UTL to a private company (Libya African Portfolio (LAP) Greencom) at a price below market value and in an untransparent manner.”

Mr Mafabi’s letter gave the minister 15 days to explain the transaction but Kawempe South MP Ssebuliba Mutumba, who is Mr Mafabi’s deputy, told Daily Monitor yesterday that the ministry was yet to respond to the anomalies, days after the deadline expired on November 10.

Mr Keith Muhakanizi, the Deputy Secretary to the Treasury was yesterday reluctant to discuss the matter but promised to give details of the transaction to this newspaper today.

LAP Greencom took over UTL in 2006 after acquiring Ucom, a company incorporated in the British Virgin Islands. Under the arrangement, the Libyan company would take over majority 69 per cent of UTL share holding, leaving the government with only 31 per cent to be sold on the stock exchange.

The Public Accounts Committee, however, says the sale flouted public procurement procedures. “This UTL scandal is worse than NSSF-Temangalo land deal,” Mr Mafabi said, referring to the recent investigation, by a separate parliamentary committee, of the National Social Security Fund’s controversial
purchase of more than 400 acres of land from Security Minister Amama Mbabazi and businessman Amos Nzeyi.

“We are talking about over Shs25 billion at stake. The Ministry of Finance illegally sold a public company to Libyans without following the law, they disregarded all the rightful procedures to their advantage and this was wrong.”

The Parliamentary Committee had earlier rejected an explanation by the Secretary to the Treasury, Mr Chris Kassami who wrote to it, saying that in August 2006, UTL had identified a need to invest $86 million to cope with the “ever increasing competition”. “These funds could not be raised from internal sources as the company was making losses [loss of Shs3 billion in December 2005 and a loss of Shs7 billion in December 2006],” Mr Kassami said in his July 15 letter.

Daily Monitor investigations show that although the Privatization
Unit, which is in charge of privatising government parastatals, had approved an equity injection by the governmentof $12.9 million (about Shs25.2 billion) to recapitalise UTL, officials in the Ministry of Finance rejected this on the grounds that the money was needed for the Energy Fund.

The Fund was set up to address the effects of the energy crisis but records show that Parliament had already appropriated
money from the budget to cater for the Fund, raising questions about the justification from the Finance Ministry officials.

And now the threats start coming in ...

2008-11-16T11:35:00.005-05:00

I just received my first threatening phone call from Libya. A family member , who was obviously intimidated to call me, convied an unveiled threat that if I don't stop writing I can expect reprisals against my family back in Libya.

I was expecting this , it is in the very nature of the Libyan regime to try to intimidate and threaten Libyans inside and outside the country to stop them from their most basic and simple of human rights, to voice their own opinions.

So now I offer the following question to the likes of David Welch, the US Assistant Secretory of State -- who receives this list -- and who was behind the US-Libyan secret and not so secret agreements: are you Sir now satisfied that an American citizen is being intimidated and threatened by your new friends?... are you Sir now satisfied that the constitutional rights of an American citizen to speak freely are being threatened by a foreign government?...

The final kick to the dissidents which the Bush administration has betrayed

2008-11-15T06:10:00.000-05:00

NRO -- The Corner

Friday, November 14, 2008

Free Fathi Eljahmi [Michael Rubin]

Claudia Rosett sums it up here.

As if to give a final kick to the dissidents which the Bush administration has betrayed, Condoleezza Rice is reportedly going to welcome Saif ul-Islam Qadhafi, the Libyan leader's son and chief emissary, at the State Department next week.

With the exception of Vice President-elect Biden, who has been staunch in his support of Eljahmi, the political left — Senators, Congressmen, media, and NGOs like the American Friends Service Committee — ignore or treated Middle Eastern dissidents like dirt because, too often, U.S. politics come first. The American Friends Service Committee acts especially shamefully, given its rhetoric of 'truth to power' but its refusal to engage or acknowledge men like Eljahmi and his peers in Iran, North Korea, and elsewhere, all the while feteing these regimes' emissaries and leaders.

With Bush out of the way, hopefully self-described progressives can once again put principles ahead of politics and speak out for men like Eljahmi, without fear of somehow helping 'the Bush agenda.' This is all the more important now, because the real revenge against these brave men and women will come when Bush leaves office and Middle Eastern despots feel they can get away with it. On human rights, I'm all for giving President-Elect Obama benefit of the doubt, although I'm afraid he suffers from moral equivalency. Speaking out for Eljahmi's immediate release would be a good way to demonstrate that 'change' was not just rhetoric.

And as for Saif's visit to the State Department. Fine, engage. But until Fathi is released, Saif is unworthy of any honor. If he needs to talk, I'm sure there's a junior officer that can be his interlocator.

Is that really the kind of note on which President Bush wants to end his second presidential term?

2008-11-15T06:03:00.001-05:00

The Rosett Report

November 14th, 2008 8:26 pm

Meanwhile, Behind a Barred Window in Libya…

President Bush, in his second inaugural address, talked about advancing the ideals of freedom as “the calling of our time.” Strange, then, that a brave democratic dissident in Libya, who answered that call — and has spent years in Libyan lock-ups for his pains – has received so little support or attention from the Bush administration. I’m talking about Fathi Eljahmi, Libya’s most famous democratic dissident, now 67 years old, and still behind bars, his voice not heard in public for more than four years.

During those same four years, Moammar Gadhafi, dictator of Libya since 1969, has been riding high as the State Department’s Exhibit A of “diplomatic success” in winning over rogue regimes (since then, a raft of rewards lavished upon Gadhafi have failed to inspire any other rogue regimes to offer up their up themselves — and their WMD programs — as Exhibit B). By now, the message of the State Department seems to be that while freedom is officially America’s calling, when someone actually tries to answer, our diplomats hit the mute button. It would behoove President-Elect Barack Obama and Vice-President-Elect Joe Biden to correct that message very soon, possibly by finding the audacity to invite Fathi Eljahmi to Obama’s January inauguration — for reasons explained in my column this week for Forbes.com, “Free Fathi Eljahmi.”

But even more urgently, Michael Rubin reports on NRO’s The Corner that while Fathi Eljahmi begins his seventh year behind bars in Libya, the Condi Rice State Department is planning a welcome in Washington next week for Gadhafi’s eldest son and chief emissary, Saif Gadhafi. Has Condi briefed the President on this arrangement? Is that really the kind of note on which President Bush wants to end his second presidential term? The term that Bush began with the words: “All who live in tyranny and hopelessness can know: the United States will not ignore your repression, or excuse your oppressors. When you stand for your liberty, we will stand with you. Democratic reformers facing repression, prison, or exile can know: America sees you for who you are: the future leaders of your free country.” For Fathi Eljahmi, time is running out. Will anyone in Washington now redeem that pledge?

Seif El Gaddafi in the USA

2008-11-15T01:07:00.001-05:00

There are reports on the Libyan blog-sphere that Seif El Gaddafi is arriving to the United States on Nov. 16.This marks the first time he has been allowed to visit the US despite his many attempts in the past to secure a US visa. The logic behind granting him a visa now is that the defunct and morally corrupt Bush administration has restored diplomatic immunity to the Gaddafis, so there is very little chance that some legal action can be taken against him while he is in the country, which would have embarrassed the Bush administration beyond measure. It is also the last gift Bush can give the oil companies and their Libyan oil plantation enforcers before he vacates the oval office.

I hope that Libyan Americans in the US, as well as the families of the victims of Lockerbie and other Gaddafi atrocities, whom Seif called, blood suckers, show him the kind of welcome he and his father deserves.

For more info. see: http://www.libya-nclo.com/tabid/234/language/en-US/Default.aspx

Gaddafi accuses his officials of clinging to the status quo to protect their privileges

2008-11-14T14:19:00.000-05:00

Financial Times

Libyan televised debate signals change

By Heba Saleh in Cairo

November 14 2008

Libyan television viewers were treated this week to a rare scene – Colonel Muammer Gaddafi, their ruler, was debating with disapproving senior government officials his grand plan to distribute the proceeds of oil wealth directly to the people and abolish government ministries.

In a country where no dissent is tolerated, viewers heard Farhat Omar Bin Guidara, central bank governor, telling the leader that doling out large sums of money to the masses would fuel inflation, cause the value of the dinar to drop and create a balance of payments deficit.

Al-Baghdadi Ali al-Mahmoudi, prime minister, meanwhile, argued for an alternative approach under which Libyans would be given shares in their country’s banks, manufacturing plants and telecommunications companies through portfolios to be managed by financial institutions.

The maverick Colonel Gaddafi gave no sign of having been convinced. Instead, he accused officials of clinging to the status quo to protect their privileges. “What you want is that the ... situation remains unchanged so you can keep your positions,” he said. “That is the psychology which underpins your arguments.”

Even so, analysts say the mere fact that the meeting was broadcast suggests the people are being prepared for a possible about-face.

“I think what he is doing is telling the people that he is still very much in favour of the original idea but that there are decision makers in Libya who are obviously against it,” said Dirk Vandewalle, a Libya specialist and professor at Dartmouth College.

“He is trying to portray a potential setback as a democratic move.”

Mr Vandewalle also believes the debate might be a sign of another fundamental change in Libya. “I guess what it means is that the pattern in which decisions were made at the top and implemented without discussion is increasingly being questioned,” he said. “It may indicate the growing power of technocrats who favour opening up Libya.”

Arguing that the government structure had bred corruption and failed the people, Colonel Gaddafi decreed in March a scheme for distributing money and dismantling most ministries, leaving only interior, defence and foreign affairs.

He promised that every family would be handed its share of the oil wealth and it would be free to spend it the way it liked, buying services such as health, education and housing from private sector companies.

While some Libyans saw the leader’s approach as a sign of a belated conversion to capitalism, others, including officials and businessmen, were alarmed, fearing that the plan would be a recipe for economic chaos.

The Libyan government has begun taking steps to limit communication about the growing unrest in the country

2008-11-14T14:14:00.000-05:00

UPI

Sources: Libya limiting talk about unrest

TRIPOLI, Libya, Nov. 14 (UPI) -- The Libyan government has begun taking steps to limit communication about the growing unrest in the country, opposition sources allege.

The unidentified sources say that various media outlets and certain portions of the country have been prevented by authorities from reporting about the violent unrest gripping parts of Libya, the Med Basin News Line said Friday.

"There is heightened vigilance to stop any sort of public dissent," one source alleged.

Among the alleged government attempts to control unrest reports was the dismissal of several workers at a radio program following an anonymous phone call that criticized Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi and his son Saif al-Islam.

"Where were the Libyan youths when people were being hanged in the '80s?" the caller told the radio station. "Who is this Saif al-Islam Gadhafi so that we organize demonstrations in his name?"

The opposition sources told News Line that after the female caller contacted the program the radio station was raided by government troops.

Colonial Italy protects its Libyan thugs : How Gaddafi survived Operation "El Dorado Canyon"

2008-11-14T04:08:00.001-05:00

Counterterrorismblog

How Gaddafi survived Operation "El Dorado Canyon"

By Lorenzo Vidino

Over the last 22 years there have been many speculations over how Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi managed to escape the American bombing of his Bab al Aziziya compound on April 15th, 1986. The attack came after years of tensions between the two countries over Libya’s support of various terrorist outfits and was triggered by Tripoli’s alleged involvement in the April 5th, 1986, bombing of the La Belle club in West Berlin, which killed two American servicemen and a Turkish woman. Even though his 15-month-old adopted daughter Hanna was killed and two of his sons were injured, Gaddafi managed to escape the attack unharmed.

Former Italian Prime Minister Giulio Andreotti and current Libyan Foreign Minister Abdurrahman Shalgam have finally provided us with a good explanation for the escape. Speaking at a conference organized by the Italian Foreign Ministry, the two men stated that then Italian Prime Minister Bettino Craxi had forewarned Gaddafi of the attack. “Yes, that American attack was an improper initiative,” said Andreotti, “and I believe that Italy warned Libya about it.” Shalgam, at the time the Libyan ambassador to Italy, confirmed the story: “Craxi sent me a friend to tell me to watch out, that the 14th or the 15th of April there will be an American raid against Libya.” According to Shalgam, Craxi, who died in 2000, informed Libya “two days before the aggression, maybe the 11th or the 12th, he told us to be careful and that Italy would have not allowed overflight rights” to Americans to carry out the raid. Media reports in the past had also alleged that, on the night of April 15th, “then Maltese Prime Minister Karmenu Mifsud Bonnici phoned Gaddafi informing him that unauthorised planes were flying over Maltese air space, heading south towards Tripoli.”

Omar Al Mukhtar: The teacher turned freedom fighter

2008-11-14T03:34:00.001-05:00

Mustafa Akkad directs Anthony Quinn in 'Lion of the Desert'. The 1981 film immortalised Omar Al Mukhtar's final years

GulfNews

The teacher turned freedom fighter

By Joseph A. Kechichian, Special to Weekend Review

Published: November 13, 2008, 23:54

When Admiral Cappo Farafelli and his battleships reached the North African shores near Tripoli in October 1911, Italy intended to occupy territories under Ottoman suzerainty and would take into account neither Turkish objections nor opposition from the indigenous population. Constantinople ordered its men, most of whom fled just before the Italians bombed Tripoli for three consecutive days, to surrender. Rome proclaimed victory.

Italian officials asserted that the Libyan people were “committed and strongly bound to Italy”. What followed was a series of battles between the occupiers and guerrillas organised and led by an extraordinary man — Omar Al Mukhtar.

Al Mukhtar awakened among his followers love for their country and duty and put to rest an often-used Western claim that Arabs did not consider their lands dear.

Master strategist

Al Mukhtar embarked on an organised resistance in 1912 at Bir Halgh Barga, not far from Benghazi and close to the Egyptian border. This quiet teacher quickly became a master strategist in desert guerrilla tactics because he knew his country’s geography better than most.

Al Mukhtar led his highly mobile groups into skilful and successful battles, before fading into the desert which was a mystery to the Italians.

By attacking outposts, ambushing troops and cutting supply and communication lines, Al Mukhtar and his men outmanoeuvred the intruders.

Before long, he was the undisputed leader of the Sanusi resistance movement, which became a model for others throughout the Arab world.

Sanusi is a Sufi order founded by Sidi Mohammad Bin Ali Al Sanusi in 1843 in Cyrenaica whose theology asserted that believers should aim at communicating with the Prophet Mohammad (PBUH) in their waking hours and praying to God to be united with the Prophet.

Although the Italian invasion was initially concentrated on coastal cities such as Tripoli, Benghazi, Misrata and Derna, major battles were soon fought elsewhere as the Libyans stood up against the occupation.

Few villages in the mountains or the desert were spared. After the April 1915 Ghartabiyyah battle, in which the Italians lost thousands of soldiers, the colonial troops gained the upper hand even if they failed to gain full control.

To their credit, the Libyans fought fearlessly; thousands joined the resistance Al Mukhtar organised.

Most hid in the Jabal Al Akhdar (Green Mountain) in northeast Libya from where the resistance launched its fiercest assaults on the hapless Italians.

Fearing defeat, Rome dispatched a notorious officer, Pietro Badoglio, to pacify Libya, granting him carte blanche to resort to any method, including inhuman measures, to quickly end the resistance.

With such a mandate, the officer fought the guerrillas and imposed harsh punishment on ordinary people, whose only crime was to help the resistance.

After extensive negotiations, Badoglio reached a compromise with Al Mukhtar, although Italian sources falsely described the situation as an act of complete submission on the part of the resistance leader.

By the end of October 1929, Al Mukhtar denounced the compromise and re-established a unity of action among his forces. As Badoglio’s brutal techniques proved insufficient, then rising Italian dictator Benito Mussolini, who would become better known as Il Duce (Supreme Leader of Fascism), sent another high-ranking officer, General Rodolfo Graziani, to hone his atrocious methods in Libya.

Graziani versus Al Mukhtar

Historians differ on the issue but Graziani apparently agreed to go to Libya if and only if Mussolini gave him a free hand to behave without any consideration for Italian rules and laws. What Graziani proposed to do was unquestionably monstrous — to dispose of half the population, if need be, to control Libya.

Graziani wanted to strangulate Libya to prevent Al Mukhtar and his men from receiving material assistance from neighbouring Egypt. Towards that end, he ordered the construction of a 300-kilometre, 2-metre high by 3-metre wide wall from Bardiyat Slaiman port to Al Jagboub in the south along the Egyptian border.

Moreover, he authorised the creation of several concentration camps — in Al Aghaylha, Al Maghrun, Soluq and Al Abiyar among others — where thousands of Libyans were forced to live under complete Italian military control.

Those who escaped detention fled to the Jabal Al Akhdar or hid deep in the desert, living in severe conditions. These measures caused the deaths of thousands of men, women, elderly folk and children — directly through public hangings and shootings or indirectly due to hunger and illness.

Graziani placed over 100,000 Libyans in his infamous concentration camps between 1929 and 1931 and, according to authors Hala Khamis Nassar and Marco Boggero, who penned the essay titled Legacy of Libyan Freedom Fighter — Omar Al Mukhtar (published in The Journal of North African Studies in June), an estimated 40,000 were killed in these facilities.

Life was miserable in the camps and thousands died of hunger or illness. In the words of Dr Todesky, chairman of the Italian Army Health Department: “From May 1930 to September 1930, more than 80,000 Libyans were forced to leave their land and live in concentration camps; they were taken 300 at a time, watched by soldiers to make sure that the Libyans went directly to the concentration camps … By the end of 1930 all Libyans who live[d] in tents were forced to go and live in the camps; 55 per cent of the Libyans died in the camps.”

A leading Libyan historian, Mahmoud Ali Al Tayyeb, said that in November 1930 at least 17 funerals were held each day in these camps.

Libyans in concentration camps received meagre sustenance.

The condition of the guerrillas was far worse.
To say that Al Mukhtar and his men were deprived of reinforcements, spied upon, hit by Italian aircraft and pursued by Italian forces aided by local informers, would be gross understatements.

By early 1931 even food became scarce and, before long, vital ammunition ran out. Despite such hardship, Al Mukhtar kept fighting, even after he fell seriously ill.

Arrest and execution

Fighting against great odds and, perhaps inevitably after a 20-year guerrilla engagement, Al Mukhtar was ambushed, wounded in battle and subsequently captured by the Italian army in the desert near the city of Zaltan, about 150 miles south of Benghazi, on September 11, 1931. Fatigue or his innate dignity compelled Al Mukhtar to remain calm.

He understood his situation and accepted his fate. His jailers were overwhelmed by his steadfastness and several interrogators later confessed that Al Mukhtar looked them in the eye and read verses of peace from the Quran as he was interrogated and tortured.

As expected, he was tried by a kangaroo court, convicted and sentenced to death. Al Mukhtar welcomed the verdict quoting from the Quran: “From God we came and to God we must return.”

Rome hoped that the speedy execution of the old fighter five days after his arrest — carried out in the concentration camp of Salluq in front of many of his followers on September 16, 1931 — would wither the resistance.

Remarkably, the Libyan resistance was not silenced, even if it was significantly weakened.

Italy lost the moral high ground since it opted to ignore World War treaties, international law or humanitarian considerations for an individual well advanced in age. Even in this feeble condition, Al Mukhtar — who was known as the “Nimr Al Sahrah” (The Lion of the Desert) — instilled such fear in most Italian hearts that no great indignation anywhere around the Arab world would budge the callous decision to hang him.

Legacy and impact on Libya

Al Mukhtar’s final years were immortalised in the 1981 film Lion of the Desert, starring Anthony Quinn, Oliver Reed and Irene Papas.

The film climaxes with the execution, when the old man’s glasses fall to the floor. A boy fetches the spectacles and hands them to his mother, perhaps to preserve a simple memento of the Libyan hero.

In real life, Al Mukhtar’s impact was far greater, as all three Libyan regimes — monarchic, revolutionary and military — declared him their national hero (today, his face is on the Libyan 10-dinar bill).

Beyond the symbolic, however, his historic character crossed Libyan boundaries as he contributed to the formation of different forms of Arab nationalism.

Over the years, his memory defined Libyan opposition against the Italians and later against those who were power hungry.

In all instances, Al Mukhtar taught Libyans to love, protect and defend their land and their freedoms.

He also taught an entire generation to fight as religious men, proclaiming the words of God in every battle, assuming that no one but Libyans had any right over their country.

It may be safe to conclude that he invented Libyan nationalism in the modern sense of the word, rejected foreign domination and, most importantly, refused to submit to the usurper.

A humble individual from a modest background, Al Mukhtar did not venture out of Libya to defy order but simply defended his flock and his land. Even if colonial times defined sovereignty in peculiar terms — granting the powerful intrinsic privileges — Al Mukhtar stood up for what were his rights.

He was a devoted practitioner of freedom, whose basic understanding of authority compelled him to fight and die for his nation.

Dr Joseph A. Kechichian is an author, most recently of Power and Succession in Arab Monarchies, Lynne Rienner Publishers, Boulder, Colorado, 2008.

This article is the eighth in a series, which appears on the second Friday of each month, on Arab leaders who greatly influenced political affairs in the Middle East.

Biography

Omar Al Mukhtar Bin Omar Bin Farhat was probably born around 1860 although various birthdates range from 1856 and 1862.

Little is known of his early life except that he saw light in the Ghayth family, which was part of the Farhat clan and which was a branch of the Manfahah Badu tribe from Burqah, Libya. His father was a courageous man and a fighter, which meant that he was frequently absent from home.

His mother, Ayshah Bint Mohair, taught the young man and his brothers piety and religious values and may be said to have raised Al Mukhtar on a more or less exclusive basis.

As he grew older, Al Mukhtar was assigned by Ahmad Sharif Al Sanusi as a teacher in a Sanusian school, which allowed him to delve in teaching positions for much of his life.

Al Mukhtar’s son, Al Haj Mohammad Omar Al Mukhtar, fought alongside his father as the former developed a hugely successful technique, based on small-scale and swift attacks, which were followed by rapid retreats into the desert. These methods led Italian forces to resort to poison gas and a systematic policy of ethnic cleansing.

Holy cities were attacked, the ‘zawias’ (residential complexes used by the clergy as forms of monasteries) were expropriated and religious leaders expelled.

When all else failed, Italian troops cut supply lines by building an enormous wall along the Egyptian border, but to no avail.

After a decades-long guerrilla commitment, Al Mukhtar was captured by the Italians in September 1931 during a fierce battle that pitted a few thousand of his men against more than 20,000 well-equipped troops that possessed aircraft and modern weapons.

He was submitted to a mock trial and hanged as a bandit in front of his own people at Solush after which he became a martyr of the Cyrenaican rebellion.

When Libyan radio talk turns ugly

2008-11-13T13:05:00.001-05:00

menassat.com

13/11/2008

BEIRUT, November 13, 2008 (MENASSAT) – The anonymous female caller made her appearance on Sunday night, during the daily broadcast of the program, "Masa' al-Kheir Banghazi" (Good Evening, Benghazi), on a local Benghazi radio station. Her comments would have been unremarkable in any other country, but in Lybia, they were dynamite.

"Where were the Libyan youths when people were being hanged in the eighties?" the caller said. "Who is this Saif al-Islam al-Qadhafi so that we organize demonstrations in his name?”

Saif al-Islam al-Qadhafi is the 36-year-old son of Lybian president and dictator Moamar al-Qadhafi.

The day after the anonymous call, Benghazi woke up to turmoil.

A 'media coup'

The manager of the radio station, Yunis al-Mojbari, promptly banned several employees, Ahmad al-Maqsabi, Ahmad Khalife, Khaled Ali, and the program's producer, Suleiman al-Qaba'ili, from entering the radio building. Al-Mojbari also called upon the Secretary of the Journalists Association and the Secretary of the Artists Association in order to work out a new programming strategy to avoid a repeat of Saturday's night debacle.

According to the Jeel website, on the same day, the Benghazi radio station was invaded by government soldiers, backed up by members of the Revolutionary Labor Movement and the Revolutionary Committees Movement, along with some revolutionary media and other government supporters.

After this news was published, the website received a call from Massoud al-Hamidi, Head of the Journalists Syndicate, in which he denied the invasion, saying the news was erroneous and no journalists were banned from the building.

But a private source on the Jeel website described what happened as "a media coup" led by the Secretary of the Journalists Association in Benghazi, Yunis al-Mojbari, Massoud al-Hamidi and a leading "revolutionary" radio host.

A Libyan intellectual, preferring anonymity, said on the Jeel website that this might have happened "to filter what is broadcast and to control the hosts and the producers criticizing the governmental institutions, after the local station opened the telephone lines and its programs to the poor people's concerns. which might have bothered some higher ranking personalities."

The caller reveals herself

In an interview with aljazeera.net, Yunis al-Majbari said that the management found that "Good Evening, Benghazi," instead of treating matters with transparency, is increasingly hurting people's feelings, stressing that the measures taken were based on professional motives and had nothing to do with politics.

Al-Hamidi denied that the military and the revolutionary committees had invaded the station, saying that the latter continued broadcasting the program without any modifications.

Surprisingly, the anonymous caller revealed her identity on Thursday in a message to the Jeel website.

Sharifa al-Sounoussi wrote, "In the name of love, compassion and honesty, I write to you, I, Sharifa al-Sounoussi, and I assure you that this is my real name, and that I'm still alive. Maybe they wrote my death certificate as they did with others before me.

"I have written my personal information, because I know that rumors are spreading and you are talking about me as if I did horrible things. Didn't you ask for transparency and honesty? What I did is my duty, and I'll continue to do so until the last minute so that the Libya of tomorrow would be pure and blessed."

Why all the commotion?

Saif Al-Islam Al-Qadhafi does not have an official position in his father's Lybia, but he is nevertheless considered the second most powerful person in the country.

In the name of the father

He is often cited in the Western media, being the chief negotiator for the compensation deal with former colonial power Italy, and with the United States over the Lockerbie and other bombings, and the 1986 US bombing of Tripoli and Bengazi.

In August 2008, he caused a stir by announcing that he was leaving politics, calling for political reforms and denying he would succeed his father, as many have expected.

Reactions to al-Sounoussi's call and its consequences have suggested that it may have been used as a pretext for shutting down the program.

The program's host, Ahmad Khalifa, told al-jazeera.net that stopping his program "was not the result of a phone call from a citizen who honestly spoke her mind, but came in the frame of attempts to blackout the wrongful behaviors of some officials in Benghazi."

The station's technical director, Suleiman al-Qaba’ili, told al-jazeera.net that the call was an excuse to attack the station and return to the media muzzling policy of the past. He pointed to the appointment of new management through strikingly fast decisions that ignored the administrative procedures, accusing the "revolutionaries" of trying to draw a new red line for the media.

But since al-Sanoussi was able to break the wall of fear, openly criticizing Libyan politics, others have followed her path.

The Al-Manara website reported that a Libyan citizen harshly criticized politicians in a phone call this week to the live radio program "Woujhat Nazar" (Point of View).

Will Biden live up to his words of support for the Libyan dissident?

2008-11-13T01:22:00.001-05:00

Forbes

Free Fathi Eljahmi

Claudia Rosett 11.13.08

Will Biden live up to his words of support for the Libyan dissident?

President-elect Barack Obama has promised to "change the world."

How about starting with Libya's most famous democratic dissident, Fathi Eljahmi?

Though Eljahmi is not American, his fate is entwined with America's promise to stand up for champions of freedom the world over. This month the 67-year-old Eljahmi is entering his seventh year of near-solitary confinement in the prisons and detention pens of Libyan ruler Moammar Gadhafi.

Today, Eljahmi is ill, held at a state medical facility in Tripoli, under guard around the clock. He is allowed only occasional and tightly supervised visitors, who report back that in his small room the window is sealed and barred, cockroaches infest his bed and food, and he is cut off from news, phones or any other routine contact with the outside world. His voice has not been heard in public since early 2004.

As a symbol of democratic dissent in the Muslim world, Eljahmi provides a living shorthand for many largely unsung heroes of liberty, bullied or consigned to dungeons by such Middle Eastern tyrants as Syria, Iran and Saudi Arabia. But Eljahmi's case is especially urgent and significant as an early test of the foreign-policy priorities of the new Obama administration.

Why? Among those taking a strong interest these past few years in Eljahmi's fate, one of the most staunch and vocal has been Senator, and now Vice-President-elect, Joe Biden--who was presented by Obama during the campaign as a mentor on foreign policy. The tale of Biden's involvement with Eljahmi dates back to at least December 2003, when Gadhafi struck a deal with the Bush administration to surrender his clandestine nuclear weapons program in exchange for Libya's rehabilitation from a sanctioned, terror-designated state to a full member of the international community.

With hopes then high that this rapprochement would bring democratic reform inside Libya, a parade of western politicians began dropping in on Tripoli. Among the first to arrive, in early March 2004, was Biden. He asked Gadhafi to free Fathi Eljahmi, who at the time was locked up as a prisoner of conscience inside Libya's notorious Abu Salim prison. Gadhafi complied. Eljahmi, upon release, gave a series of public interviews, explaining the advantages to Libya of pursuing democratic reforms.

No such reforms took place. Instead, within the month, Gadhafi's security forces assaulted Eljahmi, trashed his home in Tripoli and locked him up again. Since then, Biden has called repeatedly for Eljahmi's release. In a speech this past July, on the Senate floor, Biden described Eljahmi as "a courageous Libyan democracy advocate…whose only crime was to speak truth to power."

Biden called on the Bush administration to do more to obtain Eljahmi's freedom, and declared that "the future of the Libyan-American relationship, at least as far as this senator is concerned, will be affected by the Libyan government's treatment of Mr. Eljahmi."

With Obama and Biden heading for the American bully pulpit, the test now is whether Biden's staunch stand on Eljahmi was aimed more at berating the Bush administration, or defending the jailed Libyan dissident.

For U.S. policy on Libya, a shift is clearly in order. Since the 2003 nuclear disarmament deal, the Bush administration has downplayed Libyan repression and held up Gadhafi's return from the cold as a model of diplomatic success. Gadhafi has been rewarded not only by removal from the terror list and the lifting of sanctions, but with a seat on the U.N. Security Council, rich access to business deals and a visit this past September from Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.

But all this diplomacy and business drove home the unfortunate lesson that the White House was willing to wink at the jailing of a Fathi Eljahmi. And, just as these methods failed to inspire cooperation from the likes of nuclear extortionist North Korea or terrorist-supporting nuclear wannabe Iran, the diplomatic gains in Libya now seem to be unraveling as well.

Earlier this month, Gadhafi made a swing through Russia, Belarus and Ukraine. Despite Libya's oil wealth, Libyan news sources reported that on this trip Gadhafi's shopping list included not only arms, but also Russian cooperation on building nuclear reactors and supplying nuclear fuel.

In a world in which America's best long-term hope of security is still the spread of democracy, it would send an important signal were Obama and Biden to move right now to keep Eljahmi high on the radar. One starting point might be to invite Fathi Eljahmi to the inauguration. If he can't come, hold an empty place for him, and point it out, as a sign of what kind of world change America still has in mind.

Claudia Rosett, a journalist-in-residence with the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, writes a weekly column on foreign affairs for Forbes.com.

Mad Dog Gadhafi: 'Friend' or foe?

2008-11-12T07:58:00.000-05:00

Pittsburg Tribune

President Ronald Reagan once referred to Libyan strongman Moammar Gadhafi as a "mad dog." And given Mr. Gadhafi's overtures for arms from Russia, the mutt hasn't lost his fleas.

After securing for Libya a pass on assorted terrorists acts -- including the 1988 massacre of 270 people in the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 -- and shielding his nation from further U.S. litigation, Gadhafi has opted to warm up to Russia, taking advantage of the ongoing chill in U.S.-Russian relations.

This, supposedly to advance mutual energy interests. But also to secure for Gadhafi Russian anti-aircraft missiles, two squadrons of fighter jets and other military materiel. Libya also reportedly has offered to host a Russian naval base.

Perhaps the only issue for Gadhafi, apart from any U.S. fallout, is whether he'll have to wait on line for Russian arms behind Venezuela's Hugo Chavez.

These are not the actions of a friend.

Nor does a friend -- now with fully restored U.S. diplomatic ties -- refuse to disclose its terrorist involvements that cost the lives of U.S. military personnel and civilians. Long before al-Qaida wrote its legacy in blood, there was Libya. Gadhafi simply mopped up his terrorist past with wads of cash.

Oh yes, Libya also vowed to abandon its nuclear ambitions. But given its recent shopping spree for arms, the old dog is up to the same old tricks.

LIBYA: Fighting in southeast spreads, report says

2008-11-12T07:57:00.000-05:00

Los Angeles Times

The daily Arab-language newspaper Asharq al-Awsat is reporting that the riots and fighting in southeastern Libya that began last week and left at least 11 people dead has spread to the country's second-largest city, Benghazi.

According to the report, which cites opposition groups and anonymous individuals inside Libya, the fighting between the Tabu tribe and security forces that began in the cluster of oasis towns near Kufrah, "is spreading to other nearby cities despite all the security measures the government is imposing."

A group of men engaged in street battles with police in the cities of al-Salmani and al-Majuri in support of Kufrah residents, the Nov. 10 report said.

A letter distributed by an opposition group said that some opponents of Libyan leader Muammar Kadafi are preparing "to launch a series of public demonstrations."

This is all hard to confirm. A report in the Media Line describes the challenge succinctly:

The reports are hard to authenticate because of the closed and secretive nature of the Libyan regime. Reports of the clashes have largely been leaked by bloggers and opposition groups.

Libyan officials have been tight-lipped about events in the heavily policed country. The Reuters news agency on Monday cited an official Libyan newspaper as saying that fighting in Kufrah between the Tabu and Zawiya tribes had left six people dead.

Asharq al-Awsat also cited Libyan news sources as saying that fighting broke out between the two tribes after the Tabu clan hoisted the flag of neighboring country Chad in some locations of Kufrah.

But the explanation of tribal warfare squares somewhat with accounts of opposition figures, who say that authorities have armed local militias to combat the Tabu, which the Libyan government accuses of being loyal to Chad.

Many human-rights advocates have urged the West not to ignore Libya's alleged treatment of its own citizens as it cozies up to the onetime pariah nation. But an analysis published by the North Africa Journal suggests Kadafi is cracking down on the Tabu precisely to please the West:

"Many local tribe leaders have pledged allegiance to Chad and Sudan precisely at the time when Tripoli has been seeking to reassert more influence in the region. The riots were also largely the result of a drastic social and economic environment ... believed to have been engineered by Tripoli to punish them for pledging allegiance to the country's southern neighbors. But Tripoli has also been targeting the region under the pretext of arms smuggling and terrorism support so as to eliminate any complaints from Western governments."

The Asharq al-Awsat report said many were frightened of a harsh crackdown. The newspaper said that telephone lines and cellphone access have been cut off to the area.

“Security measures are being implemented to the fullest on [Kufrah's] borders as we witness the landing of two military planes carrying supplies at the military airport,” one local told the paper.

-- Khaled Hijab and Borzou Daragahi in Beirut

Gaddafi is determined to scrap ministries

2008-11-12T07:56:00.000-05:00

AFP

Kadhafi pledges petrodollars for the people

TRIPOLI (AFP) — Libyan leader Moamer Kadhafi said he is determined to scrap ministries and ensure oil revenues go directly into people's pockets, the JANA state news agency reported on Tuesday.

"The decision to distribute oil revenues, their sole source of wealth, directly to the people is not negotiable," Kadhafi said in a meeting on Monday with Prime Minister Baghdadi Mahmudi.

"The administrative body which managed these funds for the population wants to hand this money to the people," he said, acknowledging that such a move was "sensitive, complex" and needed careful planning to be implemented.

In a speech to mark the anniversary of a 1969 coup which brought him to power, Kadhafi on September 1 promised wide political and economic reforms that he said would also see ministries dismantled.

The reforms would come into effect at the beginning of 2009, the Libyan leader said at the time.

"Libyans should all be ready to receive a share of the oil revenues starting from the beginning of next year," Kadhafi told the Popular Congress, which serves as Libya's parliament.

All ministries except foreign affairs, defence, security and justice would be dismantled, he told the Popular Congress, which serves as Libya's parliament.

"You always accuse the popular committees (ministries) of corruption and poor management. These complaints will never end. So everyone (should) have their share (of oil revenues) in their pockets," Kadhafi said.

Libyan ministries and state institutions have since been holding a series of meetings to implement Kadhafi's "revolutionary decision," despite scepticism over its prospects.

Kadhafi himself has warned of "chaos" during the initial two years of the plan until society learns to take care of its own affairs rather than rely on corrupt administrations.

In March, he condemned corruption and mismanagement in many government departments and said that failed ministries had been costing Libya a whopping 37 billion dollars a year.

Thanks to high oil prices and the pledge by Kadhafi, Libyans have been embracing consumerism.

Private investors have tapped into the mood of the country of nearly six million inhabitants -- which imports 90 percent of its consumer goods -- by launching massive retail projects.

In 2007, Libya's oil revenues climbed to almost 40 billion dollars, according to its National Oil Corporation. Thirty percent of the income is allocated to state expenses and the rest to development projects.

With about 43 billion barrels of oil, Libya has the largest proven oil reserves in Africa, in addition to considerable gas resources.

It is also the continent's third biggest oil producer after Angola and Nigeria, pumping almost two million barrels per day (bpd). It has been seeking foreign investors to help it reach a target of three million bpd by 2012.

The government has been moving to shake off Libya's staunch socialist economy and embrace reforms and globalisation since mending ties with the West by abandoning its quest for weapons of mass destruction at the end of 2003.

‘11 Killed’ in Libya Clashes

2008-11-10T09:16:00.000-05:00

Medialine.org

Written by The Media Line Staff

Published Monday, November 10, 2008

At least 11 people have been killed in clashes between government forces and rebels in southern Libya since protests broke out there last week, rights organizations say.

Human-rights groups say security forces began battling rebels and civilians in Al-Kufra, in southeast Libya last week.

Clashes involve members of the Tabu tribe, who were protesting against discriminatory laws and a lack of medical services. Military units and helicopters were soon dispatched to the region to quell the mutiny, opposition groups say.

The reports are hard to authenticate because of the closed and secretive nature of the Libyan regime. Reports of the clashes have largely been leaked by bloggers and opposition groups.

There has been no mention of the clashes in the Libyan media, which toes the line of the regime.

Libyan opposition groups contacted by The Media Line said they had accounts of the events but asked not to be mentioned by name so as not to risk their sources in Libya.

A critic of the regime told The Media Line there was a deliberate policy of media blackouts when such incidents occurred.

Tension with the Tabu tribe began in December when the government accused their leaders of siding with Libya’s rival, Chad, and stripped them of their citizenship.

One organization said the tribe was involved in illegal weapons trading over the borders of Libya, Chad and Sudan and this had put them at odds both with the regime and with other members of the Tabu tribe.

What the regime is doing is a blatant human rights violation because its forces are targeting unarmed civilians, a Libyan opposition activist said. He added that recent reports suggest that roads leading to and from Al-Kufra have now been cut off, essentials such as food are not arriving in the area, and that a “humanitarian catastrophe is on the horizon.”

Libya is trying to patch up relations with the West after decades of diplomatic isolation and the latest incidents cast a shadow over Tripoli’s efforts to show a positive image to the West.

Libya is paying $1.5 billion to a fund as compensation to American victims of Libyan-linked terror attacks in the 1980s. The payment removes one of the major hurdles to normalizing relations between Tripoli and Washington.

Last month, U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice paid a historic visit to Tripoli. Rice is the highest-ranking U.S. official to visit Libya in more than 50 years.

In 2003 Libyan President Mu’ammar Al-Qadhafi announced his country was abandoning its Weapons of Mass Destruction program, a move that began Libya’s rapprochement with the West.

The release of five Bulgarian nurses and a Palestinian doctor from a Libyan jail last year after being accused of infecting Libyan children with AIDS was another step towards reconciliation with Western powers.

Despite a thaw in relations with the West, critics say the regime is still stifling opposition and is dealing with any expressions of dissent inside the country with an iron fist.

Have comments? Email editor@themedialine.org

Political violence erupts in Libya

2008-11-08T01:00:00.000-05:00

Los Angeles Times

Human rights groups say fighting between Libyan government forces and members of a tribe in the remote southeast have left at least 11 dead.

By Raed Rafei and Borzou Daragahi

November 8, 2008

Reporting from Beirut — Reports emerged late this week of a rare outbreak of political violence in a remote corner of Libya, one of the world's more secretive nations.

According to human rights organizations and a Libyan opposition group, security forces have been battling rebels for five days in Kufrah, which is among a cluster of oasis towns in the country's southeast. The fighting has left at least 11 dead, said the rights groups, which are in touch with sources in Libya.

By Friday the fighting appeared to have come to a halt, with rebels and government troops taking up positions around the town and most observers anticipating further clashes.

"The situation is very critical," said a resident of the town reached by telephone Friday who declined to identify himself because of security concerns. "The whole town is in disarray."

The clashes involved members of the Tabu tribe and erupted after the Libyan government enforced what some considered discriminatory laws against the group, said Haytham Manna, spokesman of the Paris-based Arab Commission for Human Rights. He said that all the dead were civilians and that at least 40 people were injured in the clashes.

"The city is totally under siege by the security forces," he said. "There is a lack of medical and other basic services."

After decades as an international pariah, Libya recently mended relations with the West, including the United States, despite lingering worries about the country's human rights record. Officials in the capital, Tripoli, could not be reached for comment Friday, the Muslim Sabbath. A spokesman for the Libyan Embassy in Paris reached by telephone told The Times, "We have nothing to say" about the clashes in Kufrah.

The Tabu tribe is one of Libya's largest. Its members are darker skinned than most Arabs and live near the borders of Sudan and Chad.

Tensions between the government in Tripoli and Tabu tribesmen began in December when the government stripped them of their citizenship and accused their leaders of siding with Chad, a rival of Libya. Recently, some government officials urged the Tabus to depart for Chad.

Clashes began Monday when tribesmen set fire to a local government office to protest rules that prevented their children from attending schools and collecting food rations, Manna said.

The fighting escalated when the government dispatched military units and helicopters from the capital to quell the rebellion, said Manna, who drew information from lawyers, scholars and activists in Libya.

Observers say the humanitarian situation is deteriorating.

"There is a serious lack of food," Issa Abdul Majid Mansour, who leads the Libyan Tabu Salvation Front, said in a phone interview from Norway, where he lives. "Stores are closed. The wounded are in their homes without proper treatment. There are some shops that are burned down. Reporters and medics cannot reach the area of the conflict."

Manna said the region's remoteness was encouraging security forces to act with impunity.

"The danger on the central government is minimal because the tribe in the south is isolated," he said. "Libya is capable of isolating them from the rest of the world because of its good recent connections with the West."

Rafei is a special correspondent. Daragahi is a Times staff writer.

daragahi@latimes.com

National Front for the Salvation of Libya: Letter To U.S. President Elect Barack Obama

2008-11-07T15:20:00.001-05:00

libya-almostakbal.com

The National Front for the Salvation of Libya

Letter To U.S. President Elect Barack Obama
6 November, 2008

Your Excellency Mr. President-Elect Barack Obama:

I am pleased on behalf of the members of the National Front for the Salvation of Libya to congratulate you on your election to the presidency of the United States of America.

We hope that the issues of freedom, democracy and respect for human rights that you raised during your campaign will be a priority of your administration.

We also hope that your administration gives special attention to the suffering of the Libyan people for the past forty years under the dictatorship of Colonel Muammar Gaddafi, and we hope that you will support the legitimate aspirations of the Libyan people to be free of this barbaric regime and to establish constitutional-based democracy that respects human rights. We wish you success.

Ibrahim Sahad

Secretary General

The U.A.E. vs. Libya

2008-11-07T01:42:00.001-05:00

The Energy Tribune

By Leon Hadar

Why is the United Arab Emirates so much more prosperous than Libya? These two ArabMuslim states have relatively small populations and lots of oil. Both are ruled by autocrats. Yet Libya population 6.1 million and the U.A.E. population 5.4 million could scarcely be more different in terms of their economic development.

Libya’s G.D.P., measured by purchasing power parity, is $74.5 billion or $12,300 per capita, while the U.A.E.’s is more than double that, $190.2 billion or $ 55,2000 per capita, fifthhighest in the world and third in the Middle East, after Qatar and Kuwait. Libya’s exports in 2005 were valued at $29.4 billion the U.A.E.’s were at $117.2. Libya’s rate of unemployment was more than 30 percent the U.A.E.’s, close to 2 percent.

Moreover, the U.A.E., a federation that includes Abu Dhabi, Ajman Dubai, Fujairah, Ras alKhaimah, Sharjah, and Umm alQuwain, has one of the world’s fastestgrowing economies, and in 200506 had the fastestgrowing real G.D.P., according to some estimates. Indeed, visitors are overwhelmed by the current massive construction boom to the tune of about $350 billion, including the Dubai World Central International Airport, which will be the most expensive airport ever built. The U.A.E. is also trying to expand its manufacturing base and its thriving services sector as well as its growing tourism, media, and entertainment industries. All of this is part of the effort to diversify its economy and make it less dependent on revenue from the export of oil and natural gas.

But while the U.A.E. is being transformed into an important financial and commercial center, the Singapore of the Middle East, Libya remains an economic backwater that continues to depend primarily on revenues from oil exports, which provide almost all export earnings and about onequarter of its G.D.P. One of the main reasons for Libya’s growth difficulties has been its antiWestern foreign policy, including support for terrorism, which led to U.N. economic sanctions, lifted in late 2004.

But the main factor in the difference in economic development between these two states may be their widely divergent responses to the challenge of globalization. Simply put, the U.A.E. has embraced a policy of economic liberalization and the opening of its economy to foreign investment and trade. Libya is only now beginning to move in that direction.

According to most recent Index of Economic Freedom available at www.heritage.org/index/ issued annually by The Heritage Foundation and The Wall Street Journal, the U.A.E. is 62.8 percent free, which makes it the world’s 63rd freest economy. The U.A.E. is ranked 7th out of 17 countries in the Middle East/North Africa region, and its overall score is higher than the regional average. The U.A.E. scores above the world average in fiscal freedom, labor freedom, freedom from corruption, government size, and trade freedom. The average tariff rate is not high although general import licenses are issued only to nationals. Thanks to a flexible labor market, low level of corruption, and no federal income or corporate taxes, foreign businesses have been flooding into the U.A.E. But the Index authors urge the U.A.E. to continue to liberalize its financial system and establish transparent property rights.

Now consider Libya’s ranking in the Index. Its economy is 38.7 percent free, which makes it the world''s 154th freest economy. It ranks 17th out of 17 countries in the Middle East/North Africa region, and its overall score is much lower than the regional average. More specifically, high tariff rates and nontariff barriers combined with widespread corruption impede trade and foreign investment. However, over the past three years the government has carried out some economic reforms, including reductions in subsidies and plans for privatization. There has also been an effort to expand the nonoil manufacturing sector and to increase tourism, and visitors report that there are early signs of a business boom.

So how do you explain the divergent fortunes of the U.A.E. and Libya? The short answer is economic freedom.

Unrest, protests rock southern Libya

2008-11-06T09:35:00.000-05:00

UPI

TRIPOLI, Libya, Nov. 6 (UPI) -- The Libyan military placed the city of Kufra under siege following protests over lack of medical and other basic services, an opposition leader said.

"A large amount of Libyan forces have been sent south," the opposition source told Med Basin Newsline.

The protests led to clashes between Libyan security forces and the Tabu tribe Monday, resulting in two deaths and 19 injuries although government officials would not comment on the reported unrest, Med Basin reported Thursday.

Opposition leaders said government authorities cut phone connections between Kufra and other locations.

"The army is constantly bringing in troops via helicopter," the opposition source said. "There is heavy fighting and shooting taking place in the city."

Issa Abdul Majid Mansour, who leads the Libyan Tabu Salvation Front in Europe, said security forces and tribal leaders were exchanging fire. Mansour, based in Norway, said tribesmen were setting afire army and security vehicles in the Kufra area.

ANALYSIS-Libyan liberalisation rests on shaky foundations

2008-11-06T06:03:00.000-05:00

Reuters

Thu 6 Nov 2008, 10:22 GMT

By Tom Pfeiffer

TRIPOLI, Nov 6 (Reuters) - Four years after the United States lifted sanctions on Libya, advocates of a free market are locked in a struggle with powerful state apparatchiks to decide the country's future.

Leader Muammar Gaddafi has said the oil-rich north African OPEC member has no choice but to adapt to the global economy to preserve the benefits of the "Islamic Socialism" system he introduced after seizing power in 1969.

Restrictions on private capital have been eased and Libyans in cushy government jobs are being encouraged to retrain and set up businesses with the help of cheap state loans.

But local analysts say parts of the revolutionary, military and tribal elite, some of whom benefit from state monopolies, are resisting changes in education, health and utilities.

"There are still diehard socialists within the system and others with simple vested interests," said Sami Zaptia of Know Libya, a Tripoli-based business services firm.

"We may have to wait a generation before we can steam ahead with real economic reform," he added.

A visit to the Mediterranean capital Tripoli suggests some change is afoot.

The skyline is changing as new hotels spring up to cater for an influx of foreign businessmen drawn by the promise of lucrative contracts to upgrade ageing infrastructure.

The government says it aims to recruit 1 million foreign workers, including Bangladeshis and Sri Lankans, in the next five years to build homes, universities and roads.

Libya's leading champion of change is Gaddafi's son Saif al-Islam, who holds no official government position but proved his influence by taking a key role negotiating the country's emergence from diplomatic isolation.

The fact that Saif is outside government makes him a free agent, yet some experts also see that as a weakness.

"The fact that there is no official call for reforms is an obstacle," said political analyst and university professor Mustafa Fetouri.

"Officially, what we are doing is developing the country -- not because we are reforming, but because we are out of the boycott and the political complications with the West are behind us so we can pay attention to development," said Fetouri.

SKILLS FAILURE

Libyan-born academics and economists who have been encouraged to return from abroad to help shape their country's future seem daunted by the scale of the task.

Libya's universal education system has achieved better literacy levels in the population than other Maghreb states but they say it is failing to develop specialised skills.

Students might study accountancy or management for years but end up unable to work as accountants or managers.

An even greater challenge is to instil ambition, creativity and a work ethic in a population accustomed to receiving phantom state jobs, government advisers say.

An Economic Development Board has a target of training hundreds of entrepreneurs but insiders say early attempts have largely failed.

That's left some wondering who will work in the technology and business parks due to be built with mostly foreign labour.

Projects announced in recent years suggest Libya wants to replicate the success of Dubai, Qatar and Abu Dhabi, which have diversified oil-reliant economies by drawing foreign expertise to build free-trade zones, business services and new industries.

But foreign analysts say Libya needs to reform state institutions first.

"In those places there is some respect for the rule of law and a judiciary independent enough for foreign companies to feel confident putting capital there," said Geoff Porter, an analyst at Eurasia Group. "I don't think Libya has the same thing."

ONE MAN

Libyan liberalisers have a powerful champion in Saif al-Islam, whose influence, even outside government, is not disputed.

But he remains only one man, and uncertainty has clouded the outlook for change since he hinted in a speech on Aug. 20 that he would withdraw from an active political role.

"Whatever slant you put on it, I think this announcement was bad news," said Zaptia. "If we had a vibrant stock exchange, I think the market would have nose-dived that day."

Gaddafi, complaining about ineffective ministries and corrupt officials, said in March the government should hand oil wealth directly to the people so they can choose where to get basic services.

Experts say the government will probably avoid cash handouts and instead channel funds through an economic and social development fund that would give the poorest 1 million Libyans a share in wealth-generating assets.

The move could lead to a much bigger role for the private sector in health, insurance, education, utilities and housing.

But they say the plan, originally set for next year, could be delayed as it may be risky to enact a major restructuring of the administration in the middle of the global financial crisis.

And there remains scepticism in the country towards change that could throw old certainties into doubt, and some suspicion of the returning Libyan-born academics and their foreign colleagues who are trying to push through the changes.

"Many well-educated Libyans who lived in the country through the hard times are not happy with these 'imported' reformers being given key roles," said Fetouri. "These people are not actually accepted yet within the larger society." (Writing by Tom Pfeiffer; Editing by Jonathan Wright)

Siemens Books EU1 Billion Provision for Bribery Cases ( INCLUDING LIBYA )

2008-11-05T11:53:00.000-05:00

Bloomberg

Siemens Books EU1 Billion Provision for Bribery Cases ( INCLUDING LIBYA )

By Sheenagh Matthews and Karin Matussek

Nov. 5 (Bloomberg) -- Siemens AG, the world's largest engineering company, set aside 1 billion euros ($1.3 billion) to settle U.S. and German charges that it bribed officials in at least a dozen countries to win contracts.

The provision, affecting earnings for the year ended Sept. 30, is based on the ``status of ongoing discussions'' with authorities, Munich-based Siemens said. The company fell 2.9 percent in Frankfurt trading.

The German maker of power plants and trains is seeking an accord with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission and the Justice Department to end a two-year bribery investigation. The scandal erupted in November 2006 and led to probes in at least a dozen countries. The company found at least 1.3 billion euros in ``unclear payments'' made from 2000 to 2006, which may have been used to bribe customers for orders.

``The number is probably pretty much exactly what they will have to pay,'' said Theo Kitz, a Munich-based analyst at Merck Finck & Co, who has a ``buy'' rating on Siemens. ``The SEC part would be less than 1 billion when you subtract the German part. That really is less than expected.''

Siemens fell 1.46 euros to 48.92 euros in Frankfurt trading.

No further comments will be made on the proceedings, the company said in a statement today.

Chief Executive Officer Peter Loescher, hired in July 2007 to clean up the company's affairs, replaced half of the top 100 executives and appointed division heads to eliminate decision making by consensus on a board.

Outside Hire

Loescher, the first CEO hired from outside of Siemens, took over from Klaus Kleinfeld, who left along with Chairman Heinrich von Pierer in the wake of the bribery scandal.

Siemens in July said it will demand that Kleinfeld, Von Pierer, who was chief executive from 1992 to 2005, and nine other former officials pay damages for failing to halt bribery.

The Munich Regional Court last year fined Siemens 1 million euros, the maximum fine, for bribes paid between 2001 and 2004 to government officials in Libya, Nigeria and Russia. It also seized 200 million euros, the ``economic benefits'' Siemens gained through the kickbacks. The Munich ruling only covered bribes paid in the former communications unit. Munich prosecutors have extended their probe to all other units and may seek similar penalties for wrongdoings.

Public prosecutors opened administrative probes in May against Von Pierer and Kleinfeld over the issue. Both men deny wrongdoing.

``It's good that Siemens isn't barred from taking on public contracts in the U.S.,'' Kitz said. ``That would be a burden for Siemens and would lead to job cuts there. Theoretically it's still possible, but I don't think it's likely.''

To contact the reporters on this story: Sheenagh Matthews in Frankfurt at smatthews6@bloomberg.net.

Iranian Shiite Leader Denies Supporting Gaddafi's Fatimid State Revival

2008-11-05T08:42:00.000-05:00

Asharq Alawsat

03/11/2008
By Khaled Mahmoud

Cairo, Asharq Al-Awsat- Ayatollah Mohamed Ali Al Taskhiri has denied supporting the revival of the Fatimid state, as announced by the Libyan leader Colonel Muammar Gaddafi.

The Fatimid state was an Islamic Shiite Caliphate that ruled over varying areas of Morocco, Egypt, and the Levant, from 909 to 1171 AD.

Speaking from the Iranian capital Tehran, Taskhiri, who is Secretary-General for the International Forum for Bringing Islamic Schools of Thought Closer, said that the quotes of him supporting the revival of the Fatimid state are incorrect.

Over the course of the last year in several public speeches and press statements Gaddafi has called for what he describes as the Second Fatimid State in North Africa which will eliminate the debate between the Sunni and Shiite sects and remove the enmity between them, an enmity which 'Arab rulers encourage'.

In an interview with the Libyan e-newspaper 'Libya Al Youm' which will be published on Tuesday, Taskhiri said 'I have never supported the revival of a Fatimid State, and I think the reporters who say that I did are mistaken' adding that 'the era where central government does not speak has come to an end, as did the Fatimid State'. He noted that Gaddafi's goal in calling for this state was not sectarian.

These statements are the exact opposite of what the Libyan media agencies quoted Taskhiri as saying during his participation in the 8th General Conference for the Islamic Call which was held in Tripoli last week. The Conference, whose slogan is 'Islam is God's Religion's' and to which more than 460 Islamic organizations attended from all over the world, this number does not include international bodies, regional organizations, and Christian organizations interested in inter-faith dialogue and cross-cultural communication. Dozens of scholars, intellectuals, and university professors also attended, as well as media agencies from around the world.

Previous press reports had stated that the Iranian Ayatollah Mohamed Ali Taskhiri had stunned the entire conference with his declaration of support for Gaddafi's proposal, affirming that a new Fatimid State would eliminate the sectarian conflict which is fueled by the West to divide Muslims.

Taskhiri said 'I support Gaddafi's new proposal regarding a new Fatimid State, and I well understand the basic purpose of this proposal, which is to remedy the sectarian conflict in a way the West does not want, which is a way that is not dividing the Muslim word into a Sunni-Shiite conflict, or a Persian-Arab one'

On the other hand Taskhiri avoided commenting on his dispute with Dr. Yusuf Al Qaradawi, President of the World Federation of Muslim Scholars, regarding some of Qaradawi's criticisms of the Shiite sect. Taskhiri has previously expressed surprise at the words of Qaradawi regarding the obstacles that exist between the different Islamic sects. He said 'Many were surprised by these views, and the truth is that Qaradawi himself previously defended the Shiite with regards to the case of distortions in the Quranic text'. Taskhiri said that the differences between Sunnis and Shiites are 'inflated beyond reality, and denies any organization or planning with regards to Sunni or Shiite preaching'.

Some scholars and intellectuals criticized the precept that the Shiites love the family of the Prophet, for in this way everybody would be a Shiite. Taskhiri denied that sectarianism is connected to the Persians adding 'Sunni ideology was threatened in reality, and those who saved Sunni ideology were in fact Iranian scholars, I am talking of Imam Al Ghazali, may he rest in peace.

Taskhiri added that in Iran there are more than 7000 Sunni mosques, and more then 37,000 Sunni scholars and students who are lucky enough to fall under the prevue of the Iranian government.

On the Shiite position regarding the companions of the Prophet, Taskhiri said in remarks which could spark an angry reaction in Sunnis that 'It is not right that a companion of the Prophet be elevated to the rank of the Just or Protected, simply because he saw or lived with the Prophet for a short period of time'.

The Iranian Ayatollah said that 'It is one of the biggest mistakes to view Islam through the lens of our own geographic regions, or our own sects, or even our own histories which we separate from Islamic history as a whole, we must revert to the form which was sought after by Islam' confirming the Shiite inability to find a over-looking doctrine for all Muslims.

In the meantime, 30 scholars from Saudi Arabia, the Kuwait, and other Arab countries signed a statement warning Mohamed Al Mahri, chairman of the Shiite scholars in Kuwait, against making inflammatory statements against Sheik Yusuf Al Qaradawi which were tantamount to giving 'permission of shedding the Sheik's blood while accusing Iran of backing this attacking. The signatories of this statement consider Al Mahri to be an 'apostate' leading a 'delegation of blood' against the Sheik, as well as being a 'non-believer' according to the Shiite code for attacking a Sheik in this way.

It is noteworthy that Qaradawi has recently warned of Shiite expansion within Arab countries, and called for a halt to the insults that some Shiite companions of the Prophet face, accusing Iran of feeding this fire to fulfill its own political interests. This is followed by remarks on the other hand against media agencies and Iranian dignitaries, among whom the 'Mehr' Iranian agency, which attacked Qaradawi. These attacks included the ridicule and abuse of previous Qaradawi comments. Al Qaradawi's website quoted Ayatollah Taskhiri as saying that what occurred must be taken in the context of the Sunni-Shiite issue, and that the disagreement was no more than 'clouds in the summer sky which disappear without a trace'.

He stressed that Iran would welcome the visit of Sheik Al Qaradawi at any time, and said 'It is always his country, it cannot be otherwise'. A meeting of the Board of Trustees for the World Federation of Muslim Scholars, which occurred in the middle of last October in the capital of Qatar, Doha, came to an agreement regarding the Sunni-Shiite issue, and reversed the meetings closing statement in support of Qaradawi's demands, stressing the importance for the unity of all Muslims regardless of sectarian differences, demanding the respect for any and all Companions of the Prophet, and to distance themselves from sectarian preaching.

-

"...relations between Libya and the West are not yet stable and may be shaken again in the future"

2008-11-03T06:35:00.002-05:00

Condoleezza Rice's Visit to Libya: The Final Step in Qaddafi's Diplomatic Rehabilitation?

By Hanna-Caroline Imig

24 Oct 2008

When the Libyan President Muammar Al-Qaddafi greeted US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice – whom he called his ‘dark African sweet-heart’ – in Tripoli at the beginning of September, it was a historic moment in the US-Libyan relationship. Rice was the first high-ranked US politician to visit Libya since 1953.

It seems that the long awaited visit of Rice – after many European leaders such as Tony Blair and Nicolas Sarkozy had already knocked on Qaddafi’s door – completes Libya’s diplomatic rehabilitation. It was a long road back from the cold for Libyan President Muammar Al-Qaddafi. Over the past two decades, he has changed dramatically from a terrorist-sponsor and the leader of a rogue state, to a partner of the West. It is often suggested that Libya’s reintegration constitutes a model for dealing with other rogue states. However, asserting that the success with Libya can be repeated is not as simple as some politicians claim. A closer look at Libya’s rehabilitation shows that this process, which was mainly motivated by political and economic calculations, is not a model. In the coming months, Qaddafi’s relationship with the West should be watched carefully.

Libya used to be an archetypical rogue state: Qaddafi’s anti-Western, anti-imperialistic ideology, his support and active involvement in terrorism, as well as his attempts to develop weapons of mass destruction, qualified Libya as an ‘enemy of the West’ for over thirty years. As such, Libya faced political, economic and military sanctions from the US and the UN and was isolated from the international community. Thus it was a surprise when Libya announced its abandonment of its rogue state image and a desire to reintegrate into the international community.
The first approaches to negotiate with the West were made through the settlement of the Lockerbie case. This settlement was achieved through secret three-party negotiations between the US, the UK and Libya held from 1999 onwards. Qaddafi agreed to extradite the two suspects, to pay compensation to the families of the victims, and to officially take total responsibility for the Lockerbie case. As part of the agreement, Qaddafi was also required to renounce all engagement in, as well as support of, terrorist activities. At the beginning of 2003, Libya paid the families of the 270 victims $2.7 billion in compensation. Following this action, the UN and most European countries lifted their sanctions in September 2003.

The US, on the other hand, decided to maintain their strict sanctions regime against Libya until Qaddafi abandoned his unconventional weapons program. Consequently, secret meetings between the US, UK and Libya continued in 2003 to find an agreement about the dismantlement of the program. On 19 December 2003, the Libyan Foreign Policy Minister Abd Al-Rahman Chalgram officially announced that Libya had decided, by its own free will, to be completely free of internationally banned weapons and to do so in a transparent manner under the observation of international inspectors.[1] However, it took until May 2006 for Libya to be removed from the US state sponsors of terrorism list and for the remaining US sanctions – some dating as far back as the Carter administration – to be lifted. On 11 July 2007, President Bush announced the nomination of Gene Cretz as the next American ambassador to Libya, a post vacant since Ambassador Joseph Palmer departed in November 1972.

After Libya’s decision to renounce weapons of mass destruction, the Bush administration and various neo-conservatives – in need of positive publicity for their pre-emptive strike against Saddam Hussein – quickly portrayed the Libyan change as a by-product of the Iraq war. However, as the records of the secret tri-party negotiations show, Libya’s transformation was far removed from the influence of the Iraq war. In fact, the Bush-doctrine limited, restricted and slowed down the rehabilitation process of Libya on several occasions. Once Qaddafi had fulfilled the requirements and pleased the West, he expected to be treated as an equal, especially by the US. Most other European countries, as well as Russia, were quick to embrace Qaddafi and welcome him back into the international community. By contrast, the Bush administration found it difficult to reward Libyan attempts to disarm because Tripoli’s behaviour did not fit Washington’s rogue state model. Preoccupied with Iraq, a negotiated settlement with Libya would have undermined the Bush administration’s argument that the removal of Iraq’s alleged weapons of mass destruction necessitated a war.[2] It was not until the US realised that they were missing out on lucrative oil and gas deals with Libya that they loosened their policy and tried to catch up with many of the European states that had already established a business relationship with Qaddafi. The inflexible US ‘rogue state’ doctrine, the late sanction lifting, US claims that pre-emptive strikes against Iraq and not its own free-will motivated Libya to rejoin the international community and the delayed visit of Condoleezza Rice, discredited Libya’s co-operation. In that, it did not constitute a model for other rogue states expected to follow the example set by Libya.

At the same time, another important constraint of the ‘model’ function of the Libyan case is the lack of its co-operation with Western demands for democracy promotion and respect for human rights. Qaddafi still runs a repressive leadership and regularly abuses human rights within his borders. In January 2006, Human Rights Watch reported Libya had taken some steps to improve its human rights record. However, it concluded that serious problems remained, including the use of violence against detainees, restrictions on freedom of expression and association and the incarceration of political prisoners.

It becomes clear that even though relations between Libya and the West have improved enormously in the past couple of years, the main reason behind Libya’s rehabilitation lies in pure realpolitik. Qaddafi, who was in need of investments, and the West, more than willing to undertake these investments, focused on economic deals, instead of reinforcing issues such as democracy-building and the promotion of human rights. Libya’s promising business and investment opportunities, especially in the oil and gas markets, leave open concerns that the rush to negotiate lucrative contracts with Libya may encourage Western governments and businesses to overlook the country’s human rights record. We cannot expect rogue states to instantly transform into stable and democratic states; however, the improvement of Libyan domestic policies should, at the very least, be put on the agenda at future negotiations. Even more so now that Qaddafi’s son (and at-one-point presumed successor) Saif Al-Islam Qaddafi, known for his engagement in political and economic reforms in Libya, recently decided to step back from the political scene.
The future relationship with the senior Qaddafi is also uncertain, as ‘unfinished business’ still remains between Libya and the West. The Lockerbie process remains a subject of controversy. Although American and Libyan officials formulated a final deal over the Lockerbie case and other Libyan-sponsored attacks, it remains unclear if this agreement is going to be implemented. So far, the fund remains empty.
Additionally, the presumed-closed Lockerbie trial seems to be taking new directions. The Libyan official Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al-Megrahi, the only person convicted for the Lockerbie bombing, is currently undertaking a second appeal in Scotland. If his conviction were overturned, Libya could demand the return of the money already paid to the victims of the Lockerbie case. If it is determined that recent Libyan declarations of acceptance of responsibility for the Lockerbie case were simply diplomatic ploys to get sanctions lifted, Libya’s relationship with the West could be further weakened. Libya might be back from the cold, but the relations between Libya and the West are not yet stable and may be shaken again in the future.
It has become apparent that Libya’s rehabilitation was not driven by moral insight or democratic aspirations, but by pragmatic considerations and realpolitik. However, this demonstrates the reality of international relations in that states are mainly driven by political, economic, and strategic interests and more likely deal with each other if there is mutual benefit, as was the case with Libya. Considering this exceptional situation of correlated interests, the deduction of a model or general concept from this case that is applicable to all other rogue states seems difficult. Every case is unique and determined by a specific geo-political environment that has to be closely analysed.

With this said, there is still one important lesson that can be drawn from the Libyan case; it is always worth attempting to deal with rogue states diplomatically, rather than simply isolating them or confronting them with military force. Instead of using force, choosing a policy of dialogue, confidence-building and multilateral engagement could be an option for dealing with other rogue states, such as Syria or Iran. An integrated rogue state is still safer than an isolated one. However, the simple implementation of this approach does not automatically produce a successful outcome. Political, economic and strategic interests need to correlate and be negotiated quid pro quo.

Libya has changed dramatically from a rogue state to a ‘business partner’ in the past two decades. But can the relationship between Libya and the West go much further? Lord Palmerston famously said ‘nations have no permanent friends or allies; they just have permanent interest[s].’ It remains to be seen if, through further constructive engagement, Libya and the West will continue to share interests, deepening and stabilising their relationship. However, it seems highly unlikely that Libya will ever turn into a strong Western supporter like Morocco or Egypt. Qaddafi is always careful not to be seen in one single camp and tries to keep his options open. He engages with whoever is able to maximise his power, and economic and strategic interests. Libya’s current discussions with Russia regarding their access to Libya’s energy resources and arm sales underline Qaddafi’s volatility. It almost seems cynical that just when the West, especially the US, considers Libya’s rehabilitation completed, Russia steps into the game and tries to convince Qaddafi to balance his growing relations with the West with stronger ties to Moscow. In whichever direction Libya swings next, we can say with certainty that we have not heard the last from Muammar Al-Qaddafi.

Hanna-Caroline Imig

International Security Studies, RUSI
NOTES

[1] Ronald Bruce St John, ‘Libya and the United States: A Faustian Pact?’, Middle East Policy (No. 1, Vol. 15, Spring 2008).
[2] Ronald Bruce St John, ‘Libya is not Iraq’, Middle East Journal (Vol. 58, No. 3, Summer 2003).

Pitty the nation ...

2008-11-02T12:25:00.001-05:00

Pity the nation that wears a cloth it does not weave, eats a bread it does not harvest, and drinks a wine that flows not from its own wine press

Pity the nation that acclaims the bully as hero, and that deems the glittering conqueror bountiful.

Pity the nation that despises a passion in its dream, yet submits in its awakening.

Pity the nation that raises not its voice save when it walks in funeral, boasts not except among its ruins, and will rebel not save when its neck is laid between the sword and block.

Pity the nation whose statesman is a fox, whose philosopher is a juggler, and whose art is the art of patching and mimicking.

Pity the nation that welcomes its new ruler with trumpetings, and farewells him with hootings, only to welcome another with trumpetings again.

Pity the nation whose sages are dumb with years and whose strong men are yet in the cradle.

Pity the nation divided into fragments, each fragment deeming itself a nation.

Pity the nation that is full of beliefs and empty of ( real ) religion.

Kahlil Gibran

Back to the future: Libya offers to host Russian military base

2008-10-31T05:21:00.000-04:00

Middle East Online

Russian military presence expected to guarantee non-aggression against North African country.

MOSCOW - Libyan leader Moamer Gathafi, who visits Moscow Friday for the first time since 1985, will offer to host a Russian naval base in his North African country, a Russian newspaper reported.

"Libya is ready to host a Russian naval military base," the Kommersant reported, citing a source close to the preparations for Gathafi's first visit here since the days of the Soviet Union.

The base could be located at the port of Benghazi, the source said.

"The Russian military presence will be a guarantee of non-aggression against Libya from the United States, which is not in a hurry to embrace Gathafi despite gestures of reconciliation," the newspaper said.

Gathafi's offer could also "ease the Kremlin's dissatisfaction" over his failure to fulfill agreements reached in April during a landmark visit to Tripoli by then-president Vladimir Putin, Kommersant said.

During the visit, Moscow agreed to cancel billions of dollars of Libyan Soviet-era debt in exchange for major contracts with Russian companies.

Those agreements included a promise by Tripoli to buy Russian arms, but "despite the agreement, Gathafi still has not bought a single tank or airplane," Kommersant reported.

Russia was also disappointed that energy-rich Libya did not agree to join a "gas OPEC" along with fellow gas exporter Qatar, Kommersant said.

Gathafi is scheduled to visit Russia from Friday to Sunday.

Relations between Russia and Libya, a former pariah state that has pushed to get back into the international fold in recent years, showed signs of significant warming this year after a long chill.

Earlier this month, a Russian warship docked in Tripoli as part of a global show of force that is to include joint naval exercises between Russia and Venezuela in the Caribbean in November.

In April, Russian gas giant Gazprom signed a cooperation agreement with Libya's national energy company while Russia's rail monopoly signed a 2.2-billion-euro contract to build a railway line in Libya.

Libya bought many of its weapons from Moscow during the Cold War.

Could an Obama Win Restore America's Global Image?

2008-10-30T02:36:00.000-04:00

ABC NEWS

Obama Candidacy Helps Revive America's Sagging Image Abroad

By LARA SETRAKIAN

DUBAI, United Arab Emirates, Oct. 28, 2008 —

If the world could vote, Barack Obama would win by a landslide.

He'd take 78 percent of the vote in France, 72 percent in Germany, 70 percent in Canada and 61 percent in Japan, according to global newspaper polls and Harris Interactive, a market research firm in Rochester, N.Y.

Beneath those numbers, running parallel to Obama-mania, is a shifting global view of the United States.

One week before Election Day, the world is revising its opinion of America. After a drop of confidence in the United States, presidential candidate Barack Obama has revived the U.S. brand, exporting a vision of American renewal to a world watching the election with unprecedented interest.

"He's just stirred the imagination of ordinary people," said Daniel Kinnear, a veteran diplomat based in South Africa. "For a country like South Africa that is coming out of a legacy of apartheid and is still dealing with its legacy, Obama remains a sign of hope. There's an incredible romanticism of having a black American on the forefront of change in the United States."

"If Obama does win, this could also be the moment when the world stops hating America," Vir Sanghvi, an Indian columnist, wrote in the Hindustan Times. "The world will feel engaged by an Obama presidency. By electing Obama they have the chance to earn ... goodwill, to transform their country's image, and to finally stem the rising tide of global anti-Americanism."

Since President Bush took office in 2000, approval of the United States has dropped, along with its soft power -- indirect influence by which the United States can advance its policy goals without the use of force or coercion.

Through wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, plus the ineffable war on terror, America's battle tactics have cut into its moral standing abroad.

Europe experienced the rise of "friendly fire anti-Americanism" when protests against America rocked longstanding U.S. allies such as France, Spain and Germany, where roughly one in three people now hold a favorable view of the United States -- significantly fewer since the war in Iraq.

In this year's Pew Global Attitudes poll, the United Kingdom was the only European country surveyed in which a majority of people, 53 percent, expressed a positive view of the United States.

Economic might, usually a given for the United States, has withered, as most countries begin to believe that the U.S. economy is having a negative effect on theirs, experts say.

"There's a lot of anger that this financial crisis was made in America and that other countries are going to be paying the bills for the casino culture on Wall Street," said Jeff Kingston, a professor at Temple University's Japan campus.

Whether Obama can solve those problems -- and whether he wins -- he is the man of the hour to a world yearning for a clean break from the past eight years. That "change" is Obama's foremost talking point and has aligned him in timing and tone with the global zeitgeist.

New Kudos From Old Europe
Obama's marquis moment as a global statesman was a July 24, 2008, speech in Berlin that drew 200,000 cheering Germans at the pinnacle of a trip that also took him through Kuwait, Iraq and Israel.

Karsten Voigt, the German government's coordinator for trans-Atlantic relations, told reporters that "Germany is Obamaland. Germans see the African-American senator as a kind of mixture of JFK and Martin Luther King Jr."

In the Berlin speech, Obama emphasized terrorism, security, nuclear nonproliferation and climate change as campaign priorities, all topics that resonate powerfully with a global audience.

Obama has been similarly embraced by the masses in other European states. Among the French public, only 1 percent would want Sen. John McCain as president, according to a poll by France 24, a news and current affairs television channel. In France, Obama's rise revived the discourse about racial minorities there, where blacks and Arabs have long complained of being politically marginalized.

Asia's Approach
In Japan, where approval of the United States has dropped 11 percentage points since last year -- roughly half of Japanese people disapprove of America -- Obama has a strong fan base. The epicenter of enthusiasm is the coastal enclave of Obama City, Japan. The local population of 32,000 has embraced the senator, who happens to share their city's name.

"Mr. Obama does not feel like a stranger to us," said Seiji Fujihara, secretary general of a gathering known as the Group that Supports Barack Obama Voluntarily.

"We both carry the name Obama, and he is like a relative. If Mr. Obama becomes the president, we will form a delegation and try to visit him at the White House. That would be awesome."

Kingston said, "People feel that if America is ready to elect a black man president, it's a good sign that America is living up to its own ideals.

"For the Japanese, who have long felt the sharp edge of American racism, this is a welcome thing."

In China, the rationale behind support for Obama varies.

"I prefer Obama to be the president, because he is a black man," said Zhou Yan, a student of diplomacy and international studies at Beijing Foreign Studies University. "It will be very revolutionary, because it means black people have ... equal rights with white people in America."

Shi Yinghong, director of American Studies at People's University in Beijing, said that the global financial crisis has turned more Chinese attention to the U.S. election.

"Chinese were generally neutral. Now they more favor Obama over McCain," Yinghong said.

"If there were no financial crisis people would be more concerned for the colors of the candidates. But now overwhelmingly ... hopes and fears are conditioned with the financial crisis. Less people are concerned about black or white."

Around the world, non-Americans eager to weigh in are expressing themselves through Web sites like Voices without Votes and The World Wants Obama.

The Middle East
In Israel, fans of the Illinois senator are reaching out to quell fears of an Obama presidency through a video called "Israelis for Obama," which has been posted on YouTube and at the Jewish Journal.

Halfway through the video a handful of Israelis chant his middle name, Hussein, as if to debug it of any stigma.

In other corners of the Middle East, a potential Obama win would help restore the image of America among allies and adversaries.

"I think someone like Obama would make a huge difference," said Hafed Al Ghewell, a Libyan-American living in Dubai.

"It would be an incredibly pleasant statement to the world from the United States, both that the U.S. is still the most capable country of correcting itself and the country that is able to go beyond the expectations of the world."

Al Ghwell and others say the Arab world is watching with caution, even as the widely popular candidate commands a broad lead over the Arizona senator in domestic polls.

"There's a fear that the majority of American whites aren't ready for a black president, this notion of will they 'let' him win?" said Emile Hokayem, political editor of The National newspaper in Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates. "Could a black man really get to the very top? People are pretty puzzled by it." .

Hokayem said that in the Arab world, the election invokes a conspiratorial view of U.S. politics, one he thinks will be reinforced if Obama loses.

"Middle-Easterners have a very dark image of the policy system in Washington," Hokayem said. "Somehow you have big players -- mostly white guys, a couple of them part of the Zionist lobby, and a few others, defense contractors and the oil industry -- who determine the outcome."

Bush Foes, Future Friends?

Iran and Venezuela, two foreign policy bogeymen of the Bush administration, recognize that a President Obama could drastically reroute the U.S. approach to their governments. Obama has said that as president he would engage in talks with both countries, fueling excitement for the prospect of normalized relations.

"Most of my relatives say they're sick of the old Washington system," said Sina Tabesh, 24, who follows U.S. politics from his home in Tehran. "They're very optimistic about Obama."

In a show of support, Tabesh changed his facebook profile picture to a portrait of Obama.

Others in Iran have seen enthusiasm tempered as Obama filled out his platform on Middle East policy.

"People thought most highly of him when his first biography was translated into Persian," said Majid Marandi, a political science professor at Tehran University. "The AIPAC talk changed the way Iranians thought of him."

In that speech at the June policy conference of AIPAC, or the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, a pro-Israel lobby, Obama called Iran the greatest threat to Israel and to the peace and stability of the region.

Still, said Nader Talebzadeh, a filmmaker and public intellectual in Tehran, there's a "preference toward Obama, because of the hawkish attitudes of McCain and Palin.

"They hope that he'll be a rational man who won't be swayed by irrational pressure, pressures that would push countries and the world into war. If Obama doesn't become president, then we're going to gear up for turbulent waters."

Talebzadeh points to a racial ripple in Iranian public opinion: Many in the Islamic Republic identify with black Americans and the civil rights movement, its symbolism of an oppressed minority pushing back against the mainstream.

"There's great respect for figures like Martin Luther King Jr.," Talebzadeh said. "There's great sympathy for African-Americans in Iran. During the hostage crisis, they were among the first released," a reference to the U.S. Embassy takeover in 1979.

Obama vs. Osama

The most lethal form of anti-Americanism that has grown up during the Bush era is the form that lives in pockets of the Muslim world, fueling violent jihad. The next four years of battle for hearts and minds will pit the U.S. president against the ideologues of al Qaeda, inspired by but not necessarily under the direct command of Osama bin Laden.

A potential Obama win, say experts, would undercut some of the talking points and emotional arguments that demonize the United States to the benefit of Muslim extremists.

"Barack Obama must be unsettling for Mr. bin Laden. An African-American with a father born in Kenya and a childhood spent partly in Indonesia presents a very different face to the world," wrote Joe Nye of Harvard University.

"Certainly, the election of the first African-American as president would do wonders to restore the soft power that the Bush administration has squandered over the past eight years. That is why Mr. Obama is such a threat to Mr. bin Laden: on the crucial soft power skills of emotional intelligence, vision and communication, Mr. Obama has the edge? that must be giving Mr. bin Laden a headache."

Hafed Al Ghwell of the Dubai School of Government said the projected image of a President Obama would deflate the extremist cliche of America as a crusader state, targeting Muslims at home and abroad.

"That's the jihadists' image of America that they've been able not only to portray but to solidify by using the policies of President Bush," Al Ghwell said. "Ironically, Bush solidified their arguments in the region. It's no longer going to be valid with somebody like Obama in office.

"He will take that sting out of any sort of sense that people feel that [policies] are racially or religiously or culturally motivated policy. People will not see them in terms of a white man trying to impose his rule."

Latin America

Just south of American voting booths, in Mexico, perceptions of a racially polarized election have fed similar fears.

"People in Mexico really want Barack to win," said Jose Cohen, a journalist in Mexico City. "There's a fear in Mexico that when white Americans get into the polls they won't vote for the black guy.

"You hear people being skeptical of whether the extreme right will let him win, saying it's never going to happen. The extreme right will never allow a black man to be president."

In Mexico, visions of the American dream -- a shot at working one's way up the economic ladder -- have paled with the financial downturn. Cohen said that 1,500 people are crossing the border back into Mexico as job opportunities grow scarce. Mexico has felt neglected by the Bush administration, punished for opposing the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

"Bush blew us off the rest of his presidency," Cohen said.

The desire for change has driven support for Obama, overpowering an initial bias rooted in Mexico's own racial fears.

"At first, when he was contending with Hillary Clinton, Mexicans worried, felt that Hillary would be more for Mexico and Barack more for blacks," Cohen said. "Now people are starting to see it as an advantage that he's from a minority."

Meanwhile, Venezuela, an Iranian ally with strong political and commercial ties to the Islamic Republic, has been a stalwart American foe during the Bush era. Widespread admiration for Obama among Venezuelans could muddy, if not derail, the harsh rhetoric between Caracas and Washington given an Obama win.

"For some time [President Hugo] Chavez would have to cool off the fight with America," said Fernando Juaregui, a Venezuelan journalist.

"The fact our president is [biracial], like Obama, helps people in Venezuala relate to his background. There's respect that he's a self-made person."

Elsewhere in Latin America, tattered relationships and perceptions of the United States are opening to revision in light of a potential Obama presidency.

"The Cuban people are waiting in trepidation, hoping very much that Obama will win the election," said Osmel Prieto Frometa, who owns a guest house in Baracoa, Cuba. "Obama is a beacon of hope for us."

Obama has vowed to normalize U.S.-Cuban relations in exchange for steps toward political reform.

"With Obama, things will change," Frometa said. "I'm sure he will lift the embargo. Reagan, Bush and McCain are all the same, but Obama is different: He understands Latin Americans because he is black."

High Hopes, Short Honeymoon?

Whoever wins the U.S. election likely faces a honeymoon period of high public opinion, coming in on the heels of an unpopular president. Experts say a McCain win would disappoint legions of Obama fans, who have come to see the candidate as the projection of their diverse hopes and policy goals.

"I think it would be a very deep disappointment," Hokayem, the Abu Dhabi-based political analyst, said. "It will also confirm some of the worst prejudices against the U.S."

But while Obama is the clear global choice, pinning the world's hopes on one man opens the risk of unfulfilled hopes and mismanaged expectations.

"What's going to happen is once he takes office the people like Hugo Chavez are going to stand back and wait," Mexican journalist Cohen said of a potential President Obama. "It's going to be a different thing when he takes office and has to make tough decisions."

Hokayem said, "Who is elected is going to have to do a lot of damage control first and a lot of reassuring.

"Policy will change, but it will not change as drastically as people think. While Obama will have some room for innovation, in other ways he'll be constrained by realities on the ground," he said.

"U.S. foreign policy is more than just the character or the background of the president."

Cao Jun, Ammu Kannampilly, Christel Kucharz, Beth Loyd, Noriko Namiki, Gabriel O'Rorke, Donna Sherrington and Stephanie Sy contributed to this report.

Italian prosecutors get breakthrough in Malta-Libya-Iraq arms smuggling case

2008-10-29T05:14:00.000-04:00

Malta Independent

by David Lindsay

Italian prosecutors yesterday sealed a breakthrough in their case against five Italians who allegedly used a company in Malta to broker a multi-million euro arms deal between Libya and Iraq when a Swiss Federal Court ruled the prosecutors could access one of the defendants’ Swiss bank account.

The case had broken in February of last year when Italian investigators uncovered a plot to sell 100,000 AK-47 Kalashnikov assault rifles and 10 million rounds of ammunition to unknown Iraqi recipients through Libyan government officials, with a Maltese-registered company - MIR Ltd of Pieta - acting as the middleman.

The operation was to have seen the Malta-based company acting as a middleman between Chinese weapons producers and Libyan buyers, who would, in turn, allegedly move the weapons on to Iraqi insurgents, according to coded emails recovered by Italian agents.

Following a request by the Italian prosecutors, the Swiss court yesterday ruled they could be allowed access to an Italian businessman’s Swiss bank account allegedly used to bribe Libyan government officials.

The Swiss court also denied a request from an Italian citizen and a company alleged to have masterminded the deal to block the release of its bank account details to Italian prosecutors.

While the defendant was not named in yesterday’s ruling due to Swiss privacy laws, it is very likely the individual involved was Massimo Bettinotti, owner of the Malta-based MIR Ltd, or Ermete Moretti, the company’s secretary.

Prosecutors in the central Italian city of Perugia have been investigating five Italians, including Bettinotti and Moretti, for illegally dealing in arms and allegedly giving hundreds of thousands of dollars in kickbacks to Libyan officials.

In deciding that the company’s bank details could be released, the Swiss court observed that the request was proportionate to the suspected crime. Swiss banking secrecy laws forbid the release of customers’ details unless there is a strong suspicion that a crime has been committed.

The case had unfolded in February 2007 when Italian police announced that while covertly looking for drugs in a suspect traveller’s checked luggage as part of investigations into a drug trafficking ring, they were instead surprised by their discovery of a weapons catalogue, bullet-proof vests and helmets. The suspect had been travelling from Rome to Libya.

An investigation, code named Operation Parabellum, ensued, which led to the discovery of planned covert arms sales to Libya through the Maltese company, as well as a deal struck for the shipment of 100,000 assault rifles to Iraq.

The deal was to have been enacted through an intermediary in Dubai, which had approached MIR Ltd for the procurement of night visors from Mr Bettinotti and was allegedly told MIR could also procure weapons. The Dubai intermediary, al-Handal General Trading Co., had previously been implicated by American investigators in Iraq’s food-for-oil scandal.

Libya Vs.Gaddafi

2008-10-29T04:13:00.003-04:00

Libya vs. Gaddafi through the eyes of the late Libyan artist Mohamed Kaheel

Will Gaddafi get the hump?

2008-10-27T12:16:00.000-04:00

Financial Times

The story of the weekend was surely the Mail on Sunday exclusive on Britain disposing of a camel saddle presented to Tony Blair by Muammer Gaddafi of Libya. The gesture of solidarity was apparently sold at auction for the princely sum of £20.

This revelation comes days after Gordon Brown withdrew an invitation for Mr Gaddafi to attend the London oil summit, which has been downgraded to ministerial level.

The conference would have given Mr Gaddafi, who travels with a bevy of female bodyguards and prefers to stay in a bedoin tent, the opportunity to make his first official visit to London after decades of being ostracised by the international community.

Withdrawing the invite has saved some poor protocol official in London from finding a place to pitch the Libyan leader’s tent (the picture below shows the solution French officials came up with). And Mr Gaddafi is likely to understand that heads of state probably no longer need to gather to discuss the rocketing oil price.

But will the newly improved relations between London and Tripoli survive the camel saddle sleight?

POST A COMMENT HERE

Brown takes back invitations to UK summit

2008-10-25T02:42:00.000-04:00

The Financial Times

By Alex Barker

October 24 2008 22:39

Gordon Brown, the British prime minister, is downgrading plans for an international oil summit and withdrawing invitations to George W. Bush, Hugo Chávez of Venezuela and Muammer Gaddafi of Libya after a collapse in oil prices sapped the interest of world leaders.

The move to “recalibrate” the summit to ministerial level comes after British ambassadors spent months selling the importance of the December conference, which Mr Brown called to address “the most worrying situation in the world”.

Downing Street said the plans had been overtaken by the US offer to host heads of state from the G20 countries for a summit to discuss the global financial crisis next month, even though this gathering will exclude some big oil producers. “The priority for the heads of government must be to address global economic instability at the G20, including oil prices,” said one official.

This summer Mr Brown had urged the leaders of the world’s biggest oil producers and consumers to put aside political differences and gather in London to find “global solutions” to the energy crisis.

But since June – when the prime minister said “the demand for oil is exceeding the supply of oil, not just now but in the medium to long-term future” – the price of a barrel of oil has halved. It is now expected that Ed Miliband, Britain’s energy secretary, will host ministers at a December summit.

Opec responded to the slump in prices by cutting its production quota on Friday, a step that Mr Brown dismissed as “absolutely ridiculous” earlier this month. Oil prices, however, continued to fall after the output cut.

Summit invitations were sent earlier this year to the leaders of the US, Russia, Venezuela, Saudi Arabia, China and Libya, among others. Mahmoud Ahmadi-Nejad, the president of Iran, was “blackballed” by British officials but his energy minister was offered a platform at the conference.

Meanwhile Mr Gaddafi, the Libyan leader, was asked to make his first official visit to London after decades of isolation. “Just imagine the political handwringing as they decided the guest list,” said one British diplomat.

Officials feared that the sharp turn in the oil market threatened to distract from discussion of long-term energy issues. Some said the conference would become a platform for political grandstanding and calls for oil production cuts.

UK diplomats complained of the complexity of organising an event that struggled to pique the interest of several world leaders. Protocol officials were particularly concerned about playing host to Mr Gaddafi, who travels with a bevy of female bodyguards and prefers to stay in a Bedouin tent.

Although inquiries were made to find a site for Mr Gaddafi to pitch his tent, it was expected he would be in London for just a day.

Mr Brown wants the ministerial summit to work on ways to diversify energy supplies and make the oil market more transparent – issues that were raised at an oil conference he attended in Jeddah in June.

One priority for Mr Brown is persuading oil-producing nations to open up their energy resources to foreign investment in exchange for oil-consuming nations opening up their energy markets to investment, including renewables.

A Highly Recommended Libyan Blog : libya-almostakbal.com

2008-10-24T12:52:00.000-04:00

This is probably the best and most active Libyan Arabic political blog on the Internet. It features daily articles and letters written by Libyans inside and outside the country, including regularly featured Libyan writers. It also holds regular audio and video virtual discussion roundtables and forums. The blog was established in July 2003 and has remained in operations uninterrupted thanks to the incredible efforts of its founder and administrator; Mr. Hassan El-Amin. It has also been responsible for breaking a number of news stories about Libya and has been the main point of contact for many Libyan dissidents from inside the country over the years.

I would encourage anyone seriously interested in following news and information about Libya and can read Arabic to visit it at : http://www.libya-almostakbal.com/

Libya comes second to last on bank safety list

2008-10-24T04:15:00.003-04:00

“Once the global economy emerges from the current financial crisis, which it will, the countries that do well on our index are those that are best prepared to bounce back and perform well in the longer term,” Jennifer Blanke, director of the WEF’s global competitiveness network told The Financial Times."

...

"Coming in behind such well-developed nations as Canada, which tops the list, or even Hong Kong in the 11th spot, might not seem so bad. But even the small African nation of Namibia ranks in at 17, illustrating the United States has some definite room for improvement.

While there are plenty of surprises at the type of the bank safety list, there aren’t many such surprises at the bottom. Algeria comes in dead last with Libya just above it."
CLICK HERE FOR MORE

More compensation demands against Libya

2008-10-24T04:06:00.002-04:00

Gaddafi visit proposals slammed in Parliament

23 October 2008

A PROPOSED visit to the UK by Libyan leader Colonel Gaddafi, who supplied weapons to the IRA, has been attacked by DUP MP Nigel Dodds.

Mr Dodds is calling for any visit to be dependent on compensation for victims of the arms supplied by the Libyan government. He said the type of activity fostered by Colonel Gaddafi in the past was all too familiar to people living in Northern Ireland. CLICK HERE FOR MORE

Prominent Liberian wants Gaddafi, Compaore pay reparation to war ...
African Press Agency, Senegal - Oct 16, 2008

Both Libya and Burkina Faso, he claimed, allowed Taylor who later rose to become an elected president of Liberia, to use their respective territories as ... CLICK HERE FOR MORE

Libya ranks 91 in World Competitiveness Report

2008-10-23T12:52:00.001-04:00

"..A number of countries in the Middle East and North Africa region are in the upper half of the rankings, led by Israel, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, Kuwait and Tunisia, with particular improvements noted in the Gulf States since last year. In sub-Saharan Africa, South Africa, Botswana and Mauritius feature in the top half of the rankings, with several countries from the region measurably improving their competitiveness."

Click here to read the report.

Libya confirms its status at the bottom of the world press freedom index

2008-10-22T11:23:00.003-04:00

From the Reporters without Borders Press Freedom Index 2008

The same six Middle East champions of repression that are near the bottom of the world press freedom index every year have confirmed their status this year again. Free expression continues to be no more than a dream in Iraq (158th), Syria (159th), Libya (160th), Saudi Arabia (161st), the Palestinian Territories (163rd) and Iran (166th). Journalists are subjected to relentless censorship and in some cases incredible violence in these countries. The Palestinian Territories have never before fallen so far in a year. The power struggle between the main factions has taken a disastrous toll on press freedom. The political split between the Gaza Strip and the West Bank has been accompanied by a division of the media. The Israeli military’s responsibility for the death of a Palestinian cameraman employed by Reuters in April and the impunity granted to the soldier who fired the fatal shell account for Israel’s fall (149th outside its own territory) in the ranking.

In the Maghreb, Morocco (122nd) continues the fall it began two years ago. The decline in relations between government and press increased significantly with the jailing of journalist Mostapha Hurmatallah. A series of prosecutions of journalists and Internet users has shown that press freedom in Morocco stops at the doors of the royal palace.

Lebanon (66th) has risen 30 places as no journalist was on the list of victims of this year’s bombings. The Hezbollah-orchestrated offensive against certain media affiliated to the anti-Syrian opposition left no victims and trigged a wave of indignation in Lebanese society.

He is coming BAAACK … Get ready for the un-welcomed return of Seif El-Gaddafi in this continuing “really bad Shakespearian play”.

2008-10-22T02:57:00.003-04:00

Hafed Al Ghwell

After the speech in late August, where Seif El-Gaddafi announced that he will no longer get involved in politics, some of the professional hypocrites – and I am using the word hypocrite here to simply be polite and not call a spade a spade - that populate the Libyan government and its “revolutionary committees” structures held a loud meeting to demand that he should not leave them as orphans and must stay involved. Well, a couple of months went by and no one from the general public gave a damn.. It should not be a surprise to know, “oh gentle readers”, that the plan was, announce you are withdrawing from public life – to concentrate on “economic development”, read; stealing more money from the Libyan treasury -- check out the house he lives in Libya and ask yourselves where did he get the money from? - , and then orchestrate public demonstrations demanding your return so you can come back because, surprise , surprise “.. The people wanted it”. The same old trick Gaddafi pulled off in the early 70s. This time no one cared, in fact most Libyans I know of were quite happy he made that promise and are hoping he keeps it.

Well, the hypocrites are back demonstrating again. They held a rally yesterday demanding and writing petitions about the “need for Seif’s return”.

When Seif made that promise in August, I wrote about both my disrespect for him personally and my skepticism about the truth of his vows. I was then simply expressing my opinion without the benefit of any information. Well today I do have few bits of information to back up my claims that he will be back.

Let me recount in general terms the course of an interesting conversation I had very recently.

Last week I had the chance to meet a man who is considered a PR guru in the US. He created and managed one of the largest PR firms in the world. After sitting down with him over dinner, he told me that he was the man advising Gaddafi and Seif for the past couple of years on communication and public relations. A piece of news I did not know before meeting him. Anyhow, I then asked him the scope of his work with Gaddafi and Son Inc. and what was their public relations objectives? The answer was simple and honest; he said Gaddafi contacted me to help in making Seif a major public figure in Libya and abroad and help pave the way for him to inherit his father’s role. I was a bit taken back by that, I must say. I always expected that Gaddafi would guard his intentions in this area, simply given his public declarations against monarchies, inheritance of power, and the whole enchilada of his green booklet etc for the past 40 years. But the man in front of me insisted that this was exactly what Gaddafi the father asked him to do and advice on in their first meeting face to face. My second question was on what is the strategy he advised them to follow? The answer again was honest and direct; the plan is to make Seif the public face for every settlement with the West, from the scandalous Lockerbie compensation all the way to the release of the Bulgarian nurses. The last one did not work out as planned, my dinner companion lamented. Apparently after all the work to prepare Seif to take the credit for their release, Sarkozy’s wife landed in Tripoli and insisted on taking them with her. She got the credit. The plan internally was also to try to credit Seif with all “reforms initiatives” from improving the human right situation to improving the lot of the miserable and unemployed Libyan youths which stands, by most estimates I have seen, at almost 30%. That plan is also not working out very well so far.

Finally, when I asked the man about his impressions of Gaddafi personally, he answered with the following; “he is really a bizarre character, I would even say totally mad,” and yes I am honestly quoting him directly. When I asked what was his impression of Libya and the Gaddafi inner circle of power, his answer was: “its like a really bad Shakespearian play where nothing is going any where”, again, I am quoting him directly. The one thing he made sure of, in all his dealings with Gaddafi and company he smartly insisted on getting paid up front. And the one thing I made sure he knew, before we parted company, was Gaddafi’s record of murder, kidnapping, and corruption over the years, urging him to not contribute to the misery of my people. I hope he will listen.

This is not the first Gaddafi & Sons Inc paid senior consultant I have heard from by the way over the years, as I am sure many of you as well, nor the first to share his/her negative assessment for that gang ruling Libya. That includes those who did the economic reform plans that Seif has been pretending to implement in the country for the past few years while enriching himself and his gang of friends and front-men, whom he placed in every major Libyan owned financial, petroleum, or economic structure in the country and outside of it. It also includes some political figures who dealt with Gaddafi on behalf of their countries whom I had the chance of meeting in different public forums.

I left dinner thinking, if this is the impression of those who are making big money from that mafia family, what is the impression of those who are not?

So the Libyan people have a hard choice to make now, are they willing to endure being inherited like cattle by another Gaddafi? Are they willing to allow the enslavement of their children, after their own enslavement for the past 40 years, to the same Gaddafi oil plantation robbers with the help of the outside world? Or are they still hoping that Moses will come to rescue them from the clutches of this modern day Pharaoh? If the answer is no, which is what every Libyan I have ever met, including government officials, says in private, then what should we all do about it?

The choices are hard and getting harder the longer Libyans allow this very sad and absurd play to continue. As the quote from Churchill at the top of this blog puts it:

“If you will not fight for right when you can easily win without blood shed; if you will not fight when your victory is sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance of survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves”

May all Libyans finally begin an honest and credible national movement and conversation on what to do to save their children, society and country from total destruction and realize that we, as a people, must “either stand together, or we will surely hang separately” as the last 40 years have proven beyond the shadow of any doubt.

Filmmaking workshop & film screening

2008-10-20T13:47:00.002-04:00

Gaddafi's Gamble - Libya

2008-10-19T01:14:00.002-04:00

YouTube - journeymanpictures's Videos

CLICK HERE TO WATCH

July 2004 Gaddafi's rapprochement with the West may be solely to strengthen his own regime. But what are the implications of this new policy for Libya?

"..we did not sign anything to make him King of Kings"

2008-10-15T13:53:00.003-04:00

Gadaffi Crowned 'King of Kings' As He Seeks to Create 'Continental Govt'

The East African (Nairobi)

NEWS
12 October 2008
Posted to the web 13 October 2008
Nairobi

Political pundits and academicians were last week trying to make sense of Libyan leader Col Muammar Gaddafi's latest game plan, after he had himself crowned "King of Kings" by a section of African traditional leaders, sultans, sheiks and mayors from Muslim North Africa during ceremonies in Benghazi at the end of August.

Dubbed the Forum of African Traditional Leaders, which will be meeting every September 9 in Sirte (Gaddafi's birthplace), the event, which is also being touted as a precursor to an African government to be launched next year, attracted more than 500 cultural leaders.

Quoting a communiqué issued after the event, Uganda's Muslim-leaning newspaper, The Weekly Message, reported in its most recent edition that Gaddafi was crowned King of Kings in recognition of his role in liberating Africa from colonialism and his frontline role in pushing for African unity.

Among issues agreed during the forum was the creation of a government of the African Union next year and the issuance of a single currency and passport for the continent.

The proposed African Union government is to be formed subject to the inclusion of sitting ministers of foreign affairs, defence, external trade, transport and communication from AU member states.

But coming just over a year after Gaddafi's push for an African political union headed by a president met resistance from African presidents at their last meeting in Abuja, the maverick leader's latest adventure is being seen as an attempt to create a parallel track that would bring him closer to his goal of being Africa's first continental president.

The sitting also elected Gaddafi, who gave his guests gifts that included Rado watches and African traditional garb, as the forum's chairman.

Ugandan officials were quick to underplay the development, describing it as neutral to Uganda-Libya relations, but academicians were warning that given the Libyan leader's past record, his newfound alliance with traditional leaders had the potential to degenerate into a new wave of secular fundamentalism that could be a source of instability, as ambitious cultural leaders jostle for power with republicans.

Uganda's Junior Foreign Minister in charge of International Co-operation, Okello Oryem, said that Gaddafi's "crowning" should have no negative impact on the ties between the two countries because "our diplomatic relations are determined by the level of interaction. The lower the interactions, the lower the relationship but generally speaking, our relationship is very cordial and at a high level," he said.

But Mwambutsya Ndebesa, a senior lecturer at Makerere University's Department of History and Development Studies, said though Gaddafi's latest adventure may indeed not turn out to be much of a threat, it could still create a nuisance.

Mr Ndebesa said Gaddafi had a history of destabilising his neighbours and as such his current actions should be viewed with some caution.

"I don't see any possibility of ideological convergence between Gaddafi and the traditionalists, but he can still cause some trouble here and there by whipping up the appetite of some radical traditional elements," Mr Ndebesa said, adding that the Libyan leader had always been a contradictory figure, a man who overthrew a monarchy but was now allying with traditionalists.

Libyan forces also supported Idi Amin's regime against Tanzanian-led liberation forces that included President Museveni's Front for National Salvation -- but, years later, he contributed arms to Museveni's guerrilla campaign against Ugandan government forces.

Gaddafi's surprising love affair with monarchies was first manifested during a 1996 visit to Uganda, when he developed an interest in the then infant King of Toro, for whom he built a turnkey palace.

Later, he sponsored the young king and his sister's education and the duo, accompanied by their mother, Queen Best Kemigisha, have made a number of extended visits to Libya.

The Toro delegation to the Benghazi meeting travelled and returned aboard a private jet paid for by Gaddafi.

In all, 34 traditional leaders from Uganda, including two kings -- Solomon Gafabusa Iguru of Bunyoro and Oyo Nyimba Kabamba Iguru of Toro -- attended the Benghazi proceedings.

There was also a delegation from the Kingdom of Buganda, the Paramaount Chiefs of Acholi and Lango in northern Uganda as well as the Emorimor of Teso.

But cracks were already appearing in the forum even before the ink had dried on the Benghazi protocols.

With the exception of Toro and Bunyoro, the other Ugandan cultural leaders distanced themselves from ever endorsing the Libyan leader as some kind of supreme African ruler.

At the meeting, the Buganda delegation went on record as telling the gathering that it was against their culture and norms to recognise a monarch other than their own king.

Equally, the Paramount Chiefs of Acholi and Lango were vehement in their denials that they were party to an agreement that endorsed Gaddafi as King of Kings.

"No, we did not do that. The Arabs might have elected him, but we did not sign anything to make him King of Kings.

You can call the Acholi Paramount Chief and confirm this. How could we do such a thing?" Yosum Odur Won-Nyaci, Paramount Chief of Lango, said when The EastAfrican called him.

Acholi Paramount Chief David Onen Acana said that it appeared to have been a calculated move to advance Gaddafi's ambitions because while most delegations from East Africa were in Libya for the first time, their counterparts from West and North Africa appeared to have been there on a follow-up meeting and all what happened was symbolic.

"We were all taken by surprise. According to me, he is not really a king in any sense. Gaddafi is pursuing a social angle to achieve his goals of having one Africa. He wanted to expand the issues to cultural leaders to work with politicians to speed up the unity of Africa," Acana said.

Although nobody gave it much thought at the time, Gaddafi's grandiose scheme first came to the attention of Ugandans in early September, when he signed off as "King of Kings" a condolence message he sent to President Museveni upon the death of the Kyabazinga of Busoga, Henry Wako Muloki.

But the King of Kings of 2008 is the very man who overthrew King Idris I in 1969, abolished the monarchy and proclaimed the country the Libyan Arab Republic.

The Ugandan kings who spoke to The East African said that Gaddafi explained to them the need for African unity and urged them to mobilise their people to support the cause. They said Gaddafi told them that the African president would rule for only three years.

The kings said they told Gaddafi they had no powers and that electing an African president is a political issue that the head of states and other politicians must decide upon.

One view is that, flush with dollars from the recent boom in oil prices, Gaddafi has started on a new round of political adventurism. Mr Ndebesa said the Libyan leader is reversing the process of democratisation, whereas the African Union should be run on the principles of democracy.

The idea of supporting and using monarchs who are conservatives to pursue his ideology raises questions as to whether he is creating a parallel African Union structure.

Mr Ndebesa added that the possibility that any of these monarchs could become a threat to their governments cannot be ruled out if Gaddafi's support helps make them financially independent.

This is not the first time Gaddafi is attempting to create a unified nation. In 1972, he proclaimed the Federation of Arab Republics, hoping to create a pan-Arab state.

The deputy chairman of the Uganda Muslim Youth Assembly, Imam Kasozi, who is also a lecturer at the Islamic University in Uganda, had some advice for Gaddafi:

"If he overthrew a king, how does he now turn around and call himself King of Kings? He wants to be in power for eternity, but it does not work like that.

Reported by Michael Wakabi and Halima Abdallah K

Why America’s democracy campaign is a failure

2008-10-15T13:26:00.001-04:00

The National Newspaper

Emile Hokayem

October 14. 2008

Condoleezza Rice has had an unhappy tenure as US Secretary of State: her lofty and perhaps commendable ambitions for Middle East political reform crashed when it became clear the extent to which US strategic blunders have weakened US influence. So, with the Forum for the Future, an annual gathering of Arab, Western and other foreign ministers to discuss the prospects for reform in the Middle East, set to open in Abu Dhabi on Saturday, she has one last chance to reflect upon the predicament of democracy promotion. For a once forceful advocate of political reform, it will have a bitter taste.

Democracy promotion became a credo of the Bush administration in the months after the 9/11 attacks. The urge to make a case at home and abroad that transcended narrow security concerns and sought a greater purpose (why not freedom for all?) led the US to embrace the notion that democratic reform could transform the Middle East for the better. President Bush meant no less when he said in November 2003: “Sixty years of Western nations excusing and accommodating the lack of freedom in the Middle East did nothing to make us safe – because in the long run, stability cannot be purchased at the expense of liberty.”

The reasoning went like this: the rise of violent extremism in the Arab world and its global spillover (New York, Bali, Madrid, London and elsewhere) pose an urgent threat, and can be traced directly to political backwardness and economic underperformance in the Middle East. Governments there, including US allies, have done little to address the basic grievances of their populations, who are now venting their frustration by supporting a variety of new players, including violent ones. By addressing that root cause, the US could at once defeat a strategic threat to its national security, improve the wellbeing of Middle Eastern populations and cultivate long-term goodwill with populations it helped to free. That would put the US on the right side of history by fuelling a democratic wave that would sweep the Middle East, just as it did East Asia and Eastern Europe.

The grand theory soon ran into trouble. The manner in which it was pursued, clear tensions with core US interests (securing energy flows, protecting Israel and combating terrorism) and the resulting hypocrisy have undermined its objectives, alienated its partners and empowered its enemies.

The inherent contradictions of democracy promotion were compounded by fundamental flaws in some of the basic assumptions driving the enterprise. For example, there is no evidence that democracy itself can stop terrorism. Moreover, many of those who attacked the US on 9/11 became politically mature and radicalised in Western societies, not their Arab homelands. It also turned out that wars to promote democracy in Iraq and Afghanistan increased rather than reduced terrorism, costing Iraqi, Afghan and US lives for not much in return. Often the US was unwilling to engage movements opposed to US policy although they had significant popular appeal. Finally, the US dismissed the role that its own policies play in fuelling anti-Americanism: it was about “who they are”, not “what we do”.

These flaws created immediate policy dilemmas for the US. When the “bad guys” win in elections “we” have pushed for, what do “we” do – accept or isolate? When democracy goals and security interests collide, which should prevail? When “we” lose influence, should “we” care at all about human rights and democracy? During her tenure Ms Rice tested all these questions. She began with a bold speech in 2005 in Cairo urging Egypt, a US ally on a political backslide, to reform, and later deplored the imprisonment of a vocal opposition leader. Saudi Arabia received similar treatment. Soon, though, these good intentions were relegated to the back burner as containing Iran and gaining Egyptian and Saudi cooperation on other regional crises became the priority.

Worse news came from Palestine, where Hamas won the 2006 elections that the US alone had pushed for. A panicked Washington imposed a boycott of Hamas until it recognised Israel and fulfilled other conditions. Analysts are still divided about the real US mistake: was it to push for the elections at all, or to isolate a legitimate Hamas parliament and government?

Libya is another case in point. A pariah state for years, Libya got rid of its WMD programmes in exchange for political normalisation with the US, despite remaining one of the most closed countries in the region and to the dismay of Libyan opposition politicians.

Given this record, one can hardly blame critics for pointing to the inconsistency (some might say hypocrisy) in US democracy policy.

The US has fallen victim to its own illusions, born more of naivety and idealism than Machiavellian calculation, and has lost credibility as an engine for reform in the region. By engaging in political and social engineering, it profoundly misread the basic demands of Arab populations. By sometimes equating democracy promotion with regime change, it looked like a predator and gave targeted regimes a pretext to clamp down on their opposition. And by failing to stabilise Iraq, it gave democracy a bad name.

Both Barack Obama and John McCain have pledged to continue encouraging reform in the Middle East: you can bet that whoever wins will do so with more humility.

ehokayem@thenational.ae

Gaddafi - What is he up to?

2008-10-15T13:04:00.002-04:00

AN EMAIL FROM The British-Libyan Solidarity Campaign

from The British-Libyan Solidarity Campaign
date Tue, Oct 14, 2008 at 10:27 PM
subject Gaddafi - What is he up to?

Please serculate this email

Dear Frinds and Supporters

On the 10th September GordonBrown announced his intention to invite Gaddafi to the UK for an oil Summit in December. Since Gaddafirenounced his “weapons of mass destruction” program and paid compensationfor the Lockerbie bombing, amongst other acts of terrorism, there has been apolicy of rapprochement with Libyaand Gaddafi is being welcomed into the fold of the Western Allies. However there has not been any significant changes to Human Rights in Libya, theLibyan people are still suffering the effects of 39 years of a brutalregime. The British Libyan Solidarity Campaign wants the invitationto be withdrawn until there is an improvement in the situation of ordinaryLibyans including the release of political prisoners, the end of torture, theend of disappearances of dissidents, the repeal of Law 71 that makes it acapital offence to form a social or political organization that in any waysdisagrees with the regime. We do not want the Dictator who isresponsible for the deaths and imprisonment of thousands of Libyans in the UK as our guest.

On the 9th October the BLSC tookpart in Press TV’s analysis and discussion program “Agenda”hosted by Yvonne Ridley to debate whether Gaddafi should be welcomed to the UK or if theHuman Rights situation should be addressed before he is included. The program is titled “Gaddafi – what is he up to?”

Please take a look and make your decision

http://www.presstv.com/pop/wmp.aspx?id=71795

If you agree with the position of the BLSCplease join us in our Campaign by emailing blsc@hotmail.co.uk with your contact details and we will keep you informed of our activities.

Many thanks

"..sometimes, apparently, it actually pays to have been involved in terrorist activities"

2008-10-13T14:25:00.004-04:00

North Korea: From terror supporter to Washington's new best friend

SFGate

North Korea: From terror supporter to Washington's new best friend
The Bush gang likes to talk tough about its supposed commitment to the so-called war on terror, but when it comes to earning its favor, sometimes, apparently, it actually pays to have been involved in terrorist activities. Just ask Libya's democracy-crushing dictator, Colonel Muammar Gaddafi, whose regime a few years ago accepted responsibility for the bombing of Pan Am flight 103 over Scotland in December 1988. After coughing up several billion dollars for a fund that was earmarked for victims of the Pan Am incident, which killed 270 people, and for victims of a Libya-backed bombing of a discothèque in West Berlin in 1986 (three killed, 229 wounded), Gaddafi won the Bush gang's approval.

In late 2003, the Gaddafi's government told Washington it would give up its weapons-of-mass-destruction program, and soon the U.S. resumed full diplomatic relations with the pariah state. Early last month, senior Bush lady-in-waiting Condoleezza Rice rushed to Tripoli on "the first visit by a U.S. secretary of state to Libya since 1953, and said [her mission] was proof [that] Washington had no 'permanent enemies.'"

Alas, on the emotional-intensity scale, under Bush, Uncle Sam's diplo-romances with various countries have measured only a short range, from unpredictable to fickle. Now comes the news that the Bush-Cheney-Rice policy toward North Korea also has changed.

As the normally pro-Bush-Cheney-Rice Wall Street Journal Asia notes in an editorial: "The 'axis of evil' lost a charter member this [past] weekend, when the U.S. took North Korea off the State Department's list of terror-sponsoring states. In return, Pyongyang promised to let international inspectors look everywhere except where its nuclear materials might actually be hidden. [North Korea's communist dictator,] Kim Jong-il, despite having broken every disarmament promise he's ever made, has thus managed to persuade another U.S. president that he's serious about giving up his nuclear program....Bush's agreement sends this message to Iran and other rogue states: Go nuclear and your political leverage increases." Previously, Bush-Cheney-Rice had "vowed not to remove North Korea from the terror blacklist until Kim's government had agreed to a 'strong verification regime.' But then North Korea started calling the [United States'] bluff - most recently on Thursday, when it told the inspectors for the International Atomic Energy Agency...to start packing their bags - and the U.S. caved."

What explains the latest Bush-Cheney-Rice flip-flop? The Financial Times reports: "The U.S. hopes that eliminating the two-decade [sponsor-of-terrorism] stigma on...[North Korea]...will resurrect the faltering six-party process to rid the Korean peninsula of nuclear weapons." Participants in those negotiations have included North Korea, South Korea, China, Japan, Russia and the United States. Reuters notes: "The Bush administration has been scrambling in its final months to save [the] six-nation, aid-for-disarmament agreement with [Kim Jong-il's] secretive and impoverished country that it hoped to claim as a rare foreign policy success. Under the broad accord struck in 2005 between [the six parties, Kim's regime had] agreed to abandon all nuclear programs in exchange for potential economic and diplomatic benefits."

The FT, recapping recent history, notes: "North Korea started dismantling its facilities at [its] Yongbyon nuclear complex last November as part of a deal that would [have] provided [Kim's] regime with energy assistance and a path to normalized relations with the U.S. After North Korea provided a declaration of its nuclear activities in June, the U.S. promised to remove it from the terrorism list. But the U.S. postponed delisting after North Korea failed to accept a verification protocol. Pyongyang then responded by starting to reverse the dismantling. Washington is unclear whether Pyongyang was preparing for a test or employing a negotiating tactic."

The Wall Street Journal Asia observes: "No verification regime is 100% certain - and searching for nuclear materials in North Korea, which has a history of lying and cheating, poses special challenges for even the most rigorous inspections....Pyongyang will permit the [International Atomic Energy Agency] verifiers to have unfettered access only to its declared nuclear sites - all of which the IAEA has already combed over again and again....Inspectors will be welcome to search the Yongbyon complex and a few other known nuclear sites....If they want to inspect anywhere else, they'll need Kim's assent. If they request access, and Pyongyang agrees, it's a sure bet the offending materials will be long gone before the inspectors arrive."

Japan's Yomiuri Shimbun notes that "[a]lthough the details of the agreed verification scheme between the [U.S.] and North Korea have not been revealed, Washington explained, 'Every element of verification that we sought is included in this package.' But it is difficult to quell doubts about whether an effective nuclear verification regime can be realized, considering the repeated concessions made by the [U.S.] in its negotiations with North Korea, as well as by Pyongyang's behavior to date."

Japan remains deeply concerned about numerous Japanese nationals whom the communist regime abducted in the 1970s and 1980s. They were used to familiarize North Korean spies with Japan's language and customs. Japanese Prime Minister Taro Aso said in response to the new Bush-Cheney-Rice policy toward North Korea that it won't stop his government's efforts to resolve the abductees controversy that has long affected relations between Japan and its regional neighbor. Japanese Chief Cabinet Secretary Takeo Kawamura, the government minister charged with overseeing the abduction issue, said: "Japan has no reluctance to cooperate in the denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula. At the same time, we have a strong feeling that the abduction issue should not be left out. We will take up the issue without fail in the six-party talks." (Japan Times)

Even the Republican presidential candidate, John McCain, said of the Bush-Cheney-Rice about-face on North Korea that the U.S. should "avoid reaching for agreement for its own sake." McCain, who normally comes across as a Bush clone, stated: "I expect the administration to explain exactly how this new verification agreement advances American interests and those of our allies before I will be able to support any decision to remove North Korea from the list of state sponsors of terrorism." (FT)

The Wall Street Journal Asia noted: "A few hours before Washington announced it was taking North Korea off the terror list, the Pyongyang media released the first photographs of Kim Jong-il since he had been rumored to have fallen ill two months ago." Of the dictator's appearance in those photos, the newspaper pointed out: "He was smiling."

Doubts cloud outlook for Libyan oil bonanza

2008-10-11T02:53:00.002-04:00

Reuters

Fri Oct 10, 2008 8

By Tom Pfeiffer - Analysis

RABAT (Reuters) - Majors oil companies are pouring money into Libya, home to Africa's biggest petroleum reserves, but it is unclear whether the desert country can achieve its goal of almost doubling output within four years.

Tripoli wants to increase output to 3 million barrels of crude oil per day by about 2012 from 1.7 million now, raising extra revenues to help rebuild infrastructure that is crumbling after years of sanctions.

Libya's peak oil output was around 3.3 million bopd in the late 1960s but analysts said that, with output at mature fields declining, it might be hard to push production above 2 million.

Much of the planned increase relies on enhanced oil recovery -- raising output at existing fields -- and the proportion of water to oil being produced at some of those fields is extremely high, a consultant to Libya's oil industry said.

"Fields towards the end of their life are very difficult to handle," said the consultant, who asked not to be named.

"You get unrealistically optimistic claims as to what may be achievable when most engineers know it's just not economically feasible."

Industry consultants remain upbeat, saying there are plenty of oil reserves to be discovered in Libya and some existing fields could double or triple output once firms like Royal Dutch Shell (RDSa.L: Quote, Profile, Research, Stock Buzz) and BP (BP.L: Quote, Profile, Research, Stock Buzz) roll out new extraction technology.

Oilfields discovered in past decades but not considered economic at the time have become viable prospects thanks to technology improvements and today's high oil prices.

"I believe (3 million bpd) is a realistic target but the question is whether it's a realistic timeframe," said Craig McMahon of Wood MacKenzie.

"Early exploration campaigns have not been particularly successful ... but there's a lot of exploration still to come and we expect some significant discoveries going forward."

Much attention is on BP, which returned to Libya last year after a 30-year break, and has begun exploration work in a large onshore and offshore zone in a high-risk, high-reward operation.

The venture is searching for gas but may also find oil, and is viewed by some as Libya's best hope of a major new discovery.

PROFIT OUTLOOK

Even if Libya reaches its output target, questions remain over whether companies can make big money under the current production sharing conditions.

Three oil and one gas exploration license rounds since sanctions ended raised eyebrows in the industry for the small shares of production awarded to foreign oil companies.

The tenders reflected the value placed on unexplored acreage given tight energy demand and a desire by some foreign state oil firms to get access to new energy reserves whatever the cost.

"Libya is still attractive as a place to go for reserves although it remains to be seen whether it's good to go for profitable reserves, particularly as the oil price is now coming back," said Keith Myers, an analyst at Richmond Energy Partners.

Industry watchers say Libya's tough but consistent negotiating stance helped deliver impressive deals that ensure the country gets the most from its natural resources.

Given the tight terms, the pressure is on to find good quality oil in large quantities.

It is still early days but Germany's RWE (RWEG.DE: Quote, Profile, Research, Stock Buzz) and Canadian energy exploration firm Verenex (VNX.TO: Quote, Profile, Research, Stock Buzz) have announced a series of promising finds.

Verenex said in August its Libyan properties could contain about 1.6 billion barrels of oil equivalent.

PIPELINES, RIGS

Even if output goals are attained, pipeline infrastructure has to be upgraded to export the oil, especially from fields in western Libya where analysts say production is held back by pipeline constraints.

Industry watchers said the Libyan government wanted to make investment in pipelines or refineries a condition for access to energy reserves in negotiations with companies including Russia's Gazprom (GAZP.MM: Quote, Profile, Research, Stock Buzz).

"The difficulty is persuading people to come and build the nuts and bolts infrastructure," said John Hamilton of industry newsletter Africa Energy. "There are an awful lot of infrastructure projects going on in Libya at the moment and that's created huge resource constraints."

Enhanced oil recovery (EOR) at producing fields is essential to a quick ramp-up of Libyan energy output but the pace of investment deals has been slow, with the government apparently unsure whether to hold development rounds using competitive bidding or strike bilateral deals with companies.

Open tenders might be complex to arrange as technical requirements for EOR vary widely from field to field. Bilateral deals might be less transparent and leave oil companies more exposed to slow decision making by Libyan officials, notably in the National Oil Corporation (NOC).

"NOC doesn't have at its topmost level a great number of people who companies can deal with," said Hamilton of Africa Energy. "And Libya being Libya, everything has to go through NOC even if you are working with a subsidiary."

Gaddafi ‘not excited’ about coming UK visit

2008-10-10T10:59:00.002-04:00

Letter to the editor from the Libyan Embassy in London - The Herlad Newspaper

You can comment on this letter HERE

Gaddafi ‘not excited’ about coming UK visit

Michael Settle's report regarding Colonel Gaddafi's proposed visit to London for the coming Oil Summit is out of context (Gaddafi "invited to UK" for first time since Lockerbie, September 10).

Gaddafi is the Leader of the Libyan Revolution and is not an oil tradesman whose job description involves touring countries for marketing oil. The Libyan system of government is based on a "People's Democracy", which the country has practised since 1977. The system has its own mechanisms to deal with state resources, including oil. All oil policies in Libya are planned and designed by the Libyan National Oil Corporation (NOC). The Corporation is run by a People's Committee.

That committee is under the supervision of the Oil Council, headed by the Prime Minister and other officials. The Chairman of the NOC represents the Libyan Jarnahiriya in OPEC's meetings and all other related conferences. It is worth mentioning that the Leader is not overly excited about visiting the United Kingdom, either for the coming Oil Summit, or otherwise, and that the Lockerbie case file is closed for ever, according to the relevant United National Security Council resolutions. The remaining aspect is the legal position regarding the Libyan national, Mr Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi, who is still awaiting a decision regarding his second appeal, which was granted by the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (SCCRC).

Tarek al Abaidy, Press Consular, Libyan People's Bureau, London.

Has the United States Poisoned Democracy?

2008-10-09T11:33:00.004-04:00

I wanted to draw your attention to a couple of articles in the October issue of the exceptional and unique Arab Reform Bulletin of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, out today, that might be of interest to you.

Has the United States Poisoned Democracy? Amaney Jamal and Mark Tessler
(correlates polling data on attitudes toward the US and toward democracy in several Arab countries)

Arab States: Troubling Indicators on Governance and Corruption Khalil Gebara
(combines analysis of recent World Bank and Transparency International indicators)

Switzerland blackmailed again: The unavoidable fickleness that underlines any dealings with Gaddafi

2008-10-09T08:55:00.000-04:00

Bloomberg

Libya Halts Oil Sales to Switzerland Refiner Tamoil

By Gianluca Baratti

Oct. 9 (Bloomberg) -- Libya halted oil supplies to its Swiss refining unit Tamoil SA, a decision that will cut deliveries to the European country by about 2 million metric tons a year, Switzerland's Oil Association said.

``This is a political decision, not an economic one,'' said Rolf Hartl of Association de L'industrie Petroliere Suisse in a telephone interview today. ``The whole of Tamoil's business in Switzerland is at risk.''

Switzerland will be able to cover its shortfall by buying supplies in the spot market, Hartl said. Tamoil spokesman Laurent Paoliello confirmed the halt in an article carried by the Tribune de Geneve newspaper today. A Tamoil spokeswoman in Geneva referred Bloomberg to the newspaper confirmation, without commenting further.

Libya supplies approximately 20 percent of Switzerland's annual oil demand. Tamoil imports crude into the port of Genoa, Italy, then sends it by pipeline to its 50,000 barrel-a-day Collombey refinery. The company also operates more than 300 gasoline service stations in the country and a heating oil business.

Hannibal Qaddafi, Libyan leader Muammar Qaddafi's youngest son, and his wife were arrested in a Geneva hotel on July 15 after two of their employees filed a complaint accusing them of mistreatment. The couple were detained for two days, then allowed to return to Libya. The servants dropped their charges last month.

Tensions between the two countries had escalated in late July when Libya ordered Swiss companies to close offices in the country. Libya's state-run oil tanker company said July 24 it would stop carrying oil destined for Switzerland, though it later backtracked on the threat.

To contact the reporter on this story: Gianluca Baratti in Madrid gbaratti@bloomberg.net

Two of Europe's biggest energy groups, were yesterday implicated in an alleged Libyan bribery scheme

2008-10-08T15:51:00.001-04:00

The Financial Times

Repsol and Total reply to Libya case

By Carola Hoyos in London

Published: October 8 2008 03:00 | Last updated: October 8 2008 03:00

Repsol YPF and Total, two of Europe's biggest energy groups, were yesterday implicated in an alleged Libyan bribery scheme after a report for Norway's Hydro found mistakes in paying consultants to secure oil fields in the North African country.

Two senior executives at StatoilHydro - formed last year from the merger of the two groups - also resigned yesterday after an independent report found Hydro had breached company rules. The company handed the case to Norwegian police after publishing the report, which concluded Hydro had paid millions of dollars in "consultancy fees" in the early 2000s.

Total denied any wrong-doing and a Repsol official said the company's current management had attempted to correct the situation and to recoup the money.

In December 2000, at the Repsol-operated Murzuq development, Hydro paid $300,000 after it received an invoice from the operator. In hindsight the payment was viewed as "problematic" by some people, according to Hydro documents, states the report by law firm Sherman and Sterling.

When in late 2001 Repsol wanted to hire a second consultant and to agree a success fee of $4.5m-$10.5m, Hydro and one other partner raised concerns this could contravene the OECD's convention against bribery of foreign officials, according to the report. The report stated that it sought to set out the facts, rather than to make legal accusations, but did not include testimony from the operators.

In 2002, Hydro refused to pay $900,000 of a $4.5m fee for "exceptional overhead costs," which it perceived as "a camouflage for payments" to a consultant and threatened to bring the matter before a steering committee. But it backed down when the "operator agreed not to seek Hydro's share of the payment," the report stated.

Repsol officials said the current management became aware of the payments in 2005 and sought to recoup them in an arbitration hearing in the UK. "But the justices, even on appeal, said the contracts were valid and Repsol was not refunded and in fact was forced to pay a further sum being sought by the consultant," a senior Repsol executive said.

Spain ratified the OECD's convention against bribery of foreign officials on January 4 2000 while France did so on July 31 2000.

In the Mabruk development, operated by Total, Hydro had similar reservations, but nonetheless paid $1.9375m to the operator in October 2000. "The evidence suggests that these payments may have been understood, at the time or later, as having been tied to the operator's consultant," the report stated.

Paul Floren, a spokesman for Total, said: "The report does not establish any wrongdoing by Total. The invoices sent out by the joint venture to Hydro were normal expenses for the Mabruk field and the report does not establish anything to the contrary."

But Hydro called that payment "another misjudgement."

Terje Vareberg, chairman of Hydro's board of directors, said: "The investigation has revealed that mistakes were made in Libya in 2000-2001 that represent a breach of Hydro's regulations. This is regrettable, and we need to learn from it. Any mistake in this area is unacceptable . . . "

Hydro is said to be concerned about a third relationship with a consultant, retained in 1999 by Saga, the company Hydro took over in 1999 and that became part of StatoilHydro, when Hydro and Statoil merged.

Blabbermouth Shukri Ghanem

2008-10-07T15:02:00.003-04:00

Few months ago an American business reporter who covers the oil business told me, and I am quoting, " Shukri Ghanem is OPEC's media whore. When the more serious oil ministers of Saudi Arabia, Iran or Kuwait are not willing to talk to the press during OPEC meetings, we all count on Shukri to jump to the microphone whenever we want". That of course explains why you see so many quotes by him among the wholesalers of news like AP, Reuters, and AFP.

This Analysis below by Foreign Reports - http://www.foreignreports.com , one of the worlds' oldest and most prestigious political analysis firms specializing in the oil business, demonstrates not only Shukri's leaky mouth, but also the contradictory nature of his positions and his lack of credibility.

This bulletin is only sent to the firm's clients, but I reproduce here with permission for your benefits.

FOREIGN REPORTS

BULLETIN

October 7, 2008

Comments today by Libyan oil policy chief Shokri Ghanem that OPEC “has to do something” to prevent a further deterioration in oil prices reflect his volatile nature, not a sober assessment of overall market conditions.

At an OPEC meeting in March 2007, Ghanem expressed concerns about the possible impact rising prices might have on demand. “We are happy with the [OPEC] basket between $55 and $60 a barrel,” he told reporters. He acknowledged in an interview that prices could surge to levels that OPEC is uncomfortable with. “I wouldn't be surprised if [the price of oil] goes up to $80 a barrel this year” if something goes wrong, he said. He added that he and others in OPEC would begin to fret about negative repercussions when oil prices rise too high. “Beyond $65 or $70 a barrel, we are worried,” he insisted.

In his comments today, Ghanem warned that OPEC might hold an emergency meeting. “If this volatility continues, OPEC will have to do something,” he said. “We cannot allow the prices to deteriorate....we have to do something. We may sit down together before December. We are watching the market. It is a dangerous situation .If OPEC cannot do it together, individual countries can do it by themselves by cutting their production.”

Just Another Commodity

Throughout much of this year, Ghanem insisted that OPEC had no power to affect prices. “There’s nothing OPEC should do, nor do we have much capacity to do anything. What’s driving oil is out of our hands,” he said at the beginning of January.

“OPEC no longer controls the price,” he declared on May 8. “Oil is just another commodity traded on the futures market, which is speculative by nature. OPEC is simply watching the futures exchanges in London and New York.”

“This Meeting is Going Nowhere”

When Saudi Arabia convened an energy meeting in Jeddah on June 21, Ghanem said the meeting wouldn’t achieve anything and was ill-prepared and that increases in oil output wouldn’t resolve soaring oil prices. “This meeting is going nowhere,” he told reporters when he arrived in Jeddah. “We thank Saudi Arabia for inviting us, but we think the meeting is not going to achieve anything. I don’t think the meeting is very important….It is not well prepared for. We’re coming to discuss a very important subject, supposedly, and expected to get any important decision in three hours. That’s impossible.”

When prices did begin to ease in mid-July, Ghanem predicted that they would soon rebound. “We are noticing it is down sharply, but so far we still think that it is only temporary, it will rebound,” he said on July 30.

After OPEC’s meeting last month, he predicted that production would decrease because “the ceiling is less than the actual production.”

“It will shore up the market and help stop the deterioration of the price,” he said on September 11.

Going With the Flow

The Saudis appear much more willing to let prices follow their course, rather than abruptly changing their views whenever prices change. With so many hundreds of billions of federal money being injected into financial rescue plans, it may be easy to lose sight of the stimulus that lower oil and other commodity prices may provide. When President Bush signed the Economic Stimulus Act in mid-February, there were some hopes that the $152 billion package of tax rebates and other incentives would jump start the then-“lagging” U.S. economy. The stimulus package was equal to 1% of GDP.

In Q1, WTI prices averaged $97.80. In Q2 and Q3, prices averaged $121, or $23.20 higher. On an annualized basis, the higher cost of imported crude and products during those two quarters would have resulted in the transfer of around two-thirds of the stimulus package, or $100 billion, to foreign oil producers, together with the transfer of another $70 billion to domestic oil producers. Both domestic and foreign oil producers do plough some of their revenues back into the U.S. economy, so it is not as if the money spent on oil products went into a black hole. But higher prices did take money out of consumers’ pockets.

If WTI prices in Q4 fall to an average of, say $80, or $41 lower than the preceding two quarters, the annualized extra “stimulus” from lower crude prices would amount to around $180 billion.

Surprise , surprise : Gaddafi failing to keep his end of bilateral deal

2008-10-07T12:16:00.006-04:00

ANSA

Italy fingers Libya on immigration

Tripoli failing to keep its end of bilateral deal

(ANSA) - Milan, October 7 - Italian Interior Minister Roberto Maroni on Tuesday condemned Libya for failing to keep its end of a bilateral deal, as dozens more migrants arrived by sea from north Africa. Three boats carrying 149 people were stopped near the southernmost Italian island of Lampedusa in the early hours of Tuesday, prompting angry comments from Maroni over an accord signed in August.

''Around 99.9% of illegals who arrive in Lampedusa set out from Libya,'' he said in a radio interview. ''Libya promised more controls but these are not being carried out effectively as we requested''. Rome pledged to fund medical and infrastructure projects under August's five-billion-dollar colonial compensation deal in exchange for Libya implementing previously agreed measures aimed at reducing migrant arrivals in Italy, such as joint patrols of the Libyan coast.

But three weeks after the agreement was signed, it seemed headed for trouble, when Maroni announced there had been no drop in the number of migrants arriving from Libya and threatened to block certain projects.

Tripoli issued an angry reply via the Libyan ambassador to Rome, saying Libya ''had never asked Italy for help'' in dealing with migrants.

On Tuesday, Maroni accused Tripoli of refusing to accept the delivery of six high-speed motorboats for joint patrols off the Libyan coast. ''We are waiting hopefully for the Libyan government to give us clearance,'' he said.

''Saving a sinking boat in international waters is clearly an obligation but if boats carrying illegals were stopped at the departure point then this problem wouldn't arise''. Three boats were brought safely to Lampedusa on Tuesday morning although coast guards said others had also been sighted, probably as a result of the sudden improvement in weather. There were 61 women and 41 children among the 149 foreigners brought to the island's reception centre for processing. Hundreds of migrants are stopped in Italian waters each year en route to Europe. Lampedusa, which is closer to Africa than Italy, is the first port of call for most of these migrants, and facilities on the tiny island are often strained to breaking point.

AGREEMENT SIGNED AT THE END OF AUGUST.

The agreement Italian Premier Silvio Berlusconi signed with Libyan leader Colonel Muammar Gaddafi at the end of August has not yet been published or ratified in Italy. On Tuesday, Foreign Minister Franco Frattini said the full text of the measure would be put to parliament within two weeks, along with a ratification bill. A deal to compensate Libya for Italy's colonial occupation has been the subject of sporadic negotiations for over a decade. In 2004, Libya promised to stem the flow of migrants leaving its shores under a separate agreement.

Although hailed as a victory by the Berlusconi government of the day, it made no impact on the number of arrivals. The new compensation deal requires Libya to implement its 2004 promises, which includes patrols of Libya's southern borders to prevent migrants from Eritrea, Ethiopia, Sudan and Chad from crossing the country to arrive at the coast.

2 StatoilHydro executives resign in Libya case

2008-10-07T06:51:00.002-04:00

International Herald Tribune

Tuesday, October 7, 2008

OSLO, Norway: Executive vice presidents Tore Torvund and Morten Ruud resigned from Norwegian state-controlled oil company StatoilHydro ASA's top management Tuesday as a result of a probe into possible corruption in Libyan oil contracts.

Concern about the contracts arose a year ago, when Statoil ASA took over the oil and gas unit of Norwegian rival Norsk Hydro ASA to form StatoilHydro. Both companies ordered separate investigations into millions of dollars worth of questionable payments.

Each company turned over its own report to the Norwegian economic crime police on Tuesday, and said it was up to them to determine whether further measures were needed. They both concluded that ethical standards had been breached.

"We have to admit that misjudgments were made in the handling of Hydro's former Libyan portfolio," said Eivind Reiten, president and chief executive of Norsk Hydro. "We need to accept this criticism and use it as a basis for further improvement."

Last October, Reitan resigned after a few days as board chairman of the newly formed StatoilHydro because of the scandal.

The contracts were orginally signed by small Norwegian oil company Saga Petroleum AS, which was taken over by Norsk Hydro in 2000. According to a summary of StatoilHydro's investigation, Norsk Hydro learned of the contracts in late 1999, shortly before completing the takeover.

The agreements covered more thanUS$7 million (€5.13 million) in fees to Libyan consultants as part of a bid to win oil exploration licenses from the Libyan National Oil Corporation, the probe said.

Norsk Hydro was offered two exploration licenses in Libya, but, fearing the contracts were tainted, refused and resolved to withdraw completely from Libya. However, it hired the same consultants who had been behind the questionable contracts to handle the sale of assets in Libya.

"Although Hydro acted correctly and rejected two attractive licenses, we should not have entered into a new agreement with the same consultant to assist the sale," said Norsk Hydro board chairman Terje Vareberg.

Torvund, who was StatoilHydro's vice president for Norwegian exploration and production, and Ruud, who was vice president for projects, both came from Norsk Hydro. The reports did not detail their involvement in the contracts.

They were being assigned other jobs in StatoilHydro, a news release said.

Demeaning Democracy

2008-10-06T12:38:00.001-04:00

Agence Global
by Rami G. Khouri

6 Oct, 2008

BEIRUT -- Watching the US presidential election from the Arab region is a confusing vocation. At one level, American democracy is an impressive, vibrant, often stunning, phenomenon that permits any citizen -- certified idiots and genuine geniuses alike – to seek and assume public office, and control the destiny of society. It produces some of the most monumental errors and costly adventures in world history, in the military and economic fields, but it also contains the mechanisms for its own self-correction, reconfiguration, improvement and re-birth -- as we witness these days in the economic arena.

At another level, America also provides a powerful argument against a totally open, unregulated democratic system, because it allows the volatile and sometimes infantile emotional psyche of a bare majority of citizens to determine the exercise of immense power.

Three specific examples of the exercise of power show how American politicians can have devastating impact all over the world: the economic crisis that has hit the financial and housing sectors most severely, the war in Iraq and its assorted regional consequences, and the wider “global war on terror” that the United States launched and has led since 2001. All three reflect decisions made by democratically elected leaders in both the White House and the legislature. In their own ways, all three have made the world a more dangerous and fragile place, adding American incompetence and criminality to the destructive work of those many thugs, thieves and killers who already haunt much of the rest of the world.

The consequences and full costs of the three policies of Iraq, the global war on terror and economic mismanagement are still unfolding. While historians will long argue the rights and wrongs of these policies, the world’s current verdict seems widely critical. The fascinating element for me is not if a specific policy is judged to be good or bad; it is that reckless and destructive decisions have been repeatedly made by the most open and vibrant democracy in the world.

At the same time, American leaders continue to preach to the rest of us that democracy and freedom are our best hope for a better future. I agree in principle. In practice though, watching American democracy at work dampens many people’s enthusiasm for that particular model. Rather, we need to temper the extravagant excesses of democratic systems that are so vulnerable to manipulation by special interests and lobbies, or that pander to mass hysteria.

Watching the current American presidential contest brings these issues to the fore once again, especially on the Republican side. The Democrats have selected a pair of candidates who pretty faithfully perpetuate that party’s traditions, with the added fact of an African-American candidate with a Muslim father. The Republican ticket of McCain and Palin, on the other hand, is a much stranger beast, especially in the vice presidential slot.

The fact that someone like Governor Sarah Palin, who lacks any national or international experience -- perhaps even basic knowledge -- can be a potential vice president is a sign of American democracy at its worst. In one swift, serendipitous moment, she was transformed from a moose hunter in Alaska to a global mullah hunter in a contest and a world about which she knows zilch -- as she reconfirms every time she opens her mouth.

The fact that respected conservative analysts and commentators have already asked for her to be dropped from the ticket is about as damning a verdict as there can be of her qualifications. This is much more problematic, though, for what it tells us about John McCain, and the entire American political system. Clearly, something is wrong with a system that turns democratic electoral contestation into either a fantastic gambling orgy for impulsive and ambitious elderly men, or an exercise in mass psychotherapy for millions in the electorate who seek solace and emotional recovery by embracing the image of the bouncy cheerleader next door, regardless of what this could mean for the United States and the world.

The open and honest American system once again simultaneously shows us its best and worst. There is historic brilliance in designing a checks-and-balance governance system anchored in the consent of the governed, and open to every man and woman who aspires to public service, regardless of color, religion or gender. Alongside this, however, there is also bombastic buffoonery in the manner in which desperados and simpletons occasionally gravitate to control the system by offering the electorate a hybrid candidacy of cheerleading razzle-dazzle with macho emotionalism.

For now, the signals from this campaign and from the past seven years are frightening. They confirm that America’s political democracy and economic governance systems -- in their current forms -- are less impressive export items than its iPods, computers, popular culture or universities. May the best team win, and in the process not ruin the good name of democracy.

Rami G. Khouri is Editor-at-large of The Daily Star, and Director of the Issam Fares Institute for Public Policy and International Affairs at the American University of Beirut, in Beirut, Lebanon.

Libya’s 4th term message; misery loves company

2008-10-01T03:48:00.001-04:00

Daily Monitor, Uganda

Nicholas Sengoba

Libyan Ambassador to Uganda Abdallah Bujeldain has, as part of his diplomatic duty, embarked on a project to appeal to Ugandans to elect President Museveni to yet another term because he has done excellent work besides, being a revolutionary.

The diplomat is echoing what his President, Col. Muammar Gaddafi posited when he visited Kampala in March this year. Gaddafi asked why a leader should relinquish power when he is doing good things for his people.

“A leader should only leave power by the will of the people. For example, Museveni came to power through revolutionary means, not the vote. How can he simply go?” Went on Gaddafi; “African leadership is paralysed. If we depend on constitutions, we are losing track!”

The other prominent member in Gaddafi’s club of revolutionary leaders on the continent besides Uganda’s Museveni, is Zimbabwe’s Robert Mugabe who is currently presiding over a failed and incessantly failing state. These two are regarded by the Libyan maverick as the most visionary on the continent.

In what is being encouraged as African democracy, the popularity of a leader, well past his shelf life, is just to be assumed and never put to effective electoral test. For the few that attempt, (Ugandan style) delivering a shambles is progressively becoming an acceptable formality a big joke at the expense of the taxpayer.

(Twice in 2001 and 2006 the majority of the Supreme Court judges ruled that the rigging in the elections was not of great consequence to the outcome!).

When a leader like Gaddafi who has been in power for about 40 years without credible opposition, displays a morbid paranoia for elections, it betrays an even greater fear situated deep down in the conscience. Gaddafi, like his peers, appreciates the consequences of the efforts an illegitimate leader puts in to remain at the top for long.

Most importantly blood of his opponent and innocent people is spilled along the way. This buys him enemies from their relatives and friends. So do the jailed opponents and the victims of torture in ‘safe houses’ (illegal State torture chambers) and all those who flee the country into exile for the safety of their lives.

Similarly, the ones who watch a loved one die due to lack of adequate medical facilities yet a leading party official and minister who fought alongside the revolutionary, has, as a norm stolen the money intended for the sick like it allegedly happened to the Global and GAVI funds money.

The more dictators’ rule, the more they lose respect because of the contradictions that arise as they seek to recreate themselves many times over.

Museveni who once ascribed Africa’s problems to leaders who overstay in power and wrote in NRM’s 2001 manifesto that he was standing for his last term turned around and stayed on, on the strength of a dubious claim that Africa’s problems are not time bound, so leaders should not be bound by time!

Dictators become weaker with time as they stand in the way of those within and without their parties who nurse hopes of national leadership become frustrated and work towards undermining them and their authority.

Consequently the need for dictators to employ a more vicious approach to maintain a grip on power becomes a necessary evil. That is why in Uganda’s case the number of security organisations is on the rise; the latest additions being the stick wielding Kiboko Squad and the High Court raiding Black Mamba.

As their popularity wanes, dictators start building bases of sycophants, rented crowds and groups whose patronage is available as long as it is highly paid for.

This sort of support, though good for the public eye, in the dictators quiet moments it is perceived as unreliable and a potential source of betrayal in the long run.

They are the sort of people who for a scholarship, job, free car, house, piece of land and selectively free medical care abroad, are motivated into cheering illegitimate regimes but may stand by the roadside like others have done before, to cheer on the executioner when the so-called revolutionaries are led to the guillotine.

This is what motivates the Gaddafis of this world to throw pretence through the window and urge regimes to stay on, as their only resort to ensure safety from those they have hurt on their way up by taking shelter under the immunity and privileges that come with the presidency.

It is worth noting that Gaddafi is preaching to the converted a good number of whom started practising the gospel when they lifted term limits by bribing MPs to amend the constitution as was the case in 2005 in Uganda.

By creating a critical mass of long ruling dictators, the Libyan autocrat will feel secure that in his state of misery and anguish he is not alone but a member of a well populated fraternity of similarly miserable leaders. This makes Gaddafi’s crusade a selfish one as well.

If blunt dictators and illegitimate rulers become a ubiquitous feature on the African continent as Libya is crusading, it will perpetually be perceived as a normal and acceptable component of Africa’s political process and therefore devoid of significant concern as a governance issue.

nicholassengoba@yahoo.com

Sign the online petition against Gordon Brown's invitation for Gaddafi to visit the UK

2008-09-29T16:12:00.004-04:00

To sign this online petition by the European Libyan National Committee CLICK HERE

Unfortunately the online petition is only available in Arabic so far.

The committee is also planing to stage a demonstration when Gaddafi visits the UK in December. For more information please contact: lajnawatania2004@yahoo.co.uk

“This is a capitulation to the forces of money and the forces of evil"

2008-09-28T17:15:00.002-04:00

Sunday Express

LOCKERBIE RAGE OVER LIBYA INVITE

Sunday September 28,2008

David Jarvis

FAMILIES of the Lockerbie victims were outraged yesterday after it emerged Libya has been invited to a UK energy summit two days before the 20th anniversary of the atrocity.

The Foreign Office confirmed the summit will take place, in London, on December 19, as relatives prepare to remember their loved ones.

Downing Street refused to confirm if Libyan leader Colonel Gadaffi would attend, though it is understood he has been invited as part of the continuing efforts to thaw relations with Tripoli.

Last night Dr Jim Swire, whose daughter Flora, 24, died in the tragedy, said the timing of the summit, which No 10 said yesterday was aimed at “widening the dialogue between oil producing and consumer countries” was “highly insensitive”.

And Susan Cohen, who lost her only daughter, Theo, 20, in the bombing, described the decision as “terrible” adding: “It’s all about oil.”

Pan Am Flight 103 was blown up over Lockerbie on December 21, 1988, killing 270 people. The flight from Frankfurt to New York via London blew up killing all 259 on board and 11 residents of the Borders town.

Dr Swire said: “I have no issue with Gadaffi coming here but the timing is wrong.

“The relatives have not been consulted about this in any way, shape or form and obviously if they had been they would have objected.

“I certainly feel this is all about commerce.

“It doesn’t escape me that this has been organised hot on the heels of the visit by Condoleeza Rice to Tripoli this month.

“Oil is the central issue here and the feelings of the families for whom this will be a sad time have not been considered.”

Susan Cohen, from New Jersey, added: “I think it is terrible what is happening with Libya. America and Britain are giving Gadaffi what he wants. We have given in to him over oil. It’s all about oil and not the memory of our loved ones.

“This is a capitulation to the forces of money and the forces of evil.

“We are giving Gadaffi what he wants. That is for this meeting to take place so close to the anniversary, because it reflects our own indifference.”

Yesterday, the Foreign Office and Downing Street refused to elaborate on the summit.

Lockerbie is still Britain’s worst-ever terrorist attack.

After years of investigation, Libyan intelligence officer Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi was handed over by Gadaffi to stand trial before a Scottish court in the Netherlands.

He was found guilty in 2001 but his co-accused, Khalifa Fhimah, was acquitted.

Earlier this month, the Lockerbie families endured claims by Megrahi, 56, that the British Government had covered up crucial evidence that could secure his release.

He spoke publicly for the first time about his case during an illegal TV interview to Arab station Al Jazeera from his jail cell.

In the secret call from Greenock Prison, the Libyan claimed to have been the victim of a “miscarriage of justice”.

The programme came just days after Saif al-Islam al Gadaffi, the son of the Libyan leader, described Lockerbie victims’ families as “greedy”.

He said Libya only agreed to take responsibility for the terrorist atrocity to restart its oil industry, which had come to a standstill because of international sanctions.

He said of the Lockerbie relatives: “I think they were very greedy and they were trading with the blood of their sons and daughters.

“And they were asking for more money and more money and more money and more money and they were talking just about money! Money, money, money, money!

“The Americans and the British said you have to satisfy the families in order to be able to lift the sanction.”

Libya in the tail end of Transparency International's Global Corruption Report again

2008-09-27T06:38:00.005-04:00

To read the report in Arabic, please click here.

To read the report in English, Please click here

Gordon Brown' Libya stance branded a 'disgrace'

2008-09-27T06:00:00.000-04:00

News Letter

PM's Libya stance branded a 'disgrace'

26 September 2008

A LABOUR MP said it was "pathetic" that Prime Minister Gordon Brown put Britain's relationship with Libya ahead of seeking justice for IRA victims killed and maimed by Libyan weaponry.

Responding to a letter from the Prime Minister to lawyers acting for IRA victims, Andrew MacKinlay, a member of the Westminster Foreign Affairs Committee, said Mr Brown's response was a disgrace.

In the letter, seen by the News Letter, Mr Brown said he was unwilling to seek compensation for victims of IRA terrorism – despite the American government securing compensation for American victims.

In the letter, Mr Brown said that he would not be taking the matter up with the Libyan government, seemingly arguing that it could jeopardise Libyan cooperation in the fight against terrorism.

Mr Brown wrote: "You raised the possibility of direct UK-Libya negotiations to settle these cases, and I would like to explain why the UK Government does not consider this to be appropriate.

"In recent years, our relationship with Libya had been fundamentally transformed.

"They are an essential partner in the fight against terrorism and it is in the UK's interests for this cooperation to continue.

"Furthermore, as you know, Libya has answered questions about its involvement with the IRA to the satisfaction of the UK Government."

Mr Brown went on to argue that the Government was helping victims of terrorism by appointing four victims' commissioners.

But last night Mr MacKinlay, who raised the issue with Foreign Secretary David Miliband after reading a News Letter article while in the Province, said the Government was failing terror victims.

"I think it's a pathetic response," the Thurrock MP said, claiming the Foreign and Commonwealth Office had "totally mis-read the situation".

Victims' campaigner Willie Frazer said it was a disgrace that the Government was abandoning IRA victims, while claiming it was doing so to help the fight against terrorism.

The FAIR director, who has been working to see Libya prosecuted for supplying the IRA with explosives and weapons, said: "Gordon Brown is saying that Libya are their friends and don't want to do anything against them. Are we not British subjects? Do we not count in all of this?

"If Libya wants to be our friend, it has to be held accountable for its actions. He is letting them away with mass murder – it's like any murder case, if you supplied the weapon you get 20 years in jail the same as the guy who pulled the trigger."

And Mr Frazer, who led a protest to the American embassy in Dublin on Monday, vowed that the fight for justice was far from over.

"The fight is only starting," he said.

"But this is an insult to the victims. Mentioning the four victims' commissioners, who are not even accepted by many victims: What has that got to do with Libya?"

The Libyan Paradox

2008-09-25T10:01:00.002-04:00

African Politics Portal

The Libyan Paradox

By Luis Martinez

Translation from French by John King

Columbia University Press New York in Association with the

Centre d’ Etudes et de Recherches Internationales, Paris 2007

The Libyan paradox is more of a long paper than an actual book. In many ways it does not share the cohesiveness and the structure of a book that is meant to inform and attract readers by luring them in the captivating world of a particular subject. It is divided into three chapters that all start with a thesis and end with a re-stated conclusion / summary. It intrinsically assumes that the reader needs to be reminded of the arguments presented in a particular chapter. That is why, for a reader whose knowledge of Africa is rather extensive, this style could appear more annoying than challenging. The author also makes use of a series of concepts that are repeated over and over again, distracting the reader from the main arguments. For instance, “Eldorado state”, “unofficial markets”, “Just society,” and “conversion”, are not necessarily recurrent themes, but words excessively used by the author.

Let that aside, the book is really worth reading. It is amazing how the author managed to comprehensively cover 40 years of Libyan history and…paradoxes in only 150 pages. Martinez is systemic, calculated and pays close attention to all actors involved in the recent history of the country: Libyan politicians, regular citizens, older and younger Libyans and expats. He also makes good use of direct sources such as fragments of al’Gaddafi’s or even George W Bush speeches regarding the current political realities in Libya. “The Libyan paradox” is an accessible books whose author supposes that his readers do not know anything about Libya so he methodically organizes his work in a way that makes anyone comfortable reading the book (with the exception of the few critiques listed at the beginning of this review.)

From the beginning, Martinez lets you know that you need to be have courage to live, work and cover Libya, and you have to be mentally prepared to read about this country since “[Libya] is a shadowy world of illegal weapons, ideological zealotry, terrorism, wealth and waste, hypocrisy, frustration, corruption and family intrigue, occasionally leavened by flashes of genuine patriotism, generosity and foresight.” (Page X) The book covers the Libyan history prior to the economic sanctions imposed by the West (1969-1992,) during the sanctions (1992 - 1999), and the throughout the post sanctions recent history (1999-2007).

For me, the most interesting chapter is the one covering the sanctions since this practice has gained a lot of media-coverage especially in the recent period when various developed countries tried to impose sanctions on non-democratic regimes (see the UK and the US on Zimbabwe story.) At least in the case of Libya, the author concludes, the regime has experienced very few inconveniences during the sanctions. On the contrary, it is the people of Libya who have carried the burden of these sanctions. “The sanctions actually had the convenient effect of concealing the real causes of the decline of the Libyan economy. In fact, sanctions even brought profits to certain senior officials within the regime.” (Page 15) There has been one accidental effect of the sanctions that has produced some sort of change in Libya, but as far as the official intentions of the West are concerned, these have miserably failed. The author explores the unofficial market that was born under the sanctions and concludes that young people, by traveling to Malta or Cyprus, were exposed to the benefits and the mentality of the West. This made them financially independent from a redistributive state that claims your body and your soul in exchange for a decent life. At the same time, this exposure has had some detrimental effects on the State since “the revolutionary regime no longer possesses the attributes of legitimacy. It is under challenge from disgruntled Libyans of the younger generation who no longer see the Jamahiriya as a political mechanism able to build a ‘just society.’ (Page 40)

However, from a different perspective, the sanctions have worsen the internal situation since Gaddafi reorganized the State around his own tribe excluding those who were not directly related to the Gaddafa tribe, often considering many of them as a real threat against the State. (For more details on the tribal divisions and policies go to the end of this review where several quotes from the book are listed for your convenience.)

The book is highly prescient: it seems written from tomorrow’s newspapers, despite having been written in 2006 (the French version.) Very important is Martinez’ argument on why Libya has shifted towards the West, especially towards America. It is not because the regime has any intension to change its practices or the way of governing the country. It is because the regime had the feeling that Libya could rightfully be considered a new Iraq and therefore the US could justify an attack on it, since “Libya was developing a nuclear and chemical weapons programme, […] Libya was a terrorist State, headed by an anti-Israeli dictator.”(46) In other words, Gaddafi changed his policy in order not to share the faith of Saddam Hussein, not because he really believed a good relationship with the US would be in his best long term interests. The “conversion moment” has been the 9/11 attacks when Libyan politicians offered their services to the world, and especially to the Bush Administration, in the war on terror. This was a legitimate claim especially because Gaddafi had been fighting the extreme fundamentalists in his country who tried to remove him out of power through several coups and has led to civil disobedience in several parts of the country. 9/11 was the perfect moment for Libyan administration to kill two birds with the same stone, the author argues.

The book offers good arguments why Libya has not and does not intent to change. These reasons should be thoroughly analyzed especially these days after Condoleezza Rice’s visit to Libya. Martinez concludes that all recent changes that occurred in Libya in the past decade will most likely NOT lead to the democratization of the regime. The regime has rather been reconfirmed, not weakened.

Read this book, analyze it and use it. Certainly one of the best books on Libya in recent years.

Other notable quotes from the book:

[…] the distribution of the State’s income enables politics to be marginalized and facilitates the purchase of social tranquility. 3

Gaddafi’s ‘just society’ has sunk into corruption and debauchery. As the Islamists saw the situation, the time has come to “purify” Libya, from the “sickness” personified, in their view, by its Guide. 41

As Mahmud al-Kikhia explains, under the sanctions, the Libyan regime reconstructed itself on the basis of the tribesmen closest to the Gaddafa tribe. 95

[This allowed the government to shift from the politics of oppression to the politics of regional affiliations, mainly based on family links.]

Revolutionary Libya was founded on a vision of the ‘tribe society’ derived from a ‘tribal political’ model. In the Green Book, Gaddafi averred that the tribe was a ‘natural social protection’ and, ‘on the basis of its traditions, it guarantees social security to its members.’ In contrast, he said, ‘the State is an artificial political, economic, and sometimes military system, which has no link to human values.’98

The tribes and the clans play an essential role in security, guaranteeing the stability and continuity of the regime. 99/100

The 1969 coup resulted in the introduction of a regime whose inclination was steadily to attenuate the power or any political institutions, movements or tribes capable of mounting a challenge to it. 105

Libyan policy-makers regard foreign operators as guests, whom they have allowed to take part in an interaction whose value goes beyond its strictly commercial or economic limits. The conclusion of a contract may be the culmination of a family relationship or one of friendship – as is the case with Italian investors – that is honoured by the clinching of a deal that is privileged inasmuch as it implies the exclusion of other participants. The oil sector is seen as the decision makers’ particular fief, which they share with “guests” whom they have chosen for diplomatic, military or political reasons, or out of considerations of friendship. 128

[In Libya, economic liberalization] does not mean political freedom. Libya’s liberalization is more in the style of China’s ‘communist capitalism’ than that of the Soviet Union’s perestroika. Libya’s political structures remain unaltered, so that it is hard to see how there could be major progress in the struggle against corruption. 131

Libya exports 90 per cent of its oil to Europe. Oil was a diplomatic weapon for Libya during the sanctions period, from 1992 to 1999. Libya’s priority was to maintain its oil production despite the sanctions. The few foreign companies that showed an interest in oil production were encouraged to participate. The strategic partnership between Libya and Italy tended to work in favour of the Italian companies, which had excellent relations with Libya. Germany and Switzerland also developed a partnership with Libya which helped their oil companies to become established. Similarly, the Spanish company Repsol took a high profile in Libya during the sanctions. The presence of the European oil companies under the sanctions was a considerable help to Libya in mitigating the intensity of its conflictual relationship with the United States. 141-142

The good relations Libya enjoyed with Germany and Italy helped to avoid an escalation of the sanctions. 143

Gaddafi quotes:

As I see it, Africa is absolutely not a poor continent. Perhaps cash is lacking but it has resources and raw materials. I regard Africa as a rich continent. However, the capitalist countries have put a veto on Africa. They don’t want our continent to develop. They want to keep Africa as it is, in order to take away its materials. 108

“If we took the decision that Africans should be free to travel and live in any country on the continent, we could get over the problem of frontiers. Africa is not like Europe. Europe is made of nations. Africa is made up of tribes.the tribes were torn apart by the colonial countries. The ‘State’ in Africa cannot survive since it is artificial.” From this perspective, the African nation would be better equipped as a ‘United States’ than would Europe. “In Africa, there is one race – the black race – united and composed of various tribes.” 109

Libya-Italy treaty unravels less than a month after it was signed

2008-09-25T06:16:00.001-04:00

The Washington Times

Wednesday, September 24, 2008

Illegals unravel Libya treaty

John Phillips

ROME | A friendship agreement between Italy and Libya is falling apart barely a month after it was signed over accusations that the North African country failed to curtail the flow of illegal immigration.

Italian Interior Minister Roberto Maroni on Tuesday accused Libyan leader Col. Moammar Gadhafi of reneging on the agreement by failing to prevent thousands of desperate illegal immigrants crossing the Mediterranean to Sicily, drawing a harsh reaction from Libya.

Mr. Maroni, a leader of the separatist Northern League party in Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi´s coalition, said that in retaliation, Rome has suspended the delivery of 30 police motor-launch boats that Tripoli had bought. A ship loaded with the boats has been held up at the port of La Spezia, Mr. Maroni told RAI state-run Italian television.

Col. Gadhafi and Mr. Berlusconi signed the friendship treaty in the Libyan city of Benghazi on Aug. 30. Under the 25-year, $5 billion treaty, Italy also agreed to compensate Libya for abuse suffered as an Italian colony, including the killing of an estimated 100,000 Libyans by Italian forces.

Mr. Maroni on Monday threatened to withhold any compensation payments under the agreement and said Rome also was considering denying Tripoli a $400 million investment in a satellite network to control Libya´s vast southern frontiers in the Sahara Desert.

Mr. Maroni said he intends to travel to Libya next month at the end of the Muslim holy month of Ramadan to persuade the Libyan strongman to crack down on the emigrants. He said he would sail to Libya on one of a number of Italian patrol boats that Rome has promised to deploy in Libya to work jointly with the Libyan navy to curb emigration.

His remarks provoked a sharp reaction from the Libyan People´s Bureau, or embassy, in Rome.

"We have never asked for help from any country," the Libyan ambassador said in a statement that the Italian news agency ANSA said had been dictated by Col. Gadhafi. "So it is totally irrelevant that a ship has been blocked at La Spezia with 30 small craft aboard."

The statement also said Libya would refuse to receive Mr. Maroni if he arrives in a "spectacular manner" on a patrol boat.

"If we want to receive him, we will be the ones to indicate the date and the way to arrive," it said.

A Western source in Tripoli said it has always been doubtful whether Libya intended to take action on the flow of immigrants into Europe.

"The Libyans prefer to allow the exodus to continue because they believe they can get still more money from the European Union in the future," said the source, who asked not be further identified lest it jeopardize his position in Libya.

Italy´s capacity for coping with the influx of illegals arriving on rafts and rusting hulks from Libya is said to be "collapsing." Some 6,500 illegals have been crammed into reception centers intended to house 3,000, the Interior Ministry said.

The Northern League set off a storm two years ago when another politician from the party, Roberto Calderoli, wore a T-shirt in Italy´s parliament emblazoned with a copy of the Danish cartoon about Islam that outraged Muslims worldwide.

The incident set off rioting in front of the Italian Consulate in Benghazi that left two dead and many wounded.

Mr. Berlusconi's government was elected on a promise to bolster security and curb illegal immigration. Libya's failure to honor the deal is an embarrassment to the center-right government.

Italy´s treaty with oil-rich Libya was one of a series of openings the Gadhafi regime has brokered with the West, climaxing in a visit by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to Tripoli earlier this month.

U.S. lawmakers block ambassador to Libya over fund

2008-09-25T06:13:00.001-04:00

Reuters
Thu 25 Sep 2008, 0:36 GMT

By Sue Pleming

NEW YORK, Sept 24 (Reuters) - The Bush administration urged lawmakers on Wednesday to agree to the appointment of a new U.S. ambassador to Libya, which has been blocked until Tripoli puts money into a fund to pay U.S. victims of terrorism.

On Wednesday, U.S. Sen. Frank Lautenberg of New Jersey put on hold the nomination of diplomat Gene Cretz to become Washington's envoy to Libya until American victims were paid from a fund agreed on last month by both countries.

"Libya has not yet satisfied its obligations to U.S. victims of its terrorist acts and I will object to this nomination's moving forward until those victims receive justice," said Lautenberg, a Democrat.

Under U.S. law, ambassadorial appointments must be cleared by the Senate.

State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said Libya still had obligations it must meet for the fund but that the United States had been assured these would be fulfilled.

"We would like to see the nomination move forward," McCormack said in New York, where Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice is attending the U.N. General Assembly.

Libya and the United States signed a deal last month to create a fund that would settle cases involving victims of violence from both sides. The Bush administration hoped it would quickly lead to Cretz's confirmation as ambassador.

"This is a relationship which is changing and evolving and there is certainly work to be done but it has certainly come a long way in the past few years," he said of Libya.

The biggest chunk of the fund -- estimated at close to $1.8 billion overall -- will cover compensation for U.S. victims of Libyan attacks in the 1980s.

American victims covered include those who died in the 1988 bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, which killed 270 people, and the 1986 attack on a West Berlin disco that killed three people and wounded 229.

It also provides compensation for Libyans killed in 1986 when U.S. planes bombed Tripoli and Benghazi in retaliation for the disco attack. Forty people died, including Gaddafi's adopted baby daughter.

In a landmark visit to Tripoli this month, Rice raised concerns about the fund in public and in private meetings with Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi. It was the first visit to Libya by a U.S. secretary of state in 55 years.

Appointing a U.S. ambassador was seen as one of the rewards for Libya giving up its weapons of mass destruction program in 2003, which led to a warming of ties between the former foes.

Relatives of the Pan Am victims welcomed the Senate foreign relations committee's decision.

"The committee's action ... has sent an unequivocal message to the administration and Libya that the Senate will not appoint a U.S. ambassador until Libya has fulfilled the agreement," said a statement from a group of families

Still Gadhafi – After All These Years

2008-09-23T14:56:00.001-04:00

Middle east Times

PATRICK SEALE

September 23, 2008

In his Little Green Book, published in the 1970s, Colonel Moammar Gadhafi wrote that, "Man's freedom is lacking if somebody else controls what he needs." Now, 39 years after he seized power from King Idris of Libya on Sept. 1, 1969, he is poised to put this precept into practice.

He has announced that most of the machinery of the Libyan government is to be dismantled by the beginning of next year, and that oil revenue will be disbursed directly to the people. Most ministries will be closed down except for foreign affairs, defense, internal security and energy.

"Each one of you," he told his bemused subjects, "prepare to take his portion of the wealth and spend it as you wish … As long as money is administered by a government body, there will be theft and corruption.

"The money that we put in the education budget, I say let the Libyan people take it. Put it in your pockets and teach your kids as you wish. You take responsibility."

Gadhafi's latest revolutionary edict means -- in theory at least -- that education, health, social services and much else besides will be privatized, giving Libyans the choice to shop around for what they need, freed from government controls. But how this will work out in practice is difficult to predict. How many billions of oil revenue will be distributed and to whom is also unclear. Many fear utter chaos.

When Gadhafi created his Great Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya ("state of the masses") four decades ago, it was conceived as a novel form of direct, popular democracy. Local councils were set up with wide powers, not only to debate policy but also to implement it.

This seemed a plausible way to run a country, inhabited by little more than a million notoriously apathetic people, spread out over some 2,000 kilometers of Mediterranean coastline, backed by a vast, mostly barren, hinterland. It was said that when Gadhafi sat down to dinner with 200 tribal chiefs, he was dining with his entire country.

In the event, Gadhafi's "Islamic socialism" never really worked. Instead of the trumpeted popular democracy, he runs one of the most ruthlessly authoritarian regimes in a generally despotic Arab world. A rigid command economy was established with little room for the private sector. Dissidence was stamped out. Political opponents were hunted down and assassinated, at home and abroad.

One might say that Gadhafi's greatest personal achievement has been to survive in power for so long, in spite of numerous plots, incipient revolts, and American attempts to overthrow him.

In recent years, with a population edging towards six million, he seems to have understood the need for a change in course. There has been a belated attempt by him and his sons -- notably his reform-minded son Seif al-Islam -- to switch to something like a market economy, patch up relations with the Western world, and attract foreign investment, especially in the key oil sector which provides 95 per cent of Libya's export earnings.

Investment in tourism has started, the private sector has been given more scope, foreign businessmen are flocking to Tripoli, and international oil majors -- American companies as well as BP and ENI -- have been welcomed back, with the ambition of doubling oil production from 1.7 million barrels per day (bpd) to 3 million bpd by 2015.

On paper, Libya's GDP is over $57 billion and its foreign exchange and gold reserves close to $100 billion. Per capita income is one of the highest in Africa. But in practice, economic and social development has been slow, unemployment is high, infrastructure still primitive, and the country lags far behind the booming oil economies of the Arab Gulf.

Earlier this month, U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice visited Tripoli -- the first such visit by a U.S. secretary of state since 1953. It was evidently meant to symbolize American-Libyan reconciliation. U.S. sanctions against Libya were lifted in 2004 following Libya's decision to abandon its attempts to build nuclear weapons and its agreement to compensate families of the victims of the Pan Am aircraft blown up over Lockerbie in Scotland on Dec. 21, 1988, with the loss of 270 lives.

In the last four years, U.S.-Libyan trade has increased tenfold. The United States wants a share of Libyan oil, but also wants its backing in its "global war on terror." In turn, the European Union is anxious for Libyan cooperation in checking illegal immigration.

The colonel, who has presided over Libya's destinies for 39 years, is now 66 years old and -- judging from his photographs -- is no longer in very good shape. What further contribution to the Arab scene can he be expected to make? His latest revolution will be closely watched.

He remains a flamboyant and highly independent figure, more eccentric in his behavior than ever, unrepentant in his love affair with Africa, in his condemnation of his fellow Arab leaders, and -- in spite of the end of their long feud -- his suspicion of America.

"We have no ambition to be friends of America," he declared in a speech on Sept. 1. "We only want them to leave us alone." Reporters noted that he kept Condoleezza Rice waiting for a whole hour before he received her and did not shake her hand.

--

Schemes and Dreams Confront Libya's Sobering Realities

2008-09-23T10:33:00.002-04:00

The Freedom House

September 22, 2008

The Financial Times recently carried an extensive article on Libyan leader Muammar Qadhafi’s plans to radically alter the structure of Libya’s government. The longtime dictator’s plan would eliminate the majority of Libya’s ministries and substitute direct payment of oil wealth to Libya’s citizens in lieu of channeling it through the country’s bloated and wasteful bureaucracies. This is hardly the first time that the enigmatic leader has announced grand transformative plans, but given Libya’s recent re-entry into the “community of nations,” it is worth taking a look at the country’s major governance issues and what Qadhafi’s plan might change.

The international perception of Libya has undergone one of the most dramatic transformations of any country in recent memory. For years a pariah state due to its involvement in the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103, Libya began to see its fortunes turn when it reached an agreement to end its nuclear weapons program in late 2003. Since then it has gradually strengthened its diplomatic ties to the rest of the world, with the crowning moment being a meeting between Qadhafi and Condoleeza Rice earlier this month. Some facets of the economy have been liberalized, and Libya’s potential to increase the volume of its energy production has made it an attractive destination for foreign capital investment.

Yet in many other respects little has changed. As the Countries at the Crossroads report describes in detail, Libya remains very much a one-man regime. Policymaking decisions in Libya remain arbitrary, and patronage networks serve as the base of hiring and contracting choices. The judiciary has little independence, and the government as a whole is utterly lacking in transparency. While Qadhafi’s son Saif al-Islam has served as the modernizing face of the regime, the extent of his power is unknown and the difficult work of institution-building remains all but untouched.

And that is just on the investment-attractiveness side of the governance ledger. On political rights and civil liberties, Libya is still one of the world's more repressive countries. Political rights simply do not exist in any meaningful way for the average citizen. Human rights are not violated on as massive a scale as in some places, but this owes more to Libya’s small population and lack of political ferment than any inclination on the part of the regime to respect human rights. As Human Rights Watch made clear in a report released to accompany Sec. Rice’s visit, political dissent of any kind is still liable to expose citizens to an indefinite prison stay under harsh conditions, including torture.

Thus, Libya adds its unique system to the list of formerly state-run economies whose regimes keep politics closed but are slowly reforming their economic models, alongside China, Vietnam, Kazakhstan, and others. Qadhafi’s new ministry-elimination-oil-wealth-distribution scheme, however, has few precedents. The idea of giving oil wealth directly to citizens has been proposed or implemented in other places with significant oil wealth, from Venezuela to Alaska to Iraq, but the idea of the radical slimming down of the bureaucracy is a new twist. Perhaps the FT article’s key line comes at the end, from the Dartmouth professor who notes that the plan is “a sign of the regime’s inability to create a modern state responsive to the needs of its citizens.” Basically, the whole plan represents a clear acknowledgment of Libya’s governance failures. Unfortunately, it is unlikely to prove so easy to remedy. The likelihood that a radical fix can make up for decades of neglect and active efforts to restrict institutional development is extremely far-fetched. Until Libya’s opening extends beyond the mantra of “end our pariah status” to something involving more ambitious governance improvements, its citizens will likely continue to find Qadhafi’s schemes wanting.

The Limits to Reform

2008-09-23T06:57:00.002-04:00

Libya Forum

Sep 11, 2008 at 07:20 AM

Ronald Bruce St John

Following three decades of socialist experimentation, Libyan leader Muammar al-Qaddafi initiated a major shift in economic policy at the turn of the millennium.

When early efforts at economic liberalization produced limited results, he stepped up the pressure in June 2003, declaring the public sector a failure, calling for the privatization of the economy, and pledging to bring Libya into the World Trade Organization. Reform efforts intensified further after Libya renounced weapons of mass destruction in December 2003. In reality, however, real performance has never approached official rhetoric.

In an effort to reach production levels last achieved almost four decades ago, Libya's recent oil and gas policy has been a unique blend of the old and the new, with continuity often more apparent than innovation. Based on a 1974 business model, the current round of exploration and production sharing agreements (EPSA, phase 4), offers enhanced incentives and a more transparent, competitive bidding milieu. Oil industry response to this approach, which includes streamlined approval procedures, has been good. Well over 120 international oil companies have expressed interest and after three rounds, over two dozen companies from more than a dozen countries have been awarded contracts. Libya has also pursued a bilateral business model for larger energy projects, closing big deals with Royal Dutch/Shell, Occidental Petroleum, and BP.

Reform outside the hydrocarbon sector—characterized by an uncoordinated, piecemeal approach—has been much less impressive. Qaddafi appointed Shukri Ghanem, a vocal proponent of privatization and liberalization, as prime minister in early 2003, but as criticism of economic reform mounted, he replaced him three years later with his more malleable deputy, Ali Baghdadi al-Mahmudi. The cabinet reshuffle was a victory for conservative hardliners, and the much-trumpeted privatization program, which in the non-hydrocarbon sectors had hardly begun under Ghanem, slowed to a crawl.

True to form, Qaddafi has been as much a part of the problem as a part of the solution. As government officials touted Libya as the best place in the world to invest, the Libyan leader, in a series of statements, contributed to international uncertainty as to the speed and direction of reform policy. In a July 2006 speech, for example, he said he wanted to curb the role of foreigners in the economy to ensure Libya's wealth stayed at home. A month later, he scolded the nation for its over-reliance on hydrocarbon revenues, foreigners, and imports. Statements such as these did little to reassure potential investors.

A series of official pronouncements in recent months have left foreign firms even more uncertain about the feasibility of investing in Libya. In November 2006, the General People's Committee made it mandatory for foreign companies operating in Libya to set up joint ventures with local Libyan partners. Foreign companies already invested in Libya wondered how the requirement would apply to them, while potential investors rightly viewed it as yet another commercial obstacle to overcome. As another example, employment regulations oblige foreign companies to hire and train Libyan nationals, reducing dependence on foreign workers. After the government announced in January 2007 that it intended to lay off 400,000 public sector employees, foreign companies rightly worried they would be forced to the forefront in efforts to find jobs for this surge of new workers in the private labor market. Compounding the confusion, the regime arrested several Libyan businessmen in early 2007 for violating the principles of “people's socialism,” a term employed by Libyan officials who insist that economic liberalization must be consistent with the principles found in The Green Book, Qaddafi's socioeconomic and political manifesto.

In any case, Libya will likely experience real limits to a development model based on its current political system. Selected elements of a Western-style, representative democracy are present in the Libyan system of “direct democracy,” but others—the rule of law, respect for human rights, and freedom to dissent—are not. Over the last few years, Libyan officials have become expert in tossing about terms such as accountability, diversification, partnership, and transparency. Unfortunately, the reality on the ground is a reform process implemented in an ad hoc, opaque manner with its pace and effectiveness compromised by human capacity constraints.

Consequently, the Libyan road to economic liberalization will likely be a rocky one with road blocks, dead ends, and detours along the way. Changes to the current political system in support of a market economy remain possible but not probable. A more likely scenario is the creation of some form of hybrid economic system, as Qaddafi has suggested in his vague references to “popular capitalism” or “people's socialism,” which would be compatible with the current political system. In the interim, economic reform in Libya will remain a two-track, two-speed process with reform in the oil and gas industry outpacing that in other sectors.

Ronald Bruce St John, an independent scholar, is author of Historical Dictionary of Libya (2006, 1998, 1991), Libya and the United States: Two Centuries of Strife (2002), and Qaddafi's World Design: Libyan Foreign Policy, 1969-1987 (1987).

Gaddafi ; no comment is necessary

2008-09-22T08:36:00.012-04:00

Here is a sample video from YouTube. Its a video of a group of young Arabs watching an interview with Mo'amer El Gaddafi and laughing as though they are watching a stand up comedian. This is an example of a common trend these days among Arabs; circulating all sorts of video and audio clips of Gaddafi as cyber jokes. I have received so many of them... indeed I have been even invited to "Gaddafi parties" where guests are invited to watch a speech of the "Colonel" as the main entertainment of the evening !CLICK HERE TO VIEW THE VIDEO

Here is another from someone impersonating "the brother leader" ; CLICK HERE

For more videos of "The King of Kings of Africa" from YouTube CLICK HERE

Sadly, Gaddafi's buffoonery is no joke to Libyans who have to live under his primitive rule.

The limitless depths of Condi Rice's hypocrisy

2008-09-20T07:22:00.004-04:00

Here is an interesting letter from a former senior political appointee in the Reagan and elder Bush administrations published in the Palm Beach Post. The writer is commenting on Obama’s recent call for aid to storm-stricken Cuba and the sickening hypocritical statement of Condi Rice in reply.

Here is the letter:

Obama's call for aid to storm-stricken Cuba inspires this Reagan Republican

Palm Beach Post Letters to the Editor

Saturday, September 20, 2008

I have been a Republican most of my adult life. I served as a senior political appointee in the Reagan and elder Bush administrations, with responsibility for Cuba and other Caribbean countries. I will vote for Barack Obama because of the statesmanship and courage he displayed in calling for humanitarian aid for Cuba's hurricane victims.

My decision also reflects my revulsion for the hypocrisy of the Bush administration and Florida's Republican delegation.

Cuba is reeling from two deadly hurricanes that left thousands of people homeless and caused billions of dollars in economic damage. Immediately after Hurricane Gustav struck, Barack Obama asked the Bush administration to suspend restrictions on family remittances, visits and humanitarian care packages from Cuban Americans for a minimum of 90 days. "This is a time when the Cuban people - not Castro - need and deserve American compassion and assistance," Sen. Obama said. Even the Cuban American National Foundation, a longtime advocate of the embargo, sent a letter to President Bush asking him to temporarily lift the restrictions. Cuba's dissidents also asked Mr. Bush to suspend sanctions.

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice responded that the Bush administration refused to relax the restrictions and would only respond "to a Cuban regime that is prepared to release political prisoners (and) has a process to get to free and fair elections."

Dr. Rice's statement reached new depths for its hypocrisy, coming just one day after her meeting in Libya with Moammar Gaddafi, head of a military dictatorship that supported terrorist groups, sought weapons of mass destruction and was called the "mad dog of the Middle East" by President Reagan. Mr. Gaddafi approved the bombing of a Pan Am jet that killed 270 people. His regime is notorious for its ongoing human rights abuses. Dr. Rice's deputy called the Gaddafi meeting "a success in our foreign policy."

Although Sen. Obama knew that any call for even a temporary suspension of the Cuban embargo would cause a backlash from hardliners that could affect his electoral chances in South Florida, he rose above short-term political considerations by wisely advocating a humanitarian solution. This is statesmanship in the tradition of Ronald Reagan.

America needs a courageous and innovative president rather than one such as John McCain who would only perpetuate the failed Bush policies. On Nov. 4, this Reagan Republican is voting for Barack Obama.

TIMOTHY ASHBY

Documentary Film about the last Jews of Libya

2008-09-18T06:36:00.012-04:00

By Vivienne Roumani-Denn

The Last Jews of Libya documents the final decades of a centuries-old Sephardic Jewish community through the lives of the remarkable Roumani family. Thirty-six thousand Jews lived in Libya at the end of World War II, but not a single one remains today. A tale of war, cultural dislocation, and one family's ultimate perseverance, this fifty-minute film traces the story of the Roumanis of Benghazi, Libya from Turkish Ottoman rule through the age of Mussolini and Hitler to the final destruction and dispersal of Libya's Jews in the face of Arab nationalism.

Based on the recently discovered memoirs of the family's matriarch, Elise Roumani, as well as interviews in English, Hebrew, Italian, and Arabic with several generations of the Roumani family and a trove of rare archival film and photographs, it is an unforgettable tale.

The Last Jews of Libya is the story of an ancient community transformed by modern European culture, buffeted by Fascism and Arab nationalism, and ultimately saved through the strength of its Jewish tradition and faith.

"We cannot go on like this"

2008-09-18T06:36:00.011-04:00

Financial Times

The colonel's risky foray

By Roula Khalaf, Andrew England and Heba Saleh
September 17 2008

Muammer Gaddafi is the eternal revolutionary. In his anti-imperialist days, he roused trouble by backing rebels and radicals abroad, a costly strategy that he eventually had to abandon. His reincarnation as a mainstream, more responsible member of the world community secured the survival of his regime but it also left him looking for a new cause. Now he appears to have found his next big revolution: upheaval at home.

As Libya has sealed its international rehabilitation - a procession of world leaders have knocked on Mr Gaddafi's door in recent weeks, including Italy's Silvio Berlusconi and the US's Condoleezza Rice - the colonel has turned against his own cabinet, in effect demanding its abolition.

Under a plan revealed in a speech in March and reiterated this month on the 39th anniversary of the coup that brought him to power, most ministries are to be disbanded. Instead, oil wealth is to be distributed directly to the people, leaving them to organise and run the economy. The shake-up recognises the failure of the quirky socialist-style system he put in place decades ago. His so-called Jamahiriya, or rule of the masses, was translated into a series of committees that are supposed to represent the people yet leave power concentrated in Mr Gaddafi's hands.

The problem, however, is that no one knows what the latest plan means in practice or how a new system might work. Many fear it is a recipe for chaos.

If Mr Gaddafi acts on his words, Libya will by the start of next year have only a few government institutions: security, defence, foreign affairs and energy. The rest, including education and healthcare, will become, as he says, the "responsibility" of the Libyan people. "Each one of you, prepare to take his portion of the wealth and spend it as you wish," he declared recently. "As long as money is administered by a government body, there would be theft and corruption."

Some Libyans hope the notoriously unpredictable leader's latest experiment will prove a momentary folly. Mr Gaddafi has a habit of announcing big decisions, then reversing them. He has in the past dissolved some ministries and moved others away from Tripoli, the capital. A decade ago, he ordered all retail outlets to close, in order to be replaced by government-owned stores, but later decided that the shops could reopen.

More recently, his discourse has been more supportive of the private sector and of the free market. Yet that did not stop him from rounding up a dozen businessmen last year and locking them up for a week, in what analysts saw as warning to big business. Observers suspect that this time the colonel is determined to follow through with his plans, taking Libyans on another risky adventure. Mr Gaddafi himself expects his policies to create chaos "for a year or two", as he put it in his September speech.

"Gaddafi has a vision of permanent revolution and this guarantees his control," says George Joffe, a London-based expert on Libya. "His new plans also respond to pressure for change from the outside world and from his own elite. This is his own interpretation of what he thinks capitalism means - the market is people and people have to make their own arrangements."
With a population of only 5.8m and sizeable but underexplored oil reserves, Libya should be as prosperous as the small Gulf states of the Middle East. But a decade of international sanctions, the diversion of resources for the colonel's political causes and persistent mismanagement have left it with dilapidated infrastructure and a lethargic state-dominated economy.

In 2006, with the encouragement of Seif-al-Islam al-Gaddafi, the leader's reform-minded son who had been instrumental in the rapprochement with the west, the government hired armies of consultants to recommend economic strategies. Michael Porter, the Harvard management guru, was also invited to Libya to offer his contribution. Mr Porter, once an adviser to Ronald Reagan as US president, helped to produce a 200-page document that called for prioritising tourism, agriculture and construction to diversify an economy in which oil and gas account for 70 per cent of gross domestic product. But Libyan observers say the slow pace of development has frustrated both Gaddafis, prompting the calls for a more drastic approach.

A main problem, businessmen say, is the inability of the system to transform itself, because Mr Gaddafi has built a weak state topped by inept cronies from the early days of the revolution who continue to have extensive access to the leader. Many of these officials, according to a western observer, "are incompetent, have no idea of leadership and do not know how to delegate". But as north Africa's wealthiest nation, it can no longer blame western powers for its predicament. Its emergence out of the diplomatic wilderness comes at a time of high oil prices, providing the means to back an economic transformation.

Over the past three years, a series of measures have raised hopes that Libya may engineer a relatively stable transition away from a command economy. As oil prices have risen and Libya has accumulated higher revenues - net foreign assets are likely to reach $100bn (£56bn, €70bn) this year, up from $40bn in 2005 - the government also set up a sovereign wealth fund with about $50bn in capital. The central bank meanwhile launched a privatisation programme, selling stakes in two local banks to foreign institutions and merging others.

At a time when other oil producing countries have grown more resistant to foreign investment, Libya has welcomed back the international oil majors as it seeks to raise production from a current 1.8m barrels per day to 3m b/d in five years. BP has been working on a $900m gas exploration deal and Eni recently agreed to renegotiate its contracts, giving Tripoli a greater share of profit. Oil executives say they do not expect Mr Gaddafi's plans to affect the industry, which would continue to be managed by Libya's National Oil Company.

Investment in tourism too has started, with at least three five-star hotels planned (there is only one in Tripoli today). Dubai's Emaar Properties, the regional real estate giant, is planning to develop a whole new city near the capital.

But business complains that the administration is dysfunctional, because no one dares to take the initiative or make decisions. Projects that are launched are often not followed through. Internal regime politics complicate matters. Reformers around Seif Gaddafi have been locked in a power struggle with the old guard, many of whom have financially benefited from his father's rule. Seif himself is said to be facing increasing competition for power from his brother Moatassim, the head of security.

Some analysts suggest that the idea of a government overhaul was influenced by the ambitious Seif as a way of getting rid of top officials he believes to have blocked reforms. But Seif's efforts at reforming the system without having an official position within it are seen as another sign of weakness. An exasperated Libyan describes him as a wellintentioned "dreamer" who wants to introduce a degree of liberalisation but who "is not day-to-day in the kitchen, which is a problem".

Adding to the confusion, Seif announced late last month that he was retreating from politics. Strangely, he declared that the creation of "new institutions" meant he would no longer need to intervene in affairs of state.

"Reforms will start by a new administration structure and end with a popular contract which will keep the Jamahiriya system in place but with a new form that is different from the bad initial one," he said. But political analysts play down his exit, suggesting that it was designed to put pressure on the old guard and strengthen Seif's position within the regime.

As rivalries play themselves out at the top, businessmen and analysts are waiting for the outcome of deliberations by various committees, which have been charged with interpreting Mr Gaddafi's new demands and figuring out how the country will work and how a wealth distribution system will operate.

According to Khaled Sakr, head of the International Monetary Fund's mission to Libya, only $4bn has been included in the budget for direct distribution to Libyan citizens this year. He says he would be more alarmed about the implications for inflation and the quality of expenditure if the much larger amount originally announced - $20bn-$25bn - were being disbursed.

It is not clear yet, however, how much will be allocated for next year or what form it will take: cash, shares in companies or a combination of both. Business says the uncertainty is slowing the workings of government even more than usual. They complain that the confusion imposed by the leadership could prove another lost opportunity for Libya. "What they're doing is nonsense - it comes from the view that everything else has been tried but didn't work," says one businessman who has worked in Libya. "Maybe it's a revolution on the revolution and it keeps everyone on their toes but it's a wild experiment."

Dirk Vanderwalle, a professor at Dartmouth College of the US and a Libya specialist, says the leader's latest revolution is, above all, a sign of the regime's inability to create a modern state responsive to the needs of its citizens. "Libya needs a much stronger state that actively adjudicates between citizens and channels money in a meaningful fashion throughout the economy. But he [Mr Gaddafi] says, 'let's just simply hand it over to the people' without ensuring it's done fairly or equitably, and without accountability."

From the 'third universal theory' to 'we cannot go on like this'

In 1977, Muammer Gaddafi created his own theory of government to consolidate his revolution. Choosing neither capitalism nor communism, he came up with the "third universal theory", which he detailed in his famous Green Book, and turned his state into a Jamahiriya, which means "the rule of the masses".

A form of socialism with Islamist overtones, the Jamahiriya system purported to give real power to the people by establishing, at least in appearance, a direct democracy.

In reality, however, the system allowed neither political parties nor elections. It created a complicated structure that ensured Mr Gaddafi - whose title is Guide of the First of September Revolution - ruled unchallenged.

Under his unique style of government, Libyans are represented through local congresses, each of which sends a representative to the General People's Congress. This body is supposed to act as a legislative assembly, but it has no real power and is used simply to confirm Mr Gaddafi's decisions.

Day-to-day decision-making meanwhile resides in the so-called General People's Committees, the equivalent of a cabinet, with its secretaries acting as heads of ministries. More substantial power has in the past resided in revolutionary committees, headed by people close to the leader and with young, zealous members. The power of these committees, often described as the regime's watchdogs, was curtailed in the 1980s, however, after they faced mounting accusations of abuse.

Now Mr Gaddafi is turning against his own system. In March, he said the General People's Committees had failed to manage resources and satisfy Libyans' needs. "We cannot go on like this, especially when the price of oil has reached more than $100 per barrel," he said.

The cabinet, he concluded, must be dissolved. Instead, Libyans would form "real people's committees". They would be given the cash so they could allocate funds for infrastructure, education and health - and in this way ensure that the money was well spent.

"Gaddafi's Mother was a Jew converted to Islam at age 9"

2008-09-18T06:36:00.006-04:00

An interesting item about Gaddafi from the NodeWorks Encyclapedia.

It reads:

"Qaddafi was the youngest child from a nomadic Bedouin peasant family in the desert region of Sirte. His mother was a Jew converted to Islam at age nine. This technically makes Qaddafi Jewish according to Judaism."

While this piece of information has always been quite wide spread and discussed -- in hush terms - in Libya for as long as I remember, there seem now to be more online mentions of it . Here is a link to a canned Google search about this.

I wonder if anyone here can shed more light on this?

10 reasons Gaddafi should not be a guest of Gordon Clown in Britain

2008-09-18T04:02:00.006-04:00

Letter from Lucinda Lavelle ; Secretary of the British Libyan Solidarity Campaign

From: The British-Libyan Solidarity Campaign blsc@hotmail.co.uk
Date: Wed, Sep 17, 2008 at 4:26 AM
Subject: Gordon Brown's invitation to Gaddafi the Dictator

Dear Sirs

On the 9th September it was announced that Gordon Brown plans to invite Col. Muammar Gaddafi of Libya to visit the UK to improve diplomatic relations and open the door wider for mutual Trading Agreements and UK arms sales just days after the 1st September’s 39th Anniversary of the Military Coup that put Gaddafi in power. Once again a British PM is playing follow my leader with the US as the announcement came 5 days after Condoleeza Rice’s historic visit to Libya. History repeats itself ad nauseum.

Is the invitation a reward for abandoning his weapons of mass destruction program? What a load of rubbish! Gaddafi never had weapons of mass destruction programs, (although he will have after the UK and France have delivered the missile systems they recently sold to him) but it suits the West to pretend he did to prove how “successful” the “War on Terror” is. Gaddafi continues to rule Libya through fear and brutality – he supports Robert Mugabe, he gave asylum to Idi Amin, he hangs, shoots and imprisons anyone brave enough to peacefully protest against his regime, he is a dictator equal to Saddam Hussein and he is to be a guest in this country at the expense of us, the tax payers.

Gaddafi continues to keep his people in poverty while his family behaves like oil tycoon playboys around Europe, only a few weeks ago Gaddafi’s youngest son, Hannibal spent time in jail in Switzerland for maltreating his domestic servant – Gaddafi’s reaction to this episode was to threaten an eye for eye response!. A Dictator who has turned over a new leaf? I don’t think so! On the 29th August Gaddafi’s son and heir to the throne – Saif El-Islam said that the Lockerbie victims are “very greedy” what an insult to the victims of the bombing of the Pan Am flight that Gaddafi should be a guest in our country and not to forget the family of Yvonne Fletcher, the young police woman who was shot dead outside the Libyan Embassy by Gaddafi’s henchmen.

Gaddafi has supported terrorism for years – and now he is to be our guest – the future looks bright for Osama Bin Laden.

10 reasons Gaddafi should not be a guest of Gordon Clown in Britain

1-He is a Dictator equal to Saddam Hussein

2-He gave asylum to Idi Amin who murdered half a million of his people

3-He supports Robert Mugabe who starves and murders his people

4-He has massacred his own people who peacefully oppose him

5-He sanctioned the Lockerbie Bombing

6-He has supported International Terrorism for years

7-He is totally unstable and can not be trusted

8-He has political prisoners who have been locked away for decades

9-His sons act like oil tycoons while his people live in poverty

10-He is a traitor to his people, his faith, his country

Lucinda Lavelle

Secretary of the British Libyan Solidarity Campaign

These families can't forgive Libya's terror

2008-09-15T15:38:00.002-04:00

Star Ledger

Monday, September 15, 2008

Bob Monetti mourned on Sept. 11, and not just for the 2,975 killed in 2001. He mourned, too, and mostly, for his son Richard, who, but for a now almost forgotten act of terrorism, would have been 40 that day.

The night before, on Sept. 10, not far from the Monetti's Cherry Hill home, Dan and Susan Cohen of Cape May Court House mourned, too. Because, on that day, but for the same act of terrorism, their only child, their daughter Theo, too, would have been 40.

"It's unspeakable what happened, and it just gets worse," Dan Cohen says.

Theodora and Richard and 268 others, many of them Syracuse University students from New Jersey returning home for Christmas from a semester abroad, were killed when a bomb tore their airplane from the sky over Lockerbie, Scotland, on Dec. 21, 1988. Eleven Scottish residents were killed on the ground when plane parts hit their homes.

A Libyan agent, Abdelbaset Megrahi, was convicted by a Scottish court, but his case is now on appeal.

The Monettis and the Cohens and the other families now have to endure, not just the continuing pain of 20 years, but, more recently, the images of U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice cordially meeting Moammar Ghadafi, the Libyan dictator and the man held ultimately responsible for the act of terrorism.

"The Bush administration is just so desperate to have Ghadafi viewed as a success," said Monetti, who, for years, led the organization representing relatives of those killed aboard Pan Am Flight 103. His daughter, Kara Weipz, now heads it.

"It's all just so sleazy," Monetti said.

Said Cohen: "What happened to our children doesn't matter at all."

So many forces are working to reduce the Monettis and Cohens to minor roles despite horrific losses. Powerful forces driven by international politics and oil money.

"We mark anniversaries and are ignored," Cohen said.

The Bush administration has held up Ghadafi's Libya as an example of the success of its efforts in the Middle East. In the face of threats from the United States, Ghadafi forswore development of nuclear weapons and terrorism.

The response was the gradual lifting of sanctions against the North African nation, which, in turn, was tied to the payment of compensation to the victims of Pan Am 103.

"Bribes," Cohen said. "We were bribed with money to stop complaining."

The Cohens pushed for retaliation against, not negotiations with, Ghadafi.

Under the plan, each victim's family eventually would receive more than $10 million, while sanctions against Libya were dropped. After receiving an initial payment, the Cohens opted out, refusing to take more.

The plan, however, hit a snag and payments were suspended. Recently, an agreement was reached under which a "humanitarian fund" would be created to compensate, not just the victims of Pan Am 103, but also Libyan victims of a 1986 raid on that country ordered by President Ronald Reagan.

That attack, aimed at Ghadafi, was ordered in retaliation for the bombing of the La Belle disco in Berlin that killed two American soldiers. Ghadafi's adopted daughter was killed in the American retaliatory raid. The destruction of Pan Am 103 was viewed by the United States as payback by the Libyan leader.

As part of negotiations between the two countries, Ghadafi admitted responsibility for the act of his employee, Megrahi. But Megrahi continues to maintain his innocence, and Ghadafi has never said he ordered the plane blown from the sky.

"We have conveniently forgotten Ghadafi said he was responsible," Monetti said, insisting Rice should have stayed away from the meeting with the Libyan leader.

Ghadafi's son, Saif, last month told BBC that the American families were "greedy." He earlier said Libyans were "innocent" of the Pan Am 103 bombing but admitted responsibility to have sanctions lifted.

The humanitarian fund to compensate Libyans as well as Americans will not include U.S. taxpayer money -- but Rice declined to say who else besides Libyans will contribute to it. Monetti believes international oil companies, eager for full resumption of ties to the oil-rich country, will add money to it.

"It's just about money and oil," Monetti said.

Bob Braun's columns appear Monday and Thursday. He may be reached at (973) 392-4281 or rbraun@starledger.com.

Libya can't explain disappearance of nuke plans

2008-09-15T15:21:00.001-04:00

World Tribune

Monday, September 15, 2008

LONDON — The International Atomic Energy Agency has confirmed the disappearance of Libyan nuclear weapons plans.

IAEA said documents regarding a nuclear production plant, including information on nuclear weapon design, have gone missing in Libya. An agency report said boxes of plans for the production of a plutonium fuel facility could not be found and that the information had been in electronic form as well.

"Libya has been unable to explain where these plans are," an agency source said.
The report, distributed to members of the IAEA's board of governors on Sept. 12, said the proposed Libyan plant was meant to produce 10 kilograms of plutonium per year.

The report, the first on Libya since 2004, said the plans were bought from the network led by Pakistani scientist Abdul Qadeer Khan, which operated in 12 countries, including Iran, South Korea, Turkey and the United Arab Emirates.

"Much of the sensitive information coming from the network existed in electronic form, enabling easier use and dissemination," the report said.

"This includes information relating disturbingly to nuclear weapons design. A substantial amount of sensitive information related to the fabrication of a nuclear weapon was available to members of the network."

The missing nuclear plans represented one of several questions regarding Libya's nuclear weapons program, renounced by Tripoli in 2003. The agency, reporting contacts since 1984, said Tripoli lied about its relationship with the Khan network.

The agency said inspectors verified all of the nuclear material reported by Libya. But the report could not rule out that Libya was still concealing nuclear material and activities.

Compensation dealings with Gaddafi have much to do with oil

2008-09-15T00:46:00.001-04:00

New Zealand Herald

Monday Sep 15, 2008

By Gwynne Dyer

Libya has been at the diplomatic crossroads of the planet lately, with Condoleezza Rice making the first visit by a United States Secretary of State in 55 years.

(She was there to discuss a murky deal involving payments to American victims of terrorist attacks allegedly sponsored by Libya).

Radical Bolivian President Evo Morales showing up (to beg for money or cheap oil), and Italy's Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi arriving to promise Libya US$5 billion ($7.5 billion) in compensation for the brutalities of Italian colonial rule.

But the US Congress wasn't impressed. On September 8 the Senate Foreign Relations Committee postponed hearings on the confirmation of Gene Cretz as the first US Ambassador to Libya since 1972.

What bothered the senators was Libya's delay in paying a promised US$1.8 billion in compensation to the families of 180 Americans who died when Pan Am Flight 103 was brought down by a terrorist bomb over Lockerbie, Scotland, in 1988, and of the American soldiers targeted in a 1986 attack on the West Berlin nightclub La Belle (one killed, scores injured).
Western intelligence services blamed both those attacks on Libya's leader, Colonel Muammar Gaddafi, and US aircraft bombed Libya after the 1986 attack, killing some 30 Libyans, including Gaddafi's adopted daughter. Yet the evidence for Libyan involvement is distinctly shaky, and Libya never officially admitted its responsibility.

Instead, it finally signed a "humanitarian" deal that gives the American families US$1.8 billion, but also includes an unstated amount for the Libyan victims of the American air attacks. How very curious.

The details of the deal have been deliberately left vague, and nobody will say where the money for the Libyan victims of US air strikes is coming from. If it is coming from the US Government, that would be an interesting precedent.

But everybody knows what is really at play here. The United States worries about the security of its oil supplies and Libya produces oil, so Washington has been seeking a way to end its quarrel with Gaddafi for a long time. Gaddafi wanted that too, because the UN sanctions imposed at Washington's request were hurting his regime.

But since neither Government ever apologises, it took a while.

Gaddafi's key move was to dismantle his fantasy "nuclear weapons programme" - he never really had more than bits and pieces - in 2003. This let President George W. Bush claim that his "war on terror" was scaring the bad guys into behaving better, so the mood music improved immediately.

Even before that, Libya sent a couple of low-level intelligence agents to face an international court over the Lockerbie bombing (one was acquitted, one was convicted and the Libyan regime was scarcely mentioned).

The final compensation deal was signed last month. Rice was in Libya last week partly to show that Gaddafi was no longer in the doghouse - and partly to ask where the money was. That is bothering the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, too, but they shouldn't worry. Libyan banks take more than a month to transfer even thousands of dollars abroad, let alone billions.
The history behind Silvio Berlusconi's deal with Gaddafi is much clearer, and so are the motives behind it. Italy conquered Libya, formerly part of the Ottoman empire, in 1911, and ruled it until 1943. Tens of thousands of Libyans who resisted were killed, many more had their land confiscated and given to Italian settlers, and the country was run for Italy's benefit.

Italy owes - but why is it paying now, half a century later? The answer is partly oil - a quarter of Italy's oil and a third of its gas come from Libya - but also illegal immigrants. Italy is the destination for a growing stream of economic migrants from Africa who use Libya as a jumping-off place for their trip across the Mediterranean, and Berlusconi needs Gaddafi's co-operation to stem the flow.

So Libya gets $5 billion of Italian money to compensate for all the wrongs of the colonial era (and Italy's compensation will come later, in apparently unrelated deals).

"It is my duty ... to express to you in the name of the Italian people our regret and apologies for the deep wounds that we have caused you," Berlusconi said in Benghazi.

It's a generous apology, too: US$200 million a year on infrastructure projects for 25 years, and if Berlusconi's cronies in the Italian construction business get the contracts, what's the harm in that? But we will probably not see him making a similar apology in Mogadishu or Addis Ababa any time soon.

Libya got off lightly. Ethiopia, Somalia and Eritrea, Italy's other African colonies, suffered far more from its rule and are owed far more in compensation. But they have no oil and they are not close to Italy.

If you calculate the amount owed by other former colonial powers at the same per capita rate as Italy did for Libya - around US$1000 a head of the ex-colony's current population - then France owes Algeria $30 billion, the United States owes the Philippines $75 billion, and Britain owes India $1.1 trillion. But the victims' heirs shouldn't hold their breaths while waiting.

* Gwynne Dyer's new book, Climate Wars, has just been published in New Zealand by Scribe.

Once more, Libya's arrogant 'King of Kings' is selling a nation's future

2008-09-13T03:44:00.001-04:00

San Antonio Express

Mansour El-Kikhia

This week, Col. Moammar al-Qadhafi of Libya is a happy man.

It began Sept. 1, the 39th anniversary of his revolution. He kicked off the celebrations by inviting a host of African tribal kings to bestow upon him the title of “King of Kings” and present him with a golden crown and scepter. Shamelessly, the Libyan peacock forgot about his revolutionary drivel, the silly ideology with its “state of the masses” and revolutionary committees, as well as 40 years of pain and suffering. He paraded like a clown, with the crown on his head. It confirmed the calamity that everyone in Libya already knew— that they were under the dictatorship of an arrogant buffoon who has no qualms about selling Libya to the lowest bidder.

Following that show of vanity, he signed a multi-billion dollar agreement with the prime minister of Italy, Silvio Berlusconi, giving Italy preferential access to the Libyan market, oil and construction projects. In return, Italy apologized for occupying Libya in 1912, agreeing to compensate Libya for the 34 years of colonial occupation with a $5 billion dollar coastal highway linking Egypt with Tunisia. But perhaps the icing on the cake was the Italian guarantee to protect the Qadhafi regime against domestic and foreign adversaries.

I found the whole affair very offensive because Qadhafi bargained away the rights of 1.8 million victims for a coastal highway. He seems to have forgotten that he is still paying the final installment on the $3 billion compensation for murdering 300 souls aboard Pan Am 103 over Scotland, in addition to the $500 million for his victims aboard UTA over Niger. Is Libyan life cheaper than American, British, French or any other human life?

Italian colonialism was a catastrophe for Libyans. Long before they emerged in Northern Europe, the Fascists erected three concentration camps, herding all the inhabitants of the eastern province of Cyrenaica into them. More than 50 percent of the population in the province perished within a five-year period. There are no exact figures because Italian Fascists were not as precise as their German counterparts, but a census after the war estimated the victims to be upward of 1.5 million people.

Worse yet, the survivors were in no position to govern. At the close of World War II, the illiteracy rate in Libya was 99 percent. The Fascists denied Libyan children education beyond second grade. The infant mortality rate, usually measured in one per thousand, was 45 percent.
Additionally, I have a personal gripe with the regime bargaining on my behalf. The total number of years my family members spent in Fascist jails and camps exceed 100, not to mention those who died in captivity. My father spent over 25 years in Italian prisons, house arrests and exile. Males, females and children of my family who were not incarcerated in Libya were hoarded aboard a ship and held in a camp on the island of Sicily.

Many Cyrenaicans lost all their loved ones to torture, hanging or simple starvation in concentration camps. And for this buffoon to bargain away their rights is criminal. Berlusconi is a businessman. He cares nothing about apologies or the $5 billion; after all, the money will go to Italian companies over a 10-year period.

Extracting compensation from Qadhafi has emerged as the only foreign policy success of the Bush administration. Condoleezza Rice, in the first high ranking visit by an American government official since 1953, came calling on Qadhafi to ensure that he pays the remaining Pan Am compensation sum. She spent four hours with him, but got an earful from the Libyan dictator about staying out of Africa and not lecturing him on his abysmal human rights policies.
At this stage, the U.S. has few tools in its bag, short of reversing full diplomatic recognition, and Qadhafi knows that. He probably will not release the funds until the next president is chosen. Mr. Bush has served his purpose and can now be discarded. Outliving seven presidents has given Qadhafi a good idea of how to deal with American administrations.

The losers in all this are Libyans who will now have to endure more years of lunacy, repression and desperate need under the filthy boots of a vain madman whose ego is continually stroked by Western protectors.

melkikhia@satx.rr.com

Recommended Book: "Translating Libya: The Modern Libyan Short Story"

2008-09-12T05:34:00.002-04:00

Available at Amazon

About the book:

Part anthology and part travelogue, Translating Libya presents the country through the eyes of sixteen Libyan short story writers and one American diplomat. Intrigued by the apparent absence of 'place' in modern Libyan short fiction, Ethan Chorin resolved to track down and translate stories that specifically mention cities and landmarks in Libya. The stories trace the influence of the ancient Romans, the later Italian occupation and the current influx of foreign workers from Africa and further afield. The authors open a window on today's Libya - a rapidly urbanizing country with rich oil reserves, recently renewed diplomatic relations with the West and a nascent tourist industry based on its well-preserved ancient cities. This is a unique introduction to a country that has for some time been 'off the beaten path'.

Review from the Library Journal:

Verdict: An excellent collection of stories as well as an insightful glimpse into what was recently an unknown culture, this is highly recommended for academic and large public libraries.

Background: Until recently, Libya was not well known to the Western world. As part of the first official U.S. Liaison Office in Libya from 2004 to 2006, Chorin explored the country through its short stories. This resulting collection of stories, all translated by Chorin, is part anthology and part travelog; Chorin’s short, contextual essays provide the reader with additional information. For example, in the commentary for "Hotel Vienna," the story of a Muslim man falling in love with a Christian woman, Chorin tells his own story about trying to find the marvelous hotel that inspired this heartbreaking love story. In the process of telling his tale of searching for a potentially fictional place, he illuminates the deep sadness of the story. This anthology ends with a series of short essays that help explain contemporary Libya to a Western audience.—Deborah Hicks, Univ. of Alberta Lib., Edmonton

Author Bio:

Ethan Chorin is a senior fellow in the CSIS Middle East Program. His research focuses on the culture and economics of the Middle East, with a particular focus on Iran, the Arabian Peninsula, and Libya. Before joining CSIS, he was one of a small number of Farsi-speaking Foreign Service Officers posted to the Gulf. Prior to that, he served as a commercial/economic attaché to Libya. Before entering government, he cofounded Ishtirak, a consulting firm focused on Islamic markets and investments. Chorin has been the recipient of Fulbright and Fulbright Hays grants, as well as a Jean Monnet Fellowship to France’s Ecole Polytechnique. He speaks Arabic, Farsi, French, and Hebrew.

Dr. Chorin is the author or principal author of numerous studies on Libya, including the U.S. government’s Doing Business In Libya: A Country Commercial Guide for U.S. Companies (Department of Commerce, 2006), Translating Libya: The Modern Libyan Short Story (Saqi Books, 2008), and an upcoming book chapter on U.S.-Libyan commercial relations. His articles on Middle Eastern literature, Islamic banking, and corporate social responsibility have appeared on the Web sites of Words Without Borders, the Institute for the Future, AMEInfo, and the University of London’s School of Oriental and African Studies. Dr. Chorin earned a Ph.D. from the University of California at Berkeley, an M.A. from Stanford University, and a B.A. from Yale University.

Ties with Libya expose US hypocrisy

2008-09-12T04:31:00.002-04:00

Gulf News

By Marwan Kabalan

September 12, 2008

When US President George W. Bush delivered his first major speech on democracy in the Middle East, it seemed as if the US had turned a page of history.

"Sixty years of Western nations excusing and accommodating the lack of freedom in the Middle East did nothing to make us safe, because in the long run, stability cannot be purchased at the expense of liberty," Bush said in the fall of 2003. "Therefore, the United States has adopted a new policy, a forward strategy of freedom in the Middle East".

In accordance, Bush pledged to support the cause of Arab democrats and rein on Arab regimes to allow more political participation. Recent developments in US policy towards the Arab world suggest that these were empty words. The Bush administration has, in fact, not only failed to translate these promises into something tangible, but has also reversed the gear.

As far as we know, democracy promotion in general has never been an end by itself for the US, rather the form of democracy promoted was, in most cases, narrow and thereby suitable for furthering US interests. This applies both to the US's historical record and the role of democracy promotion as a "central theme" in the foreign policy of the Bush administration.

The gap between the commitment to promoting democracy and the reality of US foreign policy is most evident in the case of the Middle East, for whom there must be disbelief at the notion that the US has a long-standing commitment to democracy promotion.

The entire history of US relations with this region shows that Washington has been involved more in undermining democratic regimes than fostering them. And, crucially, the drive for such a policy has been economic and strategic interests. The case of Libya provides an excellent example of this tendency.

Last week, the whole world was watching, with amusement, US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice embracing the Libyan regime. To add insult to injury, Rice emerged from a meeting with Colonel Muammar Gaddafi in Tripoli smiling broadly, describing her visit to Libya as "a historic moment".

Memory

For the sake of refreshing our memory, Rice was a guest of the same leader who, for the past 40 years, has been branded in the west as a "disgrace to civilisation". Former US president Ronald Reagan once called him the "mad dog of the Middle East", who sponsors international terrorism, condones piracy, kidnapping, plane-hijacking and even hired-killing. In US media, Gaddafi was portrayed as a "ruthless dictator and power-lusting nationalist", who very often expressed fascist and explosive social ideas.

He was, furthermore, characterised as an "agitator, maverick demagogue, irresponsible, and at times, childish." His weird ideas were depicted as radical and utopian fallacies closer in shape and essence to chauvinism than to traditional nationalism. In addition, Libya's dismal human rights record was denounced and; as a consequence, Gaddafi's regime was isolated, contained and became subject to international sanctions.

In recent years, however, this picture has been completely discarded and replaced with a more positive one. This radical shift reflected a long-standing tendency in Western political discourse, concealed political and economic interests and culminated in the dramatic rapprochement with Libya.

Indeed, Gaddafi has made enough concessions to bring about a change in the US approach towards Libya. The US administration has clearly ignored that Gaddafi has made a few concessions, in fact none, to his own people. He is still the undisputed ruler, or - to be more precise - the owner of the country and its resources. Amidst the rush to secure economic interests, US calls for political openness could not stand a chance.

Rice claims that she raised issues of human rights with Gaddafi, but, to the dismay of many, no evidence to support this claim has so far surfaced. The only statement that has been heard in Tripoli was about Libya's enormous economic resources, which "matter to us", as Rice put it.

Dr Marwan Kabalan is a lecturer in media and international relations, Faculty of Political Science and Media, Damascus University, Syria.

Intemperance Keeps Terrorism Alive

2008-09-11T07:36:00.004-04:00

Agence Global

by Rami G. Khouri

BEIRUT -- In this week marking the seventh anniversary of the September 11, 2001 terror attack on the United States, three noteworthy events related to the US and the Middle East caught my eye: Al-Qaeda’s number two man Ayman Zawahiri released a new videotape; Republican Party vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin started her foreign policy education by meeting with the American-Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), an extremist organization that puts Israeli interests above American interests; and US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice was meeting and dealing with the heads of state of Tunisia, Libya, and Algeria, three of the most authoritarian figures in the world, not just in the Middle East.

Why is this worldwide web of extremism noteworthy? It helps clarify that the terrorism scourge persists because its root causes continue to thrive. Those causes are multiple, complex, and ever changing, and relate primarily to events in four orbits: the Arab-Asian region, Europe, Israel, and American foreign policy.

It is impossible in analytical or historical terms to separate the four main strands of sentiment and policy that have given birth to the contemporary Salafist terrorist movements we all suffer today: dictatorial or merely corrupt and incompetent Arab and Asian governments; violent and colonial Israeli policies; hypocritical and Israeli-influenced American policies that often manifest themselves in warfare; and, the consequent, more recent, phenomenon of demeaned and disoriented young Arab-Asian immigrants in Europe, often second and third generation immigrants.

None of these four principal reasons by itself is likely to cause a person to become a terrorist. The combination of two or more often drives otherwise normal young men or women to embrace wild ideologies that promise an escape from the degradation, confusion and despair that define their lives.

The two principal accusations and complaints against the United States in most of the Arab-Asian region were vividly on display this week, as if the Washington establishment were asking Ayman Zawahiri or Osama Bin Laden to emerge and make an appearance, which Zawahiri did.

Those accusations are: 1) US foreign policy in the Arab-Israeli conflict is hopelessly skewed towards Israel and shows no desire to return to any semblance of even-handedness. And, 2) Washington is most comfortable supporting Arab dictators and life-long presidents, totally disregarding both its own rhetoric about ‘promoting democracy’ and the rights of hundreds of millions of Arab-Asian citizens to fundamental human rights and a decent life.

These two foreign policy traditions in Washington combine with a deadly homegrown modern Arab legacy of political authoritarianism and state-run incompetence to create the volatile mixture that generates terror on a large and recurring scale.

Terrorism is a symptom of other ailments and distortions, and a tool that fanatics use to express themselves and change conditions in society. It is not an ideology that springs out of purely religious milieus. It can be defeated and eliminated only if its underlying causes are recognized and seriously addressed.

Two major trends have remained constant since that terrible day of death and destruction on 9/11: First, those who practice terror in the lands and the wider orbits of the Middle East and South Asia continue to proliferate and dissipate, making it harder to stop their criminal acts. Second, the American-led “global war on terror” persists in a mistaken emphasis on police and military actions to tackle problems that only get worse -- in part because of the political foreign policies that Washington pursues.

Sarah Palin’s first foreign policy journey to AIPAC and Condoleezza Rice’s swan song last journey to three North African Arab dictators suggest that the American political establishment -- or at least its Republican side -- has learned nothing in the past seven years.

Another interpretation is that Republicans and all Americans know this, but do not care -- because they can live with the violence and volatility that define the Arab-Asian region and their relations with much of it. I don’t think this is the case, though, because most Americans prefer peace over war, friendship over rancor, and lawful good governance over rampant criminality.

In the end, the combination of native Arab-Asian dysfunctional governance, exported American hypocrisy, and sustained Israeli aggression creates openings that sick men like Ayman Zawahiri exploit with glee, and some success. There should be no surprises that he and his ilk continue to do this, because the underlying conditions that allow terrorists to breed remain fertile.

Seven years after 9/11 and an American-led “global war on terror” that has cost trillions of dollars, not only do the formative forces of terror persist virtually unchanged from 2001; in some cases (Pakistan, Afghanistan, Lebanon, Somalia, Iraq, Algeria) they are more acute than ever before. The really sad thing is that Sarah, Condoleezza, Ayman and Osama all think they are doing just fine, while the rest of us pay the price for their respective and distinct intemperance.

Rami G. Khouri is Editor-at-large of The Daily Star, and Director of the Issam Fares Institute for Public Policy and International Affairs at the American University of Beirut, in Beirut, Lebanon.

Condoleezza Rice: Wasted Potential

2008-09-11T06:15:00.001-04:00

Asharq Al-Awsat

10/09/2008

By Hussein Shobokshi

US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has a complex personality. She succeeded in ascending the US political pyramid skillfully and capably but she did not enter history due to her policies or stands.

Condi, as her close associates call her, is a daughter of the American South and of turbulent "ethnic" relations due to persecution and discrimination. She was brilliant in the academic field and managed to reach a prominent position in Stanford University, one of the most important US universities and a bastion of new technological advances.

She also built for herself a conservative religious course and made sure to attend the evangelical Sunday school lessons to study and absorb the New Testament. She has a passion for classical music and she plays the piano. Rice specialized in Russian politics and in the Soviet system but she reached foreign policy decision-making centers after the fall of the Soviet Union. She thus lost the competitive edge that she gained from her specialization.

On the Arab level, Condoleezza was unable to win the trust and respect of the region and its people (contrary to Colin Powell, for instance, who resigned when he felt that he was being used as a tool to sell the dirty war on Iraq with vile lies and plots on US public opinion and world public opinion).

Rice has not managed to accomplish anything worth mentioning regarding the most important and pivotal issue in the region, namely, the Palestinian issue. In fact, her "grey" stands on the octopus-like expansion of the Israeli settlements and on the bloody practices of the Israeli army against unarmed Palestinians were in fact clear encouragement for Israel to proceed with its insane and barbaric practices although the US administration had given her exclusive charge of the Palestinian-Israeli file. Of course, everyone still recalls Rice and her shameless remarks against Lebanon and on the Israeli aggression on Lebanon.

She played down the number of the victims and the magnitude of the devastation as she claimed that it was not yet time to seek a cease-fire. On Egypt, there is a strong belief that Rice personally contributed to widening the gap between Egypt and the United States due to a number of stands and statements that she made and that the Egyptians considered blatant and unacceptable intervention in their domestic affairs.

Nowadays, Rice continues to surprise the Arab masses by visiting Libya in a fresh attempt to rearrange the relationship between Libya and the United States. She is making statements in which she is saying that Libya is a good model for the Arab countries and so on. I personally do not believe that the Libyans themselves believe this.

But what is unacceptable is the magnitude of the naïve policies of the neo-conservatives in the Arab region. Time and space do not allow us to talk in detail about the situation in Libya and about the state of affairs in that country. Nevertheless, we can very briefly and clearly say that Libya is not the model that the Arabs wish to emulate.

When Margaret Thatcher met with former Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev in the offices of the British prime minister in 10 Downing Street, she famously said, "We can do business together". This was during the peak of the Glasnost and Perestroika period of Gorbachev's reform and openness within the Soviet Union. However, it was also the kiss of farewell. Shortly after this meeting, the walls of the Soviet Union began to crumble and the empire quickly collapsed. Some people are likening Rice's visit to the Libyan Jamahiriyah to an "event" of this kind. They believe it is the openness that also brings in strong winds of change and bills to pay. With time, Condoleezza Rice has turned into a "scarecrow" and a political omen to many of the countries she visits and leaders with whom she meets.

She has become like a horror figure. She does not conceal the fact that she is seeking "another" political future and wishes to become the first black female president in the White House. However, she did not run because she realizes that the world needs to forget a little young Bush and his cronies and breathe a sigh of relief.

However, she may try to run in 2012. Rice continues to be the first US foreign policy decision-maker and she enjoys the President's trust and "ear". We all hope that the remaining days of her term in office will end with more strange surprises.

Qaddafi Still Dodging the Bill for PanAm 103

2008-09-10T09:47:00.001-04:00

By Jeff Stein

September 8, 2008

Despite all the warm fuzzies between Condoleezza Rice and Muammar el-Qaddafi in Tripoli last week, there can be little optimism that Libya will make final payments to relatives of the hundreds of Americans killed in the PanAm 103 and LaBelle discotheque terrorist attacks anytime soon.

The Bush administration has said repeatedly that Libya's bizarre dictator must finish making promised payments to the families before normal relations can resume.

The Comprehensive Claims Settlement Agreement that Secretary of State Rice negotiated with the erstwhile rogue obligates Libya to put up $1 billion in compensation to the families in return for the normalization of relations with Washington.

But the agreement has no timetable or deadline. And none of the funds, which Libya originally promised to pay in 2003, have shown up.

There's little reason to be optimistic they will anytime soon. Qaddafi has a history of discarding his promises once he gets what he wants.

And now he's laughing about it.

After he renounced his nuclear weapons program in 2006 -- which a number of experts say was going nowhere anyway -- the Bush administration announced it was removing Libya from its list of state sponsors of terrorism. Qaddafi promptly ditched a near-agreement with a lawyer for families of the LaBelle discotheque bombing for final payments.

When the State Department moved last summer to exempt Libya from suits filed by victims of its terrorist attacks, critics cried that the Bush administration was systematically removing incentives for Qaddafi to pay up.

Meanwhile, even before Rice and Qaddafi were televised beaming at each other last week, the dictator's son, a powerful official in his own right, was denying any responsibility for the bombing of Pan Am 103, which was blasted out of the air over Lockerbie, Scotland in 1989, killing all 270 aboard, including 180 Americans.

Saif al-Islam Qaddafi said Libya had accepted responsibility for the attack -- but only to get international sanctions lifted.

"It doesn't mean that we did it, in fact," he told the BBC in a little-noted program broadcast Aug. 31, calling the victims' families "very greedy" for pursuing their claims.

"They were asking for more money and more money and more money," said Junior, who is expected to succeed his father on the throne someday.

Only months earlier Muammar Qaddafi himself had bragged publicly that he'd squeezed as much money out of American oil companies for the rights to drill in Libya as he'd paid out in claims.

"We have paid off the compensations to the victims' families but the US oil companies, which wanted to enter our country had to pay such fees that they brought this money back to Libya," he said in a speech. "So, what we gave with the right hand was later taken with the left."

A State Department spokeswoman, Ann Somerset, told me Monday that the department remains "optimistic" that Qaddafi will pay up, emphasizing that the normalization of relations with Libya, with all its commercial and political benefits, will not go forward "until the entire amount" has been paid.