I found this interesting. I've been seeing parts of this all weekend, but this is the best summary
Quote:
Hawks in Washington will attempt to make the argument that Libya's sudden willingness to give up its weapons of mass destruction programs is a dividend of the Iraq war.
For those who know anything at all about Libya, however, an entirely different interpretation is obvious. Libya proves that economic sanctions can work. Because of its involvement in the 1988 Lockerbie bombing and other acts of terrorism, Libya was subjected to an international embargo in 1992. The embargo from all accounts deeply hurt Libya's economy, and it produced a stark pull-back from support of terrorism on Qadhafi's part. The Libyan government estimated that the world boycott cost Libya $37 billion. The economy remains small at about GDP $40 bn. despite an oil income, but the potential for wealth is vast. A $6 bn investment could increase Libya's daily oil production from 1.2 million barrels a day to 2 million barrels a day. (The population at 5.5 million is so small that this increase would yield about $1600 per person per year, if the price of oil were about $28/b.) Western investors have been skittish (and US entrerpreneurs have severe legal limits on their Libyan activities), and that would have to change for oil and gas exploration to expand, e.g. There's black gold in them thar dunes.
(Again, the hawks have explained Qadhafi's abandonment of support for terrorism with reference to Ronald Reagan's 1986 bombing of Tripoli; not being good at math, they don't seem to realize that 1988 comes after 1986. One could more reasonably draw the conclusion that the US aerial strike encouraged Libya to commit more terrorism.)
The UN sanctions, but not the US ones, were eased in 1999. In the meantime, Qadhafi had become the target of the radical Islamist Anas al-Libi, a top al-Qaeda operative suspected of involvement in terrorism in East Africa, as well. After September 11, Qadhafi associated himself with the US war on terror, in hopes of seeing al-Libi killed and the Libyan branch of radical Islamism devastated.
Qadhafi brought Shukri Ghanem, a liberal economist, back from OPEC to be minister of finance, and then in summer of 2003 appointed him prime minister! Ghanem announced an extensive privatization program, in which some 300 state-owned industries will be sold off to entrepreneurs. The old mahdist socialist, Qadhafi, has begun inveighing against "unqualified employees who do not care about the interests of their country" (MEED, Aug. 29, 2003).
So, Qadhafi's regime had been brought to the brink of possible extinction by the sanctions and by Soviet style economic sclerosis. The stars had suddenly aligned him with the US in a desperate struggle against radical Islamism and his old foe Anas al-Libi. Qadhafi apologized for Lockerbie and reportedly offered the victims $1.7 billion in compensation.
The one thing standing between Qadhafi and a return to stability for his dictatorial regime (and efflorescence for his potentially rich economy) was Washington's new campaign against weapons of mass destruction. Libya didn't have much of that sort of thing, though it had dabbled, and it wasn't important to Qadhafi any more. The conflict in Chad (in which Libya is accused of using chemical weapons) had died down. Washington was making it a quid pro quo that Tripoli give these lackluster and small programs up in order for Libya to reenter the world economic system on a favorable footing. It was an easy decision.
So the real reason Qadhafi just folded is economic. And the lesson to be drawn here is that under certain circumstances, economic pressure can work, and remove the need for war.
The sanctions on Libya were very different from those on Iraq, and peace thinkers need to study why the former worked but the latter didn't. One thing is clear; the Iraq war has hindered, not helped, US-Arab relations, and it is not the reason for which Qadhafi has made up with the West, a process that began some time ago.
One caveat: Qadhafi hasn't offered to step down or become less dictatorial. This isn't an advance for democracy. The Bush administration, despite its rhetoric of democratization, still has to choose in the Middle East between having malleable, known strongmen in power, or having unpredictable democracies that might elect radical Islamists or others odious to Washington. I wouldn't bet a lot on the democratization policy. The US if anything has been urging countries like Tunisia and Yemen to be less democratic and less concerned about civil rights, in the cause of stamping out radical Islamism.
Well, I'd like to comment but couldn't read much further thatn this:
Quote:
For those who know anything at all about Libya, however, an entirely different interpretation is obvious. Libya proves that economic sanctions can work
Anybody have any ideas why the bush admin has gone to such great lengths to avoid confronting pakistan, even though a) there are direct and unmistakable connections between the pakistani government and 9.11, b) the ISI is very much interconnected with al-qaeda and c) pakistan is the main proliferator of nuclear technology (even likely being the source for NK's nuclear tech)?
Anybody have any ideas why the bush admin has gone to such great lengths to avoid confronting pakistan, even though a) there are direct and unmistakable connections between the pakistani government and 9.11, b) the ISI is very much interconnected with al-qaeda and c) pakistan is the main proliferator of nuclear technology (even likely being the source for NK's nuclear tech)?
Keep going. I could buy tickets to watch you guys pile on Bush.
Keep going. I could buy tickets to watch you guys pile on Bush.
Well, when a the president and Rove, Inc. take credit for Libya I think they should be called-out for such lying when the truth is:
?If back-slapping is in order, congratulations should also go to Robin Cook, the man who relaunched British relations with Libya in 1999 and on whose policy of critical engagement this success is founded. Patient diplomacy, dialogue, negotiation, clearly enunciated principles and red lines, respect, mutual trust, and attractive incentives - these are the civil tools that helped bring, at the weekend, perhaps the most significant, tangible breakthrough in arms control since the strategic weapons pacts of the later cold war era. Libya has gone from 1986 target of Ronald Reagan's bombs, from "rogue" sponsor of non-state, anti-western terrorism and, as it now admits, from active pursuer of nuclear and chemical arms to, if all sides honour the bargain, a prospectively valuable friend and partner.
This was not achieved by military power, by invasion, by shredding inter national law, by enforced regime change or by large-scale bloodshed. Nor, in fact, despite Mr Bush's eagerness for plaudits, was it primarily achieved by his administration at all. It was achieved by discussion - by endless talk, mostly in London, latterly in Libya, and finally in a London gentlemen's club. Boring perhaps, but effective; and here, with shock and awe, is a lesson for the Pentagon to absorb. Here is a measure of the true worth of the diplomacy espoused by Mr Cook and others. It bore fruit in Iran last week, another country which Britain refuses to join the US in ostracising. It could yet produce results in Syria, another low-grade WMD state, and in North Korea, if only senior US officials would stop threatening them.? From The Guardian
But then again, if we truly followed the Chicken-hawk doctrine, we should've bombed the living shit out of Libya, occupied the country and the pronounced to the world that Libya didn't really have all that many WMD's. Oops.
Well, when a the president and Rove, Inc. take credit for Libya I think they should be called-out for such lying when the truth is:
?If back-slapping is in order, congratulations should also go to Robin Cook, the man who relaunched British relations with Libya in 1999 and on whose policy of critical engagement this success is founded. Patient diplomacy, dialogue, negotiation, clearly enunciated principles and red lines, respect, mutual trust, and attractive incentives - these are the civil tools that helped bring, at the weekend, perhaps the most significant, tangible breakthrough in arms control since the strategic weapons pacts of the later cold war era. Libya has gone from 1986 target of Ronald Reagan's bombs, from "rogue" sponsor of non-state, anti-western terrorism and, as it now admits, from active pursuer of nuclear and chemical arms to, if all sides honour the bargain, a prospectively valuable friend and partner.
This was not achieved by military power, by invasion, by shredding inter national law, by enforced regime change or by large-scale bloodshed. Nor, in fact, despite Mr Bush's eagerness for plaudits, was it primarily achieved by his administration at all. It was achieved by discussion - by endless talk, mostly in London, latterly in Libya, and finally in a London gentlemen's club. Boring perhaps, but effective; and here, with shock and awe, is a lesson for the Pentagon to absorb. Here is a measure of the true worth of the diplomacy espoused by Mr Cook and others. It bore fruit in Iran last week, another country which Britain refuses to join the US in ostracising. It could yet produce results in Syria, another low-grade WMD state, and in North Korea, if only senior US officials would stop threatening them.? From The Guardian
But then again, if we truly followed the Chicken-hawk doctrine, we should've bombed the living shit out of Libya, occupied the country and the pronounced to the world that Libya didn't really have all that many WMD's. Oops.
That's hilarious. Even when the Bush Doctrine is proven, you will not accept it. The Colonel himself admitted that the Iraq War "may have played a part in his/Libya's decision to drop it's program".
Anybody have any ideas why the bush admin has gone to such great lengths to avoid confronting pakistan, even though a) there are direct and unmistakable connections between the pakistani government and 9.11, b) the ISI is very much interconnected with al-qaeda and c) pakistan is the main proliferator of nuclear technology (even likely being the source for NK's nuclear tech)?
Yeah I've been reading a little about this. It seems like most of the Axle of Elvis's, and probably the world's, proliferation issues stem from our buddies in Pakistan. Not to mention that in all likelihood bin Laden is being protected by Pakistanis on the border with Afghanistan. So we're buddies with Saudi Arabia, from whence the 9/11 hijackers came, and Pakistan, who sponsored the Taliban and who are responsible for most of the world's proliferation of nuclear WMDs, and now Libya, who sponsored one of the worst terrorist incidents in history with Lockerbie. : confused:
The more I think about this Libya thing, the sillier it becomes. This is exactly what Iraq said for years and years. And now there are signs that Libya is starting to complain about some of the conditions of the inspections, the same way Iraq did...
But PR is the key, and if it's declared a vindication of preemptive neo-Bush-con-ism, then that's all the really matters.
That's hilarious. Even when the Bush Doctrine is proven, you will not accept it. The Colonel himself admitted that the Iraq War "may have played a part in his/Libya's decision to drop it's program".
"May have" or "did"? Which is it?
Also, I find it interesting that the British are fuming pissed that Bush is taking full credit for this when they are the ones who have been working steadfast with Libya (far before 9/11) at normalizing relations and bringing them back into the world.
But, hey, we caught Saddam! The war's over! Woo hoo!
"Within months after September 11th, we had the Libyans, the Syrians and the Iranians all coming to us saying, 'What can we do [to better relations]?' We didn't really engage any of them, because we decided to do Iraq. We really squandered two years of capital that will make it harder to apply this model to the hard cases like Iran and Syria," said Flynt Leverett, a former Bush administration National Security Council staff member now at the Brookings Institution.
The fact that Libya was apparently serious about negotiating with us certainly makes you wonder if Iran and Syria were equally serious. And it's also hard not to wonder what would have happened with Iraq if we'd been willing to spend a year negotiating with them instead of five rather obviously unserious months.
The fact that Libya was apparently serious about negotiating with us certainly makes you wonder if Iran and Syria were equally serious. And it's also hard not to wonder what would have happened with Iraq if we'd been willing to spend a year negotiating with them instead of five rather obviously unserious months.
Comments
Originally posted by Hassan i Sabbah
...and the people evicted from their homes on the creation of the state of Israel haven't abandoned their "Palestinian" nationality either.
Can they have the right of return too?
Not enough Arab/Islamic land to go around?
Originally posted by SDW2001
Upset? no. How is that pro-Bush?
There's those blinders again!
Hawks in Washington will attempt to make the argument that Libya's sudden willingness to give up its weapons of mass destruction programs is a dividend of the Iraq war.
For those who know anything at all about Libya, however, an entirely different interpretation is obvious. Libya proves that economic sanctions can work. Because of its involvement in the 1988 Lockerbie bombing and other acts of terrorism, Libya was subjected to an international embargo in 1992. The embargo from all accounts deeply hurt Libya's economy, and it produced a stark pull-back from support of terrorism on Qadhafi's part. The Libyan government estimated that the world boycott cost Libya $37 billion. The economy remains small at about GDP $40 bn. despite an oil income, but the potential for wealth is vast. A $6 bn investment could increase Libya's daily oil production from 1.2 million barrels a day to 2 million barrels a day. (The population at 5.5 million is so small that this increase would yield about $1600 per person per year, if the price of oil were about $28/b.) Western investors have been skittish (and US entrerpreneurs have severe legal limits on their Libyan activities), and that would have to change for oil and gas exploration to expand, e.g. There's black gold in them thar dunes.
(Again, the hawks have explained Qadhafi's abandonment of support for terrorism with reference to Ronald Reagan's 1986 bombing of Tripoli; not being good at math, they don't seem to realize that 1988 comes after 1986. One could more reasonably draw the conclusion that the US aerial strike encouraged Libya to commit more terrorism.)
The UN sanctions, but not the US ones, were eased in 1999. In the meantime, Qadhafi had become the target of the radical Islamist Anas al-Libi, a top al-Qaeda operative suspected of involvement in terrorism in East Africa, as well. After September 11, Qadhafi associated himself with the US war on terror, in hopes of seeing al-Libi killed and the Libyan branch of radical Islamism devastated.
Qadhafi brought Shukri Ghanem, a liberal economist, back from OPEC to be minister of finance, and then in summer of 2003 appointed him prime minister! Ghanem announced an extensive privatization program, in which some 300 state-owned industries will be sold off to entrepreneurs. The old mahdist socialist, Qadhafi, has begun inveighing against "unqualified employees who do not care about the interests of their country" (MEED, Aug. 29, 2003).
So, Qadhafi's regime had been brought to the brink of possible extinction by the sanctions and by Soviet style economic sclerosis. The stars had suddenly aligned him with the US in a desperate struggle against radical Islamism and his old foe Anas al-Libi. Qadhafi apologized for Lockerbie and reportedly offered the victims $1.7 billion in compensation.
The one thing standing between Qadhafi and a return to stability for his dictatorial regime (and efflorescence for his potentially rich economy) was Washington's new campaign against weapons of mass destruction. Libya didn't have much of that sort of thing, though it had dabbled, and it wasn't important to Qadhafi any more. The conflict in Chad (in which Libya is accused of using chemical weapons) had died down. Washington was making it a quid pro quo that Tripoli give these lackluster and small programs up in order for Libya to reenter the world economic system on a favorable footing. It was an easy decision.
So the real reason Qadhafi just folded is economic. And the lesson to be drawn here is that under certain circumstances, economic pressure can work, and remove the need for war.
The sanctions on Libya were very different from those on Iraq, and peace thinkers need to study why the former worked but the latter didn't. One thing is clear; the Iraq war has hindered, not helped, US-Arab relations, and it is not the reason for which Qadhafi has made up with the West, a process that began some time ago.
One caveat: Qadhafi hasn't offered to step down or become less dictatorial. This isn't an advance for democracy. The Bush administration, despite its rhetoric of democratization, still has to choose in the Middle East between having malleable, known strongmen in power, or having unpredictable democracies that might elect radical Islamists or others odious to Washington. I wouldn't bet a lot on the democratization policy. The US if anything has been urging countries like Tunisia and Yemen to be less democratic and less concerned about civil rights, in the cause of stamping out radical Islamism.
http://www.juancole.com/2003_12_01_j...99393231717277
For those who know anything at all about Libya, however, an entirely different interpretation is obvious. Libya proves that economic sanctions can work
Stop. You're killing me.
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/22/in...ia/22STAN.html
Anybody have any ideas why the bush admin has gone to such great lengths to avoid confronting pakistan, even though a) there are direct and unmistakable connections between the pakistani government and 9.11, b) the ISI is very much interconnected with al-qaeda and c) pakistan is the main proliferator of nuclear technology (even likely being the source for NK's nuclear tech)?
Originally posted by giant
So now it's looking like pakistan was a source for whatever this nuke program was.
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/22/in...ia/22STAN.html
Anybody have any ideas why the bush admin has gone to such great lengths to avoid confronting pakistan, even though a) there are direct and unmistakable connections between the pakistani government and 9.11, b) the ISI is very much interconnected with al-qaeda and c) pakistan is the main proliferator of nuclear technology (even likely being the source for NK's nuclear tech)?
Keep going. I could buy tickets to watch you guys pile on Bush.
Originally posted by SDW2001
Keep going. I could buy tickets to watch you guys pile on Bush.
Well, when a the president and Rove, Inc. take credit for Libya I think they should be called-out for such lying when the truth is:
?If back-slapping is in order, congratulations should also go to Robin Cook, the man who relaunched British relations with Libya in 1999 and on whose policy of critical engagement this success is founded. Patient diplomacy, dialogue, negotiation, clearly enunciated principles and red lines, respect, mutual trust, and attractive incentives - these are the civil tools that helped bring, at the weekend, perhaps the most significant, tangible breakthrough in arms control since the strategic weapons pacts of the later cold war era. Libya has gone from 1986 target of Ronald Reagan's bombs, from "rogue" sponsor of non-state, anti-western terrorism and, as it now admits, from active pursuer of nuclear and chemical arms to, if all sides honour the bargain, a prospectively valuable friend and partner.
This was not achieved by military power, by invasion, by shredding inter national law, by enforced regime change or by large-scale bloodshed. Nor, in fact, despite Mr Bush's eagerness for plaudits, was it primarily achieved by his administration at all. It was achieved by discussion - by endless talk, mostly in London, latterly in Libya, and finally in a London gentlemen's club. Boring perhaps, but effective; and here, with shock and awe, is a lesson for the Pentagon to absorb. Here is a measure of the true worth of the diplomacy espoused by Mr Cook and others. It bore fruit in Iran last week, another country which Britain refuses to join the US in ostracising. It could yet produce results in Syria, another low-grade WMD state, and in North Korea, if only senior US officials would stop threatening them.? From The Guardian
But then again, if we truly followed the Chicken-hawk doctrine, we should've bombed the living shit out of Libya, occupied the country and the pronounced to the world that Libya didn't really have all that many WMD's. Oops.
Originally posted by Northgate
Well, when a the president and Rove, Inc. take credit for Libya I think they should be called-out for such lying when the truth is:
?If back-slapping is in order, congratulations should also go to Robin Cook, the man who relaunched British relations with Libya in 1999 and on whose policy of critical engagement this success is founded. Patient diplomacy, dialogue, negotiation, clearly enunciated principles and red lines, respect, mutual trust, and attractive incentives - these are the civil tools that helped bring, at the weekend, perhaps the most significant, tangible breakthrough in arms control since the strategic weapons pacts of the later cold war era. Libya has gone from 1986 target of Ronald Reagan's bombs, from "rogue" sponsor of non-state, anti-western terrorism and, as it now admits, from active pursuer of nuclear and chemical arms to, if all sides honour the bargain, a prospectively valuable friend and partner.
This was not achieved by military power, by invasion, by shredding inter national law, by enforced regime change or by large-scale bloodshed. Nor, in fact, despite Mr Bush's eagerness for plaudits, was it primarily achieved by his administration at all. It was achieved by discussion - by endless talk, mostly in London, latterly in Libya, and finally in a London gentlemen's club. Boring perhaps, but effective; and here, with shock and awe, is a lesson for the Pentagon to absorb. Here is a measure of the true worth of the diplomacy espoused by Mr Cook and others. It bore fruit in Iran last week, another country which Britain refuses to join the US in ostracising. It could yet produce results in Syria, another low-grade WMD state, and in North Korea, if only senior US officials would stop threatening them.? From The Guardian
But then again, if we truly followed the Chicken-hawk doctrine, we should've bombed the living shit out of Libya, occupied the country and the pronounced to the world that Libya didn't really have all that many WMD's. Oops.
That's hilarious. Even when the Bush Doctrine is proven, you will not accept it. The Colonel himself admitted that the Iraq War "may have played a part in his/Libya's decision to drop it's program".
Originally posted by giant
So now it's looking like pakistan was a source for whatever this nuke program was.
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/22/in...ia/22STAN.html
Anybody have any ideas why the bush admin has gone to such great lengths to avoid confronting pakistan, even though a) there are direct and unmistakable connections between the pakistani government and 9.11, b) the ISI is very much interconnected with al-qaeda and c) pakistan is the main proliferator of nuclear technology (even likely being the source for NK's nuclear tech)?
Yeah I've been reading a little about this. It seems like most of the Axle of Elvis's, and probably the world's, proliferation issues stem from our buddies in Pakistan. Not to mention that in all likelihood bin Laden is being protected by Pakistanis on the border with Afghanistan. So we're buddies with Saudi Arabia, from whence the 9/11 hijackers came, and Pakistan, who sponsored the Taliban and who are responsible for most of the world's proliferation of nuclear WMDs, and now Libya, who sponsored one of the worst terrorist incidents in history with Lockerbie. : confused:
The more I think about this Libya thing, the sillier it becomes. This is exactly what Iraq said for years and years. And now there are signs that Libya is starting to complain about some of the conditions of the inspections, the same way Iraq did...
But PR is the key, and if it's declared a vindication of preemptive neo-Bush-con-ism, then that's all the really matters.
Originally posted by SDW2001
That's hilarious. Even when the Bush Doctrine is proven, you will not accept it. The Colonel himself admitted that the Iraq War "may have played a part in his/Libya's decision to drop it's program".
"May have" or "did"? Which is it?
Also, I find it interesting that the British are fuming pissed that Bush is taking full credit for this when they are the ones who have been working steadfast with Libya (far before 9/11) at normalizing relations and bringing them back into the world.
But, hey, we caught Saddam! The war's over! Woo hoo!
Originally posted by Northgate
Also, I find it interesting that the British are fuming pissed that Bush is taking full credit for this
.
.
But, hey, we caught Saddam! The war's over! Woo hoo!
Where did you get this from? Please don't don't say The Guardian.
Originally posted by majorspunk
Where did you get this from? Please don't don't say The Guardian.
The Washington Post
"Within months after September 11th, we had the Libyans, the Syrians and the Iranians all coming to us saying, 'What can we do [to better relations]?' We didn't really engage any of them, because we decided to do Iraq. We really squandered two years of capital that will make it harder to apply this model to the hard cases like Iran and Syria," said Flynt Leverett, a former Bush administration National Security Council staff member now at the Brookings Institution.
The fact that Libya was apparently serious about negotiating with us certainly makes you wonder if Iran and Syria were equally serious. And it's also hard not to wonder what would have happened with Iraq if we'd been willing to spend a year negotiating with them instead of five rather obviously unserious months.
Food for thought.
Calpundit
Originally posted by Northgate
The fact that Libya was apparently serious about negotiating with us certainly makes you wonder if Iran and Syria were equally serious
Well, it does look like in the wake of sept 11 that syria has tried to be very cooperative.
http://middleeastinfo.org/article3096.html
This was discussed quite heavily a few months ago.
Originally posted by Northgate
The Washington Post
The fact that Libya was apparently serious about negotiating with us certainly makes you wonder if Iran and Syria were equally serious. And it's also hard not to wonder what would have happened with Iraq if we'd been willing to spend a year negotiating with them instead of five rather obviously unserious months.
Food for thought.
Calpundit
How does this answer my question to you?! Where does it say the British (government) is fuming mad at the Americans, particularly Bush?