Article

2010-03-11 Africa North

UN Assembly chief barred from Europe travel: Libya

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by ryuge 2010-03-11 02:14|| || Front Page|| [3 views ] Top

#1 It's not a "diplomatic row". The Libyans are holding a Swiss citizen hostage. If they released him immediately and unconditionally the ban would be lifted.

BTW even though the Swiss hostage had sought refuge in the Swiss embassy, the Libyans got hold of him by threatening to storm the embassy. So much for diplomatic protocol.

If the Swiss (or other Europeans for that matter) had any guts they'd let this "UN Assembly Chief" in, arrest him and release him only in exchange for all western hostages in Libya. Screw diplomatic immunity.

Maybe the reconciliation with Libya will be judged as Bush's biggest blunder. Gaddafi had to make inconsequential concessions while the floodgates of surrender and appeasement were opened.

Posted by Zenobia Anguth9505 2010-03-11 08:56|| 2010-03-11 08:56|| Front Page Top

#2 Libya is covered with alot of sand that would be great as a shiney glass surface

Posted by 746 2010-03-11 10:17|| 2010-03-11 10:17|| Front Page Top

#3 Gaddafi had to make inconsequential concessions

Not exactly inconsequential. Colonel Qaddafy turned over his entire nuclear development program, lock, stock, and Chinese instruction manuals still in their plastic sleeves. This left him with only, presumably, his biological and chemical programs, but the nukes were to have had pride of place when completed. And it was all his own idea -- nobody had a clue he'd done anything in that direction.

Posted by trailing wife 2010-03-11 16:43|| 2010-03-11 16:43|| Front Page Top

#4 Gaddafi ratted out his nuclear supply network which put pressure on them; he however was freed of sanctions and as I said above "floodgates of appeasement were opened", ie European nations could coddle Gaddafi without getting into trouble with the US.

With Bush gone there's no serious effort to stop proliferation anymore. Whatever nuclear equipment Gaddafi surrendered he can buy again with his oil money. Since Libya is no longer subject to sanctions there's even the possibility that there won't be a net monetary loss.

So I just don't see the real permanent negative consequences for Gaddafi that resulted from the 2003 deal.

Gaddafi is a political actor who can be deterred, but right now he utterly unafraid. I fear he's going to kill many, many Europeans and Americans before someone's going to stop him.

Posted by Zenobia Anguth9505 2010-03-11 18:15|| 2010-03-11 18:15|| Front Page Top

#5 I wish I could find a point of disagreement in your explanation, Zenobia Anguth9505, but I can't. A good analysis. :-)

Posted by trailing wife 2010-03-11 22:17|| 2010-03-11 22:17|| Front Page Top

23:59 OldSpook
23:51 OldSpook
23:44 Steve White
23:01 rjschwarz
22:40 trailing wife
22:25 Sherry
22:17 trailing wife
22:16 Lonzo Angoluper8472
22:11 trailing wife
22:02 swksvolFF
21:48 Pappy
21:35 Barbara Skolaut
21:32 Barbara Skolaut
21:32 swksvolFF
21:26 Pappy
21:22 Pappy
21:17 notascrename
20:51 Frank G
20:51 notascrename
20:41 Barbara Skolaut
20:38 Steve White
20:35 Eric Jablow
20:16 Redneck Jim
20:00 Anonymoose