Are we Lifting Sanctions on Lybia for mere tokens?!!!

[Smiles]

Lockerbie Settlement May Be Near
Libya Appears Likely to Take Responsibility, Sources Say
By Peter Slevin
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, August 6, 2003; Page A13


Aiming to burnish its reputation, the government of Libyan leader Moammar Gaddafi appears close to taking responsibility for the terrorist bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 and depositing $2.7 billion in an account for relatives of the 270 victims, sources said yesterday.



Lawyers and diplomats hope to sign documents next week establishing an escrow account at the Bank of International Settlements in Switzerland. If all goes according to plan, Libya would notify the United Nations Security Council on Aug. 14 that it bears responsibility for the deadly bomb planted in 1988 by a Libyan agent, said sources familiar with the negotiations.

Gaddafi, anxious to improve ties with the U.S. government and end sanctions that prevent American companies from investing in oil-rich Libya, has said in a series of recent television interviews that the Pan Am case is nearly resolved. His son Saif Islam Gaddafi told a British television reporter July 25 that "the question regarding responsibility is actually over."

If the Libyans make good on their promises after two years of intermittent talks, the U.N. Security Council would formally lift economic sanctions and a debate would begin in Washington about how much to trust Gaddafi. Once called an "evil man" by President Ronald Reagan, Gaddafi is now seeking Libya's removal from the State Department's list of terror-sponsoring states.

An agreement would "pave the way for a dialogue" between the two countries, said a U.S. official who emphasized that the United States should continue to question Libya's interest in weapons of mass destruction and support for militant regimes.

"The answers to those questions will help determine how quickly the issues in our bilateral relationship will be resolved," said the official, who added that an evaluation of Gaddafi by a skeptical administration and Congress will take time. "Rather than a rapid swinging open of the door, it is a significant first step toward Libya addressing the concerns of the United States."

Whatever happens with long-standing U.S. sanctions, a Libyan admission of responsibility and a deposit of $10 million for the families of each of the people who died on the U.S.-bound flight over Lockerbie, Scotland, would be a remarkable departure for the Gaddafi government .

For years, Libya denied any role in the bombing, in which a Boeing 747 jetliner with 259 passengers and crew members exploded high above the rugged Scottish landscape. Eleven people on the ground also died. Investigators from the United States and Scotland Yard eventually traced a piece of fabric and a sliver of a radio, leading them to two Libyan agents later indicted for the crime.

Gaddafi surrendered the agents for trial by a Scottish court in the Netherlands, which found Abdel Basset Ali Megrahi guilty in February 2001. His compatriot went free. Four months later, Libyan representatives notified lawyers for Pan Am 103 victims that they would listen to a settlement request.

Last year, U.S. lawyers and Libyan negotiators reached an agreement that would pay $10 million to each victim's family in response to steps releasing Libya from international sanctions. The first $4 million would be delivered when U.N. sanctions -- suspended when Gaddafi surrendered the suspects -- have been formally lifted.

Another $4 million would be paid to each family if the U.S. government lifts separate sanctions, with the final $2 million coming if Libya were removed from the State Department terror list. Libya would deposit $2.7 billion in advance in the Swiss bank, if plans proceed according to the negotiated deal.

Relatives of the dead say they are seeking justice as much as money. To many, the wording of Libya's statement of responsibility is at least as important as the cash distributions. A hope that Gaddafi himself would accept blame for the bombing plot appears certain to be dashed, officials said.

Rather, the Libyan government is expected to say that it bears responsibility as the employer of Megrahi. Saif Islam Gaddafi on July 21 told CNN that "we regard ourselves innocent and we had nothing to do with that tragedy." But he said Libya has a commitment "to accept the outcome of the trial."

Dan Cohen, whose only daughter died aboard Pan Am 103, said he and his wife Susan will accept their share of the money if Libya takes responsibility. They believe the lifting of U.N. sanctions is a formality, but they intend to fight against eliminating U.S. sanctions.

"We're not happy with the idea that one of these days we're going to be sending tourists to sit at the feet of Gaddafi," Cohen said yesterday. "The United States should have nothing to do with this country so long as that regime exists. Period."

Within Congress and the administration, strong doubt about Gaddafi's record and his intentions exists alongside hopes that Libya can become the first nation to escape the terror list and reopen to U.S. business. Undersecretary of State John R. Bolton has said he considers Libya a "rogue state" seeking to reestablish its ability to produce and deliver chemical armaments as well as acquire nuclear weapons.

Members of the Bush administration will save that argument for the domestic debate and do not expect to challenge the lifting of U.N. sanctions if Libya accepts responsibility, officials said.

"The question is whether the formula is going to be acceptable to all at the top," said a Security Council diplomat. "I think were moving quite close to that, though no one will be quite sure until it happens."

Staff writer Colum Lynch at the United Nations contributed to this report.


© 2003 The Washington Post Company

[FishForLunch]

I guess Bush has become Gun shy after all the pounding he has taken from the Left.

An old man inherited a little over $1 billion dollars. He had three sons.

He told his sons that since he now had all this money, he would like
to know what each of them would like to have. He stressed that
MONEY was no object.

His first son said that he had always wanted a Jaguar. The father
went out, and since money was no object, bought him seven Jaguars
in different colors, so that he would have a different one to drive
every day of the week.

His second son said that he always wanted a motorcycle. So the
father went out, and again since money was no object, bought him
30 new motorcycles, 10 dirt bikes, 10 hogs, and 10 touring bikes,
so he would have a different bike to ride every day of the month.

His third and youngest son was only 5 years old. So the little guy
said that he simply had wanted a Mickey Mouse outfit. So, money
being no object, his father went out and bought his son the Democratic
Party.

[Smiles]

Tell me there is more behind the lifting of sanctions than the Lockerbie settlement! Surely!

[Evilmav2]

There have been reports that the Libyans have tried to be helpful to us in the war against terrorism (not surprising considering they have been trying to get the sanctions lifted for a decade, and since islamic fundamentalists have never been fond of the secular strongman Gaddafi)...

I tend to think that normalizing relations with Libya represents an attempt by the administration to show other rogue states (i.e Syria, Iran, Yemen, etc) that by renouncing terror and liberalizing their societies the US and the Western world will open up to them economically...

I don't know if this is the wisest course of action to assume when dealing with a long-time murderer and miscreant like Gaddafi, but I will at least say that the Libyans desire to open up oil markets has probably garnered us some decent help in our hunt for militant Mohammadens and Libya's settlement of the Lockerbie lawsuits shows some degree of goodwill...

This whole business will be interesting to watch over the next few years, because it will provide a good example of a non-military "stick and carrot" approach to economic and political normalization with rogue states, that holds some unproven but hopeful promise...

Of course, the Clinton team tried this kind of threat-and-reward method of diplomacy with North Korea in 94, and we saw how well that worked out...

[Rod1975]

I think we all know why reparations are even being dicussed with garbage like Gaddafi...oil.
And the really troubling thing is, its not even surprising...in fact it's routine.

[Evilmav2]

So, that's why we lifted sanctions against Iraq in the 90's? Or Libya? Or the modest production of Syria?

Give me a darned break... The only folks who would profit from the easing of sanctions against Libya are Europeans- principally, because Libyan reserves and production are limited enough that they are not a great enough source to provide the economies of scale production to make trans-oceanic shipment productive. The lions share of this Libyan oil will be trans-shipped to Marseille, and the only benefit that this could possibly provide the US, would be in a miniscule lowering of the world-wide price of crude (an advantage that OPEC would be highly able to minimize)...

The essential goal of any US normalization with Libya would be more related to attempting to peacefully reduce the number of hostile, terrorist-haven regimes around the world, than to any bizarre, Evil-American-Imperialist lust for the insignificant amount of oil that Libya could directly provide us...

Trying to ascribe "Oil-Lust" motives to US foreign policy concerning Libya (or any other nation) is a fools argument. We are currently using the small amount of revenue that the recovering Iraqi oil fields provide, to rebuild Iraqi schools and restock Iraqi hospitals with medicines, and I will absolutely, positively guarantee you that we will not pressure a recovered, and self-governing Iraq to lower their crude prices (we would be condemned internationally as colonialists, and such an act would be completely unprecedented and outside of the purview of the state dept. or pentagon...)

If we normalize our diplomatic and economic relationships with Libya, we will be making an honorable attempt to show other brutal, totalitarian, terrorist-friendly, miscreants that there are other, far less destructive, ways of coming to friendly terms with the United States, than being crushed by the monstrous treads of fast-moving columns of M1-A2's, Bradley fighting vehicles, and airborne assault troopers (I hope Kim Il Jong is reading this)...

[Rod1975]

The way I see it, Gaddafi is only going to claim responsibility if he thinks the sanctions will be lifted.

Therefore, he will be basically paying (or investing, if you will) 2.7 billion dollars in settlements to the families of flt. 103. Thereby killing two birds with one stone.

The first bird is, he will be taking the heat for whatever terrorist group is really responsible for the bombing, freeing them up for more activites once the heat is off of them.

The second is, he will be enabling himself to tap the global oil market and make Libya a player on a new level.
2.7 billion is a paltry investment compared to the return he'll get once he manages to get the sanctions lifted.
Who will profit most you ask? Why Libya of course.

Selling forgiveness for flight 103 in exchange for blood money and oil rights is simply appalling. Thats's the issue here.

So what if it shows other rogue nations means of settling up other than force. Do you think that will make them renounce their brutal ways, let their own people rise up out of poverty, and stop using their nation as their own personal cash cows?

Nope, only naked force as shown in Afghanistan and Iraq will remove the despots and give the country a chance to join the 21st century.

[Evilmav2]

So what if it shows other rogue nations means of settling up other than force. Do you think that will make them renounce their brutal ways, let their own people rise up out of poverty, and stop using their nation as their own personal cash cows?

Nope, only naked force as shown in Afghanistan and Iraq will remove the despots and give the country a chance to join the 21st century.

You are preaching to the choir here, if you are trying to tell me that military force is the best way of dealing with these monsters, but there are practical limits to our geo-political grasp right now.

If the Libya of today was ever shown to have culpability in a new Lockerbie bombing, our wonderful present administration would be sure to meet that challenge with B1b's, amphibious marine assault ships, and carrier battle groups, but currently we are refitting 9 of those 11 aircraft battle groups, we have 173,000 troops tied up in Iraq until the Poles are able to take up some of the peacekeeping load, and we are rapidly redeploying fleet and air assets to Guam and Hawaii in order to be able to better meet any future Korean or Chinese provocations...

We also still have the crash-course-to-nukes Iranians and murderous and crafty Bin Laden Mohammadens to worry about, which to make a long story short, pretty much guarantees that we are going to deal with a minor, irritating rogue state like Libya with a carrot rather than a stick. That Libya has cooperated with us on the war on terror, and that they appear to be making every demanded effort to renounce their old, outlaw ways and do whatever the responsible world requires of them before economically reaching out again, I think ensures that the prerogagives of the State dept. rather than the Pentagon are going to take precedence in our dealings with Libya...

Againk, I am no apologist for Libya, but I am realistic enough to see that the possibility of easing the sanctions on Libya is being offered by this administration as a non-military attempt to end one more rogue nation threat to the US. And the bones under that skin, is that Libya was probably scared witless by our crushing of Taliban and Baathist snakes, and Gaddafi is clever enough to know that playing any of his old games is now a very hazardous game indeed (he and his dearly departed daughter certainly know what it is like to have laser guided US bombs immolating the Tripolin night)...

[Evilmav2]

Just to say it again, our diplomatic stance toward Libya is not determined by a crass desire for their very modest crude production ability. The only folks who would really profit from larger amounts of Libyan oil hitting the market live in the the EU...

U.S. says has concerns about RWE Libyan contract
Reuters, 08.06.03, 4:03 PM ET

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The United States said Wednesday it had expressed its concerns about German utility RWE's agreement to explore for oil and gas in Libya to the company and to the German government but had made no decisions about possibly imposing sanctions on the company.

"Reports such as those about a recent agreement by ... RWE to explore for oil and gas in Libya ... are of concern to us," State Department spokesman Philip Reeker told reporters.

"We normally raise our concerns with appropriate parties, including companies and governments, and we have done so in this case with the company and ... the German government," he said.

Under the Iran-Libya Sanctions Act passed in 1996, the U.S. president can punish non-U.S. firms investing more than $20 million annually in the energy sectors in Libya or Iran.

RWE Dea, RWE's upstream oil and gas unit, said the contract it signed to drill for oil and gas in Libya did not breach the U.S. law because the investment fell below that level.

The company was reacting to an unsourced report in the Financial Times that RWE faced sanctions against its U.S. operations because of a five-year contract to drill for oil and gas signed with the Libyan National Oil Corporation in May.

"The programme... encompasses in total around 56 million dollars over a five-year timespan, in other words significantly less than 20 million U.S. dollars per year," it said in a statement.

Reeker said the United States had not made any decision on whether to apply sanctions to the company. "As in any of these cases ... we would follow the same procedure, evaluate the facts, determine whether sanctionable activity (has) taken place, and if it (has), then decide in light of our national interest what action under the law we would take," he said.

Copyright 2003, Reuters News Service

[Smiles]

Originally posted by: Evilmav2
Just to say it again, our diplomatic stance toward Libya is not determined by a crass desire for their very modest crude production ability. The only folks who would really profit from larger amounts of Libyan oil hitting the market live in the the EU...

U.S. says has concerns about RWE Libyan contract
Reuters, 08.06.03, 4:03 PM ET

..."Reports such as those about a recent agreement by ... RWE to explore for oil and gas in Libya ... are of concern to us," State Department spokesman Philip Reeker told reporters.

I can't find what I was reading, so please correct me if I am misguided:
Do I understand correctly that the State Dept is in favor of considering the lifting of sanctions, but that the Pentagon is less favorable....

[Evilmav2]

Do I understand correctly that the State Dept is in favor of considering the lifting of sanctions, but that the Pentagon is less favorable....

Speaking generally, the State department is usually going to be the prime federal instrument of any American diplomatic endeavor and stance pertaining to any of our friends and foes around the world. Any talk of the US easing sanctions against Libya is going to have it's genesis in the White House, but Colin Powell's state dept. would certainly have a lot of involvement in the formulation and articulation of that policy.

At the moment, the Dept. of Defense really probably doesn't have any interest or hand in formulating US policies directed at Libya, and that is fortunate for the Libyans. The last time Pentagon planners took the forefront in our diplomatic relations with the Libyans, Gaddafi lost a daughter and almost lost his life...