2011 Libyan uprising

UNITED NATIONS, February 23, 2011 Security Council condemns Libya crackdown

2011-03-24T20:25:00.001-07:00

The United Nations Security Council further isolated Libyan leader Muammar Qadhafi on Tuesday, condemning his regime’s crackdown on anti-government protesters and demanding that violence against civilians end immediately.

A press statement agreed by all 15 members of the U.N.’s most powerful body expressed “grave concern” at the situation in Libya, “deplored the repression against peaceful demonstrators, and expressed deep regret at the deaths of hundreds of civilians.”

The council called for an “immediate end to the violence and for steps to address the legitimate demands of the population, including through national dialogue.”

The council issued the statement after several hours of closed consultations.

It came hours after Mr. Qadhafi vowed in a television address to keep fighting to his “last drop of blood” and urged his supporters to take to the streets, setting the stage for even more deadly violence.

Council members said the Libyan government should “meet its responsibility to protect its population,” act with restraint, and respect human rights and international humanitarian law. They said the Libyan government should hold accountable those people, including government forces, who have attacked civilians.

International human rights monitors and humanitarian agencies should be given immediate access, Council members said. They appealed for humanitarian assistance amid reports of shortages of medical supplies to treat the wounded.

Council members also said Libyan government needed to respect the rights of its citizens to peaceful assembly, free expression and press freedom.

British Ambassador Mark Lyall Grant, among five permanent Council members with veto power, said the statement was “extremely strong” and indicated more action was likely coming.

Mr. Grant said the body would ask for action next week by the U.N. Human Rights Council in Geneva. There have been demands that Libya’s seat on the rights council be withdrawn. “No doubt we will be meeting again and reviewing what further measures may be appropriate in the light of events,” Mr. Grant said.

The international community has spoken in “one clear and unified voice” for the bloodshed in Libya to end, said Ambassador Rosemary DiCarlo, deputy representative for the U.S., another permanent council member. She said her country hoped for “an immediate end to this unacceptable situation.”

Still, a stronger action would have been a “presidential statement,” which becomes part of the council’s record.

Philippe Bolopion, the U.N. advocacy director for Human Rights Watch, said the action was a “positive first step” that nevertheless “falls short of the firm action needed to prevent large-scale atrocities.” He said the body should also impose a travel ban and asset freeze on senior Libyan officials and military commanders found responsible for grave human rights violations.

Libya’s deputy U.N. ambassador Ibrahim Dabbashi, who has called for Mr. Qadhafi to step down, said the statement was “not strong enough” but still “a good message to the regime in Libya about stopping the bloodshed.”

Mr. Dabbashi and other diplomats at Libya’s U.N. mission are at odds with Ambassador Mohamed Shalgham, who on Tuesday called Mr. Qadhafi “my friend” and said he had been speaking hourly with top government officials appealing for the violence to end.

In signs of waning support for the Libyan strongman inside his own government, the Libyan ambassador to the U.S. has also urged Mr. Qadhafi to step down, and the ambassadors to India and Bangladesh have resigned.

“There’s no other solution,” Ambassador Ali Aujali, Libya’s ambassador in Washington, told The Associated Press. “He should step down and give the chance for the people to make their future.”

The Council issued its statement after meeting several hours of closed consultations, included briefings by Ambassador Shalgam, and U.N. Undersecretary-General B. Lynn Pascoe, who oversees political affairs. “The situation is deteriorating and can get much worse,” Mr. Pascoe told reporters after the briefing.

The U.N. political chief expressed “huge concern” at Mr. Qadhafi’s speech and warned that “asking some people to attack other people, particularly if some of those are peaceful demonstrators, is a very dangerous thing.”

Mr. Qadhafi’s security forces have unleashed the most deadly crackdown of any Arab country against the wave of protests sweeping the region. The eruption of turmoil in the capital of Tripoli has especially escalated the challenge to Mr. Qadhafi’s 40-year rule.

U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said he spoke to Mr. Qadhafi on Monday for 40 minutes and “forcefully urged him to stop violence against demonstrators and again strongly underlined the importance of respecting the human rights of those demonstrators.”

On Tuesday, the U.N. chief discussed the Libyan situation with the emir of Qatar. U.N. spokesman Martin Nesirky said they agreed on the need for Arab leaders and the U.N. to call for an immediate end to the violence, and for the launch of a broad-based dialogue.

Mr. Ban has expressed outrage at what he described as “very disturbing and shocking scenes” of Libyan authorities firing at demonstrators from warplanes and helicopters.

No longer a man the West can do deals with

2011-03-24T20:23:00.001-07:00

With his flawless English, his expensive Italian suits and his place at the London School of Economics (LSE), Seif al-Islam el-Qadhafi appeared to be a man with whom the West could do business: a man who could smooth access to his country's vast mineral resources while avoiding the need to deal with his famously capricious father.

As State security forces were reported to be firing relentlessly into crowds of civilian protesters on February 21, and with Qadhafi Jr appearing on television to threaten a civil war in which the regime “will fight to the last minute, until the last bullet,” many of his erstwhile associates were questioning their friendships with him.

The LSE was quick to distance itself from Seif on February 21, issuing a statement in which it said the university had had a number of links with Libya, but that “in view of the highly distressing news from Libya over the weekend of February 19-20, the school has reconsidered those links as a matter of urgency”.

Although the LSE had accepted £1.5m from the Qadhafi International Charity and Development Foundation, an organisation headed by Seif — some of which was to finance “a virtual democracy centre” — the university stressed that it was to be paid over five years, and only £3,00,000 has been received to date. “In current difficult circumstances across the region, the school has decided to stop new activities under that programme,” the statement said. The LSE has also received scholarship funding in return for advice given to the Libyan Investment Authority in London. “No further receipts are anticipated,” the university said.

Reactions

Professor David Held, an academic advisor to Seif Qadhafi during his four years at the LSE, said: “Watching Seif give that speech — looking so exhausted, nervous and, frankly, terrible — was the stuff of Shakespeare and of Freud: a young man torn by a struggle between loyalty to his father and his family, and the beliefs he had come to hold for reform, democracy and the rule of law. The man giving that speech wasn't the Seif I had got to know well over those years.” The university's move to break its financial links to the regime in Tripoli did nothing to silence criticism, however. Raheem Kassam, director of the anti-radicalisation group Student Rights, said: “LSE has the most market-driven fund-raising model there is in the U.K. Has that model reduced them into a simple gun for hire?” An explanation for Qadhafi's arrival at the LSE in 2002 may be found in one of the WikiLeaks cables, in which a U.S. diplomat notes that “creating the appearance of useful employment for al-Qadhafi's offspring has been an important objective for the regime”.

Shortly before he arrived, apparently with the blessing of the late Fred Halliday, professor of international relations, he startled some of the academic staff by insisting that it was his father, and not Anthony Giddens, emeritus professor at the university, who created the concept of the third way, then a pet philosophy of Tony Blair.

In the introduction to his doctoral dissertation on global governance, published in 2008, Qadhafi wrote: “I shall be primarily concerned with what I argue is the central failing of the current system of global governance in the new global environment: that it is highly undemocratic.” The purpose of his dissertation, he added, was to analyse “how to create more just and democratic global governing institutions,” focussing on the importance of the role of “civil society.”

Approached MI6

Six months after arriving in the U.K., and with U.S.-led forces about to invade Iraq, he is said to have approached MI6 to inform the agency that his father's regime was prepared to abandon its nuclear weapons programme. The contact led to negotiations between Libya, Britain and the U.S. which saw the programme dismantled, and the Qadhafi regime begin to be allowed in from the cold.

While studying for his PhD, Seif enjoyed a life of considerable luxury in one of London's wealthiest and most prestigious suburbs. In August 2009 Qadhafi bought his son a £10m house in north London. Inside the neo-Georgian eight—bedroom mansion, Seif could relax in his own swimming pool sauna room, whirlpool bath and suede-lined cinema room.

On February 21, the entourage of blacked-out cars parked on Seif's driveway had disappeared and there was less need for the forest of CCTV cameras or the private security team who had been on hand to protect him at all times.

Lockerbie

During his time in London Qadhafi mixed socially with Lord Mandelson and the financier Nathaniel Rothschild, and was said to be on friendly terms with the Duke of York. He played a leading role in talks that led to the 2009 release of Abdelbaset al-Megrahi, the man convicted of the 1988 Lockerbie bombing in which 270 people died. While flying Megrahi home to Libya on a private jet, Qadhafi Jr gave a television interview in which he said the release had been linked to lucrative business deals.

Mandelson later insisted any suggestion that the British government had struck a deal and then instructed the Scottish government to release Megrahi was wrong, implausible “and actually quite offensive.”

A review of documentation relating to the release conducted by the Cabinet Secretary, Sir Gus O'Donnell, reported earlier this month that the British government had been anxious to avoiding harming the country's commercial interests, and that there would be “severe ramifications for U.K. interests” if Megrahi was to die in prison.—

Disturbing reports, says U.S.

2011-03-24T20:21:00.001-07:00

Share · print · T+

AP Protesters hold signs denouncing Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi during a rally at Dealey Plaza in Dallas, on Sunday.

The United States is “gravely concerned” by “disturbing reports and images coming out of Libya", according to a statement issued over the weekend by State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley.

In remarks to media posted on Sunday, Mr. Crowley said the State Department was working to ascertain the facts, but had received multiple credible reports that "hundreds" of people had been killed and injured in the recent period of unrest in Libya.

While admitting that the full extent of the death toll was as yet unknown due to the lack of access of international media and human rights organisations, U.S. diplomats had raised to a number of Libyan officials, including Libyan Foreign Minister Musa Kusa, “our strong objections to the use of lethal force against peaceful demonstrators", according to an official.

The comments regarding developments in Libya follow growing concern in the U.S. surrounding protests across the Middle East, beginning in Tunisia and Egypt and more recently spreading to Bahrain and Libya.

Both President Barack Obama and National Security Advisor Tom Donilon had respectively reiterated their condemnation of the "violence used against peaceful protesters", to the King Hamad bin Isa Al-Khalifa and Crown Prince Salman bin Hamad al-Khalifa of Bahrain.

Mr. Obama and Mr. Donilon were said to have “strongly urged the government of Bahrain to show restraint, and to hold those responsible for the violence accountable.”

Similarly, in an interview this weekend, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said the U.S. had been “very clear from the beginning that we do not want to see any violence", describing the action against protestors in Bahrain as deplorable and "absolutely unacceptable".

While pressing Bahrain to return, as quickly as possible, to the reform that it had started, Ms. Clinton also cautioned that the U.S. was keen to see the human rights of the people protected, including right to assemble and the right to freedom of expression.

Rights group estimates 84 killed in Libya protests

2011-03-24T20:19:00.000-07:00

AP A demonstrator holds a sign with the pictures of former Tunisian President Zine El Abidine Ben Ali, former Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak and Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi during a demonstration. File photo

Libyan security forces have been waging an escalated crackdown on the wave of anti-government protests concentrated in the impoverished east of the country.

A New York-based human rights organization estimates that 84 people have died after three days of anti-government protests in Libya.

Libyan security forces have been waging an escalated crackdown on the wave of anti—government protests concentrated in the impoverished east of the country.

In a statement late Friday, Human Rights Watch based its estimate on interviews with hospital staff and witnesses.

Arbor Networks, a Chelmsford, Massachusetts—based security company, also reported that Internet traffic in the North African country abruptly ended at around midnight GMT on Saturday.

Protesters are calling for the ouster of Moammar Gaddhafi, the ruler for the last 42 years. Police have responded to the protests with live ammunition, according to witnesses and medical officials.

Renewed protests turn violent

Renewed protests turned violent across Libya on Friday, with opposition activists saying dozens were shot dead during funerals and marches for those killed in anti-government demonstrations earlier this week.

The protests against the rule of Moamer Gaddafi had spread to the capital Tripoli by late Friday night. Witnesses reported people taking to the streets in a number of western neighbourhoods.

Sources from north-eastern city of Benghazi told the German Press Agency dpa that 25 protesters were killed there Friday. There was no independent or official confirmation.

Residents of Benghazi also reported that police there had been replaced with military troops.

Two more protesters were shot dead in the northern city of Qubah, the opposition National Front for the Salvation of Libya (NFSL) said on Friday.

Call for Gaddafi's ouster

Emboldened by revolutions in Tunisia and Egypt, thousands of Libyans are calling for the ouster of Gaddafi, who has been in power for 41 years.

“We do not want Gaddafi’s compromises and his son’s bribes. We want them out. We are demonstrating peacefully,” one Libyan activist wrote on the social-networking site Twitter, which has emerged as one of the rallying tools of all the Middle East protests.

The opposition group NFSL said the al-Jdaida prison in Tajoora, also on the north coast, was burnt and prisoners had been released.

It was not immediately clear how the fire broke out.

There were also unconfirmed reports that prisoners in a jail in Benghazi and in other northern cities had escaped, according to Libyan websites.

Western part of country quiet

While most of the clashes and unrest took place in the northeast of the country, Libyan sources said the western part of the country was quiet.

Opposition groups claimed that by Thursday night, 45 people were killed, while the New York-based activist group Human Rights Watch estimated that 24 people had died in clashes with security forces.

The Quryna newspaper, which has close ties to Gaddafi’s son, Saif al-Islam, reported that 14 people were killed in Benghazi on Thursday, after police used live ammunition against protesters during several days of protests.

Meanwhile, the Libyan opposition accused authorities of providing more arms to the elite army brigade Khamees Gaddafi, named after one of the sons of the Libyan leader.

The opposition website Libya Al-Youm said that the brigade had attacked protesters in the north, a move it alleged had left up to 30 people dead.

Earlier reports had said that mercenaries from other African countries, including Chad, were also being recruited to attack protesters.

Libya Al-Youm said that helicopters landed briefly to provide the brigade with weapons in the coastal cities of Bayda and Shahhat.

Three of its soldiers were killed in the clashes, according to the online report.

"People being armed to attack protesters"

Human Rights Watch also accused Libyan authorities of arming people to attack protesters and sending out text messages that call upon “nationalist youths” to go out and “defend national symbols.” “Using security forces and armed thugs to deny people the right to express their opposition to the government increasingly looks destined to fail,” the group noted.

State television, meanwhile, broadcast a Muslim preacher warning people against chaos and blaming ongoing pro-democracy protests in the country on Israeli interference.

“Adhere to the security of your country,” the preacher said in the Friday sermon, warning Libyans to “beware of Zionist conspiracy theories” against their country.

For his part, Mr. Gaddafi attended a pro-government rally in the capital Tripoli, state television reported.

One of his sons, al-Saadi - who has played football for several Italian clubs - is now to be sent to Benghazi to help implement an “unprecedented development plan,” the Al-Watan newspaper reported on Friday.

February 19, 2011

Anti-government site says 4 killed in Libyan clash

2011-03-24T20:18:00.000-07:00

AP Map locates Benghazi in Libya, where anti-government have been reported. An anti-govt. website has said that four protesters in the city of Beyida have been killed by security forces.

A website opposing long-time Libyan dictator Mommar Gadhafi says four protesters in the city of Beyida have been killed by government forces.

Activists using Facebook and Twitter have called for nationwide anti-government demonstrations on Thursday.

So far, protests have been reported on Wednesday and Thursday in Beyida and to the west in Libya’s second-largest city, Benghazi.

Opposition website Libya Al-Youm says the protesters were slain by snipers from the Internal Security Forces. It’s not clear when the protesters were killed.

The Libyan government maintains tight control over the media and the reports couldn’t be independently confirmed.

The opposition is hoping to tap into unrest in the region that has ousted leaders in Tunisia and Egypt.

NATO to head the command and control of Libyan operation

2011-03-24T20:10:00.000-07:00

Overcoming deep differences among its 28-member nations, the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) has agreed to take the lead role in enforcing the ‘no-fly’ zone over Libya as per the mandate of the UN Security Council resolution.

“NATO has now decided to enforce the no-fly zone over Libya. We are taking action as part of the broad international effort to protect the civilians against the attacks by the Qaddafi regime. We will cooperate closely with our partners in the region and we welcome their contributions,” said NATO Secretary General, Andres Fogh Rasmussen.

He said all NATO allies are committed to fulfill their commitments under the U.N. Resolution, and that’s why “we have decided to assume responsibility for the no-fly zone“.

However, no decision has been made whether NATO should take on that broader responsibility, he quickly pointed out in an interview to CNN soon after an announcement in this regard was made at the NATO headquarters in Brussels.

“What we have decided today is to take responsibility for the no-fly zone with the aim to protect civilians by closing the air space for all flights, except aid flights, all with the aim to protect civilians. Of course, we can act in self defence. We have not decided yet whether we will take on the broader responsibility,” he said.

This means that right at this moment you will have two operations. We have taken on responsibility for the no-fly zone, while the coalition still continues its activities. We are considering whether we should take on that broader responsibility. However, that decision has not been made yet, he added.

The necessary change in the current command and control over the Libyan military operation will be done over the next couple of days, Mr. Rasmussen said, adding that it will use the already established NATO chain of command for this.

“We will use the already established NATO framework, which means that it is a NATO supreme commander who will be the overall responsible,” he said.

The current NATO commander is an American.

“We will include contributing partners from the region. It’s of utmost importance to stress that this is not primarily a NATO operation. It is a broad international effort in which we will include partners from the region that have pledged to contribute to this protection of civilians in Libya,” the top NATO official said.

Mr. Rasmussen, however, refuted reports that there have been differences among the 28-member alliance on the Libyan operation.

“There is no split. On the contrary, there is a unity within NATO. We have decided, all 28 allies, that we will take on the responsibility for the no-fly zone. We are, right now, considering whether we should take on the broader responsibility within the U.N. Security Council resolution,” he said.

He said it will take place a part of that broad international effort to protect civilians.

Earlier in a statement in Brussels, Mr. Rasmussen said: “We are taking action as part of the broad international effort to protect civilians against the attacks by the Qaddafi regime. We will cooperate with our partners in the region and welcome their contributions.”

“All NATO Allies are committed to fulfill their obligations under the U.N. resolution. That is why we have decided to assume responsibility for the no-fly zone,” he said.

Sri Lanka closes embassy in Libya

2011-03-21T22:10:00.000-07:00

Tue, Mar 22, 2011, 08:40 am SL Time, ColomboPage News Desk, Sri Lanka.

Sri Lanka closes embassy in Libya

Tue, Mar 22, 2011, 08:40 am SL Time, ColomboPage News Desk, Sri Lanka. Mar 22, Colombo: Sri Lanka has temporarily closed the embassy in Libyan capital, Tripoli from yesterday, the Ministry of External Affairs announced.
The decision was based on a request of the Sri Lanka's Ambassador to Libya who took the decision collectively with the ambassadors of other countries.
Accordingly, the Sri Lankan Ambassador and the second officer are to return to Sri Lanka soon.
The other officials of the Embassy returned to Sri Lanka within the past couple of weeks. Only the Ambassador and the second officer were operating in Tripoli since then.
Most of the Sri Lankan expatriate workers have returned to Sri Lanka whilst some have decided to stay in the country at their own risk, the Ministry of External Affairs said.

India, China and Russia, has expressed “regret”

2011-03-21T22:08:00.000-07:00

By Tripti Lahiri

: Agence France-Presse/Getty Images; India expressed ‘regret’ over the weekend air strikes on Libya.

India, like China and Russia, has expressed “regret” over weekend air strikes on Libya, after earlier abstaining from a United Nations resolution to establish a no-fly zone over the country.

“As stated earlier by India, the measures adopted should mitigate and not exacerbate an already difficult situation for the people of Libya,” said a statement on Sunday. “It hopes that this would not lead to greater harm to innocent civilians, foreign nationals and diplomatic missions and their personnel still in Libya.”

On Friday, India explained why, as a temporary member of the Security Council since January, it abstained from a March 17 resolution to authorize a no-fly zone over Libya as Col. Moammar Ghadafi looked set to rout a rebel uprising.

India noted that the secretary-general had sent a special envoy to Libya and that the UN had not yet heard the report from that visit by the time of the vote.

“The resolution that the Council has adopted today authorizes far reaching measures under Chapter VII of the UN Charter with relatively little credible information on the situation on the ground in Libya,” said India. “We also do not have clarity about details of enforcement measures, including who and with what assets will participate and how these measures will be exactly carried out.”

India and Libya have good relations, though bilateral trade, excluding crude oil, doesn’t top $1 billion. In the fiscal year through March 31, 2010, less than 1% of India’s 159 million tons of crude oil imports came from Libya.

Late Sunday, Indian foreign secretary Nirupama Rao tweeted that she had spoken to India’s ambassador in Libya.

“Spoke to Amb Manimekalai in Tripoli short while ago. She is cool and calm. Harrowing Sat night tho’ with jets screaming above, she says.”

World divided on Libya, India regrets bombings

2011-03-21T21:57:00.000-07:00

Click to play video

New Delhi: The air strikes in Libya have split world opinion with India, China and Russia expressing regret over the aggression and the Arab League saying it will reconsider its agreement to join. Is then the allied aggression justified or is it solely aimed at getting rid of Gaddafi once and for all?As the bombs and rockets fall over Libya, the voices against the US led Operation Odyssey Dawn are growing louder.German Foreign Minister, Guido Westerwelle Said "We still are sceptical of the military intervention and this means that Germany supports any initiative to widen the sanctions. We think it is important that this dictator Gaddafi steps down."

"We regret airstrikes in Libya" Foreign Minister SM Krishna said expressing India's stand on the issue.

More worrying for the Western-led operation are the contradictory noises from the Arab world, the Arab League backed the No Fly Zone but now appears to be in reverse gear.

Amr Moussa Arab League Secretary General said "We respect the Security Council resolution and we have no conflict with the resolution, especially as it confirms that there is no invasion or occupation of Libyan territory, it only deals with threats against citizens in Benghazi and elsewhere in Libya."

Arab reservations probably stem from suspicions that the West is going to do another Iraq on them, it could also reflect the nervousness of the entrenched Arab elites that Libya could trigger an uprising by their repressed peoples, an uprising that will engulf them all.

Historical Dictionary of Libya African Historical Dictionaries ; No. 33

2011-03-21T21:16:00.000-07:00

1551
Beginning of Ottoman rule.
1711
Initiation of the Karamanli dynasty.
1832
Abdication of Yusuf Karamanli. Outbreak of civil war.
1835
Ottoman reoccupation. End of Karamanli dynasty.
1842
Sanusi Order establishes first zawiya in Cyrenaica.
1856
Sanusi Order moves to Giarabub and is recognized by the sultan.
1860
Mahmud Nadim Pasha governor until 1866.
1866
Ali Ridha governor until 1870 and again from 1872 to 1874.
1881
Ahmad Rasim Pasha governor until 1896.

1896
Namiq Pasha governor until 1898.
1902
Sanusi Order suffers its first military defeat at the hands of the French. Contacts are opened with the Italians.
1904
Marshal Rajib Pasha governor until 1908.
1911
Italians invade Libya.
1912
Congress of Aziziya.
1915
Battle of Qasr Bu Hadi. Idris becomes leader of the Sanusi Order.

1917
Italian-Sanusi Agreement of Akramah.
1918
Tripoli Republic.
1919
Agreement of Qalat al-Zaytuna between the Italian government and the Tripoli Republic. Italians promulgate the Legge
Fondamentale.
1920
(25 October) Accord of Al-Rajma between the Italian government and Sayyid Muhammad Idris concluded.
1921
(11 November) Italian-Sanusi Accord of By Maryam.
1922
Idris accepts the Amirate of Libya.
1923
Italian government abrogates all Libyan agreements and begins the Riconquista.
1929
Italians unite Tripolitania, Cyrenaica, and the Fezzan as one colony known as Libya.
1932
Battle of Hawaria.
1937
First group of state-sponsored Italian settlers arrives in Libya.
1942
British government pledges that Libya will not be returned to Italian control.

1943
British and French military forces defeat Italian armies in Libya and establish military administrations to govern their
respective territories.
1949
Big Four Powers turn over disposition of Libyan territories to the United Nations.

1951
Libya is proclaimed an independent kingdom. Political parties are outlawed.
1952
First general elections held.
1953
Libya joins the Arab League. Anglo-Libyan Agreement concluded.
1954
American-Libyan Agreement concluded. Succession limited by royal decree to the Idris branch of the Sanusi family.
1955
Franco-Libyan Agreement concluded. Libya joins the United Nations.
1959
Major petroleum deposits confirmed at Zelten in Cyrenaica.
1961
First major oil exports.
1962
Libya joins OPEC.
1969
(1 September) Monarchy overthrown by the Libyan Free Unionist Officers movement.
(13 September) Qaddafi nominated president of the Libyan Arab Republic.
(29 October) Libyan government demands withdrawal of British troops and liquidation of their military bases.

(30 October) Libyan government demands liquidation of Wheelus Air Force Base.
(14 November) First foreign banks and hospitals in Libya are nationalized

(11 December) Constitutional Proclamation promulgated. Libyan citizens have right to work and to equality before the
law. Socialism is the guiding economic philosophy and Islam is the state religion.
(27 December) Tripoli Charter announced uniting Egypt, Libya, and the Sudan.
1970
(28 March) Last British forces evacuated.
(1 May) Labor syndicates dissolved and replaced with Federation of Libyan Arab Republic Workers Unions with each
profession represented by one syndicate.
(5 May) First colloquium of Libyan revolutionaries and intellectuals debates the revolutionary course of the nation.
(16 June) Last American forces evacuate Wheelus Air Force Base, which is renamed 'Uqba bin Nafi.
(21 June) Confiscation of Italian properties and expulsion of Italian workers.
(5 July) Revolutionary Command Council (RCC) issues first major law relating to the nationalization of the oil industry.
(29 November) Tripoli Cathedral converted into the Gamal Abdel Nasser Mosque.
(10 December) RCC establishes a Jihad Fund to promote struggle against Israel.
1971
(15 January) Libyan Producer Agreements announced.
(17 April) Federation of Arab Republics unites Egypt, Libya, and Syria.

(1 September) People's Bureaus begin to replace Libyan embassies throughout the world. The initial takeovers are
staged in Rome, Paris, London, Bonn, Madrid, and Valletta. Qaddafi explains that embassies represent government
bodies when government has disappeared in Libya and been replaced with the authority of the people.
(2 December) Mobs attack U.S. embassy in Tripoli, setting it on fire.
(Fall) Revolutionary Committees publish first issues of al-Zahf al-Akhdar.
1980
(30 January) Tunisia announces that it is expelling the Libyan ambassador and withdrawing the head of the Tunisian
diplomatic mission in Tripoli in reaction to an apparent Libyan-sponsored commando attack on the Tunisian phosphate
mining town of Gafsa. More than forty persons are killled in the attack. Libyan citizens, protesting French support of
Tunisia in the ensuing diplomatic confrontation, attack and burn the French embassy in Tripoli.
(7 February) The U.S. embassy in Tripoli effectively closes. Six embassy staff are recalled, leaving only an
administrative officer to look after U.S. property and the needs of some 2,500 Americans working in Libya. A
Department of State spokesman says the move is being taken to prevent an attack on the embassy after a U.S.
announcement that it is speeding up military aid to Tunisia.
(4 May) Four Libyan diplomats are ordered to leave the United States for allegedly attempting to intimidate Libyan
expatriates. Several Libyan dissidents living in Europe are assassinated in the course of the year.

(8 June) Libya accuses the United States of infringing on its 100-mile restricted air space off the Mediterranean coast.
(11 June) Bunker Hunt Oil nationalized.
(18 July) Green March to the Egyptian frontier in support of Libyan union with Egypt.
(11 August) Libya nationalizes 51 percent of Occidental Petroleum followed shortly by the nationalization of 51 percent
of all foreign oil companies.
(6 October) Third Arab-Israeli War, known as the Ramadan or Yom Kippur War, begins.
(26 October) Libya embargoes oil exports to the United States because of U.S. support for Israel.
1974
(12 January) Creation of the Arab Islamic Republic by Libya and Tunisia. The Tunisian president quickly repudiates
the agreement.
(11 February) Libya nationalizes three U.S. oil companies: Texaco, Libyan American Oil Company, and California
Asiatic.
(May) Jalloud makes official visit to Soviet Union and concludes first major Soviet-Libyan arms agreement.
(6 September) Popular revolution revitalized.
(4-9 November) Second congress of the Arab Socialist Union meets.
1975
(3 January) Libya lifts oil embargo against the United States.
(5 April) Twenty-two military officers implicated in an abortive August 1975 coup attempt are publicly executed.
(21-24 July) Egypt-Libya border war.
(November) Third session of the General People's Congress. Publication of part two of The Green Book, "The Solution
of the Economic Problem Socialism."
(6 November) First revolutionary committee established in Tripoli.
(1-5 December) Creation of the Steadfastness and Confrontation Front between Libya, Algeria, Syria, and the Palestine
Liberation Front.
1978
(2 March) General People's Committee replaces cabinet.
(6 May) New real estate regulations virtually eliminate ownership of rental properties.
(1 September) Qaddafi exhorts workers to assume management of their places of employment. Banking and petroleum
sectors are excluded from such measures. Qaddafi calls for the establishment of revolutionary committees outside Libya.
(19 December) Qaddafi resigns as secretary general of the General People's Congress to dedicate more time to
intensifying the revolution.
1979
(January) Libyan intervention in Uganda.
(1 June) Publication of part three of The Green Book, entitled "The Social Basis of the Third Universal Theory."

1980 (cont.)
(14 July) Billy Carter, brother of U.S. President Jimmy Carter, registers as a foreign agent of the Libyan government
under protest to avoid a federal grand jury investigation. Qaddafi later defends the Libyan relationship with the brother
of President Carter, saying that a $220,000 loan to Billy Carter was related to business transactions carried out during
visits to Libya in 1978 and 1979.
(6-20 August) Military unit near Tobruk revolts. Libyan authorities deny reports of insurgency.
(1 September) Qaddafi proposes a merger with Syria and threatens to resign and join the fedayeen in Palestine if his
proposal is rejected. The Syrian government immediately accepts the proposal, and the two governments declare their
intention to work toward a unified government. A 13-point statement indicates that a unitary state with a single identity
on the international level will be formed. Hostile to Zionism, imperialism, and reaction, the new state is described as a
base for the Arab revolutionary movement and a nucleus for total Arab unity.
(3 October) Military confrontation off the Libyan coast as U.S. fighter jets challenge Libyan fighters threatening a
reconnaissance plane.
(Fall) Libyan regular army units deployed in Chad. France warns Libya against further military intervention in the civil
war in Chad and says it is ready to support African moves to maintain Chad's unity and independence. A growing
number of African states also voice concern over Libyan intervention especially after Libyan forces occupy Ndjamena,
the capital of Chad, in mid-December.

1981
(3 January) Libya unfolds its 1981-1985 development plan, which calls for expenditures of LD18,500 million (U.S.
$62,479 million), more than double the amount allocated for the previous five-year plan (1975-1980). The new fiveyear
plan is presented to the annual meeting of the General People's Congress, which criticizes the performance of some
secretariats during the last plan period.
(20 March) The secretary-general of the general secretariat of the General People's Congress announces that the private
sector is to be entirely abolished by the end of the year. All foreign trade has already been nationalized and large
supermarkets have been set up to replace privately run shops. The official Jamahiriya Arab News Agency later
announces that privately owned textile, shoe, and household appliance shops must close by 28 March. Private butcher
shops must close by 30 April and grocery stores by 21 December. The closures are in line with Libya's policy to
eliminate the private sector. Private shops are replaced with state-owned supermarkets managed by the National General
Markets Company.
(6 May) The U.S. government orders Libya to close its diplomatic mission in Washington and remove the mission stafffrom the country. A State Department statement cites a wide range of Libyan provocations and misconduct, includingsupport for international terrorism, in support of the closure.

(19 August) U.S. aircraft shoot down two Libyan aircraft over the disputed Gulf of Sidra. Qaddafi later threatens toattack U.S. nuclear depots and cause an international catastrophe if U.S. forces again attack Libyan aircraft in the Gulf of Sidra.

1982
(12 March) U.S. government bans all exports to Libya with the exception of food and medicine.
(13 December) Qaddafi announces that all Libyan military personnel will be demobilized and replaced by a People's
Army.
1983
(June) Libya again invades Chad.
1984
(4 March) Revival of assassination campaign against dissidents living abroad. A Libyan businessman and three other
Libyans in London are charged in connection with a series of weekend bombings believed to be aimed at opponents of
Libyan leader Qaddafi.
(18 April) London police besiege Libyan embassy. A policewoman is killed and 11 others are injured when shots are
fired from inside the embassy. Qaddafi later claims that London police, not Libyan diplomats, are responsible for the
death of the policewoman. Great Britain breaks diplomatic relations with Libya and closes the Libyan embassy.
(13 August) Treaty of Oujda signed by Libya and Morocco declares a union between the two states. Through the treaty,
Morocco obtains an end to Libyan aid to the Polisario and Libya an end to Moroccan support for French forces in Chad.

(18 September) France and Libya announce a mutual phased withdrawal of their troops from Chad. (France had sent 3,000 troops to Chad in August 1983 to prevent the overthrow of the government by Libyan-backed rebels.) France and Libya later announce the completion of the mutual withdrawal of troops from Chad in mid-November 1984. Evidence

soon surfaces to suggest Libyan troops remain in northern Chad.
(30 November) Malta and Libya sign a five-year treaty for security and military cooperation that calls for Libya to
defend Malta if the Mediterranean island nation requests assistance. The agreement also calls for Libya to train Maltese
military personnel and prohibits the participation of either signatory in a military alliance that might affect the security
interests of the other.
1985
(July-September) Libyan government expels several thousand guest workers.
1986
(8 January) U.S. government increases economic sanctions on Libya in the wake of late-1985 attacks on Rome and
Vienna airports and later carries out air strikes against targets around Tripoli and Benghazi.
(29 August) Morocco unilaterally withdraws from its union with Libya.
1987
(1 January) Qaddafi declares al-Jufra the new capital of Libya.
(6 August) Libyan forces begin to advance on Chad.
(19 August) Qaddafi inaugurates the Brega concrete pipe factory, a center for the production of pipes for the Great Manmade River project.
(5 September) Chad claims to have invaded Libya for the first time and occupies the Matan al-Sarra airbase 60 miles north of the frontier.

(11 September) Libya and Chad agree to a cease-fire in response to an Organization of African Unity appeal.
(17 September) Qaddafi declares an end to the war with Chad after claiming victories at Matan al-Sarra and in the
Aouzou strip.
(24 September) Libya and Chad submit their border dispute to the Organization of African Unity for mediation.
(22 November) Thirteenth session of the General People's Congress. Qaddafi criticizes Revolutionary Committees for
too much enthusiam.
(5 December) Libya and South Yemen conclude an agreement establishing the Libyan Arab-Yemeni Holding Company.
(28 December) Libya and Tunisia restore diplomatic ties broken in September 1985 after the expulsion by Libya of
some 35,000 Tunisian laborers.
1988
(28 January) Qaddafi denounces the Muslim Brotherhood calling it the worst of God's enemies and accusing it of
destroying the Arab nation.
(31 March) The Tobruk oil refinery at al-Batan opens with a capacity of 220,000 barrels a day.
(4 August) The People's General Committee for Industry announces that ownership of factories will be transferred to workers.
(31 August) Libya announces plans to abolish both the regular army and the police and to replace them with an armed people whose service would be voluntary.

suggests it will not comply with the Council's demand that it turn over for trial the two Libyan agents indicted for these
acts.
1992 (cont.)
(21 January) United States charges that Libya is expanding its chemical weapons program and dispersing chemical
stockpiles to avoid detection.
(22 January) Germany announces that in December 1991 it seized a cargo of dual-use parts and equipment
manufactured in the United States and destined for Libya. The Libyan government later denies any connection to the
cargo seized in Germany.
(3 February) International Atomic Energy Agency announces that Libya has informed its director general that all
Libyan nuclear facilities are open for IAEA inspection.
(15 April) Japan, Italy, Belgium, Denmark, and Sweden ask Libyan diplomats to leave their countries and flights are
canceled to Libya as UN sanctions take effect. The sanctions, which block arms sales and air travel to Libya and call for
the expulsion of Libyan diplomats, are designed to pressure Libya into handing over the two citizens suspected of
bombing Pan Am Flight 103 and U.T.A. Flight 772.
(9 June) Libya relays information to the British government concerning past contacts with the Irish Republican Army (IRA). The Foreign Office comments that it will take weeks to assess the information and determine whether Libya has complied fully with Britain's request for information on IRA contacts, arms shipments, and other assistance. Britain later describes the information provided by Libya as incomplete and unsatisfactory in

(3 October) Chad and Libya announce plans to restore diplomatic ties.
(25 October) U.S. Central Intelligence Agency accuses Libya of building a chemical weapons plant. Qaddafi says the
plant in question will produce medicine.
(3 November) Qaddafi outlines plans to restructure the armed forces into three separate branches: regular army units
called "Jamahiriya Guards," conscripts with a compulsory service of two years, and part-time recruits.
(21 December) Pan Am Flight 103 explodes over Lockerbie, Scotland.
(26 December) The Arab League Council warns the U.S. of repercussions in its relations with the Arab world if it
should again attack Libya.
1989
(4 January) United States downs two more Libyan aircraft over the Mediterranean Sea.
(16 January) Qaddafi calls for the dissolution of the Jamahiriya News Agency (JANA), the security service, the national
sports organization, and several other state bodies. He also notes that decisions to abolish such bodies cannot be taken
unilaterally.
(19 January) U.S. President Ronald Reagan announces plans for the modification of trade regulations to allow U.S.companies to resume operations in Libya.
(20 January) Libya cancels a World Cup soccer match conceding victory to Algeria because the two teams "are in fact one team."

(17 February) Algeria, Libya, Mauritania, Morocco, and Tunisia create the Arab Maghrib Union.
(8 March) Qaddafi complains that movements such as the Muslim Brotherhood are trying to obtain power through the
use of religion. He argues that rule in the name of religion would be disastrous for society.
(11 June) Announcement of the creation of the Qaddafi International Prize for Human Rights with jailed black South
African activist Nelson Mandela as the first winner.
(1 September) Twentieth anniversary of the Libyan revolution. Libya agrees to submit Aouzou dispute to the
International Court of Justice.
(16 October) Qaddafi visits Egypt for the first time in 16 years.
(25 October) Qaddafi admits that Libya has supported groups accused of terrorism but claims such aid was halted when
it became apparent that these groups were doing more harm than good and were working for themselves rather than for
all Arabs.
(28 October) Libya warns Italy it will press for reparations unless Rome pays for the thousands of Libyans killed,
injured, or deported during the 1911-1943 period of colonial rule.
1990
(March) U.S. government calls for pressure on Libya to end chemical arms production. Libya denies it is producing chemical weapons and says it is ready to take part in international initiatives against chemical warfare. A fire at the ontroversial chemical plant at Rabta, 45 miles southwest of Tripoli, kills two people.

1990 (cont.)
(5 March) Libya and Sudan agree to sign integration pacts paving the way for possible union in four years.
(22 March) Czechoslovakian government reveals that the country's former communist government sold Libya 1,000
tons of Semtex, an odorless explosive often used by terrorists.
(26 March) Chad accuses Libyan-backed rebels of attacking two government garrisons on its eastern border with Sudan.
(1 April) Ethiopia expels two Libyan diplomats after a minor explosion at an Addis Ababa hotel.
(3 April) Qaddafi states that Jewish emigrants should go to the Baltic republics, Alaska, or Alsace-Lorraine but not to
Israel.
(April) France credits Qaddafi with assisting in the release of three European hostages.
(11 June) China denies it is helping Libya or any other country to develop chemical weapons.
(12 June) Qaddafi decrees the formation of the People's Guard.
(16 June) Libya denies it was behind a riot of Shiite Muslims in southern Thailand.
(31 August) Aouzou strip dispute submitted to the International Court of Justice.
(11 September) Jamahiriya News Agency announces establishment of the first union of Libyan journalists.
(11 October) Nine European and North African states, including Libya, forge a regional structure to promote political
stability and economic development in the Mediterranean region.
1991
(11 March) Washington admits that a two-year-old secret paramilitary program to destabilize the Libyan government
with Libyan commandos trained by the U.S. has ended in failure.
(30 March) Qaddafi, in pursuit of the elusive goal of Arab unity, uses a bulldozer to knock down a border gate between
Libya and Egypt.
(28 August) Qaddafi hosts a celebration marking the opening of the Great Manmade River, a pipeline for transporting
water from wells in eastern and central Libya to the coast.
(October) Western sources renew claims that Libya was behind the 1988 bombing of a Pan American airliner over
Scotland.
(18 November) Libya denies a German television report that it is building a huge underground storage bunker for
chemical and nuclear weapons.
(November) United States claims to have fresh evidence that Libya is again producing poison gas at Rabta as well as
building a factory nearby for the manufacture of chemical weapons.
1992
(21 January) UN Security Council unanimously approves Resolution 731 which in effect tells Libya to cooperate with the investigation that Britain, France, and the United States are conducting into the destruction of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, and U.T.A. Flight 772 over Niger. Libya

Statement of the Brother Leader at the General Assembly of the United Nations

2011-03-21T20:15:00.000-07:00

1.10.2009

In the name of the African Union, I would like to greet the members of the General Assembly of the United Nations, and I hope that this meeting will be among the most historic in the history of the world.
    In the name of the General Assembly at its sixty-fourth session, presided over by Libya, of the African Union, of one thousand traditional African kingdoms and in my own name, I would like to take this opportunity, as President of the African Union, to congratulate our son Obama because he is attending the General Assembly, and we welcome him as his country is hosting this meeting.
    This session is taking place in the midst of so many challenges facing us, and the whole world should come together and unite its efforts to defeat the challenges that are our principal common enemy — those of climate change and international crises such as the capitalist economic decline, the food and water crises, desertification, terrorism, immigration, piracy, man-made and natural epidemics and nuclear proliferation. Perhaps influenza H1N1 was a virus created in a laboratory that got out of control, originally being meant as a military weapon. Such challenges also include hypocrisy, poverty, fear, materialism and immorality.
    As is known, the United Nations was founded by three or four countries against Germany at the time. The United Nations was formed by the nations that joined together against Germany in the Second World War. Those countries formed a body called the Security Council, made its own countries permanent members and granted them the power of veto. We were not present at that time. The United Nations was shaped in line with those three countries and wanted us to step into shoes originally designed against Germany. That is the real substance of the United Nations when it was founded over 60 years ago.
    That happened in the absence of some 165 countries, at a ratio of one to eight; that is, one was present and eight were absent. They created the Charter, of which I have a copy. If one reads the Charter of the United Nations, one finds that the Preamble of the Charter differs from its Articles. How did it come into existence? All those who attended the San Francisco Conference in 1945 participated in creating the Preamble, but they left the Articles and internal rules of procedures of the so-called Security Council to experts, specialists and interested countries, which were those countries that had established the Security Council and had united against Germany.
    The Preamble is very appealing, and no one objects to it, but all the provisions that follow it completely contradict the Preamble. We reject such provisions, and we will never uphold them; they ended with the Second World War. The Preamble says that all nations, small or large, are equal. Are we equal when it comes to the permanent seats? No, we are not equal. The Preamble states in writing that all nations are equal whether they are small or large. Do we have the right of veto? Are we equal? The Preamble says that we have equal rights, whether we are large or small. That is what is stated and what we agreed in the Preamble. So the veto contradicts the Charter. The permanent seats contradict the Charter. We neither accept nor recognize the veto.
    The Preamble of the Charter states that armed force shall not be used, save in the common interest. That is the Preamble that we agreed to and signed, and we joined the United Nations because we wanted the Charter to reflect that. It says that armed force shall only be used in the common interest of all nations, but what has happened since then? Sixty-five wars have broken out since the establishment of the United Nations and the Security Council — 65 since their creation, with millions more victims than in the Second World War. Are those wars, and the aggression and force that were used in those 65 wars, in the common interest of us all? No, they were in the interest of one or three or four countries, but not of all nations.
    We will talk about whether those wars were in the interest of one country or of all nations. That flagrantly contradicts the Charter of the United Nations that we signed, and unless we act in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations to which we agreed, we will reject it and not be afraid not to speak diplomatically to anyone. Now we are talking about the future of the United Nations. There should be no hypocrisy or diplomacy because it concerns the important and vital issue of the future of the world. It was hypocrisy that brought about the 65 wars since the establishment of the United Nations.
    The Preamble also states that if armed force is used, it must be a United Nations force — thus, military intervention by the United Nations, with the joint agreement of the United Nations, not one or two or three countries using armed force. The entire United Nations will decide to go to war to maintain international peace and security. Since the establishment of the United Nations in 1945, if there is an act of aggression by one country against another, the entire United Nations should deter and stop that act.
    If a country, Libya for instance, were to exhibit aggression against France, then the entire Organization would respond because France is a sovereign State Member of the United Nations and we all share the collective responsibility to protect the sovereignty of all nations. However, 65 aggressive wars have taken place without any United Nations action to prevent them. Eight other massive, fierce wars, whose victims number some 2 million, have been waged by Member States that enjoy veto powers. Those countries that would have us believe they seek to maintain the sovereignty and independence of peoples actually use aggressive force against peoples. While we would like to believe that these countries want to work for peace and security in the world and protect peoples, they have instead resorted to aggressive wars and hostile behavior. Enjoying the veto they granted themselves as permanent members of the Security Council, they have initiated wars that have claimed millions of victims.
    The principle of non-interference in the internal affairs of States is enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations. No country, therefore, has the right to interfere in the affairs of any Government, be it democratic or dictatorial, socialist or capitalist, reactionary or progressive. This is the responsibility of each society; it is an internal matter for the people of the country concerned. The senators of Rome once appointed their leader, Julius Caesar, as dictator because it was good for Rome at that time. No one can say of Rome at that time that it gave Caesar the veto. The veto is not mentioned in the Charter.
    We joined the United Nations because we thought we were equals, only to find that one country can object to all the decisions we make. Who gave the permanent members their status in the Security Council? Four of them granted this status to themselves. The only country that we in this Assembly elected to permanent member status in the Security Council is China. This was done democratically, but the other seats were imposed upon us undemocratically through a dictatorial procedure carried out against our will, and we should not accept it.
    The Security Council reform we need is not an increase in the number of members, which would only make things worse. To use a common expression, if you add more water, you get more mud. It would add insult to injury. It would make things worse simply by adding more large countries to those that already enjoy membership of the Council. It would merely perpetuate the proliferation of super-Powers. We therefore reject the addition of any more permanent seats. The solution is not to have more permanent seats, which would be very dangerous. Adding more super-Powers would crush the peoples of small, vulnerable and third world countries, which are coming together in what has been called the Group of 100 — 100 small countries banding together in a forum that one member has called the Forum of Small States.
    These countries would be crushed by super-Powers were additional large countries to be granted membership in the Security Council. This door must be closed; we reject it strongly and categorically. Adding more seats to the Security Council would increase poverty, injustice and tension at the world level, as well as great competition between certain countries such as Italy, Germany, Indonesia, India, Pakistan, the Philippines, Japan, Brazil, Nigeria, Argentina, Algeria, Libya, Egypt, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, South Africa, Tanzania, Turkey, Iran, Greece and Ukraine. All these countries would seek a seat on the Security Council, making its membership almost as large as that of the General Assembly and resulting in an impractical competition.
    What solution can there be? The solution is for the General Assembly to adopt a binding resolution under the leadership of Mr. Treki based on the majority will of Assembly members and taking into account the considerations of no other body. The solution is to close Security Council membership to the admission of further States. This item is on the agenda of the General Assembly during the present session presided over by Mr. Treki. Membership through unions and the transference of mandates should supersede other proposals.
    We should focus on the achievement of democracy based on the equality of Member States. There should be equality among Member States and the powers and mandates of the Security Council should be transferred to the General Assembly. Membership should be for unions, not for States. Increasing the number of States Members would give the right to all countries to a seat, in accordance with the spirit of the Preamble of the Charter.
    No country could deny a seat in the Council to Italy, for instance, if a seat were given to Germany. For the sake of argument, Italy might say that Germany was an aggressive country and was defeated in the Second World War. If we gave India a seat, Pakistan would say that it, too, is a nuclear country and deserves a seat, and those two countries are at war. This would be a dangerous situation. If we gave a seat to Japan, then we should have to give one to Indonesia, the largest Muslim country in the world. Then Turkey, Iran and Ukraine would make the same claim. What could we say to Argentina or Brazil? Libya deserves a seat for its efforts in the service of world security by discarding its weapons of mass destruction programme. Then South Africa, Tanzania and Ukraine would demand the same. All of these countries are important. The door to Security Council membership should be closed.
    This approach is a falsehood, a trick that has been exposed. If we want to reform the United Nations, bringing in more super-Powers is not the way. The solution is to foster democracy at the level of the general congress of the world, the General Assembly, to which the powers of the Security Council should be transferred. The Security Council would become merely an instrument for implementing the decisions taken by the General Assembly, which would be the parliament, the legislative assembly, of the world.
    This Assembly is our democratic forum and the Security Council should be responsible before it; we should not accept the current situation. These are the legislators of the Members of the United Nations, and their resolutions should be binding. It is said that the General Assembly should do whatever the Security Council recommends. On the contrary, the Security Council should do whatever the General Assembly decides. This is the United Nations, the Assembly that includes 192 countries. It is not the Security Council, which includes only 15 of the Member States.
    How can we be happy about global peace and security if the whole world is controlled by only five countries? We are 192 nations and countries, and we are like Speakers’ Corner in London’s Hyde Park. We just speak and nobody implements our decisions. We are mere decoration, without any real substance. We are Speakers’ Corner, no more, no less. We just make speeches and then disappear. This is who you are right now.
    Once the Security Council becomes only an executive body for resolutions adopted by the General Assembly, there will be no competition for membership of the Council. Once the Security Council becomes a tool to implement General Assembly resolutions, there will be no need for any competition. The Security Council should, quite simply, represent all nations. In accordance with the proposal submitted to the General Assembly, there would be permanent seats on the Security Council for all unions and groups of countries.
    The 27 countries of the European Union should have a permanent seat on the Security Council. The countries of the African Union should have a permanent seat on the Security Council. The Latin American and ASEAN countries should have permanent seats. The Russian Federation and the United States of America are already permanent members of the Security Council. The Southern African Development Community (SADC), once it is fully established, should have a permanent seat. The 22 countries of the Arab League should have a permanent seat. The 57 countries of the Islamic Conference should have a permanent seat. The 118 countries of the Non-Aligned Movement should have a permanent seat.
    Then there is the G-100; perhaps the small countries should also have a permanent seat. Countries not included in the unions that I have mentioned could perhaps be assigned a permanent seat, to be occupied by them in rotation every six or twelve months. I am thinking of countries like Japan and Australia that are outside such organizations as ASEAN or like the Russian Federation that is not a member of the European or Latin American or African unions. This would be a solution for them if the General Assembly votes in favor of it.
    The issue is a vitally important one. As has already been mentioned, the General Assembly is the Congress and Parliament of the world, the leader of the world. We are the nations, and anyone outside this General Assembly will not be recognized. The President of the Assembly, Mr. Ali Abdussalam Treki, and Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon will produce the legal draft and set up the necessary committees to submit this proposal to a vote: that from now on, the Security Council will be made up of unions of nations. In this way, we will have justice and democracy, and we will no longer have a Security Council consisting of countries which have been chosen because they have nuclear weapons, large economies or advanced technology. That is terrorism. We cannot allow the Security Council to be run by super-Powers; that is terrorism in and of itself.
    If we want a world that is united, safe and peaceful, this is what we should do. If we want to remain in a world at war, that is up to you. We will continue to have conflict and to fight until doomsday or the end of the world. All Security Council members should have the right to exercise the veto, or else we should eliminate the whole concept of the veto with this new formation of the Council. This would be a real Security Council. According to the new proposals submitted to the General Assembly, it will be an executive council under the control of the General Assembly, which will have the real power and make all the rules.
    In this way, all countries will be on an equal footing in the Security Council just as they are in the General Assembly. In the General Assembly we are all treated equally when it comes to membership and voting. It should be the same in the Security Council. Currently, one country has a veto; another country does not have a veto; one country has a permanent seat; another country does not have a permanent seat. We should not accept this, nor should we accept any resolution adopted by the Security Council in its current composition. We were under trusteeship; we were colonized; and now we are independent. We are here today to decide the future of the world in a democratic way that will maintain the peace and security of all nations, large and small, as equals. Otherwise, it is terrorism, for terrorism is not just Al Qaeda but can also take other forms.
    We should be guided by the majority of the votes in the General Assembly alone. If the General Assembly takes a decision by voting, then its wishes should be obeyed and its decision should be enforced. No one is above the General Assembly; anyone who says he is above the Assembly should leave the United Nations and be on his own. Democracy is not for the rich or the most powerful or for those who practice terrorism. All nations should be and should be seen to be on an equal footing.
    At present, the Security Council is security feudalism, political feudalism for those with permanent seats, protected by them and used against us. It should be called, not the Security Council, but the Terror Council. In our political life, if they need to use the Security Council against us, they turn to the Security Council. If they have no need to use it against us, they ignore the Security Council. If they have an interest to promote, an axe to grind, they respect and glorify the Charter of the United Nations; they turn to Chapter VII of the Charter and use it against poor nations. If, however, they wished to violate the Charter, they would ignore it as if it did not exist at all.
    If the veto of the permanent members of the Security Council is given to those who have the power, this is injustice and terrorism and should not be tolerated by us. We should not live in the shadow of this injustice and terror.
    Super-Powers have complicated global interests, and they use the veto to protect those interests. For example, in the Security Council, they use the power of the United Nations to protect their interests and to terrorize and intimidate the Third World, causing it to live under the shadow of terror.
    From the beginning, since it was established in 1945, the Security Council has failed to provide security. On the contrary, it has provided terror and sanctions. It is only used against us. For this reason, we will no longer be committed to implementing Security Council resolutions after this speech, which marks the 40th anniversary.
    Sixty-five wars have broken out: either fighting among small countries or wars of aggression waged against us by super-Powers. The Security Council, in clear violation of the Charter of the United Nations, failed to take action to stop these wars or acts of aggressions against small nations and peoples.
    The General Assembly will vote on a number of historic proposals. Either we act as one or we will fragment. If each nation were to have its own version of the General Assembly, the Security Council and the various instruments and each were to have an equal footing, the Powers that currently fill the permanent seats would be confined to use of their own sovereign bodies, whether there be three or four of them, and would have to exercise their rights against themselves. This is of no concern to us.
    If they want to keep their permanent seats, that is fine; permanent seats will be of no concern to us. We shall never submit to their control or to their exercise of the veto that was given to them. We are not so foolish as to give the right of veto to the super-Powers to use so they can treat us as second-class citizens and as outcast nations. It is not we who decided that those countries are the super-Powers and respected nations with the power to act on behalf of 192 countries.
    You should be fully aware that we are ignoring the Security Council resolutions because those resolutions are used solely against us and not against the super-Powers which have the permanent seats and the right of veto. Those Powers never use any resolutions against themselves.
    They are, however, used against us. Such use has turned the United Nations into a travesty of itself and has generated wars and violations of the sovereignty of independent States. It has led to war crimes and genocides. All of this is in violation of the Charter of the United Nations.
    Since no one pays attention to the Security Council of the United Nations, each country and community has established its own security council, and the Security Council here has become isolated.
    The African Union has already established its own Peace and Security Council, the European Union has already established a security council, and Asian countries have already established their own security council. Soon, Latin America will have its own Security Council as will the 120 non-aligned nations.
    This means that we have already lost confidence in the United Nations Security Council, which has not provided us with security, and that is why we now are creating new regional security councils.
    We are not committed to obeying the rules or the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council in its present form because it is undemocratic, dictatorial and unjust. No one can force us to join the Security Council or to obey or comply with resolutions or orders given by the Security Council in its present composition.
    Furthermore, there is no respect for the United Nations and no regard for the General Assembly, which is actually the true United Nations, but whose resolutions are non-binding. The decisions of the International Court of Justice, the international judicial body, take aim only at small countries and Third World nations. Powerful countries escape the notice of the Court. Or, if judicial decisions are taken against these powerful countries, they are not enforced.
    The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) is an important agency within the United Nations. Powerful countries, however, are not accountable to it or under its jurisdiction. We have discovered that the IAEA is used only against us. We are told that it is an international organization, but, if that is the case, then all the countries of the world should be under its jurisdiction. If it is not truly international, then right after this speech we should no longer accept it and should close it down.
    Mr. Treki, in his capacity as President of the General Assembly, should talk to the Director General of the IAEA, Mr. ElBaradei, and should ask him if he is prepared to verify nuclear energy storage in all countries and inspect all suspected increases. If he says yes, then we accept the Agency’s jurisdiction. But if he says that he cannot go into certain countries that have nuclear power and that he does not have any jurisdiction over them, then we should close the Agency down and not submit to its jurisdiction.
    For your information, I called Mr. ElBaradei when we had the problem of the Libyan nuclear bomb. I called Mr. ElBaradei and asked him if the agreements by the super-Powers to reduce nuclear supplies were subject to Agency control and under inspection, and whether he was aware of any increases in their activity. He told me that he was not in a position to ask the super-Powers to be inspected.
    So, is the Agency only inspecting us? If so, it does not qualify as an international organization since it is selective, just like the Security Council and the International Court of Justice. This is not equitable nor is it the United Nations. We totally reject this situation.
    Regarding Africa, Mr. President, whether the United Nations is reformed or not, and even before a vote is taken on any proposals of a historic nature, Africa should be given a permanent seat on the Security Council now, having already waited too long.
    Leaving aside United Nations reform, we can certainly say that Africa was colonized, isolated and persecuted and its rights usurped. Its people were enslaved and treated like animals, and its territory was colonized and placed under trusteeship. The countries of the African Union deserve a permanent seat. This is a debt from the past that has to be paid and has nothing to do with United Nations reform. It is a priority matter and is high on the agenda of the General Assembly. No one can say that the African Union does not deserve a permanent seat.
    Who can argue with this proposal? I challenge anyone to make a case against it. Where is the proof that the African Union or the African continent does not deserve a permanent seat? No one can possibly deny this.
    Another matter that should be voted on in the General Assembly is that of compensation for countries that were colonized, so as to prevent the colonization of a continent, the usurpation of its rights and the pillaging of its wealth from happening again.

    Why are Africans going to Europe? Why are Asians going to Europe? Why are Latin Americans going to Europe? It is because Europe colonized those peoples and stole the material and human resources of Africa, Asia and Latin America — the oil, minerals, uranium, gold and diamonds, the fruit, vegetables and livestock and the people — and used them. Now, new generations of Asians, Latin Americans and Africans are seeking to reclaim that stolen wealth, as they have the right to do.
    At the Libyan border, I recently stopped 1,000 African migrants headed for Europe. I asked them why they were going there. They told me it was to take back their stolen wealth — that they would not be leaving otherwise. Who can restore the wealth that was taken from us? If you decide to restore all of this wealth, there will be no more immigration from the Philippines, Latin America, Mauritius and India. Let us have the wealth that was stolen from us. Africa deserves $777 trillion in compensation from the countries that colonized it. Africans will demand that amount, and if you do not give it to them, they will go to where you have taken those trillions of dollars. They have the right to do so. They have to follow that money and to bring it back.
    Why is there no Libyan immigration to Italy, even though Libya is so close by? Italy owed compensation to the Libyan people. It accepted that fact and signed an agreement with Libya, which was adopted by both the Italian and Libyan Parliaments. Italy admitted that its colonization of Libya was wrong and should never be repeated, and it promised not to attack the Libyan people by land, air or sea. Italy also agreed to provide Libya with $250 million a year in compensation over the next 20 years and to build a hospital for Libyans maimed as a result of the mines planted in Libyan territory during the Second World War. Italy apologized and promised that it would never again occupy the territory of another country. Italy, which was a kingdom during the Fascist regime and has made rich contributions to civilization, should be commended for this achievement, together with Prime Minister Berlusconi and his predecessor, who made their own contributions in that regard.
    Why is the Third World demanding compensation? So that there will be no more colonization — so that large and powerful countries will not colonize, knowing that they will have to pay compensation. Colonization should be punished. The countries that harmed other peoples during the colonial era should pay compensation for the damage and suffering inflicted under their colonial rule.
    There is another point that I would like to make. However, before doing so — and addressing a somewhat sensitive issue — I should like to make an aside. We Africans are happy and proud indeed that a son of Africa is now President of the United States of America. That is a historic event. Now, in a country where blacks once could not mingle with whites, in cafés or restaurants, or sit next to them on a bus, the American people have elected as their President a young black man, Mr. Obama, of Kenyan heritage. That is a wonderful thing, and we are proud. It marks the beginning of a change. However, as far as I am concerned, Obama is a temporary relief for the next four or eight years. I am afraid that we may then go back to square one. No one can guarantee how America will be governed after Obama.
    We would be content if Obama could remain President of the United States of America for ever. The statement that he just made shows that he is completely different from any American President that we have seen. American Presidents used to threaten us with all manner of weapons, saying that they would send us Desert Storm, Grapes of Wrath, Rolling Thunder and poisonous roses for Libyan children. That was their approach. American Presidents used to threaten us with operations such as Rolling Thunder, sent to Viet Nam; Desert Storm, sent to Iraq; Musketeer, sent to Egypt in 1956, even though America opposed it; and the poisonous roses visited upon Libyan children by Reagan. Can you imagine? One would have thought that Presidents of a large country with a permanent seat on the Security Council and the right of veto would have protected us and sent us peace. And what did we get instead? Laser-guided bombs carried to us on F-111 aircraft. This was their approach: we will lead the world, whether you like it or not, and will punish anyone who opposes us.
    What our son Obama said today is completely different. He made a serious appeal for nuclear disarmament, which we applaud. He also said that America alone could not solve the problems facing us and that the entire world should come together to do so. He said that we must do more than we are doing now, which is making speeches. We agree with that and applaud it. He said that we had come to the United Nations to talk against one another. It is true that when we come here, we should communicate with one another on an equal footing. And he said that democracy should not be imposed from outside. Until recently, American Presidents have said that democracy should be imposed on Iraq and other countries. He said that this was an internal affair. He spoke truly when he said that democracy cannot be imposed from outside.
    So we have to be cautious. Before I make these sensitive remarks I note that the whole world has so many polarities. Listen: should we have a world of so many polarities? Can we not have nations on an equal footing? Let us have an answer. Does anyone have an answer as to whether it is better to have a world of so many polarities? Why can we not have equal standing? Should we have patriarchs? Should we have popes? Should we have gods?
    Why should we have a world of so many polarities? We reject such a world and call for a world where big and small are equal.
    The other sensitive point is the Headquarters of the United Nations. Can I have your attention, please? All of you came across the Atlantic Ocean, the Pacific Ocean, crossing the Asian continent or the African continent to reach this place. Why? Is this Jerusalem? Is this the Vatican? Is this Mecca? All of you are tired, have jet lag, and have sleepless nights. You are very tired, very low, physically. Somebody just arrived now, flying 20 hours. Then we want him to make a speech and talk about this.
    All of you are asleep, all of you are tired. It is clear that all of you are lacking energy because of having to make a long journey. Why do we do that? Some of our countries are in nighttime and people are asleep. Now you should be asleep, because your biological clock, your biological mind is accustomed to be asleep at this time. I wake up at 4 o’clock New York time, before dawn, because in Libya it is 11 in the morning. When I wake up at 11 o’clock it is supposed to be daytime; at 4 o’clock I am awake.

    Why? Think about it. If this was decided in 1945, should we still retain it? Why can we not think about a place that is in the middle, that is comfortable?
    Another important point is that America, the host country, bears the expenses and looks after the Headquarters and diplomatic missions and looks after the peace and security of the heads of State who come here. They are very strict; they spend a lot of money, New York and all of America being very tight.
    I want to relieve America of this hardship. We should thank America; we say to America, thank you for all the trouble that you have taken on yourself. We say thank you to America. We want to help reassure America and New York and keep them calm. They should not have the responsibility of looking after security. Perhaps some day a terrorist could cause an explosion or bomb a president. This place is targeted by Al-Qaeda, this very building. Why was it not hit on 11 September? It was beyond their power. The next target would be this place. I am not saying this in an offhand manner. We have tens of members of Al-Qaeda detained in Libyan prisons. Their confessions are very scary. That makes America live under tension. One never knows what will happen. Perhaps America or this place will be targeted again by a rocket. Perhaps tens of heads of State will die. We want to relieve America from this worry. We shall take the place to where it is not targeted.
    Now after 50 years United Nations Headquarters should be taken to another part of the hemisphere. After 50 years in the western hemisphere, for the next 50 years it should be in the eastern hemisphere or in the middle hemisphere, by rotation. Now, with 64 years we have an extra 14 years over the 50 that Headquarters should have been moved to somewhere else.
    This is not an insult to America; it is a service to America. We should thank America. This was possible in 1945, but we should not accept it now. Of course this should be put to the vote in the General Assembly — only in the Assembly, because in section 23 of the Headquarters Agreement it says that the United Nations Headquarters can be moved to another location only by a resolution of the General Assembly. If 51 per cent of the Assembly approves relocation of Headquarters, then it can be moved.
    America has the right to make security tight because it is targeted by terrorists and by Al-Qaeda. America has the right to take all security measures; we are not blaming America for that. However, we do not tolerate these measures. We do not have to come to New York and be subjected to all these measures. One president told me that he was told that his co-pilot should not come to America because there are restrictions. He asked how he could cross the Atlantic without a co-pilot. Why? He does not have to come here. Another president complained that his honor guard could not come because there was some misunderstanding regarding his name when it came to granting a visa. Another president said his own doctor could not get a visa and could not come to America.
    The security measures are very strict. If a country has any problem with America, they will set up restrictions on the movements of member delegations, as if one is in Guantanamo. Is this a Member State of the United Nations, or is it a prisoner in the Guantanamo camp that cannot be allowed free movement?
    This is what is submitted to the General Assembly for a vote — moving the Headquarters. If 51 per cent agree, then we come to the second vote: to the middle of the globe, or to the eastern part. If we say that we must move the Headquarters to the middle of the hemisphere, why do we not move to Sirte or Vienna? One can come even without a visa. Once you come as a president, Libya is a secure country. We are not going to restrict you to 100 or 500 meters. Libya has no hostile actions against anybody. I think the same holds true of Vienna.
    If the vote says we should move Headquarters to the eastern part, then it will be Delhi or Beijing, the capital of China or the capital of India.
    That is logical, my brothers. I do not think there will be any objection to that. Then you will thank me for this proposal, for eliminating the suffering and the trouble of flying 14, 15 or 20 hours to come here. No one can blame America or say that America will reduce its contributions to the United Nations. No one should have that bad thought. America, I am sure, is committed to its international obligations. America will not be angry; it will thank you for alleviating its hardship, for taking on all that hardship and all the restrictions, even though this place is targeted by terrorists.
    We come now to the issues that will be considered by the General Assembly. We are about to put the United Nations on trial; the old organization will be finished and a new one will emerge. This is not a normal gathering. Even son Obama said that this is not a normal gathering. It is a historic meeting.
    The wars that took place after the establishment of the United Nations — why did they occur? Where was the Security Council, where was the Charter, where was the United Nations? There should be investigations and judicial intervention. Why have there been massacres? We can start with the Korean War because it took place after the establishment of the United Nations. How did a war break out and cause millions of victims? Nuclear weapons could have been used in that war. Those who are responsible for causing the war should be tried and should pay compensation and damages.
    Then we come to the Suez Canal war of 1956. That file should be opened wide. Three countries with permanent seats on the Security Council and with the right of veto in the Council attacked a member State of this General Assembly. A country that was a sovereign State — Egypt — was attacked, its army was destroyed, thousands of Egyptians were killed and many Egyptian towns and entities were destroyed, all because Egypt wanted to nationalize the Suez Canal. How could such a thing have happened during the era of the United Nations and its Charter? How is it possible to guarantee that such a thing will not be repeated unless we make amends for past wrongs? Those were dangerous events and the Suez Canal and Korean War files should be re-opened.
    Next we come to the Viet Nam war. There were 3 million victims of that war. During 12 days, more bombs were dropped than during four years of the Second World War. It was a fiercer war, and it took place after the establishment of the United Nations and after we had decided that there would be no more wars.
    The future of humankind is at stake. We cannot stay silent. How can we feel safe? How can we be complacent? This is the future of the world, and we who are in the General Assembly of the United Nations must make sure that such wars are not repeated in the future.
    Then Panama was attacked, even though it was an independent member State of the General Assembly. Four thousand people were killed, and the President of that country was taken prisoner and put in prison. Noriega should be released — we should open that file. How can we entitle a country that is a United Nations Member State to wage war against another country and capture its president, treat him as a criminal and put him in prison? Who would accept that? It could be repeated. We should not stay quiet. We should have an investigation. Any one of us Member States could face the same situation, especially if such aggression is by a Member State with a permanent seat on the Security Council and with the responsibility to maintain peace and security worldwide.
    Then there was the war in Grenada. That country was invaded even though it was a Member State. It was attacked by 5,000 war ships, 7,000 troops and dozens of military aircraft, and it is the smallest country in the world. This occurred after the establishment of the United Nations and of the Security Council and its veto. And the President of Grenada, Mr. Maurice Bishop, was assassinated. How could that have happened with impunity? It is a tragedy. How can we guarantee that the United Nations is good or not, that a certain country is good or not? Can we be safe or happy about our future or not? Can we trust the Security Council or not? Can we trust the United Nations or not?
    We must look into and investigate the bombing of Somalia. Somalia is a United Nations Member State. It is an independent country under the rule of Aidid. We want an investigation. Why did that happen? Who allowed it to happen? Who gave the green light for that country to be attacked?
    Then there is the former Yugoslavia. No country was as peaceful as Yugoslavia, constructed step by step and piece by piece after being destroyed by Hitler. We destroyed it, as if we were doing the same job as Hitler. Tito built that peaceful country step by step and brick by brick and then we arrived and broke it apart for imperialistic, personal interests. How can we be complacent about that? Why can we not be satisfied? If a peaceful country like Yugoslavia faced such a tragedy, the General Assembly should have an investigation and should decide who should be tried before the International Criminal Court.
    Then we have the war in Iraq — the mother of all evils. The United Nations should also investigate that. The General Assembly, presided over by Mr. Treki, should investigate that. The invasion of Iraq was a violation of the United Nations Charter. It was done without any justification by super-Powers with permanent seats on the Security Council. Iraq is an independent country and a member State of the General Assembly. How could those countries attack Iraq? As provided for in the Charter, the United Nations should have intervened and stopped the attack.
    We spoke in the General Assembly and urged it to use the Charter to stop that attack. We were against the invasion of Kuwait, and the Arab countries fought Iraq alongside foreign countries in the name of the United Nations Charter.
    In the first instance, the Charter was respected. The second time when we wanted to use the Charter to stop the war against Iraq, no one used it and that document was ignored. Why did that occur? Mr. Treki and the General Assembly should investigate to determine whether there was any reason at all to invade Iraq. Because the reasons for that attack remain mysterious and ambiguous, and we might face the same destiny.
    Why was Iraq invaded? The invasion itself was a serious violation of the United Nations Charter, and it was wrong. There was also a total massacre or genocide. More than 1.5 million Iraqis were killed. We want to bring the Iraqi file before the International Criminal Court (ICC), and we want those who committed mass murder against the Iraqi people to be tried.
    It is easy for Charles Taylor to be tried, or for Bashir to be tried, or for Noriega to be tried. That is an easy job. Yes, but what about those who have committed mass murder against the Iraqis? They cannot be tried? They cannot go before the ICC? If the Court is unable to accommodate us, then we should not accept it. Either it is meant for all of us, large or small, or we should not accept it and should reject it.
    Anyone who commits a war crime can be tried, but we are not livestock or animals like those that are slaughtered for the Eid. We have the right to live, and we are ready to fight and to defend ourselves. We have the right to live in dignity, under the sun and on earth; they have already tested us and we have withstood the test.
    There are other things as well. Why is it that Iraqi prisoners of war can be sentenced to death? When Iraq was invaded and the President of Iraq was taken he was a prisoner of war. He should not have been tried; he should not have been hanged. When the war was over, he should have been released. We want to know why a prisoner of war should have been tried. Who sentenced the President of Iraq to death? Is there an answer to that question? We know the identity of the judge who tried him. As to who tied the noose around the President’s neck on the day of sacrifice and hanged him, those people wore masks.
    How could this have happened in a civilized world? These were prisoners of war of civilized countries under international law. How could Government ministers and a head of State be sentenced to death and hanged? Were those who tried them lawyers or members of a judicial system?
    Do you know what people are saying? They are saying that the faces behind the masks were those of the President of the United States and the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom and that it was they who put the President of Iraq to death.
    Why do the executioners not unmask their faces? Why do we not know their ranks? Why do we not know whether they were officers, judges, soldiers or doctors? How does it come about that the President of a State Member of the United Nations was sentenced to death and killed? We do not know the identity of the executioners. The United Nations is duty-bound to answer these questions: who carried out the death sentence? They must have legal status and official responsibilities; we should know their identities and we should know about the presence of a physician and the nature of all the legal proceedings. That would be true for an ordinary citizen, let alone for the President of a State Member of the United Nations who was put to death in that manner.
    My third point on the Iraq war relates to Abu Ghraib. This was a disgrace to humankind. I know that the United States authorities will investigate this scandal, but the United Nations must not ignore it either. The General Assembly should investigate this matter. Prisoners of war held in Abu Ghraib prison were torturers; dogs were set on them; men were raped. This is unprecedented in the history of war. It was sodomy, and it was an unprecedented sin, never before committed by past aggressors or invaders. Prisoners of war are soldiers, but these were raped in prison by a State, a permanent member of the Security Council. This goes against civilization and humankind. We must not keep silent; we must know the facts. Even today, a quarter of a million Iraqi prisoners, men and women alike, remain in Abu Ghraib. They are being maltreated, persecuted and raped. There must be an investigation.
    Turning to the war in Afghanistan, this too must be investigated. Why are we against the Taliban? Why are we against Afghanistan? Who are the Taliban? If the Taliban want a religious State, that is fine. Think of the Vatican. Does the Vatican pose a threat to us? No. It is a religious, very peaceful State. If the Taliban want to create an Islamic Emirate, who says that this makes them an enemy? Is anyone claiming that Bin Laden is of the Taliban or that he is Afghan? Is Bin Laden of the Taliban? No; he is not of the Taliban and he is not Afghan. Were the terrorists who hit New York City of the Taliban? Were they from Afghanistan? They were neither Taliban nor Afghan. Then, what was the reason for the wars in Iraq and in Afghanistan?
    If I truly wanted to deceive my American and British friends, I would encourage them to send more troops and I would encourage them to persist in this bloodbath. But they will never succeed in Iraq or Afghanistan. Look what happened to them in Iraq, which is a desert. It is even worse in mountainous Afghanistan. If I wanted to deceive them I would tell them to continue the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. But no, I want to save the citizens of the United States, the United Kingdom and other countries who are fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan. So I tell them: leave Afghanistan to the Afghans; leave Iraq to the Iraqis. If they want to fight each other, they are free to do so.
    America had its Civil War, and no one interfered in it. There were civil wars in Spain, China and countries all over the world — no place on Earth has been free of civil wars. Let there be a civil war in Iraq. If the Iraqis want to have a civil war and fight each other, that is fine. Who says that if the Taliban form a Government they would possess intercontinental missiles or the kind of airplanes that hit New York? Did those airplanes take off from Afghanistan or Iraq? No; they took off from American airports. So why is Afghanistan being struck? The terrorists were not Afghans or Taliban or Iraqis.
    Why are we silent? We must never be war devils: anyone who does not speak the truth is a silent devil. We are committed to international peace and security. We do not wish to scorn or ridicule humankind. We want to save humanity.
    As President of the General Assembly, Mr. Ali Treki should open an investigation of the assassinations file — in addition to the war files. Who killed Patrice Lumumba, and why? We merely want to record it in the annals of African history; we want to know how an African leader, a liberator, came to be assassinated. Who killed him? We want our sons to be able to read the history of how Patrice Lumumba, the hero of Congo’s liberation struggle, was assassinated. We want to know the facts, even 50 years on. That is one file that should be reopened.
    And who killed Secretary-General Hammarskjöld? Who fired on his aero plane in 1961, and why?
    Then, there is the assassination of United States President Kennedy in 1963. We want to know who killed him and why. There was somebody called Lee Harvey Oswald, who was then killed by one Jack Ruby. Why did he kill him? Jack Ruby, an Israeli, killed Lee Harvey Oswald, who killed Kennedy. Why did this Israeli kill Kennedy’s killer? Then Jack Ruby, the killer of the killer of Kennedy, died in mysterious circumstances before he could be tried. We must open the files. The whole world knows that Kennedy wanted to investigate the Israeli Dimona nuclear reactor. This involves international peace and security and weapons of mass destruction. That is why we should open this file.
    Then there is the assassination of Martin Luther King, the black reverend and human rights activist. His assassination was a plot, and we should know why he was killed and who killed him.
    Then Khalil Wazir, or Abu Jihad, a Palestinian, was attacked. He was living peacefully in Tunisia, a Member State, and that country’s sovereignty was not respected. We cannot keep silent. Even though submarines and ships were detected along the coast of Tunisia, where he was killed, no one was accused or tried. Abu Iyad was also killed, and we should know how he was killed. He was killed in ambiguous circumstances. In Operation Spring of Youth, Kamal Nasser, a poet, Kamal Adwan and Abu Youssef al Najjar, three Palestinians, were killed in Lebanon, a country that is a free, sovereign State member of the General Assembly. They were attacked and killed while sleeping peacefully. We should know who killed them, and he should be tried so that those crimes against humanity are not repeated.
    We have already talked about the size of the force used in the invasion of Grenada — 7,000 troops, 15 battleships and dozens of bombers — and President Bishop was killed even though Grenada was a Member State. Those are crimes, and we cannot keep silent. Otherwise, we will look like sacrificial beasts. We are not animals. Year after year, we are attacked. We defend ourselves, our sons and our children, and we are not afraid. We have the right to live, and the Earth is not destined for violence, but for us all. We can never live on this Earth in such humiliation. So those are the wars.
    The last file is that of the massacres. In the Sabra and Shatila massacre, 3,000 people were killed. That area, under the protection of the occupying Israeli army, was the site of a huge and calamitous massacre in which 3,000 Palestinian men, women and children were killed. How can we keep quiet? Lebanon is a sovereign State; a member of the General Assembly was occupied, Sabra and Shatila were under Israeli control, and then the massacre took place.
    Then there was the 2008 massacre in Gaza. There were 1,000 women and 2,200 children among the victims killed in the massacre in Gaza in 2008. Sixty United Nations facilities and another 30 belonging to non-governmental organizations were damaged. Fifty clinics were destroyed. Forty doctors and nurses were killed while carrying out humanitarian activities. This took place in Gaza in December 2008.
    The perpetrators are still alive, and they should be tried by the International Criminal Court (ICC). Should we try only the underdogs, the weak and the poor of third-world countries, and not important and protected figures? Under international law, they should all face trial for the consequences of the crimes that they have committed. Otherwise, the role of the ICC will never be recognized. If the decisions of the ICC are not respected or implemented, if the General Assembly and the Security Council mean nothing, and if the International Atomic Energy Agency serves only certain countries and organizations, then what is the United Nations? It would mean that the United Nations is nothing and is insignificant. Where is it? There is no United Nations.
    Then, while piracy may be a phenomenon of the high seas, a form of terrorism, we talk about the piracy in Somalia. Somalis are not pirates. We are the pirates. We went there and usurped their economic zones, their fish and their wealth. Libya, India, Japan and America — any country in the world — we are all pirates. We all entered the territorial waters and economic zones of Somalia and stole. The Somalis are protecting their own fish, their sustenance. They have become pirates because they are defending their children’s food. Now, we seek to address that matter in the wrong way. Should we send warships to Somalia? We should send warships to the pirates who have attacked and seized the economic zones and wealth of the Somalis and the food of their children.
    I met the pirates, and I told them that I would negotiate an agreement between them and the international community that respects the 200-mile exclusive economic zone under the law of the sea, that protects all marine resources belonging to the Somali people, and that stops all countries from disposing of toxic waste along the Somali coast. In return, the Somalis would no longer attack ships. We will propose and draft such an international treaty and submit it to the General Assembly. That is the solution. The solution does not lie in sending more military ships to fight the Somalis. That is not the solution.
    We are addressing the phenomena of piracy and terrorism in the wrong way. Today there is swine flu. Perhaps tomorrow there will be fish flu, because sometimes we produce viruses by controlling them. It is a commercial business. Capitalist companies produce viruses so that they can generate and sell vaccinations. That is very shameful and poor ethics. Vaccinations and medicine should not be sold. In The Green Book, I maintain that medicines should not be sold or subject to commercialization. Medicines should be free of charge and vaccinations given free to children, but capitalist companies produce the viruses and vaccinations and want to make a profit. Why are they not free of charge? We should give them free of charge, and not sell them. The entire world should strive to protect our people, create and manufacture vaccinations and give them free to children and women, and not profit by them. All those items are on the agenda of the General Assembly, which has only to exercise that duty.
    The Ottawa Convention on Landmines forbids the production of landmines. That is wrong. Landmines are defensive weapons. If I place them along the border of my country and someone wants to invade me, they may be killed. That is all right, because they are invading me. The Convention should be reconsidered. I am not taking that defensive weapon to another country. The enemy is coming to me. On the Al-Qadhafi website, I call for that treaty to be modified or annulled. This treaty should be modified or annulled. I want to use anti-personnel mines to defend my home against invasion. Eliminate weapons of mass destruction, not landmines, which are defensive weapons.
    With regard to the Palestinian situation, the two-State solution is impossible; it is not practical. Currently, these two States completely overlap. Partition is doomed to failure. These two States are not neighbors; they are coextensive, in terms of both population and geography. A buffer zone cannot be created between the two States because there are half a million Israeli settlers in the West Bank and a million Arab Palestinians in the territory known as Israel.
    The solution is therefore a democratic State without religious fanaticism or ethnicity. The generation of Sharon and Arafat is over. We need a new generation, in which everyone can live in peace. Look at Palestinian and Israeli youth; they both want peace and democracy, and they want to live under one State. This conflict poisons the world.
    The White Book actually has the solution; I hold it here. The solution is Isratine. Arabs have no hostility or animosity towards Israel. We are cousins and of the same race. We want to live in peace. The refugees should go back.
    You are the ones who brought the Holocaust upon the Jews. You, not we, are the ones who burned them. We gave them refuge. We gave them safe haven during the Roman era and the Arab reign in Andalusia and during the rule of Hitler. You are the ones who poisoned them; you are the ones who annihilated them. We provided them with protection. You expelled them. Let us see the truth. We are not hostile; we are not enemies of the Jews. And one day the Jews will need the Arabs. At that point, Arabs will be the ones to give them protection, to save them, as we have done in the past. Look at what everybody else did to the Jews. Hitler is an example. You are the ones who hate the Jews, not us.
    In brief, Kashmir should be an independent State, neither Indian nor Pakistani. We must end that conflict. Kashmir should be a buffer State between India and Pakistan.
    With regard to Darfur, I truly hope that the assistance provided by international organizations can be used for development projects, for agriculture, for industry and for irrigation. You are the ones who made it a crisis; you put it on the altar; you wanted to sacrifice Darfur so that you could interfere in its internal affairs.
    You have turned the Hariri problem into a United Nations problem. You are selling Hariri’s corpse. You just want to settle scores with Syria. Lebanon is an independent State; it has laws, courts, a judiciary and police. At this stage, it is no longer the perpetrators that are being sought; the real wish is to settle scores with Syria, not ensure justice for Hariri. The cases of Khalil al-Wazir, Lumumba, Kennedy, and Hammarskjöld should also have been turned over to the United Nations, if the Hariri case merits such attention.
    The General Assembly is now under the presidency of Libya. This is our right. Libya hopes that you will assist in making the transition from a world fraught with crises and tension to a world in which humanity, peace and tolerance prevail. I will personally follow up on this issue with the General Assembly, President Treki and the Secretary-General. It is not our habit to compromise when it comes to the destiny of humanity and the struggles of the third world and the 100 small nations, which should live in peace always.

Libya country profile

2011-03-21T20:08:00.000-07:00

BBC..

Libya, once shunned by much of the international community over the 1988 bombing of a PanAm plane above the Scottish town of Lockerbie, underwent a dramatic rehabilitation after taking formal responsibility for the bombing in 2003.
The UN lifted sanctions, and Libya's subsequent renunciation of weapons of mass destruction further improved relations with the West.
However, the world once again turned against the Libyan government in early 2011 over its violent response to a popular uprising inspired by anti-authoritarian protests that swept Arab countries. Several leaders urged Colonel Muammar Gaddafi to step down, and the UN Security Council passed a resolution authorising a no-fly zone over Libya and air strikes to protect civilians.

Overview

A former Roman colony, Libya is a mostly desert country which saw invasions by Vandals, Byzantines, Arabs, Turks and more recently Italians before gaining independence in 1951.

AT-A-GLANCE

Politics: Colonel Gaddafi took power in a 1969 coup; he presides over a system of "people's congresses"

Economy: Libya has large reserves of oil and gas; proposed reform of state-run economy has met with political opposition

International: Libya returned to the diplomatic fold after renouncing weapons of mass destruction and paying compensation for the Lockerbie bombing

Timeline

Oil was discovered in 1959 and made the state wealthy. Ten years later, King Idris was overthrown in a coup led by the 27-year-old Muammar Gaddafi, and Libya embarked on a radically new chapter in its history.
Colonel Gaddafi's revolution has been based largely on distinguishing his country from the world around it. Ideas put forward in his Green Book aim at an alternative to both communism and capitalism, while Islam is adhered to but with a unique slant - Libya has its own calendar based on the Prophet Muhammad's death, for example.
Colonel Gaddafi called the new system a jamahiriya, loosely translated as a "state of the masses". Power is held by various people's committees, while in practice Gaddafi rules unopposed.
Libya was blamed for the Lockerbie plane bombing, and two Libyans suspected of organising the incident were handed over in 1999 for trial in The Hague under Scottish law. In 2001 one of the suspects was found guilty of killing 270 people in the bombing.
After Britain and Libya signed a prisoner-exchange agreement in 2009, Libya requested the transfer of the convicted Lockerbie bomber Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi, who was freed from gaol on compassionate grounds and returned home in August.
Tripoli paid compensation to the US victims of the bombing in 2008, opening up the possibility of full diplomatic relations with the United States.
Libya possesses considerable reserves of oil and gas, but the sector remains relatively undeveloped.

Facts

Full name: The Great Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya
Population: 6.5 million (UN, 2010)
Capital: Tripoli
Area: 1.77 million sq km (685,524 sq miles)
Major language: Arabic
Major religion: Islam
Life expectancy: 73 years (men), 78 years (women) (UN)
Monetary unit: 1 Libyan dinar (LD) = 1,000 dirhams
Main exports: Crude oil, petroleum products, natural gas
GNI per capita: US $12,020 (World Bank, 2009)
Internet domain: .ly
International dialling code: +218

Leaders

Leader: Colonel Muammar Gaddafi
Once regarded as a pariah by the West, Colonel Gaddafi began his return to the international fold after Libya settled the Lockerbie bombing claims and agreed to stop developing weapons of mass destruction.

Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi seized power in 1969

Western politicians, including the British, Italian, French and German leaders, have since visited Tripoli.
Muammar Gaddafi is the Arab world's longest-serving leader. A shrewd operator, he survived several attempts on his life and reinvented Libya's system of government.
The colonel came to power in a bloodless coup in 1969 against the ailing King Idris. He was inspired by the Egyptian nationalist leader Gamal Abdul Nasser, who dominated Arab politics in the 1950s and 1960s.
Though Col Gaddafi has always presented himself as an Arab nationalist, his attempts to forge unity with other Arab states have met with little success. In the 1990s he turned to Africa and proposed a "United States of Africa". The concept later formed the basis of the African Union.
Over the years Col Gaddafi has supported a broad range of armed groups, including the Irish Republican Army and the Palestine Liberation Organisation. Libya's alleged involvement in attacks in Europe in the 1980s triggered US military strikes in 1986. Dozens of people were killed, including the Libyan leader's adopted daughter.
One of Col Gaddafi's sons, Saif al-Islam Gaddafi, is seen as having played a large part in the rehabilitation of the Libyan regime in the eyes of the international community. However, his credibility as the "acceptable" face of the Libyan leadership was somewhat tarnished after unrest broke out in February 2011 and he became an apologist for his father.
Muammar Gaddafi was born in the desert near Sirte in 1942. He married twice and has eight children.
• In February 2011 Col Gaddafi faced a popular revolt which spread across much of the country. His opponents gained control over several towns, but he held onto Tripoli. A battle between Gaddafi loyalists and opponents sparked an exodus by foreign workers, and prompted an international debate over whether or not to intervene in the conflict.

Media

Media rights body Reporters Without Borders has said press freedom is "virtually non-existent" in Libya, with self-censorship being commonplace.
The state strictly controls the media. Non-governmental media were authorized in 2007, leading to the launch of newspapers and a satellite TV by a company affiliated to one of Colonel Gaddafi's sons. But in 2009, these outlets were nationalized.
The Libyan Jamahiriyah Broadcasting Corporation is the state broadcaster. Pan-Arab satellite TVs are widely watched.
The main newspapers are state controlled. Some international publications are available, but the authorities routinely censor them. Few press visas are issued to foreign journalists.
There were 323,000 internet users by September 2009. Web filtering is selective, focusing on political opposition websites.

The press

Al-Fajr al-Jadid - controlled by an arm of the information ministry
Al-Shams - controlled by an arm of the information ministry
Al-Jamahiriyah - controlled by an arm of the information ministry
Al-Zahf Al-Akhdar - controlled by the Revolutionary Committees Movement
The Tripoli Post - English-language pro-government weekly
Quryna - Benghazi daily

Television

Great Jamahiriyah TV - state-run, available terrestrially and via satellite
Al-Libiyah - via satellite

Radio

Great Jamahiriyah Radio - state-run
Voice of Africa - state-run external service
Al-Libiyah FM

News agency

Jana (Jamahiriyah News Agency) - state-run

Libya military operation: Who should command?

2011-03-21T19:58:00.000-07:00

By Jonathan Marcus BBC diplomatic correspondent

Click to play

President Obama defended the coalition operation in Libya

When Britain and France presented themselves as prime movers in the military operation over Libya, many wondered if they might be in command. It was, after all, French aircraft that fired the first shots.

Yet it was the US that was inevitably going to be the key military player in the opening phase, bringing crucial capabilities to bear for the destruction of Libya's fixed air defences.US Defence Secretary Robert Gates said on Sunday that Washington expected to turn over control of the operation to a coalition headed by France, Britain or Nato "in a matter of days".But this is not proving so simple.For the moment the coalition mission is being commanded from a US base in Germany by the Pentagon's Africa Command.This is located in Stuttgart and its air component is at the US air force base of Ramstein - also in Germany.Military command is a matter of practicalities but also of politics.

The command headquarters has to have all of the facilities and the communications to be able to mount and control an operation in the first place.
That is why, when any military action is envisaged, the job is best done by an existing, functioning headquarters.
Nato divisions For an complex multi-national mission like the Libyan operation the obvious candidates would be Nato - which, for example, commanded the operation to eject Serbian forces from Bosnia - or an established US headquarters like Centcom - which ran the invasion of Iraq to oust Saddam Hussein.

Coalition forces

US: B-2 stealth bombers; EA-18G Growler and AV-8B Harrier aircraft; destroyers USS Barry and USS Stout firing Tomahawk cruise missiles; amphibious assault ship USS Kearsage; command and control vessel USS Mount Whitney; submarines
France: Rafale and Mirage aircraft; refuelling and surveillance aircraft; aircraft carrier Charles de Gaulle and escort ships
UK: Typhoon and Tornado aircraft; refuelling and surveillance aircraft; Trafalgar-class submarine firing Tomahawk cruise missiles; frigates HMS Westminster and HMS Cumberland
Italy: Tornado aircraft; providing military bases
Canada: F-18 aircraft; frigate HMCS Charlottetown
Spain: F-18 aircraft; refuelling and surveillance aircraft; frigate and submarine; military bases
Denmark: F-16 aircraft
Belgium: F-16 aircraft

North Africa falls into Africom's area of responsibility, so it was the obvious choice.

Africom as its known, is one of six regionally-orientated US commands. It was established in 2007, a sign of Washington's growing security interest in the African continent.
The original intention was to locate it in an African country, though in the end that proved impossible to arrange. It grew out of the Pentagon's European Command so Europe is where it stayed.
In time the US clearly hopes to move towards a more supporting role, with the focus on its intelligence gathering assets and so on.

But what can take Africom's place?

Speaking in the House of Commons the British Prime Minister David Cameron has clearly registered his preference. He noted that he wanted to see the "transfer to a Nato command, using Nato machinery. It's tried and tested", he said, adding: "It works, it brings people together and it has operated no-fly zones before."
But Nato has its problems too. One of the reasons that it could not command from the outset is that its member nations had not yet reached agreement to do so. Turkey, for one is very uneasy, not least because of scope of the operation.
But other countries have reservations too.
Norway has said that the six fighter jets it contributed will not take any action as long as it remains unclear which country is going to command the multi-national force.
And Italy has warned that it will review the use of its bases by coalition forces unless Nato takes command.
Arab League hesitations Nato military planning has moved ahead on a contingency basis. But as yet there has been no political green light. "Informal consultations are continuing," is all Nato is saying at the moment.
There is another political problem with Nato. It was Arab League support for a no-fly zone that was crucial to the passage of UN Security Council resolution 1973.

Click to play

RAF Typhoon jets took off for their first mission in Libya on Monday evening

Since then, with signs of some hesitancy from the Arab League's leader Amr Moussa, (he now says he fully backs the no-fly zone) there has been an urgent effort to get contingents from Arab air forces into the operation.
Qatar has agreed to take part, with the United Arab Emirates expected to join too. Qatar could operate a small number of its French-built Mirage jets alongside French aircraft. But Arab governments are thought to be uneasy about Nato command, given that Nato is heavily engaged in Afghanistan - a controversial operation for many Arab countries.
"The Arab League does not wish the operation to be entirely placed under Nato responsibility," says Alain Juppe, the French foreign minister. But even he accepts that a Nato role may eventually be necessary.
The most likely outcome is a kind of half-way house.
Michael Clark, director of the Royal United Services Institute in London puts it this way: "Giving the command to another Nato nation, but still using the Nato command structure, would make good political and military sense," he says, not least because this operation is taking place just across the Mediterranean where there are few logistical challenges.

Libya air strikes: China 'regrets' West's use of force

2011-03-21T19:49:00.000-07:00

By Michael Bristow BBC News, Beijing

Western air strikes against Libya began on Saturday

The Chinese government regrets foreign military action in Libya, a foreign ministry spokeswoman has said.

The media has been even more critical of the air attacks carried out by Western military forces.
The People's Daily, the mouthpiece of the ruling Communist Party, has linked the issue to Iraq, using colourful language.
The blood-soaked tempest that Iraq had undergone over the last eight years was a warning, it said.
The paper went on to suggest that military action undermined the charter of the United Nations.
China often says countries should not interfere in each other's internal affairs, but this policy is not always easy to follow. As the country grows stronger, it gets increasingly drawn into what goes on in the rest of the world.
Its attitude towards Libya illustrates this contradiction. It might criticise the West now, but it did not veto the UN resolution that led to the action in the first place.

U.S. involvement in the military

2011-03-21T19:36:00.000-07:00

(CNN) -- A critique of the U.S. involvement in the military intervention in Libya that will no doubt be common in coming days is that the Obama administration is making a large error by embarking on a war with a third Muslim country, as if reversing Moammar Gadhafi's momentum against the rebels will be a rerun of the debacle of the war against Saddam Hussein.

A further element of this view is that -- whatever the outcome of the Libyan intervention -- the United States' standing in the Islamic world will once again be severely damaged by an attack on a Muslim nation.

There are, of course, some real similarities between Hussein and Gadhafi -- both ruthless and erratic dictators of oil-rich regimes who fought bloody wars with their neighbors, brutalized their own populations, sought weapons of mass destruction, and sired some equally unattractive sons and heirs.
The déjà vu quality of the Libyan situation may help account for recent polls taken before the intervention which found that while Americans were either split or slightly in favor of imposing a no-fly zone over Libya, most were opposed to stronger U.S. military action.

The military intervention that President Obama authorized against Libya on Saturday...is a quite different operation than the 2003 invasion of Iraq.
--Peter Bergen

Action taken to stop Gadhafi

Gadhafi calls on Islamic nations

Tripoli resident describes experience

The dangers of reporting in Libya

But the military intervention that President Obama authorized against Libya on Saturday -- eight years to the day after President George W. Bush announced the commencement of "Operation Iraqi Freedom" -- is a quite different operation than the 2003 invasion of Iraq.
Beyond the obvious difference that Obama has not authorized the use of U.S. ground forces in Libya, there are several other differences to consider:

First, the Obama administration was handed a gift by the Arab League, which in its more than six-decade history has garnered a well-earned reputation as a feckless talking shop, but unusually took a stand one week ago by endorsing a no-fly zone over Libya.

That endorsement put the Arab League way out in front of the Obama administration, which was then dithering about whether to do anything of substance to help the rebels fighting Gadhafi.
The unexpected action by the Arab League gave the administration the impetus and diplomatic cover to then go to the United Nations Security Council to secure a broad resolution endorsing not only a no-fly zone, but also allowing member states to "take all necessary measures" to protect civilians in Libya.

This U.N. resolution is reminiscent of the one that President George H.W. Bush secured in November 1990, which gave Iraq six weeks to withdraw from Kuwait following Hussein's invasion of that country. The U.N. resolution in 1990 similarly empowered states to use "all necessary means" to force Iraq out of Kuwait if Hussein ignored the deadline.

The similarities do not end there. The coalition that massed to drive Hussein out of Kuwait involved significant forces from major Muslim countries such as Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. So too the Libyan no-fly zone will be enforced by Qatar, along with western powers such as France and the U.K.

This is all quite in contrast to George W. Bush's ineffectual attempts to gather international support for the invasion of Iraq in 2003. There was no U.N. resolution explicitly authorizing the use of military force against Hussein, and no Muslim countries participated in the American invasion and occupation of Iraq.
Indeed, before the March 2003 invasion of Iraq, the Turkish parliament voted against allowing American troops passage across Turkey to invade northern Iraq, which put a wrench in U.S. military planning.

Underlining the fact that the Iraq War was widely viewed as illegitimate by Muslim countries, the same year that Turkey voted against allowing American soldiers to use its soil to attack Iraq, Turkish soldiers were also leading the International Security Assistance Force helping to keep the peace in post-Taliban Afghanistan, a military operation that was also authorized by the United Nations and was not seen as illegitimate by much of the Muslim world.

The Bush administration's largely unilateral decision to go to war in Iraq (the U.K. and a few other nations provided troops) undermined America's standing in Islamic countries. A poll taken a few months after the 2003 invasion found that Indonesians, Jordanians, Turks, and Moroccans all expressed more "confidence" that Osama bin Laden would "do the right thing" than that Bush would.

According to a poll four years later, America's favorability rating stood at 9% in Turkey (down from 52% before September 11, 2001) and 29% in Indonesia (down from 75% before September 11).

Finally, another key difference between the Iraq war and the Libyan operation is that the casus belli for Iraq was based on highly classified intelligence accessible to few people -- later proved to be wrong -- that Saddam Hussein continued to maintain a weapons of mass destruction program. By contrast, the Libyan intervention was caused by the real time evidence provided by the world's leading media organizations -- including, of course, Al Jazeera -- that Gadhafi is massacring his own people.

The high level of anti-Americanism in the Muslim world that was generated by the Iraq War is unlikely to be replicated by U.S. military action against Libya, because Gadhafi is widely reviled in the Arab world. His antics on the world stage have earned him the enmity of even his fellow autocrats -- who will not be welcoming him if he chooses to "retire" to Saudi Arabia as other murderous dictators of his ilk have in the past (think Idi Amin).

And the fact that both the Arab League and the United Nations have endorsed a military action against Gadhafi strongly suggests that the Libyan intervention will not generate a renewed wave of anti-Americanism in the Muslim world.
Instead, it underlines a striking feature of the protests that have roiled the Middle East in the past several weeks: Strikingly absent from those protests has been the ritualized burning of American flags, something that hitherto was largely pro forma in that part of the world. That's because Arabs have finally been able to express publicly that their biggest enemy is not the United States, but their own rulers.

The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Peter Bergen.

Overthrowing Qadhafi

2011-03-21T02:41:00.000-07:00

Overthrowing Qadhafi

From © Globalsecurity

Since he took power in a 1969 military coup, Col. Muammar Abu Minyar al-QADHAFI has espoused his

own political system - a combination of socialism and Islam - which he calls the Third International Theory.

Viewing himself as a revolutionary leader, he used oil funds during the 1970s and 1980s to promote

his ideology outside Libya, even supporting subversives and terrorists abroad to hasten the end of Marxism

and capitalism. Libyan military adventures failed, e.g., the prolonged foray of Libyan troops into the Aozou

Strip in northern Chad was finally repulsed in 1987. Libyan support for terrorism decreased after UN sanctions

were imposed in 1992. Those sanctions were suspended in April 1999. Since 1969, Qadhafi has d

etermined Libya's foreign policy. His principal foreign policy goals have been Arab unity, elimination of

Israel, advancement of Islam, support for Palestinians, elimination of outside--particularly Western--

influence in the Middle East and Africa, and support for a range of "revolutionary" causes. After the

1969 coup, Qadhaficlosed American and British bases on Libyan territory and partially nationalized

all foreign oil and commercial interests in Libya. He also played a key role in promoting the use of oil

embargoes as a political weapon for challenging the West, hoping that an oil price rise and embargo in

1973 would persuade the West--especially the United States--to end support for Israel. Qadhafi

rejected both Soviet communism and Western capitalism and claimed he was charting a middle course

. In August 1981, two Libyan jets fired on U.S. aircraft participating in a routine naval exercise over international

waters of the Mediterranean claimed by Libya. The US planes returned fire and shot down the attacking

Libyan aircraft. On 7 December 1981 President Ronald Reagan claimed that US has evidence that

Libyan leader has sent assassination

teams to murder top US officials. Immediately after that the Reagan administration called on 1,500

Americans residing in Libya to leave "as soon as possible," citing "the danger, which the Libyan regime

poses to American citizens." In December 1981, the State Department invalidated U.S. passports

for travel to Libya. In March 1982, the U.S. Government prohibited imports of Libyan crude oil into

the United States and expanded the controls on U.S.-origin goods intended for export to Libya. Licenses

were required for all transactions, except food and medicine. In March 1984, U.S. export controls were

expanded to prohibit future exports to the Ras al-Enf petrochemical complex. In April 1985, all

Export-Import Bank financing was prohibited. Libya's relationship with the former Soviet Union

involved massive Libyan arms purchases from the Soviet bloc and the presence of thousands of east

bloc advisers. Libya's use--and heavy loss-- of Soviet-supplied weaponry in its war with Chad was

a notable breach of an apparent Soviet-Libyan understanding not to use the weapons for activities

inconsistent with Soviet objectives. As a result, Soviet-Libyan relations reached a nadir in mid-1987.

After the fall of the Warsaw Pact and the Soviet Union, Libya concentrated on expanding diplomatic

ties with Third World countries and increasing its commercial links with Europe and East Asia.

Following the imposition of UN sanctions in 1992, these ties significantly diminished. Following a

1998 Arab League meeting in which fellow Arab states decided not to challenge UN sanctions,

Qadhafi announced that he was turning his back on pan-Arab ideas, one of the fundamental tenets

of his philosophy. Instead, Libya pursued closer bilateral ties, particularly with North African neighbors

Egypt, Tunisia, and Morocco. It also has sought to develop its relations with Sub-Saharan Africa,

leading toLibyan involvement in several internal African disputes in the Democratic Republic of Congo,

Sudan, Somalia, Central African Republic, Eritrea, and Ethiopia. Libya also has sought to expand its

influence in Africa through financial assistance, ranging from aid donations to impoverished neighbors

such as Niger to oil subsidies to Zimbabwe. Qadhafi has proposed a borderless "United States

of Africa" to transform the continent into a single nation-state ruled by a single government. This plan has

been moderately well received, although more powerful would-be participants such as Nigeria and

South Africa are skeptical. In 1988, Libya was found to be in the process of constructing a chemical

weapons plant at Rabta, a plant which is now the largest such facility in the Third World. Libya is

currently constructing another chemical weapons production facility at Tarhunah. Libya's support for

terrorism and its past regional aggressions made this development a matter of major concern to the

United States. In cooperation with like-minded countries, the United States

has since sought to bring a halt to the foreign technical assistance deemed essential to the completion

of this facility. On December 21, 1988, a bomb exploded aboard Pan American flight 103, 31,000

feet above the quiet Scottish village of Lockerbie. Two-hundred seventy men, women, and children,

from 30 nations, were murdered. Authorities in the United States and Britain obtained evidence

linking Abd al-Basit al-Maqrahi a senior Libyan intelligence officer and Lamin Fhimah, former manager

of the Libyan Arab airlines office in Malta, to the suitcase bomb that destroyed Pan Am flight 103.

Libyan agents were also sought by the French government in connection with the bombing of UTA flight 772 in

1989

-- a savage act of terrorism that cost the lives of 171 one people. In 1991, two Libyan intelligence agents were

indicted by federal prosecutors in the U.S. and Scotland for their involvement in the December 1988 bombing

of Pan Am flight 103. In January 1992, the UN Security Council approved Resolution 731 demanding that

Libya surrender the suspects, cooperate with the Pan Am 103 and UTA 772 investigations, pay compensation

to the victims' families, and cease all support for terrorism. Libya's refusal to comply led to the approval of

UNSC Resolution 748 on March 31, 1992, imposing sanctions designed to bring about Libyan compliance.

Continued Libyan defiance led to passage of UNSC Resolution 883--a limited assets freeze and an embargo

on selected oil equipment--in November 1993. Promulgated in 1996, the Iran and Libya Sanctions Act (ILSA)

sought to penalize non-U.S. companies which invest more than $40 million in Libya's oil and gas sector in any

one year. ILSA was renewed in 2001, and the investment cap lowered to $20 million.

There have been no credible reports of Libyan involvement in terrorism since 1994, and Libya has taken significantsteps to mend its international image. In 1999, the Libyan Government surrendered two Libyans suspected ofinvolvement in the Pan Am 103 bombing, leading to the suspension of UN sanctions. On January 31, 2001, a Scottish.

court seated in Netherlands found one of the suspects, Abdel Basset al-Megrahi, guilty of murder in connection with the

bombing, and acquitted the second suspect, Al-Amin Kalifa Fhima. Megrahi has appealed his conviction; the appeal began

on January 23, 2002. Full lifting of UN sanctions is contingent on Libyan compliance with its remaining UNSCR

requirements on Pan Am 103, including acceptance of responsibility for the actions of its officials and payment of

appropriate compensation. Libya did pay compensation in 1999 for the death of British policewoman Yvonne Fletcher,

a move that preceded the reopening of the British Embassy in Tripoli, and paid damages to the families of the victims

in the bombing of UTA Flight 772. On November 13, 2001, a German court found four persons, including a former

employee of the Libyan Embassy in East Berlin, guilty in connection with the 1986 La Belle disco bombing, in which

two U.S. servicemen were killed. The court also established a connection to the Libyan Government. The German

Government has demanded that Libya accept responsibility for the La Belle bombing and pay appropriate compensation.

Libya accepted responsibility for the bombing and has agreed to set up a $2.7 billion fund to compensate the families of

the bombing's 270 victims, say reports. In June 2002 a group of New York lawyers announced that they had struck a deal

with Libya and Libyan strongman Moammar Gaddafi. Under terms of the deal, the United States and United Nations would

lift their sanctions against the terrorist state in return for $2.7 billion payable to the families of the 270 innocent victims

murdered on Pan Am Flight 103 and the on ground. As recently as January 12, 2003, Libyan leader, Moammar Gaddafi,

in an

interview with Newsweek-Washington Post reporter, Lally Weymouth, failed to accept responsibility for the attack and

had the audacity of calling for the United States to share the burden of compensation. On 18 August 2003 The White

House announced that US sanctions against Libya for the 1988 bombing of a Pan Am jetliner over Lockerbie, Scotland,

will remain in place because "there are still a number of serious concerns we have with regard to Libya. ...

Libya has met the requirements of accepting responsibility for the Pan Am 103 bombing, and that was important that

they accept that responsibility," said White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan. "They have sent a letter to the United

Nations to that effect." McClellan said that he expects the United Nations to move forward soon on a resolution to

end U.N. sanctions against Libya. The United States had already sent a letter saying that it is not opposed to lifting the

U.N. sanctions. "United States sanctions will remain in place because we still have a number of serious concerns when

it comes to Libya, most notably, their continued pursuit of weapons of mass destruction and their continued participation

in regional conflicts in Africa that have been very destructive and unhelpful," said McClellan. "Libya continues to have a

poor human rights record. So there are a number of concerns we still have." In August 2003 London and Washington

began to push the Security Council to lift all UN sanctions against Tripoli. As a permanent member with veto power,

France agreed in principle to lift the sanctions, but urged a delay so that it could negotiate increased Libyan indemnity

payments to its own citizens in connection with the 1989 bombing of a French UTA airliner over Niger. France

dropped its opposition to the resolution after Tripoli agreed to increase payments to families of the 170 passengers

who died when the French airliner exploded over the Niger desert. Libya remains on the Department of State’s list of state-

sponsors of terrorism. Continued US concerns include involvement with West African strongmen in Burkina Faso andLiberia to seize diamond fields in Sierra Leone, along with efforts to acquire nuclear weapons and desists in its pursuit toproduce and deliver nuclear weapons. US Ambassador James Cunningham told UN delegates that Washington continued to have "serious concerns about other aspects of Libyan behaviour, including its poor human rights record, rejection of democratic norms and standards, its irresponsible behaviour in Africa, its history of involvement in terrorism -- and most important - its pursuit of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and their means of delivery." Many experts consider Gaddafi's political position to be highly stable. Visitors to Libya cannot fail to notice the ubiquitous large portraits of the leader on buildings, in squares etc., both in cities and the rural areas. The reproduction of the human face on posters, graffiti and bill boards is limited to two figures: Colonel Muammar Qaddafi and to a less extent national hero Omar al-Muktar that distinguished himself in his resistance fight against the Italian occupation forces. On 19 December 2003 Libya agreed to destroy all of its chemical, nuclear, and biological weapons. The surprise announcement followed nine months of secret talks between Libyan, American, and British officials. Libya agreed to abide by the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, and to allow for immediate inspections and monitoring. Experts and analysts say a number of factors were behind Libya's decision. Hans Blix, the UN's former chief weapons inspector, speculated that Libyan leader Colonel Moammar Gadhafi might have feared the same fate as deposed Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein. "I can only speculate, but I would imagine that Gadhafi could have been scared by what he saw happen in Iraq. While the Americans would have difficulty in doing the same in Iran and in North Korea as they have done in Iraq, Libya would be more exposed, so maybe he will have reasons to be worried," Blix said

National Board for Scientific Research

2011-03-21T01:24:00.001-07:00

National Board for Scientific Research

The National Authority for Scientific Research is responsible for higher education and research. The National Board for Scientific Research is responsible for recruiting scientific and research expertise and coordinating between various research institutes in Great Jamihiriya. The main objective behind this is to maintain a reasonable level of scientific progress in accordance with a national scientific research policy which enables the carrying out of strategic studies as well as participation in building the infrastructure and upgrading production levels. NBSR has been legally authorized to issue a principle document for scientific and technical policies for Great Jamihiriya and in doing so NBSR has been able to work on new plans and directions that keep it in pace with current technological and technical developments in addition to this NBSR has determined a number of scientific and technical indicators which should be taken into consideration in order to promote scientific research programmes. This has enabled NBSR to propose numerous mechanisms and means by which to fulfill its objectives such as alternative ways for financing scientific research. Moreover, NBSR has determined a number of priorities which reflect the strategies adopted at the national level in the field of scientific research and technical development. Matouk Mohammed Matouk [Matoug or Matug] is the deputy prime minister and the head of the Libyan People's Committee for Scientific Research [Secretary of the National Board of Scientific Research [also known as the National Committee for Scientific Research and the National Academy of Scientific Research or the National Authority for Scientific Research]. In December 2003 Matouk was the interlocutor with the IAEA.

AU Leaders Agree to Disagree on Gaddafi's Union Government Proposal

By Peter Heinlein Addis Ababa 04 February 2009 An African Union summit has ended in confusion over the future of Libyan leader Moammar Gaddafi's dream of establishing a continental government. Mr. Gaddafi appears determined to push toward creation of a United States of Africa during his year as AU chairman, despite opposition from the continent's most influential powers. Meetings of African leaders usually run two days, but this summit in Addis Ababa dragged into a fourth day with members deadlocked over AU chairman Gaddafi's proposal for a central administration with sweeping powers. Most heads of state had departed by the time a compromise was struck that allowed Mr. Gaddafi to declare victory. "It is a government of the union. It is an authority, a government. There will be secretaries ... coordinators for various policies, like defense and foreign affairs and defense policies and foreign policies that are divergent and we will coordinate everything and our defense policies for Africa," the Libyan president said. Mr. Gaddafi admitted there are deep divisions among member states about his idea, but in a speech to the closing summit session, Mr. Gaddafi outlined a long-term vision of a fully united Africa, under one flag."We need the peoples of Africa, traditional forces of women and youth who can use their energies to push us to reach the final phase, which is the United States of Africa, which will be like the United States of America today," he said.Special meeting planned Mr. Gaddafi says a special meeting of African foreign ministers will be held in three months to discuss getting the union project off the ground. But his high-profile optimism covered over the low-key determination of a majority of African leaders to kill, or at least indefinitely postpone the creation of a continental government. Only a handful of heads of state were in the room to hear the Libyan leader's closing remarks. But most of Africa's big powers, such as Egypt, Ethiopia, Uganda, Kenya, Tanzania and South Africa are sticking to the position that it will not be a government with sovereign powers for the foreseeable future. They left it to African Union Commission Chairman Jean Ping to explain to reporters that moving to a union government would be a long-drawn out process. "The initial purpose was to transform into a government of union, then the member states during their discussions think government has a definition which is precise, and we have not yet reached that stage, and we better move from a commission to an authority," Ping said. Long process lies ahead Ping says even the small step of changing the name of the permanent secretariat from a commission to an authority, as agreed at this summit, could take years, because it requires a charter amendment that must be ratified by two-thirds of the member states.This summit has left no doubt that Mr. Gaddafi is determined to set the wheels of a union government in motion during his one-year term as AU Chairman. But African diplomats and observers say the name change agreed to at this summit gives opponents of the plan the time they to delay it indefinitely

Libyan Nuclear Weapons

2011-03-21T00:18:00.000-07:00

Libyan Nuclear Weapons

Tripoli joined the IAEA in 1963. At one time, some observers classified Libya among the most dangerous countries from the standpoint of the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear weapons. But in recent years, concerns about Libyan nuclear ambitions have faded, though apprehensions about Libyan chemical weapons efforts remain very much alive. Libya is in no position to obtain access to nuclear weapons in the foreseeable future, given the extremely limited domestic technical base of the country. Over the years, Libya’s nuclear program’s progress has suffered from mismanagement, lack of spare parts, and the reluctance of foreign suppliers to provide assistance, particularly since the UN embargo went into effect in 1992. However, Qadhafi had not abandoned his goal of acquiring a nuclear weapon. He continued to try to develop a Libyan nuclear weapons infrastructure. Despite a 25-year effort to acquire or develop a nuclear weapon, Libya’s nuclear program remained in the embryonic stage. Prior to 2003, the U.S. Intelligence Community estimated that Libya would have a deployable weapon by 2007. Subsequent inspections have since refuted that belief. It had succeeded in providing some training to a number of students and technicians and the establishment of a nuclear research center, which includes a small nuclear research reactor under IAEA safeguards. This facility, located at Tajura, southeast of Tripoli, was provided by the former Soviet Union. Since it was unlikely that Tripoli could produce a weapon without significant and sustained foreign technical assistance, Qadhafi reportedly was trying to recruit nuclear scientists to assist in developing nuclear weapons. Qadhafi's stance on nuclear weapons has been contradictory. Unconfirmed but persistent press reports beginning soon after the 1969 revolution indicated that Libya wanted to purchase a nuclear weapon or the components for such a device. According to one report, Qadhafi sent his deputy, Jallud, to Beijing in an unsuccessful attempt to purchase tactical nuclear weapons. Qadhafi has voiced his concern over the Israeli nuclear capability and publicly expressed his desire to obtain nuclear weapons. Nevertheless, in 1975 Libya reaffirmed its commitment to the 1968 Treaty of Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, signed originally by the monarchy in 1968. Qadhafi also stated in interviews in 1981 and 1984 that Libya was only interested in the peaceful applications of nuclear energy, and he scoffed at the idea of "an Islamic bomb." In 1975, Libya had ratified the Nuclear NonProliferation Treaty signed by the Idris regime in 1969. In 1980, an agreement was reached with the International Atomic Energy Agency placing all of Libya's nuclear installations under international inspection. Despite these steps, in the mid- and late 1970s, Qadhafi repeatedly proclaimed his country's determination to acquire nuclear weapons, primarily because he was convinced that his archenemy, Israel, had achieved such a military capability. There is no doubt, however, that Libya has undertaken extensive bilateral negotiations to secure nuclear research facilities and power plants, and many Libyan students in nuclear energy fields have been sent to United States, West European, and East European universities to further their studies. According to the terms of a 1974 nuclear cooperation treaty with Argentina, Libya was provided with equipment and technical training. Argentina agreed to send senior geologists to Libya to advise on uranium prospecting and uranium enrichment. One alleged reason Libya occupied the Aouzou Strip in Chad in 1975 was that the area was thought to be rich in uranium deposits. Once inspections began after Quadafi's December 2003 decision to disarm, it was confirmed that Libya did obtain "yellow cake" from Niger in 1978, as U.S. Intelligence had long believed. Libya and India agreed in July 1978 to cooperate in the peaceful application of nuclear energy, in line with India's "atoms for peace" policy. France agreed in 1976 to build a nuclear research plant in Libya designed to power a water desalination plant. Qadhafi sought help in obtaining nuclear technology from a number of countries, including the People's Republic of China. Among these efforts, the cooperation with Pakistan launched in 1977 seemed for a time to be producing material results. Libya appeared to be providing financial assistance and, later, deliveries of uranium "yellow cake" originating in Niger in the hope of eventually being compensated by weapons from Pakistan. However, in an interview with an Indian newspaper in March 1986, Qadhafi declared that Libya would never help Pakistan acquire an atomic bomb. He said: "We consider nuclear weapons production a great mistake against humanity." Libya's main partner in the nuclear field, however, was the Soviet Union. A small (ten megawatt) Soviet-supplied reactor began operation in Tajura (outside Tripoli) in 1981. Three years later, a research center was opened at the same site staffed by 750 Libyan specialists and technicians aided by Soviet staff. Many students were sent abroad; a group of 200 was studying in the United States until early 1983 when the United States proscribed training Libyans in nuclear science. As noted in press reports, however, in the mid-1990s discussions between Libya and Russia indicated possible renewed Russian support for Libya’s nuclear effort at Tajura, including efurbishment and long-term maintenance. Libya planned to buy a power station from the Soviet Union, but, dissatisfied with the technology involved, negotiated with the Belgian firm of Belgonucleaire to take over the engineering contract and supply much of the needed equipment. After the United States objected, fearing use of the equipment in weapons development, Belgium decided in 1984 to refuse the US$1 billion contract. Shortly thereafter, Moscow's commitment to construct an 880-megawatt power station to be located in the Sirt [Surt] region was reaffirmed. It was to cost over US$4 billion, with repayment to stretch over 15 to 18 years. In early 1986, however, a plan for the construction of nine 440-megawatt nuclear power plants was suspended indefinitely. Libya ordered a pilot scale uranium conversion facility in 1984. A Japanese company supplied Libya with the technology. The sale was apparently arranged directly with the Japanese instead of through middlemen. As of 2002 the assessment of the US Government was that, since the suspension of UN sanctions against Libya in 1999, Libya had been able to increase its access to dual-use nuclear technologies. Although Libya would need significant foreign assistance to acquire a nuclear weapon, Tripoli's nuclear infrastructure enhancement remains of concern. Qaddafi hinted at this in a 25 March 2002 interview with Al-Jazirah when he said, "We demanded the dismantling of the weapons of mass destruction that the Israelis have; we must continue to demand that. Otherwise, the Arabs will have the right to possess that weapon." A US- led naval operation in October 2003 interdicted a shipment of uranium-enrichment components bound for Libya.

Libyan Biological Warfare

2011-03-21T00:05:00.000-07:00

Libyan Biological Warfare

Libya acceded to the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention [BWC] in 1982. But Libya has never filed confidence- building data declarations with the United Nations. While Libya is believed to have had a biological warfare program for many years, it remains in the early research and development stages, primarily because Libya lacks an adequate scientific and technical base. The program also suffers from the difficulty Libya has acquiring needed foreign equipment and technical expertise, partly due to current UN sanctions. However, Libya is trying to develop an indigenous capability and may be able to produce laboratory quantities of agent. Given the overall limitations of the program, it is unlikely that Libya will be able to transition from laboratory work to production of militarily useful quantities of biological warfare agent until well after the turn of the century. The US believes that Libya has continued its biological warfare program. Although its program is in the research-and-development stage, Libya may be capable of producing small quantities of biological agent. Libya's BW program has been hindered, in part, by the country's poor scientific and technological base, equipment shortages, and a lack of skilled personnel, as well as by UN sanctions in place from 1992 to 1999. Libya's biological weapons program may be centered in the General Health Laboratories, a medical facility in the Tripoli area. It reportedly was built with Iraqi assistance, and for a time employed former South African scientists. Unconfirmed reports suggested that in 1997 about a dozen Iraqi BW experts arrived in Libya to help develop a BW complex under the guise of a medical facility called General Health Laboratories. The secret program, code named "Ibn Hayan," was said to aim to produce bombs and warheads filled with anthrax and botulinum toxin [in the 9th Century AD Jabir ibn Hayan established chemistry as an experimental science]. A number of organisations, including universities and laboratories attached to the ministries of agriculture and health, were engaged in making ostensibly innocent purchases of dual-use diagnostic and laboratory materials. On 19 December 2003 Libya agreed to destroy all of its chemical, nuclear, and biological weapons. The surprise announcement followed nine months of secret talks between Libyan, American, and British officials. Libya agreed to abide by the BIological Weapons Convention, and to allow for immediate inspections and monitoring. A team of American and British intelligence officers spent about two weeks Libya in October and again in December 2003.

During the visits, the team of US and UK inspectors went to 10 sites related to Libya's nuclear effort, chemical stockpile and missile program [other accounts suggested that the team was taken to dozens of sites], but apparently no biological weapons facilities were visited. US and UK specialists invited to Libya found no concrete evidence of an existing biological weapons effort. The team was given access to medical or pharmacological scientists and facilities, and Libyans were questioned about equipment and research that could be applied to biological warfare, but the Libyans denied that a BW program had ever existed

Libyan Chemical Weapons

2011-03-21T00:01:00.000-07:00

Libyan Chemical Weapons

Italian leader Benito Mussolini reportedly authorized the use of gas bombs against Libyan rebels in 1929. T One report claims that 24 mustard gas bombs were dropped on a Libyan oasis in 1930. he Libyans were probably the victims of mustard gas attacks. Libya has had limited success with its chemical warfare program. Libya has experienced major setbacks to its chemical warfare program, first as a result of intense public scrutiny focused on its Rabta facility in the late 1980s and more recently on its Tarhuna underground facility. Nevertheless, Libya retains a small inventory of chemical weapons, as well as the a CW agent production capability. American efforts set back Libya's CW programs about ten years by focussing international attention on the Rabta and Tarhunah facilities and by preventing Libya from obtaining needed chemicals, equipment and experts. Libya, after spending a great deal of money, has only a small amount of agent and two facilities it dares not use for their intended purpose. If Qadahafi had been left undisturbed, he could have had thousands of tons of a variety of chemical agents and the ability to produce much more at will. During the 1980s, Libya succeeded in producing up to 100 tons of blister and nerve agent at its Rabta facility, built with foreign assistance.

Libyan leader Muammar Qadhafi has shown that he is willing and capable of using chemical weapons and missiles against his enemies. In 1986 and 1987 the Government of Chad accused Libya of using toxic gas and napalm against central government forces and against rebel forces. Libya may have used mustard gas [possibly Iranian-supplied] delivered in bombs by AN-26 aircraft in final phases of the war against Chad in September 1987. The wind blew the agent back onto the Libyan forces. In the early 1990s, Qadhafi turned to private contractors from Thailand and other countries to construct facilities for storing a variety of chemical weapons, including nerve gases. The government of Thailand moved in 1993 to prevent its citizens from assisting Libya's chemical weapons build-up. The United States welcomed this action by the Thai government. Qadhafi had not given up the goal of establishing his own offensive chemicals weapons capability and Libya continues to pursue an independent production capability for the weapons. Qadhafi did not appear likely to sign or ratify the Chemical Weapons Convention. However, Libya remains heavily dependent on foreign suppliers for precursor chemicals and other key equipment. UN sanctions have severely limited that support. Finally, while Libya’s ability to deliver any of its existing stockpile of chemical agents is not great, the threat to Egypt, US forces in the region, or NATO cannot be dismissed out of hand. Libya saw the United States as its primary

external threat, owing especially to US support for United Nations sanctions against Tripoli for its refusal to turn over suspects in the terrorist bombing of Pan Am 103. Although Libya’s capabilities to use chemical agents and missiles are limited, Qadhafi could provide these weapons to states or terrorist groups he supports and that support him in return. Qadhafi’s major limiting factor was Libya’s lack of a sufficient technological infrastructure to support domestic development of NBC weapons and missiles. All Libyan programs must rely on significant infusions of foreign equipment, technology, and expertise. Only Libya’s chemical warfare program has made any demonstrable progress developing facilities capable of supporting large-scale indigenous programs. Despite ongoing embargoes and an unsettled domestic situation, Qadhafi supported development of NBC weapons and missile capabilities. His view apparently was that these weapons can advance his international position, can serve as deterrents against the West’s sophisticated weaponry, can be used to intimidate neighboring states, and can serve as cheaper alternatives to more expensive conventional systems. In addition to an inadequate infrastructure, Libya has serious economic problems that threaten the regime and complicate its long-term goal of establishing domestic production capabilities. Libya’s economic problems result from insufficient economic development outside the oil sector, economic and financial mismanagement, the absence of private enterprise, and corruption. Following the suspension of UN sanctions in April 1999, Libya reestablished contacts with illicit foreign sources of expertise, parts, and precursor chemicals in the Middle East, Asia, and Western Europe. Libya publicly indicated its intent to join the CWC. Under the CWC, Libya would be required to declare and destroy all chemical weapons production facilities and stockpiles, make declarations about any dual-use chemical industry, undertake not to research or produce any chemical weapons, and not to export certain chemicals to countries that have not signed the CWC. Libya would also be subject to challenge inspections of any facility, declared or not. On 19 December 2003 Libya agreed to destroy all of its chemical, nuclear, and biological weapons. The surprise announcement followed nine months of secret talks between Libyan, American, and British officials. Libya agreed to abide by the Chemical Weapons Convention, and to allow for immediate inspections and monitoring. A team of American and British intelligence officers spent about two weeks Libya in October and again in December 2003. US and UK specialists invited to Libya said they found few surprises in Libya's chemical weapons program. The US and UK learned that Libya had tens of tons of mustard agent produced about a decade earlier, as well as hundreds of 250-pound aircraft bombs capable of dispersing the mustard agent in combat. During the visits, the team of US and UK inspectors went to dozens of sites related to Libya's nuclear effort, chemical stockpile and missile program. Libya revealed the existence of precursor materials used to develop nerve agents. Libya had also conducted experiments on the nerve agents sarin and soman. A small desert ranch near Tripoli, described as a turkey farm, was actually a hiding place for hundreds of chemical bombs. The mustard gas and nerve agents were stored separately. Libyans took American inspectors right to them, but it was not a place the US would have looked. The Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons supervised the destruction of about 3,000 chemical bombs and warheads, which was completed in March 2004.

Estimated Range Of Missiles

2011-03-20T23:48:00.000-07:00

Missile

2011-03-20T23:44:00.000-07:00

Condor 2 / Al Fatah

Libyan efforts to develop its own missile have met with only limited success. Its Al Fatah missile program has remained in a preliminary stage. This developmental effort uses a rocket with a fairly small payload. Libya’s lack of progress with its missile program is directly related to its inability to gain adequate foreign assistance for its efforts, again partly due to UN sanctions. The Condor 2 program was initiated by in Argentina in 1982. A two stage, solid-fuelled missile intended to carry a 450 kg payload (possibly a nuclear warhead) at least 900 km, the project attracted co-funding from Egypt in 1984 and Iraq in 1985. In April 1990, under pressure from the United States, the Argentinean government announced that the project had been shelved. Iraq continued its development of the missile, known as the Badr 2000, until 1990. The involvement of Globesat, another West German company, in a separate Libyan missile project was investigated by the Munich public prosecutor in January 1989, but the case was dropped, apparently without an indictment. One report asserted that a West German company called Technical Oil Production (TOP) was set up in 1984 as a front for missile component acquisitions for a missile project code-named al-Fatah ("the conqueror") and that TOP had exported rocket valve controls for that project. The firm was found guilty and fined. A Serbian company known as JPL Systems in July 1996 was reported to have signed a $30 million contract with officials of Libya's Al Fatah missile-development program to provide technical support. Israeli intelligence sources claimed that the al-Fatah is a 1,000-km range system being developed under the management of a number of foreign experts, some of whom have been identified by Israel as having worked on a Libyan missile program in the 1970s. According to the article, in 1990, the liquid-fuel rocket motor of the al-Fatah was in the static test phase of development. In 1993, Libya was reported to have tried to obtain 80 tons of ammonium perchlorate from Russia, via Ukraine, to produce solid propellants. The Ukrainians, under US pressure, impounded the shipment. In 1995, reports appeared suggesting that Iraqi technicians were working in Libya to revive the program or to integrate it with Libya's Al Fattah program. Ater more than 15 years of development, the al-Fatah was still not operational. Chinese technicians have been linked to the Al-Fatah missile program as early as June 1998. It is reported that the state-run China Precision Machinery Import-Export Co. and the Libyan government reached an agreement in March 1999 to help develop Libya's long-range Al-Fatah missile. Chinese technical assistance has reportedly included a hypersonic wind tunnel to be used for modeling and simulation. In 1999 US imagery intelligence satellites photographed Libyan efforts to enlarge a missile test facility as part of the Al-Fatah development program. The indigenous 1,000-km range Al-Fatah missile, which as of early 2000 was claimed to be in the late stages of development, has not been flight tested. In February 2002 London-based A-Sharq Al Awsat reported that Iran and Libya werenegotiating a deal for the production of Iranian missiles in Libya. The deal was reported to call for Iran to establish a missile production line of Iran's Fatah solid-fuel missile in Libya. The project would enable Libya to produce missiles with a range of 1,500 kilometers, which can reach Israel and much of Europe.

MB/EE-150 / MB/EE-600

Libya may have attempted to purchase ballistic missiles from Brazil, but MTCR restrictions and US pressure probably closed off that source. In the mid-1980s, the Brazilian Orbitas consortium developed the solid-fuel the MB/EE 150 road- mobile SRBM, with a range of 150 kilometers. A 600 km-range version of the system may also have been under development. In 1988, reports suggested that an MB/EE-type system was tested over a range of 650 km in the Libya desert.

SS-23 Spider / SS-12 Scaleboard

In the 1980s, Libya reportedly sought to purchase obsolete 900 km-range SS-12 Scaleboard MRBMs that had been banned under the INF Treaty, as well as SS-23 Spider SRBMs (range 500 km), from the Soviet Union

M-9 / CSS-2

Reports often cite Libyan interest in acquiring the Chinese M-9 or CSS-2, but to date no transfers of these missiles to Libya have been verified. US intelligence reports in December 1999 indicated that China had agreed to supply Libya with a hypersonic wind tunnel.

No Dong

Libya’s strategy has been to acquire or develop long range missiles (greater than 1,000 kilometers), but it has made little progress in recent years. For example, Libya’s efforts to acquire the North Korean No Dong missile have been unsuccessful. Such a missile would allow Libya to threaten Egypt, Israel, NATO countries in southern Europe, and US forces in the Mediterranean region

Orbital Transport-und-Raketen Aktiengesellschaft (OTRAG)

2011-03-20T23:37:00.000-07:00

Orbital Transport-und-Raketen Aktiengesellschaft (OTRAG)

The West German firm Orbital Transport und Raketen Aktiengesellschaft (OTRAG) shifted its development of a commercial space launch rocket from Zaire to Libya in 1979 and apparently had one or two rather unsuccessful tests there in 1981. A test flight was reported from either the Sebha Oasis or the Jarmah Oasis on 01 March 1981, at which

time OTRAG announced that many tens of moduls were currently in production in its manufacturing facility near Munich/Germany. OTRAG claimed that it was working on a nonmilitary rocket to enable Third World countries to launch satellites cheaply. OTRAG became inactive in late 1984, and this effort soon collapsed. Although the Germans withdrew formally under pressure from the Bonn government in 1981, the latest test occurred in 1987. This may be explained by other reports that the head of OTRAG, Lutz Kayser, remained in Libya until the mid-1980s. A London report further claimed that, in October 1989, about 100 German engineers were working on a 500-750-km missile system, code-named "Ittisalt," in a desert camp about 100 km from Sebha, the site of the earlier OTRAG work and also the location of an alleged second Libyan chemical weapons complex. The missile work was reported to be in the research and development stage.

Scud-B / SS-21 Scarab / Frog-7

2011-03-20T23:33:00.001-07:00

Scud-B / SS-21 Scarab / Frog-7

Libya obtained Scud-B and Frog-7 missiles from the Soviet Union in the mid-1970s. Libya’s inventory of ballistic missiles consists of some 80 Scud B SRBM TELs and 40 FROG-7 artillery rockets TELs. It is believed that Libya possessed at least three times as many missiles as launchers. Libya continued to maintain a SCUD missile force, although that force is

aging and suffers from maintenance problems. Some reports indicated that Libya could not successfully operate the Scud B system, and that many of the launchers and missiles had been sold to Iran. The Russian-made SS-21 Scarab SRBM has a 70 km range and 480 kg payload, and the Frog-7 has a range of 40km. On 15 April 1986, Libya fired two or three Scuds at the US Coast Guard navigation station on the Italian island of Lampedusa, in retaliation for the US bombing raid on Tripoli. The missiles landed in the sea short of the island, and cause no damage.

Scud-C

Libya is reported to have the North Korean Scud-C Short-Range Ballistic Missile (SRBM) variant with a 550 km range and 500 kg payload. The Scud-B has a 300 km range and 985 kg payload. The CIA reported in August 2000 that Libya had continued its efforts to obtain ballistic missile-related equipment, materials, technology, and expertise from foreign sources. One example was the attempt in 1999 to ship Scud-related parts as "automotive parts" from a firm in Taiwan which were intercepted in the UK. In January 2000, the 32 crates of missile parts disguised as auto parts were discovered at London's Gatwick Airport on a British Airways flight bound for Tripoli via Malta. Libya is believed to have been the purchaser of the large shipment of missile-related technology aboard the North Korean-flagged freighter

Kuwolsan, intercepted by Indian customs officers in June 1999 at the port of Kandla. The ship carried hundreds of

missile components, machine tools, and detailed plans for variants of the Scud-B and Scud-C missiles

Libyan Missiles

2011-03-20T23:31:00.000-07:00

Libyan Missiles

Libya has land- and sea-launched short range anti-ship cruise missiles that it purchased from Soviet and European sources. Many of the systems are old and likely are suffering from maintenance problems. Libya had a theoretical capability of delivering weapons of mass destruction in the form of Scud and FROG missiles and missiles delivered by medium-range Tu-22 bombers. Libya also has a variety of fighter aircraft, some old bombers, helicopters, artillery, and rockets available as potential means of delivery for NBC weapons. Libya used transport aircraft in its attempt to deliver chemical agents against Chadian troops in 1987. Despite the UN embargo, Libya continued to aggressively seek ballistic missile-related equipment, materials, and technology from a variety of sources in Europe, the former Soviet Union, and Asia. The imposition of UN sanctions impeded Libyan efforts to obtain foreign assistance for its longer-range missile programs. Libya wanted longer-range missiles, even beyond the No Dong class medium-range missile. Tripoli would be likely to continue to try for longer-range systems to increase the number of US and NATO targets it can hold at risk. If a missile were offered with a range sufficient to strike 2,500 kilometers into Europe, Libya would try to obtain it. Libya's paths to obtaining an ICBM over a 15-year period probably would be to purchase a complete missile system or to set up a foreign assistance arrangement wherein the scientists and technicians went to Libya, developed the infrastructure, and developed the missile right there. According to the Rumsfeld Commission report, Col. Gadhafi said of his adversaries in a 1990 speech: "If they know that you have a deterrent force capable of hitting the United States, they would not be able to hit you. If we had possessed a deterrent - missiles that could reach New York - we would have hit it at the same

moment [as the 1986 U.S. air strike on Libya]. Consequently, we should build this force so that they and others will no longer think about an attack." Then in late 1995, Col. Gadhafi said "As things stand today, I would attack every place from where aggression against Libya was being planned. I would even be prepared to hit Naples, where there is a NATO base." On 19 December 2003 Libya agreed to destroy all of its chemical, nuclear, and biological weapons. The surprise announcement followed nine months of secret talks between Libyan, American, and British officials. Libya agreed to allow for immediate inspections and monitoring, and to eliminate ballistic missiles traveling more than 300 kilometers with a 500 kilogram payload. A team of American and British intelligence officers spent about two weeks Libya in October and again in December 2003. During the visits, the team of US and UK inspectors went to 10 sites related to Libya's nuclear effort, chemical stockpile and missile program [other accounts suggested that the team was taken to dozens of sites]. Inspectors had learned that Libya had a supply of Scud-C ballistic missiles made in North Korea. Libya agreed to eliminate the North Korean Scud-Cs, but not Scud-Bs, which have a 300 km range.

2011 Libyan uprising

UNITED NATIONS, February 23, 2011 Security Council condemns Libya crackdown

No longer a man the West can do deals with

Reactions

Approached MI6

Lockerbie

Disturbing reports, says U.S.

Rights group estimates 84 killed in Libya protests

Anti-government site says 4 killed in Libyan clash

NATO to head the command and control of Libyan operation

Sri Lanka closes embassy in Libya

India, China and Russia, has expressed “regret”

By Tripti Lahiri

World divided on Libya, India regrets bombings

Video

Historical Dictionary of Libya African Historical Dictionaries ; No. 33

Statement of the Brother Leader at the General Assembly of the United Nations

Libya country profile

BBC..

Overview

Facts

Leaders

Media

Libya military operation: Who should command?

Coalition forces

Libya air strikes: China 'regrets' West's use of force

U.S. involvement in the military

Overthrowing Qadhafi

National Board for Scientific Research

Libyan Nuclear Weapons

Libyan Biological Warfare

Libyan Chemical Weapons

Estimated Range Of Missiles

Missile

Orbital Transport-und-Raketen Aktiengesellschaft (OTRAG)

Scud-B / SS-21 Scarab / Frog-7

Libyan Missiles