PDA

View Full Version : Who Was Responsible For Libya's Backdown?



FatBastard
12-22-2003, 02:19 PM
I came across this article today. I found it very interesting, especially as I've also read how the US was responsible.


A very British coup

Monday December 22, 2003
The Guardian

In international affairs, genuine surprises are rare. When they do happen, they are often unpleasant - as in Argentina's invasion of the Falklands or Saddam's overnight conquest of Kuwait. Good news, when it comes, is generally long anticipated and discounted in advance. But neither was the case with Libya's weekend announcement concerning its non-conventional weapons. This was a surprise that was both totally unexpected and wholly welcome.

Libya's leader-for-life, Colonel Muammar Gadafy, enjoys a reputation for maverick, even eccentric behaviour. But this particular rabbit is easily the most spectacular he has produced in a long career. The Foreign Office, on the other hand, is not an organisation normally associated with conjuring tricks. Its central role in pulling off this coup redounds to its great credit. This is a seriously impressive achievement which will distinguish Jack Straw's often difficult tenure as foreign secretary. For the Foreign Office, it marks a return to form after a sorry spell on the Iraq bench. Yet if back-slapping is in order, congratulations should also go to Robin Cook, the man who relaunched British relations with Libya in 1999 and on whose policy of critical engagement this success is founded.

Patient diplomacy, dialogue, negotiation, clearly enunciated principles and red lines, respect, mutual trust, and attractive incentives - these are the civil tools that helped bring, at the weekend, perhaps the most significant, tangible breakthrough in arms control since the strategic weapons pacts of the later cold war era. Libya has gone from 1986 target of Ronald Reagan's bombs, from "rogue" sponsor of non-state, anti-western terrorism and, as it now admits, from active pursuer of nuclear and chemical arms to, if all sides honour the bargain, a prospectively valuable friend and partner.

This was not achieved by military power, by invasion, by shredding inter national law, by enforced regime change or by large-scale bloodshed. Nor, in fact, despite Mr Bush's eagerness for plaudits, was it primarily achieved by his administration at all. It was achieved by discussion - by endless talk, mostly in London, latterly in Libya, and finally in a London gentlemen's club. Boring perhaps, but effective; and here, with shock and awe, is a lesson for the Pentagon to absorb. Here is a measure of the true worth of the diplomacy espoused by Mr Cook and others. It bore fruit in Iran last week, another country which Britain refuses to join the US in ostracising. It could yet produce results in Syria, another low-grade WMD state, and in North Korea, if only senior US officials would stop threatening them.

What a great pity that Iraq's supposed WMD could not have been handled in a similarly intelligent, non-violent fashion. Certain ministers claim to find retrospective justification for the Iraq war in Libya's action, suggesting it had somehow been scared into compliance. This is sad, shabby stuff. Tripoli has powerful economic and political reasons for acting as it has; and indeed, Col Gadafy's own interests have been steadily converging with those of the US "war of terror" and America's oil industry. This slow process of rapprochement, including the ever painful Lockerbie saga, was in train long before Mr Bush let rip over Baghdad. But it took British diplomatic skills to draw in the WMD issue, make the connections and clinch the elusive deal.

To this delicate process, Washington's bellicosity formed a worrying backdrop, not a spur. As Libya has indicated, the Iraq war actually made agreement more difficult; it was eventually reached despite, not because of, Iraq. If anything, it now seems Mr Bush may have inadvertently invaded the wrong country. The fabled WMD were in Libya all along. All the more reason, next time around, for preferring words to guns and gung-ho.

Source. (http://politics.guardian.co.uk/foreignaffairs/comment/0,11538,1111575,00.html)

Samurai
12-22-2003, 02:30 PM
Interesting article.

What is also interesting is that the British paper needs to get better educated journalists. They seem to have spelt Moammar Gadhafi's name wrong...

Oh and I live in London so please, no anti-US flame's... I'm as British as can be.

muchspl2
12-22-2003, 02:36 PM
its riddled with spelling and grammar mistakes, & I'm the worst speller I know

chalice
12-22-2003, 02:52 PM
It is spelt "Muammar Gaddafi" but that's the only mistake I can see.

The Guardian has a habit of spelling it that way for some reason.

FatBastard
12-22-2003, 02:52 PM
Originally posted by muchspl2@22 December 2003 - 23:36
its riddled with spelling and grammar mistakes, & I'm the worst speller I know
Really? Why don't you point them out?

Gadafy (http://www.google.com.au/search?q=gadafy&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en&btnG=Google+Search&meta=)

chalice
12-22-2003, 03:00 PM
Originally posted by FatBastard+22 December 2003 - 14:52--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (FatBastard @ 22 December 2003 - 14:52)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-muchspl2@22 December 2003 - 23:36
its riddled with spelling and grammar mistakes, & I&#39;m the worst speller I know
Really? Why don&#39;t you point them out?

Gadafy (http://www.google.com.au/search?q=gadafy&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en&btnG=Google+Search&meta=) [/b][/quote]
FB, most of those results are related to The Guardian.

Gaddafi. (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=gaddafi)

Samurai
12-22-2003, 03:07 PM
Originally posted by FatBastard+22 December 2003 - 13:52--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (FatBastard @ 22 December 2003 - 13:52)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-muchspl2@22 December 2003 - 23:36
its riddled with spelling and grammar mistakes, & I&#39;m the worst speller I know
Really? Why don&#39;t you point them out?

Gadafy (http://www.google.com.au/search?q=gadafy&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en&btnG=Google+Search&meta=) [/b][/quote]
Care to visit his OFFICIAL (http://www.algathafi.org/Index_e.htm) site so you can see how the man himself spells his name?

muchspl2
12-22-2003, 03:08 PM
few off hand, but again I am the worst speller I know, I fuck up on grammar and spelling often so I feel bad when this is not even proof read


Originally posted by FatBastard@22 December 2003 - 09:19
I came across this article today. I found it very interesting, especially as I&#39;ve also read how the US was responsible.


A very British coup

Monday December 22, 2003
The Guardian

In international affairs, genuine surprises are rare. When they do happen, they are often unpleasant - as in Argentina&#39;s invasion of the Falklands or Saddam&#39;s overnight conquest of Kuwait. Good news, when it comes, is generally long anticipated and discounted in advance. But neither was the case with Libya&#39;s weekend announcement concerning its non-conventional weapons. This was a surprise that was both totally unexpected and wholly welcome.

Libya&#39;s leader-for-life, Colonel Muammar Gadafy, enjoys a reputation for maverick, even eccentric behaviour (behavior ). But this particular rabbit is easily the most spectacular he has produced in a long career. The Foreign Office, on the other hand, is not an organisation (organization ) normally associated with conjuring tricks. Its central role in pulling off this coup redounds to its great credit. This is a seriously impressive achievement which will distinguish Jack Straw&#39;s often difficult tenure as foreign secretary. For the Foreign Office, it marks a return to form after a sorry spell on the Iraq bench. Yet if back-slapping is in order, congratulations should also go to Robin Cook, the man who relaunched British relations with Libya in 1999 and on whose policy of critical engagement this success is founded.

Patient diplomacy, dialogue, negotiation, clearly enunciated principles and red lines, respect, mutual trust, and attractive incentives - these are the civil tools that helped bring, at the weekend, perhaps the most significant, tangible breakthrough in arms control since the strategic weapons pacts of the later cold war era. Libya has gone from 1986 target of Ronald Reagan&#39;s bombs, from "rogue" sponsor of non-state, anti-western terrorism and, as it now admits, from active pursuer of nuclear and chemical arms to, if all sides honour(honor) the bargain, a prospectively valuable friend and partner.

This was not achieved by military power, by invasion, by shredding inter national law, by enforced regime change or by large-scale bloodshed. Nor, in fact, despite Mr Bush&#39;s eagerness for plaudits, was it primarily achieved by his administration at all. It was achieved by discussion - by endless talk, mostly in London, latterly in Libya, and finally in a London gentlemen&#39;s(gentleman&#39;s) club. Boring perhaps, but effective; and here, with shock and awe, is a lesson for the Pentagon to absorb. Here is a measure of the true worth of the diplomacy espoused by Mr Cook and others. It bore fruit in Iran last week, another country which Britain refuses to join the US in ostracising. It could yet produce results in Syria, another low-grade WMD state, and in North Korea, if only senior US officials would stop threatening them.

What a great pity that Iraq&#39;s supposed WMD could not have been handled in a similarly intelligent, non-violent fashion. Certain ministers claim to find retrospective justification for the Iraq war in Libya&#39;s action, suggesting it had somehow been scared into compliance. This is sad, shabby stuff. Tripoli has powerful economic and political reasons for acting as it has; and indeed, Col Gadafy&#39;s own interests have been steadily converging with those of the US "war of terror" and America&#39;s oil industry. This slow process of rapprochement, including the ever painful Lockerbie saga, was in train long before Mr Bush let rip over Baghdad. But it took British diplomatic skills to draw in the WMD issue, make the connections and clinch the elusive deal.

To this delicate process, Washington&#39;s bellicosity formed a worrying backdrop, not a spur. As Libya has indicated, the Iraq war actually made agreement more difficult; it was eventually reached despite, not because of, Iraq. If anything, it now seems Mr Bush may have inadvertently invaded the wrong country. The fabled WMD were in Libya all along. All the more reason, next time around, for preferring words to guns and gung-ho.

Source. (http://politics.guardian.co.uk/foreignaffairs/comment/0,11538,1111575,00.html)

chalice
12-22-2003, 03:15 PM
Well, the official site spells it "Gadafi" which isn&#39;t quite the same as "Gadhafi".

Every other western journalist seems to spell it "Gaddafi".

Samurai
12-22-2003, 03:18 PM
muchspl2 although we&#39;re fighting the same battle here, British & US have different ways of spelling those words... it&#39;s the same with the word &#39;Colour&#39;. In the states, it is spelt &#39;Color&#39;... I&#39;m more concerned with the general name of the person in question, I mean how could they get that wrong?

Anyway, I was bored so I emailed the Guardian. Here&#39;s what I wrote:


Dear Guardian,

Is it me or have you spelt his name worng? In all of your related articles relating to Moammar Gadhafi, his name has been spelt Moammar Gadhafy. I&#39;ve checked online, and even his offial website &#40;http&#58;//www.algathafi.org/Index_e.htm&#41; seems to confirm this.

If you&#39;re interested in any journalist&#39;s that live in the London area, I&#39;m more than willing&#59;-&#41;

Take care and have a Happy Christmas&#33;

G Williams

Samurai :ph34r:

FatBastard
12-22-2003, 03:21 PM
Originally posted by chalice+23 December 2003 - 00:00--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (chalice &#064; 23 December 2003 - 00:00)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Originally posted by FatBastard@22 December 2003 - 14:52
<!--QuoteBegin-muchspl2@22 December 2003 - 23:36
its riddled with spelling and grammar mistakes, & I&#39;m the worst speller I know
Really? Why don&#39;t you point them out?

Gadafy (http://www.google.com.au/search?q=gadafy&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en&btnG=Google+Search&meta=)
FB, most of those results are related to The Guardian.

Gaddafi. (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=gaddafi)[/b][/quote]
Really? Did you check all 33 pages? I did, and I only found the first three were from the guardian. ;)

@ Much; this is in a British newspaper, all the spelling "mistakes" you pointed out are American bastardisations of the proper English spelling. As for gentlemen&#39;s, here (http://www.google.com.au/search?q=gentlemen%27s&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en&btnG=Google+Search&meta=) are 261,000 instances of it&#39;s use.

muchspl2
12-22-2003, 03:24 PM
I did say that I was the worst speller I know :D

FatBastard
12-22-2003, 03:25 PM
Originally posted by Samurai@23 December 2003 - 00:18
Dear Guardian,

Is it me or have you spelt his name worng? In all of your related articles relating to Moammar Gadhafi, his name has been spelt Moammar Gadhafy. I&#39;ve checked online, and even his offial website (http://www.algathafi.org/Index_e.htm) seems to confirm this.


You spelt worng worng&#33;

FatBastard
12-22-2003, 03:28 PM
Originally posted by chalice@23 December 2003 - 00:15
Well, the official site spells it "Gadafi" which isn&#39;t quite the same as "Gadhafi".

Every other western journalist seems to spell it "Gaddafi".
The official site also spells it "Gathafi".

chalice
12-22-2003, 03:29 PM
FB, I&#39;m just going out on a limb and employing some common sense.

I did a search for "Gadafy" on Google and it yielded a paltry 1950 results.

I then did a search for "Gaddafi" and raked in the princely sum of 69,000.

I&#39;m not too up on maths but I&#39;d say there&#39;s quite a difference.

Samurai
12-22-2003, 03:29 PM
Originally posted by FatBastard+22 December 2003 - 14:25--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (FatBastard @ 22 December 2003 - 14:25)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Samurai@23 December 2003 - 00:18
Dear Guardian,

Is it me or have you spelt his name worng? In all of your related articles relating to Moammar Gadhafi, his name has been spelt Moammar Gadhafy. I&#39;ve checked online, and even his offial website (http://www.algathafi.org/Index_e.htm) seems to confirm this.


You spelt worng worng&#33; [/b][/quote]
Oh damn. That was a mis-type lol nicely spotted though. Hope the Guardian think I put that in there deliberately hehe

3RA1N1AC
12-22-2003, 07:02 PM
Originally posted by chalice@22 December 2003 - 07:29
FB, I&#39;m just going out on a limb and employing some common sense.

I did a search for "Gadafy" on Google and it yielded a paltry 1950 results.

I then did a search for "Gaddafi" and raked in the princely sum of 69,000.

I&#39;m not too up on maths but I&#39;d say there&#39;s quite a difference.
yeah but people are arguing, here, about the spelling of a name that doesn&#39;t come from a language based on the roman alphabet. libya speaks/writes in arabic, so the translation of their names into our alphabet is totally arbitrary. the same goes for translation from languages like hindi, chinese, japanese, russian, etc.

back in the 1980s, Gadhafi&#39;s name was spelled with a K, not a G. we just use the G now because it is apparently a more accurate translation.

blade1356uk
12-22-2003, 07:08 PM
I thought this thread was about Libya&#39;s backdown ,not spelling contest,it&#39;s obvious Sadamm got his arse kicked & Gaddafi did not want the same. & who care&#39;s who sorted it out terrorist&#39;s are evil, in any language.

hobbes
12-22-2003, 11:22 PM
Originally posted by FatBastard@22 December 2003 - 15:19
I came across this article today.&nbsp; I found it very interesting, especially as I&#39;ve also read how the US was responsible.&nbsp;


A very British coup
To this delicate process, Washington&#39;s bellicosity formed a worrying backdrop, not a spur. As Libya has indicated, the Iraq war actually made agreement more difficult; it was eventually reached despite, not because of, Iraq. If anything, it now seems Mr Bush may have inadvertently invaded the wrong country. The fabled WMD were in Libya all along. All the more reason, next time around, for preferring words to guns and gung-ho.

Source. (http://politics.guardian.co.uk/foreignaffairs/comment/0,11538,1111575,00.html)
Billy,

I may be wrong on this, but I believe I heard that Khadifi&#39;s(sp?) son said on a live TV interview that America&#39;s war in Iraq was EXACTLY why they did this.

He stated something about the US being "serious" about this war on terror.

As I said, I may have misheard and Khadafi&#39;s son is not exactly the best speaker of English. But that is the overall concept I got from the interview.

hobbes
12-23-2003, 03:23 AM
Billy,

I could not find any support for my statements, except the opinion of Hans Blix.

I guess I just feel that to believe that Lybia would have done what they have in a vacuum is naive.

Again, I am just giving my opinion. I may be entirely wrong. Please don&#39;t rip my arse too hard. Thanks.