Tuesday, March 30, 2004
Gaddafi of Tripoli meets Blair of Mesopotamia
(Via Amit C) There is only one Robert Fisk. Not many journalists I know can be quite as acerbic when writing about the Middle East as the Independent's correspondent. So, it was great to read this Fisk piece on the rather dodgy meeting between President Blair and Col Gaddafi. The timing was spectacular -- Blair chose to head to Tripoli to meet a man accused of inspiring the Lockerbie bombing right after he attended the funeral in Madrid. Far more importantly, I have been curious as to why Blair chose to make such a bold move (given the U.S. still has sanctions in place) and mend fences with Gaddafi.
Robert Fisk writes an interesting account on just how bizarre Gaddafi can be while arriving at his own take as to why Blair chose to meet with Gaddafi at this particular point in time. A few excerpts are below.
Indeed, I recall an Arab summit in Cairo a few years ago at which - after arriving in a golden robe escorted by his gun-toting women - Gaddafi greeted President Mubarak and promptly pretended to confuse a public lavatory with the door of the conference chamber. I shall always remember Mubarak's thin, suffering smile. Lord Blair of Kut, sitting perhaps in Gaddafi's famous tent, will be able to practice that same thin smile today.
At least he won't have to suffer the embarrassment of Tito's old head of protocol who told me how Gaddafi once arrived in Belgrade with a plane load of camels for his fresh milk and a white charger upon which he intended to ride in triumph to the non-aligned summit in the Yugoslav capital. This is the same man who supported a bi-national state for Palestinians and Israelis called Isratine. No wonder Jack Straw now calls Gaddafi "statesman".
Of course, it's not difficult to see what lies behind today's charade. Having taken his country to war on a cocktail of lies and distortion, Lord Blair must commit yet another fraud by claiming that the "defanging" of Libya is a direct result of the illegal invasion of Iraq - and thus justifies the whole disastrous occupation of Mesopotamia. I don't blame him for trying. Anyone with the conscience which our PM should be suffering is bound to search for a get-out. What does amaze me is his choice of fall-guy: one of the weirdest, battiest, funniest, deadliest Arab dictators of them all.
For one of the strangest elements to the Libyan saga is the newness of all those centrifuges and nuclear gizmos which the UN, the Brits and the Americans have been "finding" in Gaddafistan. Were they really there for decades? When did Gaddafi decide to install them? And how come the US intelligence service - which could identify non-existent railroad chemical weapons labs in Iraq - failed to pick up the radiation from Gaddafi's supposed nuclear programme? It was a humble Independent reader - thank you, Willy McCourt of Manchester - who pointed out to me that Libya has a population of only six million; "imagine Ireland having a nuclear programme and nobody knowing about it," he wrote. Quite so.
The Independent story is only for subscribers. If you want to read the story in full and are not an Independent subscriber, go here. My own take on this episode is that Gaddafi has been trying to claw his way back into the international community for a while now (settling Lockerbie, new African leadership etc), so to claim the Iraq war had anything to do with convincing him is just patently absurd. I do not, however, believe anyone benefits from holding Gaddafi's crimes against him forever -- if he wants to change, let him. Moral absolutism never got anyone anywhere. None of this answers the timing of Blair's visit though. It is very curious indeed and at the very least, Fisk has an interesting version of events.
Robert Fisk writes an interesting account on just how bizarre Gaddafi can be while arriving at his own take as to why Blair chose to meet with Gaddafi at this particular point in time. A few excerpts are below.
Indeed, I recall an Arab summit in Cairo a few years ago at which - after arriving in a golden robe escorted by his gun-toting women - Gaddafi greeted President Mubarak and promptly pretended to confuse a public lavatory with the door of the conference chamber. I shall always remember Mubarak's thin, suffering smile. Lord Blair of Kut, sitting perhaps in Gaddafi's famous tent, will be able to practice that same thin smile today.
At least he won't have to suffer the embarrassment of Tito's old head of protocol who told me how Gaddafi once arrived in Belgrade with a plane load of camels for his fresh milk and a white charger upon which he intended to ride in triumph to the non-aligned summit in the Yugoslav capital. This is the same man who supported a bi-national state for Palestinians and Israelis called Isratine. No wonder Jack Straw now calls Gaddafi "statesman".
Of course, it's not difficult to see what lies behind today's charade. Having taken his country to war on a cocktail of lies and distortion, Lord Blair must commit yet another fraud by claiming that the "defanging" of Libya is a direct result of the illegal invasion of Iraq - and thus justifies the whole disastrous occupation of Mesopotamia. I don't blame him for trying. Anyone with the conscience which our PM should be suffering is bound to search for a get-out. What does amaze me is his choice of fall-guy: one of the weirdest, battiest, funniest, deadliest Arab dictators of them all.
For one of the strangest elements to the Libyan saga is the newness of all those centrifuges and nuclear gizmos which the UN, the Brits and the Americans have been "finding" in Gaddafistan. Were they really there for decades? When did Gaddafi decide to install them? And how come the US intelligence service - which could identify non-existent railroad chemical weapons labs in Iraq - failed to pick up the radiation from Gaddafi's supposed nuclear programme? It was a humble Independent reader - thank you, Willy McCourt of Manchester - who pointed out to me that Libya has a population of only six million; "imagine Ireland having a nuclear programme and nobody knowing about it," he wrote. Quite so.
The Independent story is only for subscribers. If you want to read the story in full and are not an Independent subscriber, go here. My own take on this episode is that Gaddafi has been trying to claw his way back into the international community for a while now (settling Lockerbie, new African leadership etc), so to claim the Iraq war had anything to do with convincing him is just patently absurd. I do not, however, believe anyone benefits from holding Gaddafi's crimes against him forever -- if he wants to change, let him. Moral absolutism never got anyone anywhere. None of this answers the timing of Blair's visit though. It is very curious indeed and at the very least, Fisk has an interesting version of events.
