1 / Part I. Gadaffi : the best ennemy of washington /
Part II. The Euro-african geopolitical vision of Gaddafi /
Part III. The diplomatic offensive of Tripoli againt the US threat /
European Centre for Research and Studies on Direct Democracy
With PCN-SPO – ELAC & ALAC Committees
For reissue 2013 / 2013 01 04 /
New Edition 2013.
First issued in LE QUOTIDIEN DU PCN – PCN-NCP’S DAILY NEWS –  EL DIARIO DEL PCN /Leader No 777 – Oct. 25, 2003.
* Introduction to the new edition 2013.
Libya 2003-2011, from cold war to imperialist aggression: Lost illusions of the pacific coexistence /
* 1 / Part I. Gadaffi : the best ennemy of washington /
Part II. The Euro-african geopolitical vision of Gaddafi /
Part III. The diplomatic offensive of Tripoli againt the US threat /
* 2 / Part IV. The false file of the “Libyan terrorism” /
Conclusions for the 2003 issue / Bibliography /
Gaddafi’s Libya has been since three decades one of the important targets of imperialism. The active role held by Moammar Gaddafi in the support to struggles of national liberation, in Africa and in Palestine notably, justifies this fully little enviable place. 
Qualified of “rogue State” by Washington, the Jamahiriya underwent more than ten years of an iniquitous embargo, that seriously hits its economy and its infrastructures.
 # Part I /
The USA and  NATO terrorist raid  of 1986, settled by Reagan and planned by Paul Bremer, the present Yankee gauleiter of Baghdad, recalled that this main enemy status didn't have anything of virtual. The hundreds civil victims of Tripoli and Bengazis, among whom Gaddafi’s two-year-old adoptive daughter, marked the collective mentality of the Libyan people lastingly. 
About ten attempts of coups and murders of the Libyan leader, planned by the CIA or the British MI6, were added to it. And that made of the baraka of Gaddafi a legend in the Middle East. The most recent (attempt), in 1998, was directed by Ben Laden and aimed to place some radical Islamists, financed by the CIA and formed by the MI6, to  power. What will bring Ben Laden first international warrant launched by Tripoli to Interpol. And blocked immediately by the Americans. 
The coming to power of the American neo-conservatives, that forms the framework of Bush's regime, doesn't have anything arranged evidently. One of the “neocons” aims, closely allied to the Zionist and Israeli right and far-right wings, is to reshape the Middle East, by cutting down what they call the “Arab nationalism”. Hear the Arab revolutionary nationalist regimes, in their Iraqi and Syrian ba'athist variants, and Gaddafi’s Libya, heiress of  Nasserism. 
Iraq is only the first stage of the neo-conservative project for the Middle East. The book-manifesto of the neocons leader , Bill Kristol, is meaningfully titled " OUR WAY  BEGINS IN BAGHDAD ". As underlined it lately " AL-AHRAM HEBDO ", the colonial war against Iraq is therefore above all “an American-Israeli attempt to get installed a middle eastern ideology in substitute of the ideology of the Arab nationalism.” “The American-Israeli policy in  the Middle East is founded on the hostility towards the Arab nationalism, doctrine that considers that the Arabophones form an unique nation, and not a collection of states, that must become independent from the foreign tutelage”, specified Edward Saïd, professor to the university of Columbia in New-York, in " DAR AL HAYAT ". This Arab, revolutionary and anti-Zionist nationalism that embodies the Ba'ath, in its Syrian or Iraqi versions. Or also to the eyes of Washington, Libya of Gaddafi 
That Gaddafi moved away from pan-arabism to head with success for  pan-africanism imports them little. Or rather the place of Libya, that proposes an alternative way to the African peoples facing neo-liberalism, made only reinforce their hostility.
Since the Fateh Revolution  of September 1st, 1969, Gaddafi, as heir of  Nasserism, has multiplied union projects with the different Arab countries, as he has just recalled  with weariness: " We signed the " Djerba declaration " which had to achieve the merging between Tunisia and Libya. I signed an agreement in Hassi Messaoud with the Algerian president Houari Boumedienne. It had to allow our two countries to merge if  Egypt recognized Israel.  Egypt recognized Israel, but the merging between Libya and Algeria was not done as foreseen … We proclaimed then the union with Morocco in Oujda…  
Why anything of all that was not achieved ? The mistake is not incumbent to Libya, but to its partners. Anouar el-Sadat tore the Egypt-Libya union treaty  . Gaafar Nimeiri tore the tripartite union treaty between Sudan,  Egypt and Libya (…) We gave you  money, we gave you  weapons, we suffered because of you. Without result. Today, you  all are friends with the United States, you have recognized Israel. Libya will never recognize Israel until the end of the world, if God wants it! Today, you insult us. Sadat insulted us, he to whom we offered, at the time of the October 1973 war  , hundred Mirage aircraft, cannons,  munitions,  missiles,  bulldozers as well as the necessary facilities to get over the Suez Canal,. The unfortunate Egyptian people never knew it. I don't ask that one thanks me, I only did my duty before history. We also gave our blood to Lebanese, to Palestinians… We gave them our money. We trained their troops. And, because of all it, we became terrorists while, they, became reconciled with the Americans, with the Israelis. Because of all it, my country is until today on the black list of terrorist States …”. Every time, he has been disappointed and has been betrayed by his partners.  
In a marathon speech pronounced on October 6, 2003, he expressed his weariness with violence and renewed his call to the " popular Congresses”, one of the decision-making structures of the Libyan " direct democracy " stemming from the theories of Gaddafi’s GREEN BOOK , " to approve the definitive departure of Libya from the Arab League”.  
Sisyphus of  pan-Arabism, Gaddafi makes out the acknowledgement of failure of the Arab unity dream, for which he expended much energy without counting:  
" Today, the Arabs are crushed in Palestine and in Iraq. Everything that Libya endured in the past is due to the positions that we took in favour of the Arabs. In spite of all our sacrifices, they allied with the United States and with Zionism. There is not anything anymore to hope for them (…) The Arab unity was the objective of the revolutionary movement that we  launched as early as 1959, here, in Sebha, with some clandestine groups of students and free and unionist soldiers. It is why I invite you to look seriously into this historic event because of the state in which is currently the Arab Nation, the Arab nationalism, the Arab unity…  
We did do our duty for the Arab cause and suffered since the time we were students. We demonstrated, we were jailed, we supported Algeria, Palestine, the merging between  Egypt and Syria, the Iraqi revolution, the battle of Bizerte in Tunisia, SouthYemen… It was the time of the armed struggle for the liberation. We didn't see then our destiny outside of the pan-Arab union. I said and said again in my speeches and my writings that the Arab Nation will have no future as long it does not achieve its unity. Today, I note with a lot of bitterness that the Arabs failed.  
When I campaigned for the Arab unity, before and after the revolution of September 1st, 1969, when I distributed leaflets, when I exposed myself to danger, I sincerely did it for a right cause. This was not for sentimental or emotional reasons, but for existential reasons. There was no reason to doubt the viability of an Arab Nation so well equipped with natural resources:  oil,  gas,  metals,  ores… This nation dominates the Mediterranean , the Red sea and the Indian ocean. It spreads on two continents, Asia and Africa ". 
Gaddafi accuses the Arab military regimes to carry the responsibility of the failure of pan-arabism. Contrary to Libya that constituted a popular power with its " direct democracy”, the military dictatorships, isolated and without support of masses, failed to carry the great historic intention of the Arab Nation through to a successful conclusion: " In spite of all their resources, the Arabs didn't make anything to this day. Peoples are not to blame , but the military who took power in their name. All the mistake is there: revolutions, to start with the one of Nasser in Egypt, were military, even though they displayed the popular and unionist slogans! Groups infiltrated inside these revolutionary regimes, as  viruses or microbes inside the human body, to kill them. Peoples made confidence to their free officers and their armies. Result: zero. The Arab armies have been defeated by the enemy. Worse, they gagged the peoples to stop them from rebelling, from uniting… Algeria fought alone the French colonization during about ten years. Why didn't we see thousands of Arabs fighting to its sides? Libya faced the Italian colonization during twenty years, the Arabs looked at us without moving… As they watched without moving Yemenis, Palestinians… The Arab solidarity, that doesn't exist! The Arab leaders don't have mercy, nor dignity, nor honor, nor love towards women, children, their brothers and sisters in Iraq, in Palestine, in Somalia, in the Comoros, in Libya, and everywhere else in the Arab world.  
When the British asked Margaret Thatcher why she had helped the Americans in their attack against Libya in 1986, she answered that she had done it by solidarity. Why the Arabs did not behave with Libya like Thatcher with the United States? The Arabs watched, as spectators at the movies, the aerial and naval forces bombarding us. They didn't lift a finger. (…) Libya, since the revolution of 1969, fought therefore in favour of the Arab union. And it is for  that it became the ennemy number one of the United States, of Zionism, of the West. We didn't have any bilateral problem nor with the Americans, nor with the Europeans, nor even with the Jews. All the disasters that we underwent explain themselves by our support to the Arab causes. They bombarded our houses, killed our children… And, during that time, the Arabs watched uncomplainingly ".  
Our media hide all the positive action of Libya. About ten pointless articles are published every week on  marginal, out of date and fallacious aspects of Libya. But never anything on its international action. It was the same with Gaddafi’s last project , " The Arab union ", traced on the European union. The Libyan guide explains how he extended a last time the hand of friendship to the Arab leaders, in vain,: 
" It is on the intervention of several Arab States as well as persons responsible of the Arab League that again I gave up to leave the League [March 2002, NDLR]. If Libya comes out of the League,  Egypt will be isolated, the Machrek and the Maghreb will be cut in two, I was told. It is when I proposed them a last lifeline. I presented my Arab union project [30 August 2003], a Union that would replace the Arab League and that would be endowed with a Constitution,  a presidential Council,  a minister Council,  a central Bank,  a monetary Fund,  a common market… I proposed, inside a confederation or a federation, the creation and the reinforcement of regional groups : Syria and Lebanon would form a kind of common understanding, that would definitely legalize the Syrian military presence; the Council of cooperation of the Gulf would accept the membership of Yemen and Iraq, the union of the Arab Maghreb would come out of its lethargy or its coma…the media never spoke of this project, obviously on the orders of the political powers in place. But they spoke of a lot of futile things, as the regulation of the Lockerbie or UTA DC-10 affairs. They attacked Gaddafi…  
The Arabs are, in fact, incapable to achieve the least common project. They lost their dignity, their honour. They are finished. Their regimes are finished. We must not waste anymore time with them. Henceforth, we belong to the African union, to Africa. For the one thousand and second time, I ask the Libyan people to leave the Arab League without delay… The Arab League is not worth anything in the reality, its civil servants have not been paid anymore since four months, countries members don't pay their contribution anymore…The Arabs wait that one crushes them, that one slaughters them, that one cuts them in pieces, that one eats them either cooked or grilled … All are waiting, a State after the other, a city after the other, after Baghdad, Gaza, Jenin”
Tired " to plow the sea " (according to the disabused expression of Simon Bolivar exhausted by a life dedicated to the mirage of the Latino-american unity), the guide of the Libyan Revolution turned indeed towards Africa. “Libya endured too much the Arabs, for whom it poured blood and mone " he declares. Previously Gaddafi dreamed to gather the whole Arab world. Today he doesn't want any more this unceasing fight, because " the Arab League is giving up the ghost and Arabs will never be strong, even though they unite ". He assesses that " the time of nationalism is forever bygone " and denounces with exactness the Arab  leaders”who formed a league with Americans and the Israeli ". It is henceforth in the sole Africa that the leader of the revolution places all his hopes, a continent "source of big strength” for Libya.
“The Arabs became the laughingstock of all. They are finished. They didn't think about their future, they didn't want to unite… Today, they see the others, around them, uniting. Small ones joining  the big ones, the big ones joining the small ones, to form some even bigger  spaces”.  
" Arabs, but where are you then? Where are your leaders?” , interrogates Gaddafi. “Finished the Arab nationalism, finished the Arab Nation, finished the golden age of the Arabs. They entered in the era of  decline. India, in spite of its seven hundred communities, constituted an unique State. The Americans formed a federation of fifty States. They were not a nation, but they became it. It is the same for Turkey,  Iran,  Italy… We told the Arabs: " Unite! " But no one answered us (…) You the Egyptian, you the Sudanese, you the Libyan, you the Tunisian, you the Algerian, you the Moroccan and you the Mauritanian, you are Africans. You cannot speak anymore of Ara nationalism, of Arab unity. You are part of the African continent. You must speak of the African union.” 
The hostile attitude of the Arab states which supported the iniquitous embargo against Libya contrasts with the support that Gaddafi received in Africa – notably from Nelson Mandela, who sees in him " one of the revolutionary legends of our time " – to defeat the economic suffocation of his country. And it explains also the African choice of the Libyan leader.
" Pushed away by several Sub-Saharian heads of state, writes L’INTELLIGENT (N° 2188, December 15’ 2002), the Pan-African organization brought, indeed, its firm support to the raise  of the economic and aerial embargo against Libya, imposed by the UN and the United States since 1992. This support, considered as historical by the Libyans, marked a turn in the relations between Tripoli and the continent ".
Gaddafi is a resolute partisan of  the “Geopolitics of the big spaces”, that aims to the creation of vast political and economical spaces : “Today the world has changed. It is the time of technology, the time of great spaces. The continents unite in America, in Europe and also in Africa.” 
In March 2003, he specified his thought to LE FIGARO (Paris) : " Didn’t the last summit of the Arab League at Charm el-sheik, demonstrate the impotence of the twenty-two members of this organization to unite facing the peril which threatens them? Today I think less of the Arab unity than of the African unity. All the more so that the two third of the Arab world are in Africa. The time of national and religous coalitions  is bygone. It is necessary to give the priority to the geographical ties and the demographic criterias.”
" Africa must unite: There is not of time to lose. Challenges are in front of us. We are all in the same trench. Our small nations don't have a future facing unions that form itselves in Europe, in America and in Asia ", affirm Moammar Gaddafi, who is becomed the new herald of the modern panafricanism – but we must not forget that Nasser, which inspired himself Gaddafi at the time of the launching of the Libyan Revolution in 1969, was also a resolute partisan of the pan-africanism -, at the time of his advocacy in September 1999, to Syrte, in Libya for the creation of the African union (UA). “The vow of the Libyan leader, that says " himself completely enclosed in the vision of a strong, interdependent and worthy Africa, is more that ever of actuality, underline CONTINENTAL. Just as the military intervention in Iraq not only dedicates the American hegemony, the European diplomatic discomfiture and the bankruptcy of United Nations (UN), but as the dissension of an Africa propelled, well in spite of it, in first line of the new world mess. And yet, in this newborn century again more that in the precedent, for the sick continent, weakened, marginalized, the union is very more that a necessity, it is a question of survival. The entrance in official  force of the treaty of the UA at the time of the thirty-eighth and last summit of the organization of the African unity (OUA) in July 2002 in Durban (South Africa), had created the hope to achieve shortly the Pan-African dream, entertained in the beginning of the years 60 by the fathers of independences. But the upsurge of violences, quarrels of head of state leadership and the multiplication of political and ethnical conflicts already manhandle a weak unity. Even the international actuality, that could have allowed Africa to speak of only one voice, made explode the deep divergences of thought and interests that incite each to take all the credit. A hold of conscience imposes itself in general for a necessary mobilization against the western and in particular American hegemonism
The engagement of Libya in Africa is impressive, as the CONTINENTAL analysis: " In his strategy of edification of an African unified space,  colonel Mouammar Gaddafi multiplied agreements of cooperation with countries of the continent while reinforcing its commercial relations and credits and financial helps to development. Spearhead of this cooperation, with the African union, the Community of the Sahelian and Saharian States (Comessa), created in February 1998 to his initiative. it associates today l8 countries, of which some are enclosed. In this setting, has been set put an African Bank of development and trade endowed of a capital of 250 millions of euros, furnished to 75% by the Libyan contributions, and a special fund of solidarity. To the whole, investments of the Jamahiriya in Africa bring itselves to several billions of dollars and concern domains, as agriculture, the industry, water, electricity, raising and oil. Initiated since years 70, they tripled since 1998 ".
# Part II /
Gaddafi to a lucid vision of his African project and the place that Libya intend to hold there: the one of a " bridge between Africa and Europe ", according to the expression of the African magazine CONTINENTAL (N°25 – June-July 2002): “Raise of the panafricanism with the African union, resumption of relations with Europe, support to the development of the black continent…. Since the end of the embargo, Libya, that operated a spectacular return on the international stage, is on all fronts. its objective: to become a bridge between Europe and Africa. Libya co-promoter of the third Mediterranean-Europe conference, wants to stand to the center of the North-south partnership”
This motor role of Libya is assumed concretely: " After eight long years of forced isolation, the Guide of the revolution won his bet of opening while not only normalizing his relations with the international community, in spite of the American reticences, thanks to the powerful attraction that represent the Libyan market for investors, but also to his new African statute that makes some, towards and against all, a convinced and very mediatized leader of countries in development. Taking under his wing this black continent so beloved pain and considered so little, he turned towards  panafricanism and multiplies initiatives to incite to the unity of Africa and its affirmation on the international stage. While endeavoring to play mediator's role in several conflicts, he is on all fronts of the political, economical and cultural cooperation. While leaning on its position of resident of the Mediterranean, he wants to transform Libya as a bridge, an obligated passage, between Europe and Africa "
The project of GADDAFI also comes within an Euro-Arab and Euro-African rapprochement policy around the Mediterranean: … “Europe prefers to deal with the regional wholes. For example, its wish to see the countries of North Africa assembling had driven heads of state of this region to form the UMA, the Union of the Arab Maghreb. But the contentious between Morocco and Algeria drove to freeze this community. For my part, I don't accept this getting nowhere. Therefore, I stepped over these problems to form the Comessa. It is a big whole that is going to benefit to Europe ". 
" We want  peace in the Mediterranean… We want to preserve the Arab and European interests, and to develop cooperation between us ", he adds.  
The work undertaken by GADDAFI demonstrates unanimously that if it is necessary to unify the Arab and African progressive forces, it is necessary to tend towards the unity of action with the European Union as underlines it Sanoussi JACKEM, minister of the African integration and the Nigerians abroad,: " We want to watch towards the Mediterranean and Europe. The Northern populations were a long time asphyxiated by the closing of our northern border, through which pass about 90% of the supply in food and textiles products of the north of the country ". 
The Mediterranean issue, that is the rapprochement and the integration of the two shores of the “Mare nostrum ", their economy and their peoples, is fundamental. Not only for the regional balance, but also for the future of Europe, as recalls it the economic daily LES ECHOS: " At the European level, the reforms and the economic development of  North Africa and the Middle East are also encouraged by the process of Barcelona. This process, launched in 1995 and that created the Euro-Mediterranean partnership binding the European union to the countries of the southern shore of the Mediterranean, foresees to create a zone of free trade by the year 2010, by means of specific agreements  between the parties. If the intentions of such a partnership are laudable (…), the European policy and the French policy in particular obviously lack consistency. Currently, everything separates the two shores of the Mediterranean: the income of the south shore represents 30% of the one of the north shore; whereas some countries of the north shore have the lowest birth rates of the world and that the situation doesn't get more improvement – the population of Italy should lower 20%  by the year 2050 -, countries of North Africa  have the youngest population of the world: 40% of the population of the Arab League are less than 14 years old. Consequently, whereas by some years the north shore of the Mediterranean will be more seriously confronted with problems bound to the ageing of its population (lack of manpower, financing of retirements, stagnation of the consumption), the countries of the south shore of the Mediterranean must imperatively create jobs in order to try to avoid the social and political explosions. The countries of the south shore of the Mediterranean depend in a very large measure of Europe in their commercial relations. More than 60% of the exports of Morocco, Algeria and Tunisia are destined to markets of the European union. Most of the products exported to the other side of the Mediterranean are textile and  agricultural products. A growth in the exports of agricultural products from North Africa  to Europe would meaningfully contribute to the development of these countries. This element, and the fact that the demographic tendencies are reversed on the two sides of the Mediterranean, should encourage the common solution research. It is actually the opposite that occurs (…) by reducing the objectives fixed by the Euro-Mediterranean partnership to good intention declarations.”
Gaddafi is the first Arab and African head of state to have become aware of this Mediterranean issue and to have proposed, without being heard, the necessary integration between Europe in way of unification and the south shore of the Mediterranean, with its African elongation. Whereas others – Morocco and Tunisia notably – have a local, selfish awareness.  He is also and especially the only one to have a global vision of this integration, in term of spaces and blocks
Partisan of Africa, Gaddafi is indeed also an " European ". He never stopped supporting the European unity (notably the Euro that he sees like a backfire to the Dollar),  which he see as the key of a new multipolar world:  
" Everything that permits to re-establish the balance facing the American superpower is very useful. It is the best chance to preserve peace. Currently the unbalance is so that it would be little realist to hope for a fast change in the report of forces. But if Europe, under the leadership of the French-German couple, persists in its efforts, it will have a chance to arrive to the organization of a less unjust world one day. This process is a start, the beginning of an evolution. Didn't the attitude of Paris and Berlin encourage Russia and China to ally to French and Germans? It is well the sign that, in parallel to America, a multipolar world aspires to be recognized. The French-German couple represents the backbone of Europe (…) It is the example of the Europeans that will encourage the Moslem world to show solidarity, that will push Africa to unite. The attitude of the French president caused an immense enthusiasm in the Arab opinions. Europe must not give up to the pessimism therefore (…) You will see that NATO, that gets its legitimacy from the cold war, will finish by disappearing to the profit of a Euroforce. The European countries will be less and less disposed to take some military risks on the sides of the Americans if Washington only asks for only one thing from its allies: that they serve the interests of the United States ". 
# Part III /
But all this doesn't divert Washington’s hawks. And Tripoli is in the focus of the “neocons”. “The attack against Iraq goes in in a quinquennial campaign project "  wrote  general Wesley Clark, candidate to the White House and NATO supreme allied commander in Europe from 1997 to 2000 (leading thus also the war operations in  Kosovo of the 1999 spring ), in his book " WINNING MODERN WARS ", that will be published shortly (and of which  excerpts are already available on Clark's electoral site “A new American  patriotism”).  
The butcher of the Balkan, who knows something in wars of aggression, specifies what follows: " To the following day of the attacks of September 11, a lot of people within the Bush administration seemed to concentrate on an imminent action against Iraq. It was the old idea of the " state " sponsorisation: although there was not any proof of an Iraqi sponsorisation of September 11, it was the opportunity " to rush ". I could imagine what could be arguments. A war to dethrone Saddam Hussein promised a concrete and tangible action. I came back to the Pentagon in November 2001 and one of the highest military civil servants officers found the time to chat. Yes, he admitted, we are again about to go against Iraq. But there was something else. This – he continued  – goes in in a quinquennial campaign project, and there is a total of seven countries implied ". Libya is very evidently one of these countries. 
" AFTER SADDAM, GADDAFI?” was the question of L’INTELLIGENT (N°2200) since March 15’ 2003, that added " Registered on the “rogue States” list by the White House hawks, Tripoli could be the next target of Washington (…) the White House hawks don't set free their pressure on Libya that they continue to include on the “rogue States” list and that they accuse to want to endow itself of weapons of mass destruction. Libya, one knows it, has appeared since 1979 on the American list of godfathers of  international terrorism, and the two countries closed their respective embassies in 1981. The Jamahiriya is hit by all a set of American political and economic sanctions, notably an embargo on investments in the oil and gas sectors. Otherwise, Libya is mentioned regularly, in Washington, among the Arab countries where the American administration wishes to provoke a change of regime (…) Libya was, repeatedly, during the last twelve months, the American and British  attack target”. 
James Woosley, former boss of the CIA, confirmed it in an interview to the magazine AL-WATAN AL-ARABI. According to it, the script of the war in Iraq could be taken back in other countries of the region, as Syria, Sudan or Libya. “Leaders of these countries would have , in any case, to worry  themselves of it”, he concludes.  
The pretext of “weapons of mass destruction ”, that served so well for Iraq, is used all over again extensively against Libya. As for Iraq, the western propaganda lashed out, nourished by the British puppets of Washington, the “neo-conservative” think-tanks and the Zionist government of Sharon. 
It is the British Defense secretary, Geoff Hoon, who opened the hostilities, in March 2002, while declaring before the defense commission of the House of Commons that his country was " ready to use the nuclear weapon against the " rogue States” as Iraq, Iran, Libya ".   
In a communication pronounced in May 2002 to the "Heritage Foundation", a neoconservative think-tank based in Washington, John R. Bolton, American undersecretary in charge of the Control of armament and  interior Security, mentioned Libya again among  “States that sponsor the international terrorism”, accusing it of " producing some chemical and biologic weapons”, and " to try to endow itself with the nuclear weapon”. 
Sharon immediately took these accusations in September 2002, denouncing " the efforts of Libya in view to endow itself with the nuclear weapon”. According to him, " Tripoli would be the most advanced Arab country in this domain " and " would constitute, of this fact, the most serious threat for the security of Israel. Libya could be well the first Arab country to endow itself with the nuclear weapon”, he affirmed to the Israeli television, specifying that " North Korea, Iraq and maybe also Pakistan help colonel Moammar Gaddafi to finalize these weapons, maybe with the Saudi funds. Libya becomes maybe a more dangerous country than one believed”, he finished, assuring that " the Hebrew state collected the information on this topic and that it got ready to face this threat ". 
" What is therefore the purpose of the media campaign on Libyan weapons of  mass destruction? Would  colonel Gaddafi be, in the secret agenda of the Pentagon, Washington’s next target after Saddam Hussein? One can seriously fear it”, is the question of L’INTELLIGENT. 
Tripoli always denied these affirmations, that moreover are very difficult  to verify. It didn't prevent the American media to take them in chorus, strewing so trouble in the minds. One knows what are worth the accusations of Washington concerning “weapons of mass destruction”. And the Iraqi case is there to recall it to the most skepticals. 
L’INTELLIGENT brings to this topic the denial of the common sense: " Libya is neither Iraq nor Iran. It never had the logistical and human means to get involved in a so demanding armament program. How would it have been able , in such a short time and in spite of NATO embargo  imposed  between 1992 and 1999, to get involved in a scientific adventure that exceeds, and from afar, its capacities?”  
Interrogated to this topic, in September 2002, by the online Zionist newspaper PROCHE-ORIENT.INFO, Yiftah Shapir, former officer of the Israeli airforce, " expert in proliferation of mass destruction armement in the Middle East " (according to the Zionists) and researcher at the " Jaffee Center for strategic studies of the university of Tel-Aviv ", that one cannot suspect of any pro-Libyan sympathies, gave out doubts on the Libyan capacities in this domain  “and refuted, otherwise, Sharon’s declarations on Libya who denounced lately the fact that Gaddafi wants to endow himself with the nuclear weapon”:  “for a long time I didn't find the least nuclear program mention in Libya (…) Libya possesses missiles, it is certain, but it is very late in the nuclear domain, very far behind Iran and Iraq (…) John Bolton, the undersecretary for the control of armament and for the international security, is the first to have evoked this Libyan nuclear threat in the United States,  last May. Then, there was an article of the German newspaper " Die Welt ", whose sources were American. It is everything that exists on the question. I think that there is a political incentive behind these declarations, because it doesn't have any sense to affirm that Libya is more advanced and more capable in the nuclear domain than Iran or Iraq!” 
A mistake, shared by certain Libyan elites, is to believe that the pan-Arabic disengagement of Gaddafi and his African new orientation would move away Tripoli of the American danger. Because Libya is also on the path of falcons "neoconss" in Africa, continent that is after the Middle-East one of the main area of action of the “New World Order” reviewed by Bush's regime. 
" The continent in focus " titled the African magazine CONTINENTAL lately (n° 29, June-July 2003) that added: " From the strategic oil to the struggle against terrorism, uncle Sam plays the map of the particular interests and the bilateral relations in depth to sow the mess and to prevent in any price the cohesion of the continent. who doesn't make its business. The strategy " to divide to reign " is as efficient in Africa that in Europe ". And the unitarian will of the Libyan guide is in this optics a major obstacle. 
CONTINENTAL recalled some truths often overlooked about the new American policy in Africa: " Africa has all interest to tighten itself elbows, if it doesn't want to be swallowed by the American imperialism. After Iraq, the new priorities of Washington in its struggle against terrorism concern directly its security, its geographical integrity and its national sovereignty. Some countries have the doubtful privilege to represent on the black list of the " Axis of evil " established by strategists of the Pentagon. Sudan, Somalia, Liberia, Sierra Leone and Libya are as many states proclaimed "rogue" by the American " Axis of good", and susceptible to be victims of the preventive war concept that allow uncle Sam to erect itself in a Deus ex machina, in charge to manage the affairs of the world, towards and against all ". 
" What happens in Iraq is a sufficient warning, that in the future we could also have other soldiers who fall us over, weapons to the hand to force us. If the united Nations don't have any more importance… Why will have to us, the small countries of Africa that prepare the African union, to think that it doesn't have an importance and that we won't be punished if we come out of fa line ", warns of his side the Soith-African president Thabo Mbeki.  
In its war against Al-Qaida, Africa is also in the focus of Washington. American General Jim Jones, supreme commander of allied forces in Europe within the NATO and American forces’ chief in Europe and in Africa, declared lately that " Africa is a potential threat for the NATO and for our interests ". As the United States consider "to increase their military presence in the south of the Mediterranea where many countries can be destabilized in a near future and where vast zones without State became the new roads of narcotrafics and terrorists".
The Libyan leadership is very conscious of the danger. In March 2003, in an interview to the French daily LE FIGARO (Paris), Gaddafi answered to the question " what is the strategic aim of the United States? Does George W. Bush want to redraw the map of the Middle East? After Iraq, do you believe that he will also blame(fault) Iran, third pillar of the "axis of evil " with Iraq and North Korea? That he will change the Saudi regime, the ally suspected to have played double game? And is Libya sheltered? " what follows: " When Bush  will have finished with Iraq, we will be fixed very quickly. It won’t be long in discovering if Iran, Saudi Arabia, Libya will also be targets. As a result, the American policy will lose all ambiguousness. It will be the one of a new colonialism. Retrospectively, one will perceive that Iraq only represented a problem among others. Today, George W. Bush tries to convince the Council of security of the UN that all a set of reasons justifies the recourse to force against Baghdad. But if, after having occupied Iraq, he attacks  Iran, all motives supposedly legitimate advanced by Washington will fall of themselves. More no one will believe George W. Bush. One will tell : " Yesterday, you only spoke to us of Iraq. But today, you also blame (fault) Iran. And tomorrow, are you going to try to impose your will to the whole world, country after country? " At that moment, things will be lucid and one will be able to stand up. This new colonialism will necessarily drag a reaction. It will be the beginning of another cycle of confrontations ". 
Facing threats of war, but also strokes made by a decade of embargo to the development of Libya, Tripoli chose a difficult way, the one of diplomacy and commercial exchanges. LE FIGARO describes so the diplomatic offensive of Gaddafi and the perils that it must avoid: "The young revolutionary became an old wise man (…) He underlines also to have taken conscience of the fundamentalist peril long before Washington. Since 1986 (…) But, in Washington, most radical counselors of George W. Bush hesitate to draw a feature on the past. For them, Libya remains a “rogue” State. Gaddafi therefore chose  prudence. In his tunic of Roman emperor, the proud look, he always has beautiful aspect. Today yet, the warrior speaks in diplomat ".
The Libyan offensive has two axis.  
On the one hand to reinforce the motor role of Libya in the African unification process, to which Gaddafi, heir of the pan-africanism of Nkrumah, gave the decisive impulse at the summit of Syrte in 1999.  
On the other hand to liquidate the last aftermaths of the embargo in order to open Libya to investments and to foreign technicians, Europeans notably. Because Libya wants itself and sees itself like a bridge between the European union and Africa in way of unity. And a lot of Libyans committed in the economic reform process in progress infuriate to deal with the Anglo-Saxon societies rather than with European partners, of which one deplores in Tripoli the shyness. 
Copyright Luc MICHEL-2003-2013, all rights reserved. 
Ce contenu a été publié dans Non classé. Vous pouvez le mettre en favoris avec ce permalien.

Les commentaires sont fermés.