# CEREDD / Analysis / Luc MICHEL: GEOPOLITICS OF THE LIBYAN JAMAHIRIYA (2)

 

2/ Part IV. The false file of the “Libyan terrorism” /

Conclusions for the 2003 issue / Bibliography /

 

CEREDD /

Centre Européen de Recherche et d’Etude sur la Démocratie Directe /

European Centre for Research and Studies on Direct Democracy

For reissue 2013 / 2013 01 11 /

______________________________

 

# Luc MICHEL: GEOPOLITICS OF THE LIBYAN JAMAHIRIYA

LIBYA BETWEEN WAR THREATS AND IMPERIALIST BLACKMAIL"

 

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 /

http://www.facebook.com/notes/luc-michel-pcn/-ceredd-analysis-luc-michel-geopolitics-of-the-libyan-jamahiriya-2/540086402677684
 

 

 

 

 

It is this second axis that proves to be most perilous. Because Libya must deal by the way with France and the USA of the victims of the terrorist attacks of Lockerbie and the UTA DC 10. And Libya must go to Canossa. Because if the Jamahiriya refuses legitimately – and we will come back to it – to recognize  any responsibility, direct or even moral, in these two affairs, it sees itself constraint, to free itself from the last arrangements of the embargo, to dealing with the victims and to indemnify them. What a Libyan minister lately qualified very exactly  of "blackmail”and “provocations”.

In an interview distributed by "Al-Jazira", the chief of the Libyan diplomacy Abdel Rahman Chalgham clearly affirmed in August 18’ 2003 that his country “had bought the raise of the sanctions” while compensating victims of Lockerbie and qualified " of unacceptable " the position of France in this affair. " Of the Libyan point of view, it is not about compensations but of a purchase of the raise of the sanctions. Because of American sanctions, we lose every year billions of dollars and it make proof of wisdom and courage and serve our national interest that to pay for the sum of 2,7 billions of dollars and he/it has to close this file ", he again specified. 

Because there where Libya intends to make a humanitarian gesture – and it is a Libyan humanitarian and charitable organization, the " Gaddafi Foundation ", leading by one of the son of Gaddafi, Seïf el-Islam, that treats and indemnify and not the Libyan government -, there its American and French interlocutors intend to see to recognize its responsibility. The margin of move is therefore narrow for Tripoli. That sees itself besides confronted to the French Zionist lobbies and the secondary blackmail of the German and Chadian governments.

In an interview to the FIGARO (Paris, October 17’ 2003), Seïf el-Islam Gaddafi reveals the real dimension of the negotiations undertaken by Libya: "When we decided to indemnify families of the attempt of Lockerbie (in 1988), we got counterparts on behalf of Americans. A part of indemnifications was conditioned to the raise of sanctions of the UN against us, a second to the raise of the American unilateral sanctions and a third to our radiation of the American list of countries accuseds to suport terrorism. French must understand it: if they want some supplementary indemnifications, they must give us something in exchange. After all, we have in our possession a French official document telling us that this affair was closed". 

An agreement of principle has been concluded on September 11’ 2003, that had allowed the Council of security of the UN to raise the international sanctions weighing against Tripoli. “This agreement is, according to the French daily LE MONDE, the object of very different interpretations on behalf of Libya and the French families”. Washington and London had gotten before, in August 2003, an agreement on the indemnification of victims of the attempt of Lockerbie. " While binding the gradual raise of international sanction to the gradual payments, this agreement gives the appearance of a bargaining " commented LE MONDE. 

 

 

The French government plays a less honorable role in this affair, notably through the anti-Libyan lobby " SOS ATTENTATS " that is tied to it. For example, it is the French state that finances " SOS ATTENTATS ", via a special tax, and provides the lobby’s premises, " the new premises of S.O.S. Attentats” are installed  “in the prestigious setting of the Invalids in Paris ". The Lobby was given a special law, July 6, 1990, that permits it “to be able” “to associate in a court action with the public prosecutor in all legal procedures bound to terrorism, and this in the case of attempts committed in France or against the French abroad. The S.O.S Attentats association. is thus private party in about hundred criminal procedures”. Its goal beyond the help to the victims is “to fight terrorism”, defined according to the western, and particularly American canons, assimilating the armed struggles of national liberation to terrorism,: “terrorism is nourished by States or by non state entities  against democracies. That terrorism could not be assimilated to the Resistance, but comes under an undemocratic activism”. Its chairwoman herself overtly claims of her " fight against Colonel Gaddafi ".

 Blowing  hot and cold, disowning agreements on agreements, Paris is responsible of the open crisis between Libya and France, and that will have heavy economic consequences for the latter. Stupid behavior that makes the joy of Tel-Aviv, little desirous to see Libya developing itself, and the one of the USA, too happy to see Europeans in crisis with Tripoli.

" Just as the French societies try to benefit the raise of sanctions to take foot in Libya (…) The alone that could benefit the situation then would be competitors societies, notably British-Americans", annotate the FIGARO. 

Whereas negotiations with the American lawyers were concluded quickly, those with French, to hands of the anti-Libya lobby n " SOS ATTETATS ", take place, according to LE FIGARO, " in a climate marked by the reciprocal suspicion” and "enormous misunderstandings", according to the French lawyer Denoix de Saint-Marc, that represent the "collective of families of the DC 10". 

Because of the French attitude, made of repudiations of previous agreements and blackmails. As exposes himself to the FIGARO, with a legitimate resentment, the son of the Libyan Guide, who leads negotiations: “There is a crisis in discussions. French told us that they didn't want to hear to speak of the confidential document written in September. However, for us, this document is the basis of all agreement. We now come back to the slot departure. What of another one can we make that to return at home? (…) We must attack ourselves to the root of problems between France and Libya. Otherwise, tensions would persist. We are ready to consider indemnifications for families of victims of the DC 10, in addition of what has already been paid. But we also want some financial compensations (…) We want to also adjust the problem of the six Libyans that has been condemned in default by the French justice ( for the attempt against the DC 10 of UTA in 1989). Their innocence must be recognized. Finally, we want an agreement of nonaggression and cooperation with France. Too long, the French authorities made us sparkle a bilateral relation improvement, to come back then behind. These equivocations caused the distrust between Libyans and French”.

 

THE FRENCH METHODS: DISOWN AGREEMENTS OF 1999 

AND BY BLACKMAIL ASKING MONNEY A SECOND TIME 

 

In a first time, France had threatened to oppose its veto to all resolution of the Council of security of the Onu aiming to raise sanctions imposed in Libya after the attempt of Lockerbie in 1988 if Tripoli didn't increase indemnities granted for the explosion in flight of a French plane of UTA in 1989.  

" They threatened to resort to the veto if Libya doesn't pay any more money (for victims of 1989), said to this subject in August 2003 an American responsible”. " They tempt to pull left of our agreement (on Lockerbie) and tempt as a consequence of to exercise a blackmail on the Libyans". Other American responsibles also accused the French government of hypocrisy, underlining that France was responsible of amounts that it had negotiated with Libya and that it had pushed the shrinking of sanctions of the Onu before. " I believe that nobody in the united Nations doesn't have a sympathy for the attitude of French ", affirmed an American responsible. " It is outrageous ".  

" France cannot formulate demands in Libya since Tripoli had paid for 35 millions of dollars to victims (of the UTA) in 1999 (…) and the affair is closed. Libya doesn't reject an out-of-court settlement with France, but far of all threat to prevent the raise of sanctions ", had assured Mohammad Al-Zouai, the ambassador of Libya in London. In July 1999, the Libyan authorities had indeed proceeded to the transfer in France of fund of indemnification of families of victims of the attempt of the DC 10 of UTA.  

An agreement was finally took in September, on which France wants once besides today to come back. 

Almost among the French negotiators, the uneasiness caused by methods of the French government is real, notably between the chairwoman of " SOS ATTENTATS ", whose goal is to be harmful against Libya, and its lawyers. LE MONDE (Paris, oct. 15’ 2003) makes itself the echo of these divergences: " Mr Denoix de Saint-Marc, spokesman of the collective of families, declared not to agree with the analysis of Françoise Rudetzki. " The advanced are slow, but they were meaningful in terms of state of mind ", declared Mr Denoix de Saint-Marc. " The knot is the amount (of indemnities) and to what moment it will be paid. The process has been validated ", he has specified, refusing to indicate the place of discussions. " The rupture (of discussions) is not bound to negotiations but was owed to a contraction, an incomprehension that one is close to solve. They have been hurt by something ", added Mr. Denoix de Saint-Marc ". 

“TERRORISM” : IS LIBYA REALLY GUILTY?  

 

You cannot understand the present position of Libya if you doesn't come back on the question of the Libyan guilt in several affairs of terrorism of which it is accused, that gave it 11 years of embargo and force it today to buy the raise of these sanctions. 

If you read most of the Western newspapers – the tone is very different in Africa -, Libya, a so-called “terrorist state”, is inevitably guilty and the debate closed. 

But the truth is also here, and as too often, elsewhere. And it explains the Libyan indignation facing the imperialistic blackmail. 

We must come back therefore on the three big files – there are otheraffairs, as little convincing – for which Tripoli is accused: Lockerbye, the DC 10 of UTA and the Disco "La Belle" in Berlin. 

April 1985, a bomb explodes in disco "La Belle" in West-Berlin, frequented by the Americanoccupation forces. Libya is accused of having financed the operation. 

December 21, 1988, a Boeing of the PanAm, joining London to New York, explodes in flight, above of the Scottish village of Lockerbie: 270 passengers, in majority American and British, are killed. The bomb went up on board at the time of a stopover to Frankfort. Quickly Libya makes face of accused. 

September 19’ 1989, a DC-10 of the French company UTA explodes above of the desert of the Ténéré (Niger): 170 victims of seventeen nationalities. The French, British and American authorities accuse Libya to be in command of these attempts again. In 1991, the judge Bruguière, whose the French daikly LE MONDE underlined ties lately with the American establishment, launched four international warrants against Libyan special service responsible, of which the brother-in-law of Gaddafi. In 1996, Bruguière delivers two new warrants. In his findings, he accuses the Libyan services to be responsible of the attempt. In 1999, the six Libyans are condemned in default.  

March 31’ 1992, the united Nation resolution 748 punishes Libya by an aerial and military embargo, follow-up of a trade embargo in 1993.  

 

LOCKERBYE: THE TRAIL OF THE " IRANGATE " 

 

In this file, many probants facts, but that were never investigate by the Western courts, implicate the American secret services. 

And refute the official thesis of the Libyan guilt. But you will never read this in THE LE MONDE or in THE NEW YORK TIME. 

Many independent observers underlined the weakness of this official thesis and considered that accusations reaches against Libya serve actually that to conceal Western secret service activities.  

In 1989, the PAN AM company, afraid to pay by itself damages to the victims, choosed a private organism of investigation, INTERFOR, whose report was immediately hidden. Based on probant testimonies of secret service agents, it reveals that a team of the DIA, an American intelligence service, was on board of the Boeing and that the CIA made dissapeared convictions recovered to Lockerbye. This team of the DIA came back of Lebanon, where it negotiated the liberation of hostages convicts by the Hezbollah. In this setting, it had discovered the implication of a drug traffic financing operations of the " Irangate " – the supplying of weapons to islamist Iran, then in war against Iraq, by the Reagan administration and the Israelis – and organized between the CIA and islamists close to Iran. The attempt aimed to eliminate the team of the DIA and to stop it from implying the CIA and its islamist allies.  

Another trail raised by the same report, involved the same pro-Iranian groups. And accuse it to have placed the bomb in reprisals of the accidental destruction in July 1988 of a Iranian Airbus by a cruiser of the US Navy. 

In the two hypotheses, serious and believable, Libya, then ennemy n° 1 of the State Department, served as goat emissary.  

In March 1966, an American congress member, James Traficant, declared in front of the House of representatives, what follows: " I believe that the CIA and the Department of state hide us the truth. All over the world, experts of intelligence don't share the British and American positions. I appraise that the Congress has right to the truth. I appraise that families of victims of the flight 103 deserve that one tells them the truth ". 

Lester Coleman, formder agent of the DIA, that wrote a explosive book over the CIA dirty tricks, is even more precise: " Gaddafi constituted an easy target. To make of Libya a goat emissary became current currency in the American political life. It satisfies ultraconservatives who believe all that one tells them about the evily Arabs. All it is dictated solely by motives of domestic policy (…) it exists a  video band made by a camera of control of the airport of Frankfort, on which one sees a bagagiste introducing in fraud the brown Samsonite suitcase, whose analyses demonstrated that it contained the bomb. The CIA detains this band, without communicating it”. 

DC 10 OF UTA: FRENCH MANIPULATIONS 

 

If the truth is elsewhere in the affair of Lockerbye, it is in the case of the DC 10 of UTA exposed by two books of investigation "FLIGHT UT 772, OVER INVESTIGATION ON AN ATTEMPT ASSIGNS TO GADDAFIS" and “AFRICAN MANIPULATIONS”, writted by the French journalist Pierre PEAN. And the two books implicate again Iran. PEAN exonerates Libya irrefutably and puts in full light the manipulations of the French government and of a curious judge, Jean-Louis Bruguière, bound to foreign lobbies. 

" The bomb came from Tehran ", titled the French weekly LE NOUVEL OBSERVATEUR (Paris, N° 1894 – 22/2/2001), that specified " contrary to the official version presented by the judge Bruguière, Gaddafi would not be the backer of the attempt against the DC-10 of UTA in September 1989. According to the “African Manipulations”writter, it would be Iranians who would have given the order ". 

PEAN, interviewed by LE NOUVEL OBSERVATEUR, demolishes the French official version: " The official truth, it is that after a very long investigation the judge Jean-Louis Bruguière transmitted to the justice a list of six people, considered by him as the guilty. These six people have been judged in default before the high criminal court of Paris in March 1999 and have been condemned to the prison for life. This truth never convinced me. I began to investigate in 1990 and 1991, before publishing a first book on the topic in 1992 in which I exposed my conclusion of the moment,: I had the conviction -without to bring the proof completely of it – that there was a real problem in the investigating of the judge Bruguière that clung to the principle of the exclusive responsibility of the Libyans. I can took the investigation (…) According to the official thesis, the main performers were Libyan secret service agents, based in Brazzaville, and a Congolese, working for Libya, that had embarked the exploding suitcase in the plane. However I am convinced today that the backer was not Libya but Iran, that used like " subcontractors " of members of the Hezbollah and the Popular Front of Liberation of Palestine- general command (PFLPP-GC) of Ahmed Jibril (…) I don't pretend to have clarified this business completely but, for me, it is henceforth clear that the decision to perpetrate this attempt has not been taken to Tripoli but in Tehran (…) On August 31’ 1989, an agreement prepared by the DGSE and sponsored by the Algerians had put a term to the contentious with the Libyans on Chad. A certain shape of cooperation on problems of security was even setting up between the two countries. it didn't exist more " motive " for such an attempt. This absence of motive was, to my eyes, a enough disturbing data to take the investigation (…) what I also discovered, it is that this file has been faked since the departure and that the major part of manipulations took place to Congo and was attributable to the Congolese military Security (…) I cannot prove it but I found elements that let suppose an important American influence in manipulations of the file to Brazzaville ". 

Pierre PEAN implicate directly the French government: " In France, in short, I found a " bruise ", that is a note of the DST, written some days after the attempt and intended to the presidency of the Republic, to the prime minister and the secretary of the interior, who reveal in very lucid way who brought up the attempt and of what manner (…).it is question of reproaches addressed in Paris by Iran, Syria and the Hezbollah because of the French politicy in Lebanon. But it is there as question, and it is the determining element, of promises -no holdings – make by France to Iran and the Hezbollah to get the liberation of our hostages in Beirut (…) My conviction today, it is that the attempt against the DC-10 of UTA revealed a dysfunction very serious of the state services in France. The precise conditions by Iran and its Lebanese accomplices for the liberation of hostages have not been communicated in their entirety, in 1988, to the new government – the one of Michel Rocard – by the responsibles of the retiring government, the one of Jacques Chirac. The official speech being that there had never been a transaction with takers of hostages, such a revelation, it is true, would have been exploding. The consequence, it is that messages sent by Iran or the Hezbollah to recall in France its engagements were not audible (…) I appraise that if the attempt against the DC-10 of UTA was – as I fear it – a "punishment " inflicted toFrance for not to have respected its engagements, the moment came so that a parliamentary investigation commission bends on this affairand established responsibilities, all responsibilities, French, in this tragedy ". 

All these manipulations don't prevent the French government today, without no modesty, to make blackmail to Libya to made it pay a second time indemnifications in a affair where Tripoli doesn't have anything to do. 

 

THE CURIOUS METHODS OF THE JUDGE BRUGUIERE 

 

The affair of the DC 10 of UTA also puts in light the curious methods of the French anti-terrorist judge Jean-Louis Bruguière, violently anti-Libyan, judge and part in this affair, because bounded to the civil parts, as specifies it PEAN, that evokes " the people near of him, as civil part lawyers or association SOS-attentat ". By the way of anotheraffair, the one of the Iranians "Moudjahidineses khalk", LE MONDE (June 21’ 2003) evoked the Judge's ties "with the American authorities” and criticized "the Bruguière method”. About this subject, you will note that in the investigation of the DC 10 of UTA, this judge had, according to LE NOUVEL OBSERVATEUR, "makes call to experts of the FBI and remote the French policemen, whose findings displeased him”. " The accusation of the judge Bruguière fully takes findings of the FBI, without making state of contentions of these findings by the French specialists (…) The judge Bruguière doesn't mention the counter investigation made during the spring 1993, after the one of the FBI, by the scientific laboratory of the French police prefecture, writte PEAN about this topic. 

He adds, and it is important, because all the accusation in the two affairs rests on “proofs” manipulated by the FBI – PEAN speaks of “specialist of manipulation of proof " -, that " It is striking to note the likeness of discoveries, by the FBI, of the scientific " proof " of the two affairs of Lockerbie and the Ténéré. In thousand, or even about ten thousand, of remnant collected on places of the disaster, only one fragment of circuit printed has been found and, in the two cases – miracle -, this unique small tip of circuit printed carried an indication that permitted identification of it: Mebo for Lockerbie, TY for the DC10 of UTA (…) remnants of suitcase and minuteur found in the desert of the Ténéré were able without no doubt to be considered like a Libyan signing of the attempt ". 

Anomaly in a state of right, Bruguière is a state in the state as specifies itLE MONDE : " With his supports in police investigation departments and services of intelligence (…) On the chessboard of the French antiterrorism, Jean-Louis Bruguière plays for a long time in master. In addition of twenty years of specialized instruction on these files, the judge often gave the impression to institute his rules of the game and to embody all pieces at a time (except pawns and, probably, the king). His station has been carved on measure: the magistrate continues to instruct the most importantaffairs; he has as the high hand on the whole of the antiterrorist investigations of his colleagues since he has been promoted, in 1995, " first vice-president, in charge of the instruction " in the High court of Paris (…) To the name of the efficiency, Mr. Bruguière uses without reserve means of exception of the antiterrorist justice (centralization of files in Paris to specialized magistrate hands, police custody can go until 96 hours). absolute Weapon of the magistrate, the open judicial information against X… for association of criminals allow to rake large. Strokes of net are then very useful to the constitution of " address books " that will be able to be used later in other investigations. This bulimia of questioning satisfies policemen and their insatiable thirst of information preserved in memory to recover, one day, of possible suspected ".  

The Parisian daily underlines " the expeditious processes of a judge nicknamed " the cowboy " by his detractors " and " the contrast between means employees and results gotten. For years, lawyers and defenders of liberties criticize his lootings to repetition and the length of the temporary detentions of " suspects " of which a good part is let in liberty to the exit of suits. But security methods, not to say police, of the judge are pleasing to governments, of right as of left, that rents the efficiency of this preventive  justice”. Pierre PEAN joins this critic: " The working of the antiterrorist justice of Paris under the high hand of the judge Bruguière is now contested. This justice escapes all democratic control because the antiterrorism is the judge's thing and that the judge is inamovible since 1986. He doesn't have any accounts to give back to no one, and with his station – built on measure – of first vice-president of the court of Paris, he recovered a statute of old Regime. Even the chamberof accusation, that should be a real recourse facing antiterrorist judge decisions, function – to say it of lawyers – like a simple chamber of registration. As files are enormous and complicated, judges cover without putting questions ". 

This troubling magistrate, played a fundamental role in the American manœuvres to the UN that drove to impose an iniquitous embargo against Libya: "Conjugating justice and diplomacy, the judge Bruguière also got involved in risky international enterprises. In the investigation on the attempt of the DC-10 of UTA (170 deaths, September 19, 1989), he had not hesitated to launch warrants against responsibles of services of intelligence of Tripoli, in Libya, including the brother-in-law of colonel Gaddafi. In 1992, the magistrate's letter stigmatizing the Libyan lack of cooperation had been adopted like document of reference by the Council of security of the UN that was going to vote an embargo against Libya. Shortly after, Mr. Bruguière had wanted to pursue his investigation while disembarking on the Libyan soil from an aviso of the national marine. Tripoli had refused the boarding of this armed ship (torpedos, Exocet missiles) and the magistrate had won another nickname there, " the admiral ". “ A decidedly anti-Libyan attitude, behind which Pierre PEAN denounces “the American hand”. 

"A part of this relentlessness explains itself by the personality of the judge Bruguière", writes PEAN: " FIRST big media judge, he spent a lot of times taking care of his picture as well as the production of his investigation and his journeys. When he discovered that to him all only he could inflect the foreign politics of France and that politicians feared it, he went up, perfected a very powerful lobbying system permitting him to impose " his " truth then. Judges are the last profession to be able to offer themselves of the flattering portraits in a press become yet pitiless because, sheltered by the secret of the instruction, they can distribute scoops to that they want. Misfortune to those that would not send back them the elevator. The judge Bruguière was one of the first to understand this mechanism. It is with the file of the attempt of the DC10 that he got his " some " in magazines (…) The reality is other. The judge was always nearer of the Place Beauvau [ministry of the interior] that of the Place Vendôme [ministry of justice] (…) His proximity of the RPR made him dream to occupy other functions, as the one of director of the DST, or even of the state police, because there is a spy side in this " soldier of justice ". nothing excited him further that the preparation – with the general Rondot – of Carlos' abduction to Sudan, in 1994. Man of order and reason of state, Bruguière appraises that he is in first line in a fight to forbid some values. He despises those that he calls domisteses, " defenders of human rights, " who make the game of terrorists "….”   

DISCO " LA BELLE " IN BERLIN:  THE MOSSAD IMPLICATED 

  

August 25’ 1998, the German television chanel ZDF in its political magazine “Frontal” issued a resounding report on the attempt of "La Belle", putting in light the implication of the Israeli MOSSAD in the attempt of 1985.  The German journalists revealed that several of people implied in the attempt, that had served of pretext for the raid of Reagan of April 15’ 1986 against Libya, were bound to the Israeli and American secret services. The ZDF revealed also the concerted manipulations of the investigation by the German BND and the CIA. 

Findings of the report were that the principal accused Yasser Chraidi was innocent and used like goat emissary by the German and American services, that one of accuseds Musbah Eter had worked a long time for the CIA, that several suspected had not been submitted in court because they were protected by the western information services and that one among them, Mohammed Amairi, was an agent of the Israeli MOSSAD. 

The ZDF interrogated to this topic the lawyer of Amairi, Me Odd Drevland. To the question  “was Amairi an agent of the Mossad?” , the lawyer answers: " He was a man of the Mossad ".  

Journalists of " Frontal " conclude: " a thing is certain, the American legend of the Libyan state terrorism could not longer  be maintained ".  

 

LIBYA ALSO WANT REPARATIONS! 

 

This long dodge was indispensable to explain what is the state of mind of the Libyans. And why Tripoli, that bought the raise of the embargo, doesn't want to hear to speak of responsibility. 

But Tripoli hears to also spend to the counteroffensive and to require, it also, of repairs for its civil victims, struck by Americans, British, the NATO or the French army. 

An action is in study to require repairs for the numerous Libyan victims of the terrorist raid of April 1986.    

Facing the French government, of which the cheek and the indignity are without limit, Seïf el-Islam Gaddafi, interrogated by LE FIGARO, expose the Libyan claimings: " we also want some financial compensations for families of the three Libyan aviators killed by the French army in years 80 in Chad. To the time, we were not in war against France, but against Chad. We want to also adjust the problem of the six Libyans that has been condemned in default by the French justice (for the attempt against the DC 10 of UTA in 1989). Their innocence must be recognized. Finally, we want an agreement of nonaggression and cooperation with France. Too long, the French authorities made us sparkle a bilateral relation improvement, to come back then behind. These equivocations caused the distrust between Libyans and French". 

Finally, there is the contentious, too often forgotten, of the “Ustica Drama”, 23 years after the fall in sea of a Italian civil plane whose leader Libyan Moammar Gaddafi gave back the responsible United States.    

 

WESTERN STATE TERRORISM: THE " DRAMA OF USTICA " 

 

In a speech pronounced this 1st September 2003 to Tripoli, colonel Gaddafi accused Americans to have wanted to kill it on June 27’ 1980, provoking the disaster of Ustica, when a airplane of the Itavia company assuring the Bologna-Palermo link got damaged in sea to the large of Sicily, making 81 deaths. “Americans were convinced that I was on board of this plane. It is why they cut down it”, declared the Libyan leader on occasion in this intervention of the 34th birthday of the Libyan revolution.  

In two interviews also given back publics this 2 September, Mrs. Bonfietti, Italian senator and chairwoman of the association of victim families, underlined that the colonel Gaddafi had made these declarations "in a completely new context”, after the agreement with Americans and British on the disaster of Lockerbie, " to one moment where his international credibility is, without hopeless doubt, increasing ".  

The western official thesis the most often advanced to explain the disaster of Ustica is that, the night of the drama, one or two Libyan planes were pursued by the American and French hunts, and would have followed the road of the civil plane to escape their radars. The DC 9 would have been then cut down by mistake, or would have entered that evening in collision with one of the present planes in the zone. Paris and Washington always denied any implication of their hunters in the drama.  

" It is necessary to convince Americans and French to sit down whole to a table and to arrive to the truth ", added Mrs. Bonfietti.  

In September 2000, a trial, that is always in progress, opened up to Rome against nine former officers of high rank and responsible of the secret services. it is blamed them for having hindered the investigation with false testimonies or hidings of proofs. Daria Bonfietti, that is as senator of “left Democrats” (DS, the main Italian party of opposition) declared that "it is time that the Italian government carries the affair of Ustica to a political level”. 

Tripoli appraises that Libya must not be the alone to pay! 

__________________________

 

# CONCLUSIONS FOR THE 2003 ISSUE :

 

 

For Libya, the current fight is vital. Facing threats of  war from the “neocons” hawks, and the aggression against Iraq demonstrated that these threats didn't have anything of virtual, Tripoli is committed in a diplomatic offensive to affirm its legitimate role in Africa and in Mediterranea. Gaddafi has always searched the alliance with Europe and the shyness of the European firms facing the opening of the country distresses the Libyan decision-makers. 

 

If sometimes Kadhafi is known as the wise man of Africa, guiding in the line of  Nkrumah the Continent toward its pan-African destiny, many fews are aware of this another facets of the personality of the guide of the Libyan Revolution: Kadhafi “the European”, one of the firmest support of the European unification and its monetary unity with the Euro. Because Kadhafi knows that imperialism doesn't have a more dangerous potential enemy than Europe. And it also remembers that Libya was with Rome one of the jewels of the Mediterranean unity of  the Empire. As Kadhafi has therefore encouraged the return to this millennial unity and to make of his Libya a bridge between Africa and Europe.

This will of alliance opens the way in a Mediterranean Space more brotherly and more interdependent, it is criminal to refuse it. 

 

Because this refusal only benefits to enemies of the real Europe. Which are also the enemies of Libya. In this seeing, the politics mindless the French government, taken to the name of foreign lobbies interests, is not a mistake, but a crime. 

The African unity, of which Libya of Gaddafi is the ambassador in the Mediterranean, has for vocation to converge with the European unification in march. In these dramatic hours where “neocons” dream only of new crusades and another "shock of civilizations", the dialogue and the synergism of cultures, that defends Gaddafi, must be defended here also. Africans, Arabs and Europeans, we must walk together and must prove to enemies of the humanity that History is not finished.  

 

 

____________________________

 

 

BIBLIOGRAPHY

(completed 2013)

 

Sources and origin of quotes:

LE MONDE, CONTINENTAL, LE FIGARO, L’INTELLIGENT (JEUNE AFRIQUE), LE NOUVEL OBSERVATEUR.

 

Speeches and declarations of Moammar Gaddafi :

Discours de « Sebha » de Moammar Kadhafi, publié par le quotidien libyen AL-JAMAHIRIYA, 6 octobre 2003, traduction française par Samir Gharbi pour L’Intelligent.

“Gadhafi predicts terror backlash from Iraq war; links Bush to Hitler”, Reuters, March 11’ 2003.

Interview de Moammar Kadhafi : « Irak Le dirigeant libyen estime que le terrorisme deviendra un « fléau général » après une intervention militaire en Irak », propos recueillis par Charles Lambroschini, LE FIGARO, 11 mars 2003.

“Libya not to make atomic bombs : Ghaddafi”, Xinhuanet, 12 juillet 2003.

 

Books: 

«MANIPULATIONS AFRICAINES», Pierre Péan, 2001, Plon.

«VOL UT 772, CONTRE-ENQUETE SUR UN ATTENTAT ATTRIBUE A KADHAFI», Pierre Péan, 1992, Stock.

MEGRAHI: YOU ARE MY JURY: THE LOCKERBIE EVIDENCE, By John Ashton, Published February 1st 2012 by Birlinn Ltd.

Argument of the publisher : “For the first time, the man known as “the Lockerbie bomber”—accused of 270 counts of murder for the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland—tells his fascinating story. This long-awaited book argues that, far from being an unrepentant terrorist, Abdelbaset al-Megrahi was the innocent victim of dirty politics, a flawed investigation, and judicial folly. Based on exclusive interviews with Megrahi himself and conclusive new evidence, this account destroys the prosecution's case while making a compelling argument that the murderers were not acting on behalf of Libya and Muammar Gaddafi, but on behalf of an entirely different government.”

 

Newspapers and reviews: 

Norah Manima,  « Union africaine – L’épreuve du feu », CONTINENTAL, n° 29, juin-juillet 2003.

“German TV exposes CIA, Mossad links to 1986 Berlin disco bombing”, WSWS, 27 August 1998.

Erich Inciyan, « L'affaire des Moudjahiddines met en lumière la "méthode Bruguière" », LE MONDE, Paris, 21 juin 2003.

Jean-Pierre Stroobants, « Des pratiques contestées à Bruxelles », LE MONDE, Paris, 21 juin 2003.

René Backmann, « Terrorisme: les révélations du livre-choc de Pierre Péan. Vol UT 772 : la bombe venait de Téhéran », LE NOUVEL OBSERVATEUR, hebdo, Paris, N° 1894, 22 février 2001.

Barnaby Mason, “Analysis: Libya's last Lockerbie hurdle”, BBC NEWS on line, 14 August 2003.

Arshad Mohammed, « La France pourrait bloquer l'accord sur Lockerbie », Reuters, 14 août 2003.

« La Libye accuse la France de vouloir bloquer la levée des sanctions », AFP,  14 août 2003.

Yann Laurent, « La Libye prête à payer pour effacer Lockerbie et les sanctions », LE MONDE, 15 août 2003.

« L'éditorial du Monde. Le prix du sang », LE MONDE, 15 août 2003.

« Lockerbie : la Libye s'engage à indemniser gracieusement les victimes », LE MONDE, 14 août 2003.

« La Libye a acheté la levée des sanctions, selon le ministre des AE libyen », AFP, 18 août 2003.

”Lockerbie 'a business deal'”,  BBC NEWS on line, 18 August 2003.

“Lockerbie: Libya 'innocent'“, AP-Sapa, July 28’ 2003.

« Accord franco-britannique pour un report du vote à l'ONU sur la levée des sanctions contre la Libye », LEMONDE, 21 août 03.

Corine Lesnes, « Londres et Paris invités à s'entendre sur leurs exigences face à la Libye », LE MONDE, 21 août 03.

L. de B., « LIBYE Affaire du DC 10 d'UTA. DC 10 d'UTA : l'accord d'indemnisation avec Paris tarde à se concrétiser », LE FIGARO,  17 octobre 2003.

« Interlocuteur des familles des victimes. Seïf el-Islam Kadhafi : Nous voulons des contreparties financières », Propos recueillis par L. de B.,  LE FIGARO,  17 octobre 2003.

« DC-1O d'UTA : rupture des négociations entre Tripoli et les familles des victimes », LEMONDE, 15 octobre 2003.

« Ariel Sharon pense que la Libye pourrait être le premier pays arabe à se doter de l'arme nucléaire », AP, 4 septembre 2002.

Nicole Mari, « Méditerranée-Europe. Un pont entre deux continents », CONTINENTAL, N°25, juin-juillet 2002.

Kim Sengupta, “US sends warning to Libya over 'pursuit of WMD'”, Independent Digital (UK) Ltd, June 21’  2003.

“Gaddafi announces his separation from the Arabs”, AFP, October 8’ 2003.

Véronique Hayoun, « Yiftah Shapir : « La Libye ? Pas d'arme nucléaire. L'Irak ? Des skuds plus dangereux pour Israël que ceux de 1991 » », Proche-orient.info, 10 septembre 2002.

Ridha Kéfi, « Après Saddam Kaddafi ? », L’INTELLIGENT, N°2200, du 9 au 15 mars 2003.

Entretien avec Françoise Rudetzki, Déléguée générale de « S.O.S. Attentats », sur le site « TERRORISME.NET », 16 octobre 2003 (L'entretien s'est déroulé à Paris le 26 juin 2003. Les questions de Terrorisme.net ont été posées par Jean-François Mayer. La transcription de l'entretien a été effectuée par Olivier Moos. Le texte a été revu par F. Rudetzki au début du mois d’octobre 2003).

Jean-Pierre Lehmann et Valérie Engammare, « Multilatéralisme : le double langage de la France », LES ECHOS, quotidien, Paris, 23 octobre 2003. 

 

Copyright Luc MICHEL-2003-2013, all rights reserved.