» Wednesday, March 24, 2004

Prime Minister’s Visit to Libya

Asked to comment on the timing of the Prime Minister’s visit to Libya, the PMOS referred journalists to the extensive briefing on this already from those on the trip. In particular, he would draw journalists’ attention to what the Deputy Prime Minister had said in the House of Commons today and to what Jim Swire had said as well. There were difficult issues, but as the IAEA had verified, the Libyan regime had, in recent months, taken significant steps towards eliminating WMD programs. If a country was making progress with this and withdrawing its support for terrorism, then it was the Prime Minister’s judgement that that country should be helped on the road to rejoining the international community.

Briefing took place at 15:45 | Search for related news

9 Comments »

  1. So, we persuaded Gaddafi to give up his WMD (ahaha) so that BAE could sell him lots of new weapons? Well done, ethical foreign policy my arse 🙁

    Comment by Matt — 25 Mar 2004 on 2:36 pm | Link
  2. "taken significant steps towards eliminating WMD programs." So they arent even reducing existing weapons, just not making new ones as quickly?

    Oh fine then, never mind Lockerbie, well done Gadaffi!

    Comment by Lodjer — 25 Mar 2004 on 4:09 pm | Link
  3. Jaw-jaw is always better than war-war. And as for ‘significant steps’, I think it’s fine to open up in stages as long as it’s seen as an ongoing process – I expect that the rug can be pulled very quickly if Gaddafy decides to stop playing nice.

    Comment by Marek Ostrowski — 25 Mar 2004 on 4:38 pm | Link
  4. I expect so, and yes, jaw better than war.

    But does this inconsistency not highlight that the reasons behind actions are not the ones we are given?

    Iraq was attacked and Saddam deposed because of wmd – which he didn’t have.

    And now Gadaffi and Libya are extended diplomatic normalcy (or something close) because of their "steps" regarding wmd.

    This is Doublethink. I think.

    Comment by Lodjer — 25 Mar 2004 on 4:47 pm | Link
  5. I was very amused by a comment in one of the papers (I can’t be bothered to find it now) on the revelation that we’ll be giving backer of terrorists and pursuer of "weapons of mass destruction" Colonel Gaddafi military aid. "Perhaps," the journalist wrote, "he’s hoping to make it to Brigadier."

    Well, I lauged.

    Comment by Chris Lightfoot — 25 Mar 2004 on 6:06 pm | Link
  6. History used to demand the gradual algorithm of

    Terrorist – Freedom Fighter – Statesman

    but now the World moves faster

    Terrorist – Statesman

    a little more acceleration and
    TB will be shaking hands with Osama

    anyone going to give me odds?

    Comment by Roger Huffadine — 25 Mar 2004 on 6:36 pm | Link
  7. Tonight, if you listen carefully, you will hear the weapons merchants at BAe clapping along merrily, as Tony Blair dances on the graves of the Lockerbie victims.

    Comment by Ron F — 25 Mar 2004 on 6:47 pm | Link
  8. Of course, I may be very much mistaken, but isn’t making and keeping peace a very important factor in the security, physically and politically, of a nation. Should we make enemies by dwelling forever on the hurts a nation has given us, thus clinging desperately to an old enemy, or would it not be far better to make a friend. Now, obviously I do not offer any disrespect to the Lockerbie victims, or their families, but Colonel Gaddafi will soon be dead, for that is the limit of all mankind, but Libya, and Britain’s friendship, with it will last, if we both strive to keep it, for decades.

    Benjamin

    Comment by benjamin — 25 Mar 2004 on 7:30 pm | Link
  9. "taken significant steps towards eliminating WMD programs…."

    Isn’t this very vague. I’d really like to know more about the extent to which Libya really had developed the WMD or posed a threat which has now been renounced through the carrot (talks) and stick (example of Iraq). I haven’t picked up much of the detail but what are the precise "steps" that Libya have taken. How much has the threat, now "resolved", been enhanced for political effect?

    Having said this it still seems eminently better to lock and engage a country into a wider international community by talking and befriending rather than bombing or forever isolating. More drastic approaches may now have been short circumvented.

    Comment by Derek — 25 Mar 2004 on 11:03 pm | Link

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Post a public comment

(You must give an email address, but it will not be displayed to the public.)
(You may give your website, and it will be displayed to the public.)

Comments:

This is not a way of contacting the Prime Minister. If you would like to contact the Prime Minister, go to the 10 Downing Street official site.

Privacy note: Shortly after posting, your name and comment will be displayed on the site. This means that people searching for your name on the Internet will be able to find and read your comment.

Downing Street Says...

The unofficial site which lets you comment on the UK Prime Minister's official briefings. About us...

Search


March 2004
Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun
« Feb   Apr »
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
293031  

Supported by

mySociety.org

Disruptive Proactivity

Recent Briefings


Archives

Links

Syndicate (RSS/XML)

Credits

Enquiries

Contact Sam Smith.

This site is powered by WordPress. Theme by Jag Singh