The Fruits of Bush’s “Unilateralism”: Libyan Leader Muammar al-Qaddafi Afraid of Suffering Saddam’s Fate

From FoxNews [Hat Tip: B. Harburg-Thomson]:

Libya has agreed to end its pursuit of weapons of mass destruction and allow international inspectors to enter the country and search for such weapons, President Bush announced Friday...Libyan leader Muammar al-Qaddafi has admitted trying to develop weapons of mass destruction and now plans to halt all such programs, Bush said...Bush said the United States and Britain, wary of Libyan promises, would watch closely to make sure al-Qaddafi keeps his word. And he said Libya's promises on weapons aren't enough; it must "fully engage in the war against terror" as well. If Libya "takes these essential steps and demonstrates its seriousness," Bush held out the promise of helping Libya build "a more free and prosperous country."

...The U.N. Security Council ended sanctions against Libya on Sept. 12 after al-Qaddafi's government took responsibility for the [1988 bombing of a Pan Am jet over Lockerbie, Scotland, that killed 270 people] and agreed to pay $2.7 billion to the victims' families.

Observe that the best that the U.N. could offer Libya for their 1988 bombing of a Pan Am jet over Lockerbie, Scotland was to give Libya chairmanship of the so-called U.N. Commission on Human Rights (while kicking the U.S. off the council). See Another United Nations Sham: Libyan leader Colonel Gadaffi to Head the U.N. Human Rights Commission for details of the "U.N. Human Rights" sham. "Multilateralists" and advocates of the "international community" must be wondering how did the U.S. and Britain achieve such a concession without the "assistance" of the United Nations?

...But the United States has kept its own 17-year embargo in place.

If you are an admirer of "Old Europe" foreign policy you must be thinking: Doesn't the U.S. know that such a policy does not "work"? All it does is to create "resentment." How does one "build bridges" with such an "unilateral" foreign policy, clearly not approved by Howard Dean, Kofi-Annan, and his merry band of U.N. approved dictators? Dictators must be cuddled, kissed, and appeased.

...Libya had relied heavily on foreign assistance for its weapons programs. It had already made overtures suggesting it would slow or halt its programs to improve its international standing.

Foreign "assistance" from whom? Anyone from the "Axis of Weasels"? The report does not say.

The U.S. intelligence statements on Libya's alleged weapons programs suggest efforts in that country were not as advanced as Iraq's were before the U.S.-led invasion. At the White House, Bush said the war in Iraq and efforts to stop North Korea's nuclear program had sent a clear message to countries such as Libya that they must abandon weapons programs."In word and in action, we have clarified the choices left to potential adversaries," Bush said. That was an apparent reference to Iran and North Korea, two other countries that the United States contends are trying to develop weapons of mass destruction. Without naming them, Bush added: "I hope other leaders will find an example" in Libya's action.  ["Libya to Allow Weapons Inspections", FoxNews, December 20, 2003]

To quote from a previous Dollars and Crosses new item from the The London Telegraph (September 13, 2003) that quoted an interview of Italian Prime Minister Berlusconi:

"I said, given the enormous and paradoxical success of fundamentalism, why don't we reform the UN? Let us say to Mr X or Y in this or that dictatorship, you must recognise human rights in your country and we give you six to 12 months to do so, or else we intervene. "We can do this now because there is no countervailing power," he said referring to the collapse of communism in the Soviet Union."...Yes! By force if necessary, because that is the only way to show it is not a joke. We said to Saddam, do it or we come. And we came and we did it." A spokesman for Mr Berlusconi said the prime minister had been telephoned recently by Col Gaddafi of Libya, who said: "I will do whatever the Americans want, because I saw what happened in Iraq, and I was afraid."

Thanks to America's words and deeds the world is, in fact, a safer place. America must not stop until it End States That Sponsor Terrorism.

***

From Cox and Forkum:

Recommended Reading:Thinking it Alone: U.S. Must Reject the Evil Doctrine of "Multilateralism" by Alex Epstein Military decisions are decisions about life and death--about what should be done to protect us from enemies who seek our destruction. If our leaders are to fulfill their obligation to defend our country, they must--starting with Iraq--reject the poison of "multilateralism" and replace it with the virtue of independent, rational judgment.Libya Gets Away With Terrorist Acts Against the United States by Alexander Marriott At a time when the United States of America are fighting a war against International Terrorism and Terrorist States, the last thing the country needs is the appearance of weakness or appeasement. But the settlement that is looking more and more likely between the families of those who perished in Pam Am flight 103 and the Libyan government, that had that plane destroyed, is just such an act of appeasement and weakness that, if it comes to fruition, will only embolden clandestine acts of terror by states hostile to the United States.Another United Nations Sham: Libyan leader Colonel Gadaffi to Head the U.N. Human Rights Commission by Brett Schaefer Even the most creative scriptwriter couldn't top the real-life plot twist the U.N. Commission on Human Rights will have concocted when Libya becomes its chairman."Multilateralism's" One-Way Street by Robert W. Tracinski The past week has shown us that "multilateralism" is really a one-way street--a street that consistently runs against American interests.Lockerbie Verdict Vindicates Continued Sanctions Against Libya by James Phillips The outcome of the Lockerbie bombing trial underscores the need for a firm U.S. policy toward Libyan dictator Muammar Qadhafi.The UN Human Rights Agenda: A Strategy of Diversion by Anne Bayefsky UN intergovernmental human rights machinery is not keen on specifics. Its members include some of the most notorious human rights violators in the world today: China, Cuba, Iran, Libya, Saudi Arabia, and Syria. Those countries prefer devoting UN funds, (22% of which are from the United States), to criticizing Israel - lest attention wander too close to home.The United Nations Against Individual Rights by Jeff Jacoby If the UN 'Human Rights' Commission were really concerned with human rights, the accession of a ghoulish regime like Libya's to the chair would indeed be a scandal. But the commission's true purposes are to give Third World bullies a venue for grandstanding, to harangue Western democracies, to ensure that the world's cruelest rulers escape condemnation, and, of course, to bash Israel. There's nothing in that agenda to disqualify Libya. Or, for that matter, Vietnam, Saudi Arabia, China, Syria, Sudan, or Zimbabwe -- each a notorious human-rights violator and each a commission member in good standing.UN Confidence Games: Libya as the Chairman of the U.N.'s Human Rights Commission? by Ken Adelman With the official representatives of Libya and Syria having control over key United Nations agencies, you wonder just how much wisdom the UN can impart to guide American foreign policy.