Dismantling Libya's nuclear program: so far, so good
For Bush, Qaddafi's initial cooperation is a diamond in the middle of a rough week.
Libyan leader Muammar Qaddafi is already living up to his word to provide full transparency of the dismantling of his country's nuclear program. About 55,000 pounds of documents and equipment related to Libya's nuclear weapons and missile programs were
shipped to the US Tuesday night.
A US Air Force transport plane carrying the key components, including centrifuges used to enrich uranium, missile-guidance systems, and secret documents landed Tuesday at the McGhee-Tyson air base, near Knoxville, Tennessee.
As US and British arms control experts leave Libya, Mark Gwozdecky, a spokesman for the International Atomic Energy Association, announced that
its inspectors will stay. "A team of IAEA inspectors, including centrifuge and weaponization experts, remain in Libya continuing their work," Mr. Gwozdecky said. He said that "in the coming weeks, IAEA inspectors will be undertaking verification work on nuclear components, equipment, and materials inside Libya and on items which have been removed."
This level of cooperation from Libya is a diamond in the rough during a challenging week for the Bush administration. Former chief US weapons inspector David Kay's recent announcement that Saddam Hussein's regime did not have stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction and leading advocacy group Human Rights Watch's
dismissal Monday of the administration's humanitarian reasons for the preemptive war on Iraq have dealt a double blow.
Qaddafi's historic decision to dismantle a nuclear weapons program far more advanced than the intelligence community had realized has been heralded by the Bush administration as the latest and greatest example of the effectiveness of credible force. Nowhere was this view stated more explicitly than at Bush's
State of the Union speech last week.
Last month, the leader of Libya voluntarily pledged to disclose and dismantle all of his regime's weapons of mass destruction programs, including a uranium enrichment project for nuclear weapons. Colonel Qadhafi correctly judged that his country would be better off, and far more secure, without weapons of mass murder. Nine months of intense negotiations involving the United States and Great Britain succeeded with Libya, while 12 years of diplomacy with Iraq did not. And one reason is clear: For diplomacy to be effective, words must be credible – and no one can now doubt the word of America.
Flynt Leverett, a visiting fellow with the Saban Center for Middle East Politics at the Brookings Institution, and senior director for Middle Eastern affairs at the National Security Council from 2002 to 2003, would beg to differ. In a
New York Times article last week Mr. Leverett said that "by linking shifts in Libya's behavior to the Iraq war, the president
misrepresents the real lesson of the Libyan case." He said: "The roots of the recent progress with Libya go back not to the eve of the Iraq war, but to the Bush administration's first year in office. Indeed, to be fair, some credit should even be given to the second Clinton administration."
Many European officials see Qaddafi's move as a
victory for diplomacy and proof positive that the right mix of carrots and sticks can achieve such results. Nevertheless, Libya's cooperation must be seen as a victory for the Bush administration and they don't want it to go unnoticed in the spate of tough developments about Iraq. In a briefing Tuesday, White House press secretary Scott McClellan said that the shipment of weapons technology to the US and "close cooperation on the ground in Libya, reflect
real progress in Libya meeting its commitments. He called Qaddafi's decision to give up his weapons "courageous."
So, "
what next with Libya?" asks
CBS News. "Col. Muammar Qaddafi's government clearly expects a favorable reaction from Washington and it may not have long to wait before the Bush administration offers a positive response," writes
CBS reporter Charles Wolfson. How will the US uphold its part of the bargain and show Qaddafi it is a two-way street? "Perhaps Washington will open an office in Tripoli - it would not be called an embassy - or take other steps, such as making it easier for Americans to travel to Libya," posits Mr. Wolfson.
US Congressman Tom Lantos (D.) of California has already called on the Bush administration to
lift the ban on American travel to Libya. One thing is for sure, the administration will measure its steps carefully while keeping an eye on three regimes it would like to follow suit: Syria, Iran, and North Korea.
Also...
•
Sharon fights on (
The Economist)
•
9/11 Hijackers used mace and knives, panel reports (
The Washington Post)
•
Opinion: The fog of WMD (
The Washington Post)
•
Is President Bush a deserter? (
Slate)
•
Osama's son 'forewarned Iran of 9/11', says defector (
Reuters)
•
BBC castigated in Hutton report (
BBC)
•
From Iraq to Libya, US knew little on weapons (
The Christian Science Monitor)
•
Ex-minister denies Iraq oil claim (
BBC)
•
9/11 commission says it needs more time to complete inquiry (
The New York Times)
•
Israeli army says 13 Palestinians dead in Gaza clash (
The Guardian)
• Feedback appreciated. E-mail
Matthew Clark.
|
RSS feed