portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article commentary global

actions & protests | imperialism & war | political theory


Article free of right for diffusion, reproduction or translation.

With mentions of origin and copyright.

And a with sending of a copy to :

digital publications :  info@pcn-ncp.com
printed publications : Luc Michel, 39 rue des Vierges - 1000 Bruxelles (Belgique/Belgium)

EL DIARIO DEL PCN - issue 775 - october 22 '2003)




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.

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 ".


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 ".


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.


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".



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 ".


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.


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".


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 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 "...."


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 ".


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.


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!

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.


Sources and origin of quotes:


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.


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


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, all rights reserved.