Saving Gaddafi Part of Debt Deal
A deal is afoot, begun in France, moved to Britain and now taking hold in Washington to keep Gaddafi in Libya, out of power, but safe from rendition and punishment, even safe from the fate of Mubarak.
Though unstated, the deal being brokered would secure Gaddafi in a safe haven among his own enemies, something considered unworkable by those who understand Libya’s tribal divides. Why would a solution, knowingly impossible, gain so much momentum so quickly? The answers are several and Gaddafi’s new backers a quite unexpected crowd, including the Tea Party element in Washington.
First, however, let’s take a look at Britain’s “new” policy on Libya.
This morning, the British government folded up, backing down from demands that Gaddafi leave Libya and face trial for war crimes. This is how their position was publicly expressed in this article in the Mail by Jason Groves:
Ministers were accused of a major U-turn over Libya last night after William Hague confirmed Britain has dropped its demand that Colonel Gaddafi must leave the country.
The Foreign Secretary said that although the UK still hoped the tyrant would eventually face justice in the International Criminal Court, his future was a matter for the Libyan people.
Speaking at a joint press conference in London with the French foreign minister Alain Juppe, Mr Hague said the two countries were ‘absolutely united’ in backing the military intervention in Libya.
He insisted Gaddafi must leave power and ‘never again be able to threaten the lives of Libyan civilians, nor to destabilise Libya once he has left power’.
However, he stopped short of repeating previous demands that the dictator must leave the country.
Deal? The ministers said that Gaddafi could see out his days in Libya provided he relinquished power
Former foreign secretary Sir Malcolm Rifkind said allowing Gaddafi to stay in Libya was ‘less than perfect, but it might be the best available (option) under the circumstances’.
He said it was ‘not inconceivable’ that there would be a siege in Tripoli but insisted it was also possible there could be an uprising in the city if insurgents got close enough.
‘The important thing to avoid is a bloodbath in Tripoli,’ he told the BBC Radio 4 Today programme.
Behind this, there were two levels of cover stories. The first was that Gaddafi still has 3 barrels of VX gas, produced in South Africa as part of a joint operation between that nation, Libya,Iraq and Israel. Saddam was said to have used VX on the Kurds.
Following a trail begun by a Wikileaks cable, we were able to learn that the WMD programs in Libya had not been dismantled by 2003, as agreed upon, but the process had been held up.
In fact, Libya had agreed, in 2003, to destroy all chemical weapons. However, in this Wikileaks cable, one not made public in the United States, we learn that as late as 2011, Libya maintains its stocks of chemical weapons. Gaddafi had been allowed extensions year after year claiming he had no money.
In fact, the Daily Telegraph reported:
Scientists from Britain and America visited the chemical weapons facility as it was being built in August 2006. The cable, a copy of which was leaked to the WikiLeaks website and seen by The Daily Telegraph, detailed a visit by the scientists to a military facility in Tajura, on the outskirts of Tripoli.
The communique reports: “US and UK experts were both told that a lab under construction at the facility would be for chemical weapons defensive purposes.”
Andy Oppenheimer, editor of Chemical and Biological Warfare Review, said the facility described in the cable was “quite clearly” being used to develop chemical and biological weapons agents.
“The Libyans may well claim that this facility is for defence, but that’s a very thin argument because in order to defend against chemical weapons you have to build them and test them first,” he said.
He continued: “Libya clearly did develop chemical weapons. There was a load of mustard gas and blistering agent that that was being destroyed under the terms of the Chemical Weapons Convention, but there are now fears that the Libyans are lying and that they have stocks which haven’t been declared.
Libya is estimated to have 13.6 metric tonnes of sulphur mustard and 556 metric tonnes of CW precursor chemicals by the OPCW.
The real story went much further with highly placed sources in the UK telling us that Gaddafi had, in the UK as he had done in France and Italy, financed political races, pouring millions into the country in a convoluted scheme cooked up with Tony Blair and American former Vice President Dick Cheney. Companies “close to the hearts” of Blair and Cheney, BAE and Haliburton in particular, raked in hundreds of millions, even billions from Gaddafi. This article from the Sunday Times outlines one such deal:
Tony Blair helped to secure defence contracts worth £350m and the promise of more as part of the deal with Libya that allowed the Lockerbie bomber to return home.
The deals were signed during his meeting with Colonel Gadaffi in May 2007, when the then prime minister agreed to a prisoner transfer deal between the two countries. The disclosure has led to renewed accusations that the Labour government entered into a “terrorist for trade” agreement.
Senior officials with two companies which accompanied Blair on his “deal in the desert”, left with large hardware orders under the defence accord between the two countries.
MBDA, in which British Aerospace (BAe) has a 38% stake, left with a £147m contract for anti-tank missiles and a £112m related communication system contract. General Dynamics UK (GDUK) was given a deal worth £85m to supply the Libyan army with radios which could be extended to other elements of its armed forces.
During the talks, Libya also spoke with MBDA about its intention to buy surface to air missiles, a deal which would have been worth at least £200m but later fell through. The firm was also in the running to win further lucrative weapons contracts linked to a sale by France to Libya of Rafale jet fighters.
GOP: Gaddafi Free or No Debt Deal
The GOP has brought nearly every what they term “entitlement” to the table for deep cuts. One area that has not been suggested, not a whisper is the $15-20 billion a year in aid to Israel, one of the worlds richest nations on a per-capita basis. Among the cuts suggested are deep cuts in veterans benefits including health care and disability compensation, areas that have been traditionally, not only underfunded by intentionally sabotaged, particularly during the Bush administration.
Thus, finding the political wing willing to alienate this key and universally considered most deserving of American groups, disabled veterans, should be surprising unless we take a close look at recent history, “Bush” history, his history with Liyba.
The same deals that went to France, Italy and Britain, arms for sure, but more, oil and gas, exploration, pipelines, refinery expansion, went to American companies closely aligned to the Bush administration, over 300 American companies.
Moreover, Gaddafi had, for decades, invested Libya’s oil wealth, much of it in personal accounts, with the Rothschild banks in Europe, perhaps as a hedge against occasions such as those that have recently befallen him. Chris Bollyn makes his case:
The Qaddafi family is closely tied to and invested with the Rothschild family, which raises the question: Is Muammar Qaddafi, the brutal and mercurial Libyan dictator, working with Israel’s Mossad? The evidence suggests that he is.
We need to remember that the Mossad works hand-in-hand with the Rothschild family, which controls global mining and oil production operations. Libya has the largest proven reserves of oil in Africa and exports about 1.5 million barrels per day and has important refineries that supply essential petroleum products to Europe. Let’s look at the evidence that Qaddafi is working with the Rothschild family and their intelligence agency, the Mossad.
First, Libya invested a reported $500 million into Allen Stanford’s money laundering operation that was exposed two years ago this month to be a scam in which some $8 billion disappeared. Stanford’s operation, based in Antigua and Houston, was one in which senior Mossadniks were both investors and recipients of investments from Allen Stanford. The Israeli venture capital funds which received millions of dollars from Stanford are all closely linked to the Mossad. Yair Shamir, the son of the infamous terrorist leader Yitzchak Shamir, was one of the investors in Stanford’s “bank” in Antigua.
Yair Shamir (inset), the son of the notorious Zionist terrorist Yitzchak Shamir, is chairman and managing partner of the Catalyst Fund, a Mossad venture capital fund that received tens of millions of dollars from the Allen Stanford money-laundering operation. Shamir was also an investor in the Stanford bank.
Bollyn goes further:
Qaddafi invested the $500 million in Stanford’s operation three weeks before the fund collapsed owing investors some $8 billion. The Stanford bank was reportedly a Mossad money-laundering operation funded with illegal drug profits. Libya, however, has never made a claim for the lost $500 million. Why would Qaddafi invest half a billion dollars in a Mossad-linked scam and not ask for the money back?Secondly, there is the Rothschild connection to Qaddafi, through his son Saif.
As the Daily Mail reported on February 24:
The friendship of oddball financier Nat Rothschild, 39, scion of one of Europe’s most distinguished Jewish families, with Colonel Gaddafi’s epicene son, Saif, is remarkable. Colonel Gaddafi confiscated all Jewish property in Libya when he came to power. All debts to Jews were cancelled and emigration legally prohibited. But in 2004 – the year Tony Blair befriended the Libyan madman – Gaddafi said he would discuss compensating Jews stripped of their possessions. It’s said Saif – who hoped to succeed his father – was behind these moves. A sop to Nat Rothschild?
Bollyn’s case; Gaddafi, through his son Saif, has been partnering with the Rothschilds and courting Israel for years. Through his Rothschild connections and reputed Jewish birth, Gaddafi has done much more than cozy up to Israel, he has also built on his power base in the United States, a base that now has control of one house of congress and is in position to blackmail President Obama.
Thus, when sources in the UK intelligence community come to us with the story that the pro-Israeli Tea Party wing of the Republican Party has put ending American military activity against Gaddafi on the table as a negotiating position tied to coming to a deal over debt default, we are not surprised.
Rothschild money put most of them in office, laundered through corporations taking advantage of new lax campaign finance rules, a huge loophole opened by the Supreme Court, one of the most controversial acts by that body in its history.
Further, as mentioned today by Alan Hart, former BBC Mideast Bureau Chief and onetime friend of Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir:
Eskil Pedersen, gave an interview to Dagbladet, Norway’s second largest tabloid newspaper. In it he said: “The AUF has long been a supporter of an international boycott of Israel but the decision of the last Congress demands that Norway impose a unilateral economic embargo on the country… I acknowledge this is a drastic measure but I think it gives a clear indication that, quite simply, we are tired of Israel’s behaviour.” (My own view is that behind closed doors all Western governments, including the one in Washington D.C. in the person of President Obama, are tired of Israel’s behaviour).
If Hart is right in his article written for Veterans Today, a divide within the US not publicly acknowledged exists, one that puts the resignation of Rahm Emmanuel as White House chief of staff in an entirely different light.
The seeming dilemma facing many is explaining why a political sector closely allied to Israel and known for its rabid Islamophobia is working so hard to save a dictator under indictment for war crimes by the ICC. This represents the “U-turn” of all times, from universal torture and rendition and “regime change” on a whim to croc tears for a multi-billionaire dictator with secret Rothschild ties.
At stake, it seems, is the economic future of America, held hostage by Gaddafi and the very long reach of his very powerful friends.