Recently, the world and especially Europe were touched by the images of the Bulgarian medics turned hostages landing on European soil, their smiles hiding their downbeat looks after spending eight years imprisoned in Libya under the threat of the death penalty. Accused of having deliberately infected Libyan children with AIDS, the medics were arrested in 1998 and sentenced to death twice (the first decision was remanded).

At the time, many analysts commented on it as a symbol of Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi's intention of getting even closer to Western powers and everything they have to offer. Others praised the ability of the Europeans (especially French Prime Minister Nicholas Sarkozy) to deal with Libya in the case. What very few of them knew was that this case, apparently solved, would make headlines again as a symbol of yet another deal, much less noble: A supposed prisoners-for-weapons swap that granted Libya a massive US$400 million arms deal with EADS (European Aeronautic Defense and Space company), according to critics of the deal.

Furthermore, critics accuse Sarkozy of playing a major role in sealing the deal, an accusation that has led to a scandal in France and a probe from the French opposition, particularly the Socialists.

The suspicion comes, primarily, from the fact that the announcement by EADS that the deal had been concluded came only a week after the medics were released from Libyan territory. Adding to the supposed evidence, there's a memorandum of understanding between France and Libya, published shortly after the release of the medics, concerning the possible construction of a nuclear reactor in Libya, related to a water desalinization project -- not to mention Sarkozy's active role in freeing the Bulgarian doctors, to the point of sending his wife, Cecilia, as an informal envoy. On the Libyan side, there was not much of an effort to brush these suspicions off. Gadhafi's son, Saif al-Islam, reportedly said that the release of the medics did help further negotiations for the weapons contracts.

On one side of the story, it is only reasonable to wonder about the connection between the French prime minister, the Bulgarian medics and the arms deal. Sarkozy, who is traditionally not much of an EU-enthusiast, said the release of the medics was nothing more than a European diplomatic move. But why would he go so far as to send his wife to the negotiations to secure the release of another country's citizens from a country that hasn't had a good relationship with France for a long while?

Later on, after socialist leader Francois Hollande announced an opposition probe into the arms deal, Sarkozy's office declared that the prime minister supported the investigation to make sure there were no link between the release and the arms deal. Why would Sarkozy support such a probe when he is the main representative of the French government in the first place? He also was a major player in the release, so he supposedly knows the most about the deal he helped broker -- his support of the probe sends mixed messages. Speaking of mixed messages, French Defense Minister Herve Morin declared, in the wake of the scandal, that there was no reason for countries not to sell weapons to Libya, while mentioning other traditional European weapons sellers: "If it's not us, it will be others. There are a lot of countries in talks with Tripoli: the Italians, the Russians, British …"

On the other side of the deal, the French and Europeans in general must wonder: Is this deal as scary as it looks? Firstly, Libya is indeed a much more Western-oriented country when it comes to international politics. As much as some politicians try to bring back the ghost of Lockerbie, it is hard to remember the last time Libya had a negative appearance on the political scene, or the last time Gadhafi said something he shouldn't have said. The embargos of the 1990s, and the political isolation that came with them, made Libya weaker, poorer and, therefore, more peaceful. Today, even the United States has friendly talks with Libya every now and then. When it comes to international threats to security, Europe has other countries to worry about.

Secondly, the arms deal itself is not much of a worry. In a nutshell, the $400 million sale is for antitank missiles and a radio communications system, which will serve the purpose, in Libya, of modernizing its completely obsolete defense structure, packed with military junk from the 1970s. So, even if Gadhafi decided to go berserk and launch an all-out attack on Europe, or one of its neighbors, he probably wouldn't last a week before any European country or the U.S. completely nullified the Libyan army. That would be the worst-case scenario, if Libya decided to betray its Western friends. As far as Libya being a terrorist threat goes, antitank missiles and a radio system doesn't seem to be very useful for a terrorist group.

Yet, the story took on the dimensions of a scandal in Europe. And the fact that Sarkozy might have signed the deal during his visit to Tripoli (which he denies) seems to have angered the French opposition more than anyone else. Hollande, while criticizing EADS and the deal, questioned the signing of the deal with a country that "has been responsible for terrorist acts, which has been a rogue state." It doesn't exempt Sarkozy from what was a terrible political move, even if there's absolutely no connection between the medics and the missiles.

Just by letting himself be associated with such a thing by having such terrible timing, Sarkozy left an open window for all kinds of speculations. Now he must deal with a possible crisis that might damage his image just months after he became the French leader. Meanwhile, Libya, the latest "villain" in Europe, goes on happily with $400 million worth of weapons and, according to Gadhafi's son, promises of future joint manufacturing of military equipment and even joint military exercises. What was supposed to be a demonstration of diplomatic skill may have become a nightmare for France's leader.

http://english.ohmynews.com/ArticleV...no=1&back_url=

Libya has not changed but somehow western governments have changed their opinion of her and now BP and Shell are drilling her oil and gas and Libya is buying French weapons and exchanging scapegoated medical professionals for convicted terrorists. And the mainstream media is turing a blind eye. Guess Rupert Murdoch is going to buy the media in Libya next.

Yes and if they were buying US weapons and letting letting Haliburton drill for oil GWB and Fox "News" would singing their praises so whats your point?

Heres a thought all countries act in their own interests France and the rest of Europe are no different to the US when it comes making a buck.

Well, I guess Qaddafi is being rewarded for his so-called cooperation with the world community. right?

They are cooperating with a nutjob worse than Saddam who is right this very instant supporting, training and financing jihadists and other subversive elements throughout Africa. TIA so who cares? I don't give a good god damn which country sold him weapons or where the companies are from that are siphoning off the gas and crude... its the fact that it is even happening at all that is pissing me off. And trading those medics for the bastard who has been convicted of bombing the Lockerbie flight, WTF?!?!?!?!?! I guess leaders with balls AND a sense of right and wrong died with Reagan.

Help me out with a title for this, which is more appropro...

"A government of the corporation, by the corporation and for the corporation."
or
"Peace in our time."

I believe both quotes apply really well here.

Bulldogg

There your error right there. There is no such thing as right or wrong or Black and White in politics. Thats a common error in US Foreign policy; this notion of 'right' and 'wrong'. That might have been true during the Cold War, but in the present day there is no such thing, there are only shades of gray. Libya is a good example.

I was discussing this my folks just the other day. First of all these Charges made by Francois Holland (the French Left who will say anything to discredit Sarkozy) are totally baloney. The French Arms deal was actually brokered 2 years ago, when Sarkozy was Minister of the interior, that means that in no possible way could have he been involved in this case. Its just a political smear job by those on the far left who cannot accept they lost the elections...again.

Secondly the move by France to sell arms to Libya is actually smart. By making Libya dependent for munitions and spares from France it means the French have some degree of leverage over Quaddafi. You can be sure the French exercised this Leverage in the case of the Bulgarian nurses. The USA did the same thing by tying the delivery of Pakistani F-16s to Mushariffs (yes, I know its misspelled) commitment to the GWOT.

Although I agree it sounds bizarre, Its a sound political strategy and it works too. As the saying goes: 'keep your friends close, your enemies closer'.

Just look at the alternative. Would you prefer that Quaddafi buy his Arms from China or Russia? Do you think they really care what Quaddafi does with them? You'll notice the White House is very quiet on this deal (and believe me, they never miss a beat to criticize the French), its because not only did they know about the deal beforehand, they most likely approved it as well.

The son of Libyan dictator Muammar Gadafi has admitted they tortured the foreign medics they were holding hostage, and threatened their families: Libya ‘tortured’ Bulgarian medics.

Phoenix, torture comes as standard with the Hostage package

Originally Posted by the_13th_redneck

Phoenix, torture comes as standard with the Hostage package

Yep... That's terrible!