Tony Blair agreed to train Gaddafi’s special forces in 'deal in the desert’ Tony Blair used his final foreign trip as prime minister to sign a confidential deal with Muammar Gaddafi to train Libyan special forces and supply him with Nato secrets.
Tony Blair with Col Muammar Gaddafi during a visit to Libya in 2007
A copy of the accord obtained by The Daily Telegraph shows that the two leaders agreed to co-operate on defence matters in a range of areas, including exchanging information about defence structures and technology.
It was signed during the former Labour prime minister’s “Blair-well” tour of Africa in May 2007, in Gaddafi’s tent in the Libyan desert.
Included in the document was an agreement on “co-operation in the training of specialised military units, special forces and border security units”. They also signed up to “exchanges of information on Nato and EU military and civil security organisations”. The document was personally signed by Mr Blair and Gaddafi.
A passing reference to it was contained in a joint communiqué between the two countries, which was issued at the time and posted on the Foreign Office website before being removed a few weeks ago.
The full version of the accord makes clear the extent to which Mr Blair agreed to co-operate with the Gaddafi regime on defence matters.
Under the terms of the deal, Britain was committed to “exchanges of information and views on defence structures, military and security organisations; exchanges of visits by experts and exchange of printed materials in the field of military education and science; exchanges of information on current and developing military concepts, principles and best practice, and the conduct of joint exercises’’.
The two countries also agreed to co-operate in “training in operational planning processes, staff training, and command and control; training of personnel in peace support operations; training co-operation relating to software, communications security, technology and the function of equipment and systems; exchanges of information and experience in the laws of armed conflict; and the acquisition of equipment and defence systems’’. In the Commons, David Cameron criticised the last government’s approach to Libya.
Asked by Ed Miliband, the Labour leader, to say sorry for the faltering evacuation of Britons from Libya last week, the Prime Minister hit back: “Perhaps if apologies are in order you should think about one – the appalling dodgy dealing with Libya under the last government.
“I do think there are lessons to learn from what was the deal in the desert. The last government was correct to encourage the giving up of the weapons of mass destruction but I think more parameters should have been put on the relationship.”
Patrick Mercer, the Conservative MP, said: “The events of the last few days show just how misjudged many of Tony Blair’s judgements were. Just four years on from when he got into bed with Gaddafi, the Libyan dictator is now on the run. I wonder if the former Prime Minister now feels that this accord with Gaddafi really was such a triumph.”
West ready to use force against Col Gaddafi amid chemical weapon fears David Cameron and other Western leaders are on the brink of ordering military action against Col Muammar Gaddafi amid fears that the Libyan dictator could use chemical weapons against his own people.
The Prime Minister disclosed that he would not rule out “the use of military assets” as Britain “must not tolerate this regime using military forces against its own people”. Britain and America are also thought to be considering arming rebel forces in Libya.
Adding to growing concern about the crumbling regime’s ability to commit last desperate acts of mass murder, British sources have disclosed that Libya still has stocks of mustard gas chemicals.
Mr Cameron told MPs that Britain and its allies were considering using fighter jets to impose a no-fly zone over Libya, patrolling and shooting down Libyan aircraft ordered to attack protesters.
The Pentagon announced that the Americans had begun “repositioning forces” around Libya to provide “flexibility”. The French also announced that they would back a possible military intervention with Nato partners.
The warnings were sounded after Gaddafi was accused of ordering Libyan aircraft to attack a radio station being used by rebels in the city of Benghazi. An arms depot being used by anti-government forces was also blown up in the town of Ajdabiya, 100 miles further south.
Despite a promise in 2003 to give up weapons of mass destruction, Gaddafi is thought to have retained as much as 14 tons of the chemicals required to create mustard gas.
The stocks are said to be stored in secret secure facilities in the Libyan desert. The chemicals would need to be mixed and loaded into shells before they could be used as weapons, but are “still a concern,” said a senior British government source. “We want to make sure they’re destroyed.”
The disclosure came after a Gaddafi spokesman was said to have warned that there would be hundreds of thousands of deaths if the country descended into full-blown civil war. Saif Gaddafi, the dictator’s son and heir apparent, was yesterday pictured brandishing an assault rifle, rallying supporters and pledging to “send weapons” to loyalists.
Militias controlled by another of Gaddafi’s sons were also massing on the outskirts of a rebel-held city.
If the no-fly zone is agreed, experts believe that western governments may launch bombing raids on Gaddafi forces if he continues to attack protesters.
Libyan opponents of Gaddafi are calling for Nato air strikes, amid growing fears that they are too weak to overwhelm his still-powerful military on their own or defend liberated cities from attack.
Mustapha Gheriani, a spokesman for an organising committee of lawyers, judges and professionals in Benghazi, the leading city of the revolution, said: “We can’t protect ourselves at the moment from tanks and aircraft, let alone organise a march on Tripoli to topple Gaddafi.
“If there are just a few air strikes, his loyalists will leave him and his time will be numbered in hours. Otherwise he could survive for a long time and there could be terrible bloodshed.”
On Monday, Mr Cameron announced that the vast majority of Britons had been evacuated from Libya and that the evacuation of foreign nationals would be largely complete by today.
The end of the evacuation effort has coincided with a meeting of senior Western politicians to begin the “next phase” of action against the Gaddafi regime. On Sunday, Britain announced emergency plans to freeze the regime’s assets in London. The European Union will impose wide-ranging sanctions against Gaddafi and the Libyan government this week.
Mr Cameron said: “If Col Gaddafi uses military force against his own people, the world cannot stand by. That is why we should be looking at a no-fly zone.” No-fly zones have previously been imposed over Iraq and Bosnia to prevent rogue regimes using air power against civilians. Gen Sir David Richards, the Chief of the Defence Staff, has been asked to draw up options for British military operations in Libya.
Any British involvement in a no-fly operation could see Tornados and Typhoons flying from RAF Akrotiri in Cyprus. The Libyan air force is equipped with French-built Mirage fighter-bombers, but British planners are more concerned about the regime’s military helicopters, which include Soviet-made Mil Mi-24 gunships.
Reports from Libya say such helicopters have been deployed against opposition forces, killing dozens of civilians.
Sources said Gen Richards’ military options paper will also look at British ground operations. Those were likely to be contingency plans to deal with the extraction of RAF pilots in the event of planes crashing or being shot down.
Another option would be giving weapons and other support to groups inside Libya. Mr Cameron said Gaddafi’s departure was Britain’s “highest priority”, adding: “If helping the opposition would somehow bring that about, it is certainly something we should be considering.”
Since the Libyan crisis began, the Coalition has faced repeated criticism over the decision last year to decommission HMS Ark Royal and the Royal Navy’s Harrier jets, leaving Britain without a functioning aircraft carrier.
Dr Liam Fox, the Defence Secretary, insisted that such criticism was a “red herring” because the base in Cyprus meant Britain could still operate jets over Libya if required.
He said: “There has been no need for us to have a carrier, there has been no need for us to use fast jets, but we have the ability to use them if required.”
The Pentagon is believed to be considering moving a US aircraft carrier, the USS Enterprise, from the Red Sea into the Mediterranean to take up a position off Libya. The USS Kearsage, an amphibious assault ship, could also be redeployed. “We’re repositioning forces to provide for flexibility once decisions are made,” said a Pentagon spokesman.
On Monday, reports from Libya suggested that Gaddafi – and forces still loyal to him – were preparing to attack rebels and protesters in the west of the country.
In an interview with ABC News, an American television network, the defiant dictator said: “All my people love me. They would die to protect me.”
Witnesses in Misrata, a city of 500,000 people to the east of Tripoli, and Zawiyah, a strategic refinery town to the west of the capital, said government forces were mounting or preparing attacks.
A resident of Zawiyah, called Ibrahim, said: “We are expecting attacks at any moment by brigades belonging to [Gaddafi’s son] Khamis. They are on the outskirts of the town.”
The US Treasury Department announced last night that it has frozen at least $30 billion in Libyan government assets under US jurisdiction. “This is the largest blocking under any sanctions programme ever,” a spokesman said.
Anti-Gaddafi figures say not contacting foreign govts
Opponents of Muammar Gaddafi based in eastern Libya said on Sunday they did not want any foreign intervention in the country and said they had not made contact with foreign governments.
The comments were made by a spokesman for a new National Libyan Council, which was formed after a meeting in Benghazi. The spokesman described the council as the face of the revolution and not an interim government.
Libya is united in popular revolution – please don't intervene We welcome a no-fly zone, but the blood of Libya's dead will be wasted if the west curses our uprising with failed intervention
Libyan demonstrators, flying the Kingdom of Libya flag, in the main square of Benghazi on 28 February 2011
"Kiss my mum goodbye for me, and tell her that her son died a hero," said my friend Ahmed, 26, to the first person who rushed to his side after he was shot in a Tripoli street.
Two days later, my friend Ahmed died in the hospital. Just like that.
That tall, handsome, funny, witty, intellectual young man is no more. No longer will he answer my phone calls. Time will stand still on his Facebook account for ever.
An hour before he was shot, I called Ahmed. He sounded at his best. He told me that he was in Green Square in the heart of Tripoli, and that we were free. Then bad telephone connections meant I couldn't reach him again for two whole days.
That was when I called Ahmed's best friend, who broke the devastating news to me. They were about to bury him, he told me. I rushed to the cemetery, and arrived there right after the burial. I found some of our friends. They pointed at a spot on the ground telling me it was where Ahmed's body lay. We all hugged each other and just cried our hearts out.
This is the kind of story you get out of Tripoli these days. Hundreds of them, perhaps even thousands. The kind of stories that you could never imagine on your doorstep.
Like when you hear a six-month-old baby has been murdered, you just hope with all your heart that Saif al-Islam Gaddafi's claims turn out to be true that there's precious little violence here, that al-Jazeera fabricated the story. You hope that infant is right now sleeping peacefully in his mother's arms. Like when you hear of someone from Tajura who had a bullet in his head for two days before dying, leaving behind a bereaved wife and child. You have been praying to God that this father be there playing with his child. But the photos, the video show you the cold truth. The wails that need no translation: loved ones being snatched away by death. All humans understand that scream.
This has been the life of Tripoli for quite some time. This is why the city is now called the "City of Ghosts" by its inhabitants, who have despaired at seeing protesters flee the teargas. The city has ground to a halt, with the vast majority of shops closed and schools and universities shut down. Only a few shops selling basic supplies remain open, and even that only for a few hours each day.
But despite this bleak picture of Tripoli, people have high hopes and faith that we are now witnessing the last moments of Gaddafi's regime. This man no longer rules Libya; he is merely a man with a gun turned to the people.
His two speeches, and his son's before that, were nothing but threats – they all backfired in favour of the Libyan revolution. Libyan tribes from the east to the west went out to assert national unity.
Abroad his record is no better. Gaddafi wanted to scare the western world off with the alleged threat of an Islamic emirate. The international community answered him by barring him from exile abroad, freezing his assets and referring his regime's crimes to the international court of justice with almost unprecedented international unanimity.
All Libyans, even the pro-Gaddafi minority, believe that it's only a matter of time before Libya regains its freedom. But the frightening question remains: how many martyrs will fall before Gaddafi does? How many souls will he take before the curse is broken?
This happy ending, however, is marred by a fear shared by all Libyans; that of a possible western military intervention to end the crisis.
Don't get me wrong. I, like most Libyans, believe that imposing a no-fly zone would be a good way to deal the regime a hard blow on many levels; it would cut the route of the mercenary convoys summoned from Africa, it would prevent Gaddafi from smuggling money and other assets, and most importantly it would stop the regime from bombing weapons arsenals that many eyewitnesses have maintained contain chemical weapons; something that would unleash an unimaginable catastrophe, not to mention that his planes might actually carry such weapons.
Nevertheless, one thing seems to have united Libyans of all stripes; any military intervention on the ground by any foreign force would be met – as Mustafa Abud Al Jeleil, the former justice minister and head of the opposition-formed interim government, said – with fighting much harsher than what the mercenaries themselves have unleashed.
Nor do I favour the possibility of a limited air strike for specific targets. This is a wholly popular revolution, the fuel to which has been the blood of the Libyan people. Libyans fought alone when western countries were busy ignoring their revolution at the beginning, fearful of their interests in Libya. This is why I'd like the revolution to be ended by those who first started it: the people of Libya.
So as the calls for foreign intervention grow, I'd like to send a message to western leaders: Obama, Cameron, Sarkozy. This is a priceless opportunity that has fallen into your laps, it's a chance for you to improve your image in the eyes of Arabs and Muslims. Don't mess it up. All your previous programmes to bring the east and the west closer have failed, and some of them have made things even worse. Don't start something you cannot finish, don't turn a people's pure revolution into some curse that will befall everyone. Don't waste the blood that my friend Ahmed spilt for me.
Let us just live as neighbours on the same planet. Who knows, may be I as your neighbour might one day show up at your doorstep to happily shake your hand.
there has been an advert on the radio today promoting one of the stations presenters, and its all about possible military intervention in libya - he raises about 5 or 6 questions, and they're all about us; should britain this, can britain that - nothing at all about what the libyan people might want - and thats the template used by pretty much the whole media on this issue. its quite incredible really, pretending to be concerned with people while simultaneously ignoring what they say!
Mark Steel: I know, let's sell weapons to a lunatic
9 March 2011
The Independent
The Western leaders now condemning Colonel Gaddafi as a madman must be perplexed as to what's gone wrong with him, because up until a month ago they obviously thought he was perfectly sane and well-balanced – otherwise they wouldn't have sold him all those tanks. They must wonder if the stress of being a dictator has got to him, and if he'd had a fortnight off and started yoga all this trouble could have been avoided.
So maybe the best way to intervene is to send him a good shrink. Then they could make a report for the UN that went: "His desire to refer to his fellow Libyans as 'Cockroaches' who must be killed suggests the patient is experiencing the trauma of feeling he's a woman trapped in a Colonel's body. And the need to make speeches while under an umbrella is a classic symptom of Obsessive Compulsive Disorder, so maybe we shouldn't send him any tanks for at least three weeks, until he's better."
They should have been prepared for this, because they all said he was mad for 30 years, then suddenly decided he was rational about 10 years ago, by coincidence around the time he announced he'd back the West in the war on terror. To be fair, some of those who embraced him at this time are impressively unrepentant. For example, Peter Mandelson insists when Gaddafi renounced his desire for weapons of mass destruction we had to "bring him into the fold" with deals for oil and arms.
Because when a dictator tells you he no longer wants destructive weapons, what else can you do but welcome his change of heart, by selling him a desertful of destructive weapons? It's like wandering up to someone at Alcoholics Anonymous and saying: "Congratulations on finally renouncing drink. Now to celebrate let's go and get pissed."
Blair told us in 2007 "the commercial relationship between Britain and Libya is going from strength to strength". So everything was ideal, we could let a dictator sell us oil and buy our arms because he'd backed our war against a dictator, who used to sell us oil and buy our arms. If Saddam had said in 2001 he was willing to back our war against Gaddafi we'd have got so confused we'd have declared war on ourselves.
The people who defend the befriending of Gaddafi, such as Douglas Alexander, the shadow foreign secretary, insist he promised he wouldn't use weapons such as tear gas "against his own people", which seems a liberal attitude towards someone you've derided as a madman for 30 years. Presumably Blair said to him: "Now I'm trusting you here, so if you DO open fire on thousands of protesters demanding a minimum wage, you'll not just be letting me down, you'll be letting yourself down."
In any case, who did we imagine Gaddafi might use this tear gas against? Perhaps he said: "Ah Mister Blair, I fear at any moment we might be invaded by a nation of badgers."
So now we expect the rebels to be grateful if we offer them our services, because when Britain wants to help by sending an army into an Arab country, what could possibly go wrong? It's like the builder who burned your house down ringing to say: "I hear you need your house rebuilt. We can offer very reasonable rates."
So the rebels seem to be aware that while the West can offer expert advice on the weaponry they're up against, seeing as it was the West that made it, on the other hand being supported by the British and American army won't help their aim of winning mass popularity amongst the Libyan people.
Because British and American leaders spent weekends with Gaddafi and arranged trade deals and hugged him for the press, and yet at no time did anyone spot he was in any way the sort of character you shouldn't send weapons to. And, in fact, even if he'd announced he had a split personality and then started talking in a high pitched voice insisting he was Sandra from Wolverhampton, Blair would have thought: "This is excellent news. We can sell tanks to both of them."
Should we intervene in Libya? With talk of intervention in Libya growing, George Galloway argues against British involvement, while Conservative MP Mark Pritchard says inaction is not an option. Susanna Rustin adjudicates
George Galloway and Mark Pritchard debate intervention in Libya
George Galloway was expelled from the Labour party because of his stance on Iraq. No longer an MP, he is still staunchly opposed to Blairite "liberal interventionism". Mark Pritchard is a Conservative MP who has called for weapons to be supplied to the Libyan opposition urgently. Both men hope for Gaddafi's downfall – but they totally disagree on how to bring this about, finds Susanna Rustin.
Susanna Rustin: In what circumstances is it reasonable for the UK to intervene militarily in another country?
Mark Pritchard: My position is that having not discouraged the Libyan people from making a stand against the brutal Gaddafi regime, the international community should not now leave them to be cut down on the streets. I'm not talking about international troops on Libyan soil, but I think through third parties, preferably a coalition of Arab countries, that modern weapons should be made available in order that the Libyan people can defend themselves.
George Galloway: There are virtually no circumstances in which British forces should enter into any civil conflict in another country and that would have been my view before the disastrous period of so-called humanitarian interventionism theorised by Tony Blair.
MP: Do we sit by and allow women and children to be cut down in the streets?
GG: I was dealing with the question about British forces. I would have gone on to say that there are circumstances in which the international community can and sometimes must intervene, and that there must be very strict guidelines about that. First, it must be lawful. Second, the intervention should be regional – there is no case for Nato being involved on the north African coast. Thirdly, it must do more good than harm.
MP: So do the circumstances in Libya justify intervention?
GG: I think the only intervention that is conscionable and would not do more harm than good is an international brigade of Arab volunteers coming across the borders from Tunisia and Egypt.
MP: You're more hawkish than I am! I'm not saying put boots on the ground.
GG: I am. I'm for bringing down the Gaddafi dictatorship but I don't believe that former colonial powers – western governments – intervening in another Arab Muslim country can do any good.
MP: That's why Nato are having discussions with the Arab League and the African Union. The British government's position has been absolutely clear. We would need a legal basis for any no-fly zone, and clearly that leads to the UN. But even if a resolution is forthcoming – and there are questions over whether it would be supported by China and Russia – that could take many weeks.
SR: Which Arab countries do you see as likely partners?
MP: Several have been mentioned. I think it would be better to deal with the Arab League as an organisation.
GG: We have had in the past couple of days the ludicrous idea that Saudi Arabia might intervene in the Libyan revolution, having just announced that political activity of any kind is illegal in Saudi Arabia! Look, I'm not a dove in these matters, and never confuse me with a liberal. What I'm against is western countries with the mud of colonialism still on their boots becoming involved.
MP: The British government is seeking a UN resolution for the no-fly zone.
GG: We agree that's not going to happen.
MP: I said it will take some time, and it may or may not happen. I certainly hope a positive decision is taken, but the UN doesn't move quickly and other options need to be looked at. My point was that this wouldn't be a western intervention – it would be a coalition of international partners taking a stand against Gaddafi.
SR: Is there a plausible partner in the Arab world?
GG: This is where we run into trouble! You can't utilise the armed forces of dictatorships against another dictatorship in the name of democracy.
MP: You recognise the legitimacy of the United Nations and its resolutions?
GG: Yes, but I'm sure the United Nations will not agree to a no-fly zone. Just how many people have to be killed in a civil conflict before this cry for foreign intervention is raised? There are many places in the world where thousands of people die without this cry ever being raised, and I'm wondering what exactly is special about the Libyan situation?
MP: There are many conflicts around the world, all with unique circumstances. I'm happy to discuss other countries. I just don't think inaction is an option.
SR: So what is the general principle dictating when we should intervene?
MP: Take Egypt and Tunisia. There have been seismic political changes in those countries, but people aren't being butchered on the streets.
GG: Let's assume Gaddafi killed 1,000. Well, Mubarak killed 500, and Ben Ali killed 500. Is 1,000 the benchmark? In which case, if 1,000 die in Bahrain, and the US fleet is stationed there …
MP: Every country is unique. Egypt and Tunisia are hopefully moving towards free and fair elections.
GG: But not Saudi Arabia, or Bahrain, or Yemen. If Saudi Arabia fires on protesters there will not be many Tory MPs calling for a no-fly zone in Saudi Arabia. But if we begin we talk about Kashmir, where 100,000 people have died, or the Congo, there are no demands for foreign intervention in these places.
MP: There is a demand that the UN should extend its mandate in the Democratic Republic of Congo.
GG: But that is a peacekeeping mission. Anyway, my point is that there are many troubles all over the world and we, as a small, almost bankrupt country …
MP: So you propose sending in volunteer troops wherever there is conflict?
GG: I say we have no role in this. If among 350 million Arabs there are some who would join the revolution in Libya, I think the Egyptians and Tunisians should open their borders to let them in.
MP: What sort of people would they be?
GG: They would be Islamists.
MP: So you're calling for Islamists to overthrow Gaddafi?
GG: I welcome the imminent victory of the Islamic movements in Egypt and Tunisia, which I think will provide very good governments on the Turkish model.
MP: The wider point is that if the international community doesn't make a stand with the Libyan opposition, it will send a signal to other dictators that if they use force against opposition, they might live to see another day. Obama's speech in Cairo was right: freedom and democracy should not only be the right of people in the west. They are a universal right, and we should support it.
GG: All that is code for is, if the UN does not pass a resolution, Britain and America and Nato should find some satrapy, which is in itself an offence against democracy, to authorise military intervention by western countries. And that will be a disaster.
UN passes Libya air strikes resolution 10 votes in favour, zero against and five abstentions in New York
• French PM: Time is of the essence; jets could take off from its bases
• Gaddafi says act 'flagrant colonisation' and threatens to 'get crazy'
Here's hoping it's not a complete catastrophe... I've a feeling the Libyan army won't be so keen to fight if they know they're going to be attacked by advanced fighter planes... That arsehole Gaddafi will probably be loving this though.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum You cannot attach files in this forum You cannot download files in this forum
