| Submit your comments on this article | |||
| Europe | |||
| French Seething Over Libyan Lockerby Settlement May Scuttle Deal | |||
| 2003-08-15 | |||
| U.S. officials said on Thursday they fear France’s efforts to get a better deal from Libya for victims of the 1989 bombing of a French airliner will delay a $2.7 billion settlement of the 1988 Lockerbie bombing. France: "What? You pig-dogs are making us look bad AGAIN! We only got $30,000 per victim when Libya bombed our French airliner and killed our citizens! We demand a re-settlement of that deal we made 10 years ago! Secretary of State Colin Powell spoke to French Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin on Thursday to raise U.S. concerns that France not derail the tortuously negotiated Lockerbie deal, said one U.S. official. Paraphrasing Colin: "Butt Out!" Lawyers for families of the 270 people who died in the mid-air bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, signed an agreement with Libya on Wednesday to set up a escrow account to hold the $2.7 billion, or up to $10 million per victim, in compensation Tripoli has agreed to pay. The escrow agreement is the first step in a carefully choreographed arrangement under which Libya is expected to formally take responsibility for the Lockerbie bombing, possibly this week, and, as a result, for U.N. sanctions against Tripoli to be lifted, possibly as early as next week.
’Course 6 Libyan citizens are spending the rest of their lives in the French bighouse convicted of the bombing in French courts... but Libya per se never admitted responsibility (but they DID pay money anyway.) "The French
Typical French Hissy-Fit... make a deal, see somebody else do better BECAUSE THEY STOOD FIRM AGAINST EVIL (rather than negotiate and appease the bastads) and then complain in a pique of jealousy that the US victims got a better deal. | |||
| Posted by:Leigh |
| #13 Leigh - you and I are singing in the same key, bro. LH - Thx - good points throughout - with a minor diff, below. It's Phrawnce's VETO power that is my point of contention regards the UNSC. Adding others won't affect that, damnit. Sigh. I still have to conclude that it just doesn't work because of the fact that, in the current political atmosphere, at least, nationalism rules - destroying the actual intent of the UN's creation. Even if a majority are willing to rise above that and try to accomplish something on a global scale, it only takes one recalitrant member to quash it. Re: Phrawnce getting a seat, I think, when everything is distilled down to the essence, they got it mainly cuz the WW-II allies wanted to shut DeGaulle up. I've read some interesting stuff regards the private correspondence among Churchill, Roosevelt, Eisenhour, and others. He was just about the worst "house guest" imaginable and had to be shut out of almost all major decisions - and kept far away from sensitive information, as the French-in-Exile were thoroughly compromised and not much different than telling the Vichy Govt of your strategic plans. From well prior to WW-I to now, the Phrench have been the most unreliable and obnoxious "allies" imaginable - and truly the worst possible entity to be a "global power" among the democratic nations. Iraq was just the most obvious recent example of their "oppose the US, no matter what" idea of Foreign Policy. Just my take. I am waiting for Sabine Herold, or similar, to bring some sanity to Phrawnce. |
| Posted by: .com 2003-8-15 5:04:20 PM |
| #12 Reorganizing the UNSC is, to my mind, like re-arranging deck chairs on the Titanic. The UN as a whole seems to me to be a forum for dictators and oligarchies to tie down/repress action on the part of representative liberal democracies who might be inclined to do something about cleaning up the dictators messes. I think we need to withdraw from the UN and create a new organization that ONLY allows representation by democratic nation states. I don't care what distators/oligarchs have to say, and I don't want their twisted morality affecting US foreign policy. |
| Posted by: Leigh (a guy) 2003-8-15 2:27:59 PM |
| #11 dot com - Im really not familiar with the procedures for amending the UN charter. I know that for some years there has been talk of adding perm members to the UNSC - Germany, Japan, India have all been mentioned - IIRC this was one of Gorby's perpetual hot topics in his last years in office. I assume this would require the consent of all current perm UNSC members - if not formally, then as a matter of political reality. I know of no real discussion of eliminating any UNSC perm members - though there have been suggestions that with a need to add new members, and with the EU moving toward integration, UK and France should both give up their seats and EU should have just one seat. US is not particularly keen on this idea, as losing the UK into an amorphous EU would be a loss far exceeding any gain from eliminating the French seat. UK has been a much more consistent ally than France has been an adversary. France was put on the UNSC at a time when it was close to the US (though closer still to UK) and its perm. vote on the UNSC 1945 to 1962 was basically an asset to the West - if anyone had cause to object it was the USSR. It was a recognition of France's historic role as great power, its nominal role as one of the big 5 in WW2 (which was particularly helpful diplomatically to UK, and offset pro-US China) and of the continued existence of the French empire. During the 1950's and 1960's Frances seat may have been an anachronism, but no more so than Britain's, and certainly less so that Taiwan's (although no one pushed to remove Taiwan, as such, rather to have PRC take Taiwan's seat) In the 1970's it was noted that the UNSC perm 5 corresponded to the nuclear powers, which made a certain amount of sense, but also seemed to indicate a very BAD incentive to would be proliferators. At this point the most logical UNSC perm would probably be big 6 IE: US, China, EU, Russia, Japan, India. But letting India in as only 3rd world power would piss off Brazil and others. Also would piss off the muslims. And replacing UK and France with EU would not be particularly advocated by the US, as discussed above. And simply adding powers with vetoes makes it even harder for the UNSC to pass anything, assuming you think its a good thing for them to occasionally pass something. |
| Posted by: liberalhawk 2003-8-15 2:03:44 PM |
| #10 dot com - Im really not familiar with the procedures for amending the UN charter. I know that for some years there has been talk of adding perm members to the UNSC - Germany, Japan, India have all been mentioned - IIRC this was one of Gorby's perpetual hot topics in his last years in office. I assume this would require the consent of all current perm UNSC members - if not formally, then as a matter of political reality. I know of no real discussion of eliminating any UNSC perm members - though there have been suggestions that with a need to add new members, and with the EU moving toward integration, UK and France should both give up their seats and EU should have just one seat. US is not particularly keen on this idea, as losing the UK into an amorphous EU would be a loss far exceeding any gain from eliminating the French seat. UK has been a much more consistent ally than France has been an adversary. France was put on the UNSC at a time when it was close to the US (though closer still to UK) and its perm. vote on the UNSC 1945 to 1962 was basically an asset to the West - if anyone had cause to object it was the USSR. It was a recognition of France's historic role as great power, its nominal role as one of the big 5 in WW2 (which was particularly helpful diplomatically to UK, and offset pro-US China) and of the continued existence of the French empire. During the 1950's and 1960's Frances seat may have been an anachronism, but no more so than Britain's, and certainly less so that Taiwan's (although no one pushed to remove Taiwan, as such, rather to have PRC take Taiwan's seat) In the 1970's it was noted that the UNSC perm 5 corresponded to the nuclear powers, which made a certain amount of sense, but also seemed to indicate a very BAD incentive to would be proliferators. At this point the most logical UNSC perm would be big 6 would probably be US, China, EU, USSR, Japan, India. But letting India in as only 3rd world power would piss off Brazil and others. Also would piss off the muslims. And replacing UK and France with EU would not be particularly advocated by the US, as discussed above. And simply adding powers with vetoes makes it even harder for the UNSC to pass anything, assuming you think its a good thing for them to occasionally pass something. |
| Posted by: liberalhawk 2003-8-15 2:02:35 PM |
| #9 time to give the eu one seat on the security council and give france's seat to japan. |
| Posted by: Dan 2003-8-15 1:13:27 PM |
| #8 Does anyone know what the Arabic transliteration of "France" is? How is that spelled out phonetically in English? I'm just being proactive here. I don't want to get caught flat-footed like when the Chicoms changed Peking to Beijing. |
| Posted by: 11A5S 2003-8-15 11:47:29 AM |
| #7 Lawyer for SOS-Attentats, M. Szpiner, blames the French aeronautique industrie for having a hand in the low payment made to the UTA victimes. Seems that French govt. wanted to be sure no Libyan feelings were hurt so French sales would not be hurt. How sauvage and sans compassion! Thought only neo-cons put money before humans. Mme. Rudetzki takes the cake with this killer quote,"If the US had been in charge of the matter, there would not have been a double standard." (Today's Le Monde) Oooooh! Take that Dom and Jacques! Guess someone in France cares more about results than perception. BTW, there are currently negotiations between SOS and another group representing families and Libya. All started once the news of the Lockerbie deal started making the rounds a couple of months ago. LOL folks! Colin, take it to the UN and let them veto the agreement. What unilateralisme! |
| Posted by: Michael 2003-8-15 11:37:00 AM |
| #6 Sorry, madames et monsieurs, a deal's a deal. Revisit this in about 20 years when you become the Islamic Republic of Frogistan, if it takes that long. Libya might be more receptive to a brother member of the Ummah. |
| Posted by: tu3031 2003-8-15 10:55:57 AM |
| #5 How very Unilateral of them! |
| Posted by: Frank G 2003-8-15 9:52:14 AM |
| #4 Note to Mme Villepin:you can't begin to charge 1000$ a night if the whole town knows you put out for free.So STFU and take it. |
| Posted by: El Id 2003-8-15 3:30:42 AM |
| #3 Oh, I forgot something: "Break a Deal, Face the Wheel" -Auntie Entity Think De Villepin will meet Powell (or even Kadaffy) in Thunderdome? This might settle the question of whether Dominique is a man, or not. Methinks not, but then I am but a mere simplisme` American. |
| Posted by: .com 2003-8-15 3:01:19 AM |
| #2 How very Phrench. LH - Do you think Phrawnce will ever give up its UNSC seat voluntarily? Do you know if there are UN Charter provisions for removing / replacing a Perm member of UNSC? This is one of the anchor points in why I consider the UN effectively useless. Here's where you can reform me, if you happen to know and there's a practical way to do it sans their agreement - that will never happen. Phrawnce's presence on the UNSC is a travesty - and always has been. And I'm just wondering - not picking on you! Thx, in advance! |
| Posted by: .com 2003-8-15 2:43:51 AM |
| #1 The French govt wouldn't know what standing up for a principle is. They just do not get it. They may not be a shootin' enemy, but they are still an |
| Posted by: Alaska Paul 2003-8-15 2:08:04 AM |