The U.S. will now be able to invest big time in Libya, which is an oil rich country, and ends Libya’s legal liabilities in U.S. terrorism cases.

United States President George W. Bush signed an executive order last Friday ‘restoring Libyan immunity from terrorism-related lawsuits and dismissing pending cases over compensation as part of a deal reached this summer,’ American news network CNN reported Saturday.

Although families of the individuals killed by Libyan supported terrorism will never see their loved ones back, regardless of what Tripoli does, they will now at least feel some sense of justice.

David Welch, the top U.S. diplomat for the Middle East, rightfully called Libya’s willingness to compensate American terrorism victims “historic.”

Libya has been an enemy of the United States for decades. The overture, however, is an important sign that its leader Moammer Gaddafi understands that the best way to get ahead in the world is by having good relations with the Americans.

American business men too are delighted with the deal: they believe that the deal may result in billions of dollars in extra profits in the coming years and decades. Libya has a lot of petroleum below the surface of the earth, but currently lacks the infrastructure to do something with it. Libya’s compensation for terrorism suspect and Bush’s decision to rehabilitate it mean that American businesses can finally invest in Libya, in order to produce and sell more oil.

The deal with Libya is yet another sign of the tremendous change in Bush’s foreign policy, ever since Donald Rumsfeld resigned as Secretary of Defense and was replaced by Robert Gates. Both Gates and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice believe that diplomacy is more effective than Rumsfeld and his fellow neoconservatives believe, and have long advocated more ties with ‘enemy regimes.’

©2008 PoliGazette. All Rights Reserved.

Gaddafi wants to deepen ‘a budding energy and military partnership with Moscow,’ the Middle Eastern-based Al Arabiya reported, and ‘counterbalance his fast-expanding relations with the West during his three-day visit.’

“The Russian military presence will be a guarantee of non-aggression against Libya from the United States, which is not in a hurry to embrace Gaddafi despite gestures of reconciliation,” business daily Kommersant said in a report published today.

Russia and Libya were allies for years, but their relationship deteriorated in recent years also because the United States seemed to open up to Libya.

Gaddafi believes, however, that his country could fare well when befriended with Russia.

It is an old game, one leaders in this region have played for decades: use the two main powers in the region to outbid each other. If you cannot get something for one, you may get it from the other. Both will do whatever it takes to earn your support, which means that you can get a free ride.

The question is whether the United States wants to play that game with Libya which is, after all, a reasonably irrelevant and minor power. Then again, Gadaffi has long supported terrorists who have sometimes succeeded in attacking American targets.

©2008 PoliGazette. All Rights Reserved.

Earlier this month, Libyan blogger on the edge of something remarked upon Obama's selection of Biden, saying:

They say that Senator Obama isn't qualified because of his lack of foreign policy experience but he does have Senator Joe Biden who is the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee in the US senate .This is the balance the Democratic ticket needs .

Last week, bloggers around the world watched as presidential candidates Barack Obama and John McCain debated on television. Tonight, they will have a chance to give Joe Biden a second look, as he debates Sarah Palin in the first and only vice presidential debate. Some bloggers, like Veritas Nihilum Vincet in Taiwan, are concerned about Biden's debate skills. The blogger says:

Over to Biden. I predict lengthy wind, a gaffe here and there, and the moderator having to ring the bell on his inability to finish within the 90 seconds allotted.

IF Palin stutters something nonsensical, it would be perfectly appropriate to take a full 10 seconds or so for a WTF? Face.
But in the face of heavily prepped, fairly delivered, folksy down home common sense platitudes mixed in with the most vicious, ugly, racist, xenophobic and fear-mongering attacks on Obama, Biden will be forced to say something.
I just hope he doesn’t take the bait and try to defend Obama. Obama’s a big boy and can stand up for himself…has done so exceptionally well over the past two years. He predicted withering personal attacks - Biden should let him be right about that.
The only road for Joe is to state facts: Republican misfeasance, malfeasance and nonfeasance (specifically, in order, the economy, Iraq and New Orleans); John McCain’s flip-flopping pretensions to competence; the Obama/Biden plan: Details and good judgment…far better than the alternative presented by Ms. Palin and her running mate.
If Caribou Barbie can manage to stick to the script Karl Rove writes for her, good for her. Give her a gold star and buy her a fuckin’ ice cream cone. Just don’t engage the blithering twit. She hasn’t earned the right to be on that stage, and ought not be given the credit of a direct response to anything that spills out of her incompetent Miss Congeniality trap.

Spanish-American Claudia, writing for PoliGazette, is concerned that Biden won't be able to hold his feelings about Palin inside. The blogger muses:

At this point, the VP debate is creating the expectations of a monster truck rally. It will be watched purely for the spectacle, to see big cars errupt in flames. The narrative is basically set in stone that this VP debate exists to see if Biden can actually achieve putting his whole leg in his mouth and to see if Palin can actually achieve speaking for upwards of an hour without saying anything coherent.

The expectations are so low for Palin, after these disasterous few weeks, that if she comes accross as even vaguely hominid, she may well be declared the victor, especially if Biden manages to go haywire (and he tends to) and Palin can be portrayed as being bullied by a sexist and condescending Biden. Expectations have never been lowered so much, not even for President Bush. Palin WILL exceed expectations if only because it’s almost physically impossible not to.

Sultan Knish, based in Israel, is equally unimpressed with Biden:

Finally there's Joe Biden, a one man gaffe machine that the media either refuses to report on or simply laughs off his endless stupidities. Is a man who comes blind stinking drunk to a campaign rally really qualified to be President? What about a man who contradicts himself from day to day.

And barbarena.us, feels even more strongly about Biden, claiming that his “real American” image is false. The blogger, originally from Nicaragua, says:

Those silly Dumbocrats think that they can fool all of the people all of the time. They introduced Joe Biden as a regular guy from Scrampton, PA who lives like the rest of us.

But not every blogger takes an anti-Biden stance. The England for Obama bloggers feel that if the debate is kept to major national issues and international affairs (as opposed to, perhaps, social issues), Biden will do just fine. They say:

If the VP debate focuses on these two big issues, I think Biden will do just fine - and Palin will hopefully come across as the clueless no-hoper she is. And if she goes on the attack, and Biden keeps cool and generous (as Obama did in the face of McCain’s sneers and body language), then hopefully she’ll receive as negative a public reaction as McCain did. And either way: if she just keeps talking for her 90 seconds without pausing for breath - as she seems to do above - then maybe America will just be sick to death of the sound of her voice by the end of the debate, and be unable to contemplate four more years of it? (In simple oratorial, cadence tones, McCain and Palin are an utter nightmare compared to the voices of Obama and Biden).

To wrap things up and get us excited for the debate, a blogger from New Zealand writes for Lucire magazine's blog:

As the debate between Gov. Palin and her rival, Sen. Joe Biden, begins tonight in the US, one only hopes that it will get to the substance. The Republicans and Democrats are opposed on so many things and in some respects, Gov. Palin is a divisive figure. But the American media’s sexist performance of late does not give me much confidence in the fairness of their post-debate evaluation.

If you are located outside of the United States and don't know how to find the debates on TV, tune into MyDebates at 9:00 pm EST.

In another life and another election I complained that we should be allowed to take part in US elections because the person in the Oval Office yields so much power that has the potential to negatively or positively affect the rest of the world.

I also followed and actually tried to makes sense of political parties and candidates.Four years later my disillusion is complete to the point where I do not even follow the elections anymore. Moreover my conclusion in 2004, does not wildly differ from 2008.

Look at it this way, Ms Condoleeza Rice was here a few days ago and apart from a couple of American mums -bloggers living in Libya, I have not seen any Libyan blogger bother to comment about this visit. That should be telling no ? Four years ago I would have written a long post about it….

But I am digressing …some of my American friends will not be voting because they do not like the choice of candidates available. And although I think it should no longer matter to us in the Middle East who is president -because the policy has never changed at its core- I kept encouraging my friends to vote for the person who will do most good to their economy and internal affairs. However, when someone asked ” hey Highlander what do you think of Obama ? I'm sure you are glad there is a black candidate right?” No, I don't care what colour the president is but would it be surprising to say all US presidential nominees and their running mates seem like clones to me.

Too many bloggers and pundits have written about Mc Cain and Obama so I won't bore you about that but apparently the stakes are a bit different with the appearance of Governor Palin on the scene. Her speech was supposedly cathartic. I listened to some tidbits here and while the sound bites resonate well, she also has the oil connection :)

Yet, it does not matter who wins to me, because any would be president or president who pledges allegiance to Israel is a lost cause in my book even if he/she were a member of my own tribe. Newcomer Palin has not escaped this circle and has joined the queue :P. at AIPAC.

The day I see a US candidate not trembling before Israel is the day I know that America is in good hands again because I am not convinced that one needs to stand by Israel to be patriotic.

Oh and don't anyone dare label me as anti-Semitic although you are welcome to share with me with civility where you think I'm wrong/right . Also do not compare democracies and non-democracies or America's system of governance and that in Arab world ( despite it not being homogenous) as that would be off topic.

This was my personal two cents about the topic not that of Libya, Libyans, the Middle East, North Africa, the Arab World or even the Muslim world. All these entities I'm sure have a differing view.

If it sounds pessimistic that's my view lately :P So may the best man/woman win.

Update 12/9/08

Khalid did blog about Ms Rice visit here. My blog reader is not doing it's job of updating my reads properly :P

The west all the time consider Gaddafi as a dictator and he is one why now he became their new best friend !?

On the Edge runs the headline: Hell Has Finally Frozen Over.

USA Secretary Of State Condoleeeza Rice is visiting Libya today to meet with Gaddafi, so reports Reuters news service . So , I guess this means that Hell has finally frozen over !

The American blogger who is married to a Libyan and lives there, talks about rumours of an American Embassy opening in Tripoli.

There are all sorts of rumors of a embassy opening with a actual ambassador to go in it … soon . That's the what we have been told . It will be a full service embassy , that means women like me , married to a Libyan national will be able to get service too , not just the mainland US citizens that are working here for American companies

This will be a exciting improvement over the past , after the way we have been treated , like a step child hidden in the attic . If you can picture happy dancing , then you see many of the American women married to Libyans happy to know maybe now we be counted as a citizen again by our own country … even though we live here in Libya.

Egyptian Mona Al Tahawy has another issue on her mind during this historic visit. She is concerned about the fate of a democracy advocate held in Libya. She writes:

As Condoleezza Rice becomes the first U.S. secretary of state to visit Libya in 55 years, Fathi al-Jahmi will still remain in the cockroach-infested hospital room where he has been held against his will for months.

You don’t know who Fathi al-Jahmi is? Ask vice presidential candidate Joe Biden. In a statement to the Senate at the end of July, he called Jahmi “a courageous Libyan democracy advocate with serious health problems whose only crime was to speak truth to power.”

Rice knows who Jahmi is, because the State Department has issued various demands that Libya release him. But I wont hold my breath that she’ll make an issue of him during her visit.

For Al Tahawi, Rice's visit is for another reason:

Rice joins a slew of western leaders and officials trekking to Tripoli with eyes on deals aimed at tapping into Libya’s oil wealth. One after another they’ve donned rose-tinted glasses to see how Gadhafi has improvised his role as the dictator who came in from the cold.

And speaking of Libya's rich oil and gas resources, Saleem Al Ragihe [Ar] wonders how much his country makes from oil and when information on its income from gas and foreign investments will be released to the public. He writes:

من المعروف أنه خلال العقود ( الإستثنائية !؟) الماضية - وإلى وقت قريب - كانت كمية النفط المصدر من ليبيا ودخل ليبيا اليومي أو السنوي من النفط من أسرار وألغاز الدولة الأمنية !! أو بمعنى أدق من أسرار الخيمة !! .. أما اليوم وبسبب ثورة المعلومات من جهة ومن جهة أخرى بسبب ضغوطات تقارير الشفافية العالمية المستمرة التي وضعت الجماهيرية (العظمى) على قائمة الدول الأكثر فسادا ً والأقل شفافية في العالم ! .. وبسب يقظة المواطن الليبي من جهة ثالثة .. فإن ( العقيد/ النظام) - لهذه الأسباب الثلاثة - إضطر أخيرا ً إلى الإفراج النسبي عن المعلومات فيما يتعلق بكمية النفط الليبي المصدر ودخل ليبيا من هذا النفط ! .. فقد ذكرت المؤسسة الوطنية الليبية للنفط أن الكميات المصدرة من النفط الخام الليبي خلال الفترة من 29 اغسطس الماضي وحتى 4 سبتمبر الجاري 2008 بلغت عشرة ملايين و955 ألف برميل .. وذكرت المؤسسة في نشرتها الأسبوعية اليوم ان متوسط سعر البرميل بالدولار بلغ 05ر107 دولار للبرميل الواحد.
ونحن إذ نشيد بهذه الخطوة الإنفتاحية وبداية الدخول إلى عصر الشفافية خصوصا ًفيما يتعلق بهذه الناحية البالغة الحساسية بالنسبة للمواطن الليبي - المالك الشرعي لا الفعلي للنفط - فإننا نطالب بالمزيد من الشفافية والإنكشاف وإظهار الحقائق بالأرقام سائلين المولى عز وجل ونحن نرفع أكف الضراعة في هذا الشهر الكريم أن يتم الإفراج قريبا ً عن المعلومات الإقتصادية الحساسة والمهمة الأخرى والمتعلقة بدخل ليبيا من الغاز (!؟؟؟) وكذلك دخل ليبيا من الإستثمارات الخارجية الضخمة (!؟؟؟) في أوروبا خصوصا ً وأن الكثير من الليبيين بات يتحدث اليوم على أن أبناء القايد وأبناء رفاق القايد يتمتعون بقضاء العطلات في النعيم الأوروبي البديع على حساب دخل وأرباح هذه الإستثمارات الخارجية !!؟؟

It is well known that during the extraordinary previous decades, until recently, the amount of oil exported from Libya and the country's income from oil sales have remained a national secret and riddle! However today, thanks to the information explosion on the one hand; pressures placed by the international transparency reports on Libya which was placed on the list of the most corrupt and least transparent states; and the alertness of Libyan citizens, the Colonel/regime - for these three reasons - there has been a relative release on information regarding the amount of raw Libyan petroleum exported and Libya's income from its sales! The National Libyan Oil Company announced that the amount of oil exported from August 29 to September 4 totalled 10,955,000 thousand barrels. The Company's weekly newsletter also stated that the average oil price was $107.05 per barrel.
And while we applaud this step and the entry of Libya into the era of transparency especially in this sensitive area for Libyans - the legitimate and not actual owner of oil - we call for more openness and information on other sensitive economic information, such as Libya's income from natural gas sales, as well as its income from the huge foreign investments, particularly in Europe. A lot of Libyans are now talking about the sons of the leader and the sons of the companions of the leader, who are enjoying holidays in Europe, paid for by these foreign investments.

McCain and his mother don't recall old lawsuits
By MATTHEW BARAKAT, Associated Press WriterSat Aug 16, 5:50 AM ET

Republican presidential candidate John McCain's divorce was amicable enough that he and his ex-wife jointly brought a lawsuit 10 years later to recover damages for lost mementos, but it wasn't amicable enough to prevent McCain's mother from suing his ex-wife to get back some personal property.

Both lawsuits were settled out of court decades ago and before they went to trial, but records of them are kept in the archives of the city courthouse in Alexandria.

Curiously, although the records clearly list the plaintiffs, McCain's campaign says that the Arizona senator didn't know about or authorize the 1990 lawsuit with his ex-wife, Carol, and that his mother's 1980 lawsuit was filed “unintentionally.” And McCain's 96-year-old mother, Roberta, says she never sued Carol.

But others involved dispute those assertions.

In the 1980 lawsuit, filed shortly after John and Carol McCain divorced, Roberta sued Carol to reclaim some personal property, including paintings, a needlepoint screen and a pair of earrings. A settlement was reached in 1981.

But in a brief telephone interview, Roberta denied filing the lawsuit.

“I have never heard of what you're talking about. … I will put my hand on a Bible,” she said, to attest that she had never sued Carol.

Roberta's denial prompted laughter from the ex-daughter-in-law.

“Yes, she sued me,” Carol said in a brief phone interview.

Roberta's lawsuit sought personal property she claimed Carol was refusing to return. The disputed items included an “18th century Burmise Buddist Preist (Burmese Buddhist priest)” valued by Roberta at $2,000, and a “Butlers Tray for Liquor” she valued at $225.

McCain campaign spokesman Tucker Bounds said in an e-mail, “Of course, by all accounts the divorce was completely amicable. After John and Carol McCain's divorce, there was apparently some confusion about belongings that were Roberta McCain's but we understand the court papers were unintentionally filed, and the matter never went further in the legal system. It went nowhere, and was of no consequence.”

In the 1990 lawsuit, John and Carol McCain jointly sought $1 million in punitive damages after a property management firm mistakenly threw out some McCain family treasures from a garage the McCains shared with an adjacent townhouse. The lost items included letters McCain wrote to his wife as a prisoner of war in Vietnam.

In his e-mail, Bounds said McCain “had no knowledge of the suit: He did not authorize the suit or participate in its filing.”

But the lawyer who represented the McCains said she did indeed speak to McCain and get his permission to sue on his behalf.

“You can be sure that I talked to and got the permission of any client who is listed as a plaintiff,” said attorney Barbara P. Beach.

It would be a serious violation to file an unauthorized lawsuit, and “I haven't been disbarred yet,” Beach said with a laugh.

Beach said she's not surprised, though, that McCain doesn't remember the case. She recalled that Carol was much more deeply involved.

“I don't think it took more than 15 minutes of his time,” Beach said. “The fact that they don't remember it doesn't bother me.”

The 1990 lawsuit lists five pages of lost property, including autographed pictures of U.S. presidents, Super Bowl programs from every year the game was played and a Chinese Foo dog sculpture.

Some were surely items the family considered priceless: photos of McCain's grandfather alongside Gen. Douglas MacArthur when the Japanese surrendered in World War II, the letters McCain wrote as a POW and the press clippings documenting his release.

Much of the property appears to be memorabilia of Carol's days running the White House Visitors Office under President Reagan, including several dozen wooden Easter eggs from the annual white House Easter Egg Roll, signed by such celebrities as Burt Reynolds and Brooke Shields.

The lawsuit was settled for an undisclosed amount.

According to court papers, when the townhouse next door to the McCains' townhouse changed hands, a property management firm mistakenly threw everything out of the garage, unaware that half the garage belonged to the McCains.

By 1990, only Carol lived in Alexandria, but she and her ex-husband continued to jointly own the property.

The defendants argued the McCains were out of line in seeking punitive damages because there was no evidence anybody acted maliciously.

Darren McKinney, a spokesman for the American Tort Reform Association, said, “Plaintiffs' lawyers will routinely ask for significant damages to try and prompt a settlement.”

Carol said she had no interest in discussing details of the two lawsuits.

“What possible difference could it make? It was all 25 years ago,” she said. “I wish him well, but I don't talk to reporters.”

In his autobiography, McCain has taken responsibility for the breakup of his marriage. Carol was friendly with prominent Republicans and civic leaders, including the Reagans and billionaire H. Ross Perot, who at times treated John McCain coolly after the divorce.

Writing on Sudanese forum Brbr Net, Abu Al Derdiri [Ar] says that Al Basheer's arrest warrant fulfils Libyan leader Muammar Al Gaddafi's prediction that the US will hunt down Arab rulers to fulfil its expansionist plans in the region. He says:

يبدو أن تحذير الزعيم الليبي معمر القذافي خلال القمة العربية الأخيرة في دمشق من أن أمريكا ستطارد الزعماء العرب واحدا تلو الآخر بعد إعدام الرئيس العراقي الراحل صدام حسين، بدأ يجد آذانا صاغية على أرض الواقع ، حيث فوجيء العرب والعالم في 14 يوليو 2008 باتهام المدعي العام للمحكمة الجنائية الدولية لويس مورينو أوكامبو للرئيس السوداني عمر البشير بارتكاب جرائم حرب وجرائم ضد الإنسانية وإبادة جماعية في دارفور ، مطالبا المحكمة باعتقاله .
هذا القرار اعتبره كثيرون بأنه سياسي مائة بالمائة ويؤكد أن الولايات المتحدة قررت استخدام سلاح المحكمة الجنائية الدولية لإسقاط نظام البشير الذي طالما حال دون تحقيق مخططات المحافظين الجدد وإسرائيل في تقسيم السودان والاستيلاء على ثرواته الهائلة وخاصة المعدنية والغذائية والمائية منها .

It seems that Libyan Leader Muammer Al Gaddafi's warning during the last Arab League Summit in Damascus that the United States will be hunting down Arab leaders one after the other after the hanging of the late Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein is ringing true. Arabs and the world were surprised on July 14, 2008, of an accusation by the International Criminal Court (ICC) Prosecutor Luis Moreno-Ocampo against Sudanese president Omar Al Bashir of committing war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide in Darfur, and called upon the court to arrest him. A lot considered this ruling as political, stressing that the United States has decided to use the weapon of the ICC to overthrow Al Bashir's rule, which has so far not been achieved despite the plotting of the Neo-cons and Israel, who want to carve up Sudan and steal its extensive resources, especially minerals, food and water.

Al Derdiri goes on to say that the ICC has no jurisdiction on Sudan, which does not recognise the ICC and insists that singling out Al Bashir is a ploy to pave the way for the trial of other Arab leaders. He adds:

ولذا سرعان ما ركزت واشنطن على استخدام صلاحيات المحكمة لتأديب “الحكام المارقين” بعيدا عن الحروب وفيتو مجلس الأمن ، وهو ما ظهر بوضوح في حالة الرئيس السوداني ، وهنا يتساءل البعض : هل يشكل القرار سابقة لمحاكمة مسئولين عرب آخرين ، وماذا يفعل السودان لمواجهته؟ .

Washington is concentrating its efforts on using the powers of the court to discipline ‘rogue rulers' away from wars and the Security Council's Veto. This is evident in the case against the Sudanese president. Some of you may ask: Will this ruling set a precedence for the trial of other Arab officials and what will Sudan do to confront it?

Al Derdiri then draws parallels between Sudan and Iraq, and writes:

ورغم أنه بات من المؤكد أن واشنطن تسير قدما في مخطط تقسيم السودان سواء كان ذلك عبر اتفاقية السلام التي تضمن انفصال الجنوب أو من خلال إشعال أزمة دارفور، إلا أن العرب لم يقوموا حتى الآن بخطوات جدية لإنقاذ السودان من المصير الذي وصل إليه العراق.

It has become evident that Washington is continuing with its plans to divide Sudan, whether this is achieved through a peace agreement which guarantees the separation of the South or through fanning the flames over the Darfur crisis. However, Arabs are yet to take serious steps to save Sudan from Iraq's destiny.

He further calls on Arabs and the African Union to move fast - and push the international community to protect the immunity of presidents and the sovereignty of states:

فالرئيس السوداني بات في قبضة المحكمة الجنائية الدولية لأن قراراتها غير قابلة للإلغاء ولا تسقط بالتقادم ، ويبدو أن هذا هو الثمن الذي كان لابد أن يدفعه العرب من وجهة نظر بوش للتغطية على فشله في العراق وأفغانستان ولبنان ولرفع أسهم المرشح الجمهوري جون ماكين في انتخابات الرئاسة الأمريكية المقبلة .
ولذا لا مناص من تكثيف التحرك العربي والإفريقي في الأمم المتحدة لدفع مجلس الأمن لمطالبة المحكمة بتأجيل تنفيذ قرار اعتقال البشير ، بالإضافة إلى ضرورة تحرك الجامعة العربية والاتحاد الإفريقي سريعا لإصدار فتوى من المحكمة الجنائية الدولية حول حصانة الرؤساء لضمان عدم استخدامها كسلاح سياسي لخدمة مخططات واشنطن ، وباعتبار هذا الأمر يضر بمبدأ أساسي في القانون الدولي وهو مبدأ السيادة.

The Sudanese President is now in the clasp of the ICC, whose decisions are irrevocable and this seems to be the price Arabs have to pay, in the opinion of Bush, to cover for his failures in Iraq, Afghanistan and Lebanon, and improve the fortunes of the Republican nominee John McCain in the upcoming US elections. Arabs and Africans should now intensify their pressure at the United Nations, to force the Security Council to demand from the Court to delay the decision to arrest Al Bashir. The Arab League and the African Union should also move fast and extract an order from the ICC on the immunity of Presidents, in order for this tactic not to be used as a political weapon in the hands of Washington. Such decisions harm a fundamental clause in international law - and that is the issue of sovereignty.

In conclusion, he asks:

وبعد ذلك ، يبقى التساؤل الملح ” أي من الحكام العرب ستستهدفه واشنطن بعد صدام والبشير ؟ ” ، هذا ما ستجيب عنه الأيام المقبلة .

And after all this, there remains a pressing questions: Who of the Arab leaders will be targeted by Washington after Saddam and Al Bashir? We will know the answer to this question in the near future.

Also on Global Voices Online:
Bahrain: Omar Al Bashir and the Cross-Eyed Justice

Writing on Sudanese forum Brbr Net, Abu Al Derdiri [Ar] says that Al Basheer's arrest warrant fulfils Libyan leader Muammar Al Gaddafi's prediction that the US will hunt down Arab rulers to fulfil its expansionist plans in the region. He says:

يبدو أن تحذير الزعيم الليبي معمر القذافي خلال القمة العربية الأخيرة في دمشق من أن أمريكا ستطارد الزعماء العرب واحدا تلو الآخر بعد إعدام الرئيس العراقي الراحل صدام حسين، بدأ يجد آذانا صاغية على أرض الواقع ، حيث فوجيء العرب والعالم في 14 يوليو 2008 باتهام المدعي العام للمحكمة الجنائية الدولية لويس مورينو أوكامبو للرئيس السوداني عمر البشير بارتكاب جرائم حرب وجرائم ضد الإنسانية وإبادة جماعية في دارفور ، مطالبا المحكمة باعتقاله .
هذا القرار اعتبره كثيرون بأنه سياسي مائة بالمائة ويؤكد أن الولايات المتحدة قررت استخدام سلاح المحكمة الجنائية الدولية لإسقاط نظام البشير الذي طالما حال دون تحقيق مخططات المحافظين الجدد وإسرائيل في تقسيم السودان والاستيلاء على ثرواته الهائلة وخاصة المعدنية والغذائية والمائية منها .

It seems that Libyan Leader Muammer Al Gaddafi's warning during the last Arab League Summit in Damascus that the United States will be hunting down Arab leaders one after the other after the hanging of the late Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein is ringing true. Arabs and the world were surprised on July 14, 2008, of an accusation by the International Criminal Court (ICC) Prosecutor Luis Moreno-Ocampo against Sudanese president Omar Al Bashir of committing war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide in Darfur, and called upon the court to arrest him. A lot considered this ruling as political, stressing that the United States has decided to use the weapon of the ICC to overthrow Al Bashir's rule, which has so far not been achieved despite the plotting of the Neo-cons and Israel, who want to carve up Sudan and steal its extensive resources, especially minerals, food and water.

Al Derdiri goes on to say that the ICC has no jurisdiction on Sudan, which does not recognise the ICC and insists that singling out Al Bashir is a ploy to pave the way for the trial of other Arab leaders. He adds:

ولذا سرعان ما ركزت واشنطن على استخدام صلاحيات المحكمة لتأديب “الحكام المارقين” بعيدا عن الحروب وفيتو مجلس الأمن ، وهو ما ظهر بوضوح في حالة الرئيس السوداني ، وهنا يتساءل البعض : هل يشكل القرار سابقة لمحاكمة مسئولين عرب آخرين ، وماذا يفعل السودان لمواجهته؟ .

Washington is concentrating its efforts on using the powers of the court to discipline ‘rogue rulers' away from wars and the Security Council's Veto. This is evident in the case against the Sudanese president. Some of you may ask: Will this ruling set a precedence for the trial of other Arab officials and what will Sudan do to confront it?

Al Derdiri then draws parallels between Sudan and Iraq, and writes:

ورغم أنه بات من المؤكد أن واشنطن تسير قدما في مخطط تقسيم السودان سواء كان ذلك عبر اتفاقية السلام التي تضمن انفصال الجنوب أو من خلال إشعال أزمة دارفور، إلا أن العرب لم يقوموا حتى الآن بخطوات جدية لإنقاذ السودان من المصير الذي وصل إليه العراق.

It has become evident that Washington is continuing with its plans to divide Sudan, whether this is achieved through a peace agreement which guarantees the separation of the South or through fanning the flames over the Darfur crisis. However, Arabs are yet to take serious steps to save Sudan from Iraq's destiny.

He further calls on Arabs and the African Union to move fast - and push the international community to protect the immunity of presidents and the sovereignty of states:

فالرئيس السوداني بات في قبضة المحكمة الجنائية الدولية لأن قراراتها غير قابلة للإلغاء ولا تسقط بالتقادم ، ويبدو أن هذا هو الثمن الذي كان لابد أن يدفعه العرب من وجهة نظر بوش للتغطية على فشله في العراق وأفغانستان ولبنان ولرفع أسهم المرشح الجمهوري جون ماكين في انتخابات الرئاسة الأمريكية المقبلة .
ولذا لا مناص من تكثيف التحرك العربي والإفريقي في الأمم المتحدة لدفع مجلس الأمن لمطالبة المحكمة بتأجيل تنفيذ قرار اعتقال البشير ، بالإضافة إلى ضرورة تحرك الجامعة العربية والاتحاد الإفريقي سريعا لإصدار فتوى من المحكمة الجنائية الدولية حول حصانة الرؤساء لضمان عدم استخدامها كسلاح سياسي لخدمة مخططات واشنطن ، وباعتبار هذا الأمر يضر بمبدأ أساسي في القانون الدولي وهو مبدأ السيادة.

The Sudanese President is now in the clasp of the ICC, whose decisions are irrevocable and this seems to be the price Arabs have to pay, in the opinion of Bush, to cover for his failures in Iraq, Afghanistan and Lebanon, and improve the fortunes of the Republican nominee John McCain in the upcoming US elections. Arabs and Africans should now intensify their pressure at the United Nations, to force the Security Council to demand from the Court to delay the decision to arrest Al Bashir. The Arab League and the African Union should also move fast and extract an order from the ICC on the immunity of Presidents, in order for this tactic not to be used as a political weapon in the hands of Washington. Such decisions harm a fundamental clause in international law - and that is the issue of sovereignty.

In conclusion, he asks:

وبعد ذلك ، يبقى التساؤل الملح ” أي من الحكام العرب ستستهدفه واشنطن بعد صدام والبشير ؟ ” ، هذا ما ستجيب عنه الأيام المقبلة .

And after all this, there remains a pressing questions: Who of the Arab leaders will be targeted by Washington after Saddam and Al Bashir? We will know the answer to this question in the near future.

Also on Global Voices Online:
Bahrain: Omar Al Bashir and the Cross-Eyed Justice

John McCain, despite his Republican affiliation, and Barack Obama have at least one thing in common. They are diametrally different from the man one of them will eventually replace when it comes to the principles they would use in relations to the Maghreb region. Over the past eight years, the Bush administration’s interest vis-à-vis the Maghreb was essentially two sided. Energy and security took over all past considerations. By focusing on these two issues, the White House decided to forget about what the Americans have done for decades in their foreign policy drive: human rights, democratic reforms and economic progress, areas that are likely to be resuscitated while maintaining the oil and security factors intact.

Although many analysts argued that recent American policy toward the Maghreb was meant to chip away European influence on the region, this assessment is farther from the truth and accepting it would be giving far too much credit for the White House and the State Department. I would argue that an American policy toward the Maghreb simply does not exist. In fact, the declining influence of Europe, although returning with a vengeance more recently, was simply the result of Europeans own disengagement from the Maghreb. The Americans have simply squandered the opportunity to fill the vacuum left by the Europeans as they implemented stringent protectionist and anti-immigration policies.

The American political engagement in the region was rather rhetorical with no real impact whatsoever. During the Clinton administration, the idea of a single and unified trading block within the Maghreb has made some headway. Senior administration officials like Stuart Eizenstat, the former U.S. Secretary of State for Economic Affairs have driven their initiatives to attempt to convince Maghreb nations to form a viable economic block, and they were equipped with some incentives. With such an economic grouping, the United States could have a much wider influence and could engineer a final divorce between the Maghreb and Europe, in particular France. The American policy included promises of free trade and a defense alliance with closer integration of Maghreb’s military into NATO in exchange for structural reforms that would cement a pro-American regional grouping. Perfect plan in an imperfect world? Except that the Americans did not have the ability to follow through and did not commit the finances, in face of a growing aggressive Europe Union that was quickly anchoring individual Maghreb countries into the EU’s economy. The final stab to the Clinton-era plan was the take over of the White House by the Republicans who had to deal with unprecedented terrorist attacks on their country, with little appetite on the details as the Eizenstat initiative of the late 1990s was replaced with an inefficient American Program for North Africa.

While they made very little progress toward the creation of a unified regional block in the Maghreb, the Americans focused their attention nearly exclusively on petroleum and security. So much so that the old foe Libya became near ally and certainly not a member of the axis of evil. In the oil sector, Algeria and Libya have been the focus on substantial American investment, essentially buying exploration rights and production licenses. In this case, more credit is to be given to the oil corporations with their strong relations with North African governments rather than the Washington bureaucracy. Even the rapprochement with Libya was heavily brokered by the oil lobby, which saw its competitiveness slip away if nothing was done on the political front. Washington’s openness to the Libyan regime was not just driven by well-thought political motives, but pressure from American oil companies was even more important.

On the security front, further rapprochement with Algeria was critical. That country has decades of experience dealing with an insurgency that has pledged allegiance to Al Qaeda. The Americans had a direct interest in insuring that some security capability is established in the vast Sahel region. This initiative is essentially one that has come from the Pentagon and not much from the White House or the State Department.

Apart from these two strategic areas of interest, very little has been invested in the region. The exception may be a symbolic free-trade agreement with Morocco, which is providing good opportunities for select Moroccan exports but needs proof of long term sustainability. Political engagement has been reduced to security discussions. Economic engagement has been reduced to exploration acreage and production rights. Educational exchanges have been reduced to their minimum and the movement of people between the two extremely restricted by security fears.

The over simplification of the U.S. engagement in the region over the past eight years is likely to take a shot in the arm with President Bush leaving office. His replacement is expected to have a much more comprehensive foreign policy position that would incorporate classic American diplomatic elements that have been used by U.S. diplomats pre-9/11. Even if the Republican John McCain takes office, he is likely to expand the criteria of foreign relations beyond security and oil. His decades of experience make him a different man than President Bush. His awareness of a wider and more encompassing global environment beyond security and oil will be critical in reshaping a better approach to U.S.- North Africa relations.

Senator Obama’s political positions are likely to also challenge the state of affairs regarding U.S. engagement in the Maghreb. His positions on human rights, democracy, free trade, and others mean that there will not be “business as usual.”

For the North African governments the honeymoon may be over. Not only accountability on human issues, economic reforms and democracy are likely to return to the agenda, but some of the gains, perceived to have been achieved, such as the Morocco-US free trade agreement could be revisited in favor of American workers. Whatever the outcome of the November 2008 American elections, North Africa’s capitals should brace for substantial changes in the way Washington will engage with them in the next decade.

Barbara Walters , the famous American TV icon interviewed published last month her autobiography “Audition” , beside her personal life , Walters shared her memories in interviewing the world leaders through her career , she was the first American Journalist to have an interview with Gaddafi in the 1980s , she asked him in a very intelligent way

“They say that you are crazy , what is your answer ??”

He did not answer but he laughed , a crazy laugh suits a crazy man , still smart Babs knew that he is not crazy but strange.

Image sources : Getty Images and ABC News