OpEdNews Op Eds

Does Gaddafi Still Have Chemical Weapons? (What WikiLeaks Cables Reveal)

By (about the author)     Permalink       (Page 1 of 2 pages)
Related Topic(s): ; ; ; ; ; , Add Tags Add to My Group(s)

Supported 1  
View Ratings | Rate It

opednews.com Headlined to H3 3/24/11

Become a Fan
  (66 fans)
- Advertisement -

With a military intervention by Western powers underway to supposedly protect Libyan civilians from Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi, one might wonder what Gaddafi's next move might be. His behavior during speeches prior to the intervention demonstrated Gaddafi is an erratic individual. He has suggested he would enlist the help of al-Qaeda to prevent Libyans from driving him from power. He has also said "I have not yet ordered the use of force, not yet ordered one bullet to be fired"when I do, everything will burn."

Is Gaddafi a leader that would use chemical weapons (i.e. mustard gas) on his people?

US State Embassy cables released by WikiLeaks show that the US has worked with other countries to ensure that Libya abandoned its weapons of mass destruction (WMD) program. It offered incentives for Libya to cooperate. But, cables that have been released suggest a slight possibility that Gaddafi still has chemical weapons materials.

One cable released details  a visit by UK chemical weapons experts early in July 2008. They met Dr. Ahmed Hesnawy, the government of Libya's (GOL) chief interlocutor on chemical weapons issues. One of the experts, Chris Rampling, stresses "the need for greater transparency from the GOL as to the reasons that conversion of the Rabta Chemical Weapons Production Facility (CWPF) from chemical weapons to pharmaceuticals production had been delayed."

Hesnawy blames Italian company PharmaChem for delays in the conversion. Rampling urges "the GOL to be more transparent about the contract with Italian firm SIPSA Engineering for destruction of chemical agent at Rabta." Hesnawy appears to agree that "greater transparency could help alleviate concerns about Libya's activities," but when asked if a contract with SIPSA has been signed, he complains.

"the Italian Embassy in Tripoli had called regularly - "they are pushing us too hard on this" - to ask whether the contract had been signed, Hesnawy stressed that Libya would "sign when we're ready to sign, and not before". As reported reftel, Hesnawy told us in June that contract negotiations with SIPSA had been completed and terms were mutually understood; however, the contract itself had not yet been formally approved by all relevant GOL entities. (Note: Rampling told us that despite the fact that Italian officials in Rome and at the OPCW deny that Italy's government has played a direct role in the SIPSA contract, Italian Embassy officials in Tripoli freely admitted that they were actively involved in trying to get the contract finalized and signed. End note.) Hesnawy expressed confidence that Libya would "easily meet" the deadline for destruction of its chemical agent"

Hesnawy's pledge appears to be enough as the cable says the "UK team was "greatly reassured' by its visit to the Rabta CWPF." The team was able to enjoy full access and take photographs during a visit that lasted more than five hours. The UK team was not allowed to visit the chemical weapons destruction facility as Hesnawy told the team, "Only site preparation work was underway there, and that there was nothing of substance to see." This, however, does not appear to be a problem for the UK team.

- Advertisement -

In a cable  put together in preparation for Muatassim Gaddafi's trip to Washington in April 2009, the disarming of chemical weapons facilities is mentioned. Gaddafi's son appears to be crucial in convincing Libya to fully disarm:

" The logistics to ship 4.6kg of highly enriched uranium to Russia in September 2009 have yet to be set and the conversion of the Rabta chemical weapons facilities to peaceful use has suffered periodic delays. U.S. and UK members of the Tri-lateral Steering Committee charged with monitoring the disarmament report that Libyan progress is sporadic and that periodic unresponsiveness is often blamed on high-ranking regime members' perception that Libya was not getting enough in return for its actions. The GOL has repeatedly called for specific, large projects that, in their view, will demonstrate to the public (and conservative regime members) that the decision to disarm and re-engage was the right one. For example, Muatassim has recently pressed for a civilian nuclear project, mirroring earlier calls for a power-generating or a desalination facility built by a U.S. firm. More conservative regime elements see the WMD decision as a crucial bargaining chip too easily given away and this drives the Qadhafi efforts to show that the policy change toward the U.S. was a beneficial one. If he is successful in Washington, Muatassim can be a key messenger to them that Libya will see further rewards and that further cooperation is possible"

But, in July of 2009, an action request  is sent out by then-US Ambassador to Libya Gene Cretz. Someone whose name has been redacted claimed the Libya government was deliberately delaying the implementation of its commitments under the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) to destroy its remaining stockpile of declared chemical weapons (approximately 25 MT of mustard agent and 860 MT of chemical agent precursor chemicals)." They are supposed to destroy their mustard stockpile by December 31, 2010 and then their remaining inventory of precursor chemicals by December 31, 2011.

SIPSA has been working with Libya on a Rabta Toxic Chemicals Destruction Facility but the government repeatedly has delayed the signing of a contract. Gaddafi is allegedly stalling because he would like Libya to get more compensation.

The Italian company SIPSA has been working with the Libyan side to design and build the Rabta Toxic Chemicals Destruction Facility at which the destruction is to take place; however, the GOL has repeatedly delayed signing a contract with SIPSA. The person whose name is redacted suggests "even if construction were to begin immediately" it is highly unlikely the GOL "would meet the deadlines for destruction of its mustard agent and precursors."

- Advertisement -

Cretz comments:

The GOL has been credited with having largely met its WMD commitments; however, the recent track record is worrisome and suggests that it may be deliberately delaying implementation of commitments it has undertaken under the rubric of the U.S.-U.K.-Libya Tri-lateral Steering and Coordination Committee (TSCC) and multi-lateral mechanisms such as the OPCW. The GOL has delayed since November 2007 signing a U.S.-Libya agreement for the return of spent nuclear fuel (the HEU-LEU agreement); delayed signing a parallel Russia-Libya agreement; given no detail on plans to sell its uranium yellowcake stockpile; delayed signing the SIPSA contract and delayed providing greater detail on its proposed retention of the sandbag enclosure at the Rabta facility.

Months later, a cable  on US Senator John McCain's visit to Libya indicates "Libya's signing of the agreement to transfer its highly enriched uranium to Russia for treatment and disposal, an action that must be taken prior to August 15, 2009, if Libya is going to meet the September deadline for disposal" is still an issue. Additionally, it notes Libya would like a Regional Nuclear Medicine Center to be established as part of the agreement to destroy the weapons.

Next Page  1  |  2


Kevin Gosztola is managing editor of Shadowproof Press. He also produces and co-hosts the weekly podcast, "Unauthorized Disclosure." He was an editor for OpEdNews.com

Share on Google Plus Submit to Twitter Add this Page to Facebook! Share on LinkedIn Pin It! Add this Page to Fark! Submit to Reddit Submit to Stumble Upon

Go To Commenting

The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.

Follow Me on Twitter

Contact Author Contact Editor View Authors' Articles
- Advertisement -
Google Content Matches:

Most Popular Articles by this Author:     (View All Most Popular Articles by this Author)

We Do Not Consent to Warrantless "Porno-Scanning" in Airports

Do They Put Lipstick on Pigs at the Funny Farm?

How Private Prison Corporations Hope Arizona's SB1070 Will Lead to Internment Camps for Illegals

Why the Battle Against TSA Groping and Body Scanners is Justified

Give Obama a Chance to Do What?


The time limit for entering new comments on this article has expired.

This limit can be removed. Our paid membership program is designed to give you many benefits, such as removing this time limit. To learn more, please click here.

Comments: Expand   Shrink   Hide  
1 people are discussing this page, with 1 comments
To view all comments:
Expand Comments
(Or you can set your preferences to show all comments, always)

Whatever the case may be, I'm sure if NATO and the... by Ned Lud on Friday, Mar 25, 2011 at 7:13:06 AM