Wednesday, March 24, 2004
Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal

EDITORIAL: The Saddam effect

Why do you think Libya has surrendered its weapons of mass destruction?

Libya's rapid progress in scrapping its nuclear and chemical weapons programs has been "heartening," Rogelio Pfirter, director general of the international Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, declared this week.

Mr. Pfirter's group oversees the 1993 international treaty banning chemical weapons. Moammar Gadhafi's Libya joined the accord last month, pledging to destroy not only its existing stockpiles of these "Weapons of Mass Destruction" but also his nation's capability to build more.

Since then, the Dutch-based international inspectors have confirmed the disabling of Libya's sole chemical weapons factory; have witnessed the destruction of more than 3,500 aerial bombs designed to deliver chemical payloads; and have inventoried more than 20 tons of mustard gas and precursor chemicals that could have been used to manufacture literally thousands of tons of sarin nerve gas.

Under a timetable outlined in the treaty, the government in Tripoli must rid Libya of all such weapons and facilities by 2007. Gadhafi's regime is also cooperating with the International Atomic Energy Agency to dismantle its nuclear weapons program.

Why?

Gadhafi says he took the steps in hopes of ending international sanctions against his nation and regaining full relations with the United States and other countries. (Washington has already lifted most of its sanctions.)

That's all very nice. But before we assume the colonel received a visit from Roma Downey or "Joan of Arcadia's" Amber Tamblyn, a few things are worth remembering:

First, these sanctions stemmed not just from Gadhafi's weapons programs -- though those were serious enough -- but also from the aid and comfort Libya gave Islamic murderers and other terrorists in the past, including Palestinian terrorist organizations and the men who blew up Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland in 1988. Those groups have now lost an important and historic refuge.

Second, anyone who believes Gadhafi would have taken this step if Saddam Hussein were still in power in Iraq has been spending too much time consulting his hookah. The rationale for invading foreign countries deserves a loud and strenuous public debate, make no mistake. But recall that the Iraq nay-sayers prophesied the entire Arab world would rise up if America finally called the bluff of the inspection-dodging mass murderer Saddam.

Instead, the general reaction "on the Arab street" to America's military actions in Afghanistan and Iraq has been more like a collective, "Uh-oh; these guys are serious."

The cooperation (we will not comment on the competence) of Pakistan in attempting to run to earth the surviving leaders of al-Qaida is a direct result of those forceful actions, as is the sudden change of heart of Moammar Gadhafi.

"Where are the weapons of mass destruction?" the current administration's critics keep asking. One place Arab terrorists could previously hope to lay hands on such stuff was in Moammar Gadhafi's Libya.

No more.