France Threatens Libya!

I'll bet that old Muammar is just shaking in his boots at this one:

French President Jacques Chirac urged Libya on Saturday to reach a deal on a UTA payout or face the consequences.

This is rich. France, the military behemoth, is threatening Libya, a nation trained in the tactics of terrorism, with "consequences." Will they talk the EU in to attacking Muammar with the dreaded "scowl of disapproval?" Or will they threaten to cut off relations with Libya? Or perhaps they could figure out a reason to threaten Libya with a NATO (read: US) invasion? What are these mysterious consequences? Does Chirac even know the meaning of the word?

Well, ok, he probably does after the American tourist boycott, but does France really have that much control over the potential tourism industry in Tripoli? Will TotalELF quit paying their bribes on the oil contracts?

Sorry, but Chirac and UTA are coattailling on the Pan Am 103 settlement here. With 103, a real timeline was put together, showing each of the steps involved, each of the people involved and how it all tied Libya into the ultimate destruction of the plane over Lockerbie. With the UTA bombing, it has always been generally accepted that Libya was likely involved, but the airtight case like was made for 103 doesn't seem to exist. There are holes, there are questions that still need to be answered.

And from all appearances, Chirac and UTA know this. If they had a solid and convincing case against Libya, they would be presenting it. Instead, they seem to just be taking a wild stab at extorting more money from the Libyan government simply because they paid more for 103, than they were willing to pay for the UTA bombing, which they have never admitted to and for which they were making restitution only in the hopes of trying to normalize their position in the world.

If this were a normal or initial negotiation, I might feel more strongly about Libya needing to stick with one issue. But this isn't normal. This isn't the first go around. France is trying to up the ante, after the cards have been played.

That's wrong. And as such, if Libya has decided that they want to link this negotiation for more money with another situation in which Libya feels it was wronged, well, that's their right and this is a justifiable point at which to exercise that right.

Also, aren't negotiators supposed to be impartial? The lead French negotiator had his father killed in the bombing. He stands to personally profit financially from any extra extortion from Libya and emotionally if he can "punish" Libya even more.

Sorry, but I got to take Muammar's side on this one.