|
Tripoli political international press conference-Qathafi’s
explanation to the international journalists and editors.
 I
summoned you to this conference which is being held on the
south bank of the Mediterranean versus a political
conference that will take place very soon on the north bank
in Paris...
I want
to make clear my position to the peoples concerned and to
the world, on this project and I approach those concerned
with the naked truth and with total honesty and
transparency.
As for
political leaders’ advocates and participants, they know
these facts.
I want
to reassure them all that I was solely motivated by the
keenness to maintain peace in the Mediterranean, Africa, and
Europe and the commitment to the cooperation between Europe,
Africa and the Mediterranean. I am also motivated by the
keenness to maintain the friendliness relations between the
leaders of these peoples that should persist, and by the
keenness to preserve cooperation, peace and stability in the
Mediterranean on whose southern coast my country occupies
nearly 2000 km.
My
commitment to maintain the good terms of friendship,
cooperation, stability and peace in the Mediterranean,
Africa and Europe made me explain my position over the
project on the table in Paris.
In
the beginning, you know that my dear friend Sarkozy
announced this project, he said the "Union of the
Mediterranean", and I was among the first enthusiastic about
the idea, and I have sent representatives to 5+5 countries,
exploring opinion and urging them to accept the project; the
strange thing I discovered a lack of enthusiasm, hesitation
and they said approval is premature, the project is
incomprehensible, and they asked me to be patient, and that
it was not necessary to be enthusiastic about the project,
that it was unknown and ambiguous... etc.
Then,
President Sarkozy came to me and we talked about it, and I
went to Paris and talked about it with him... I told him
that I wanted to exclude countries with complex problems
from the project so it would not fail; they were the Middle
East countries... Asian countries.
I told
him if the project were to extend, it should include in
addition to the 5+5 the 6+6, by adding Greece and Egypt...
as for the others, they have problems and they would benefit
the union, rather, they will come with their problems and
the assembly would turn into a conflict arena and a waste of
time.
The
Palestinian problem is yet to be solved, there is a conflict
on the land... one calls it Palestine while the other calls
it Israel, they did not even agree on the name... one says
this is my land, and the other says it's mine, there are
people conversing with missiles, shells bullets and
massacres... this is the dialogue that prevails between the
Palestinians and Israelis now.
Therefore, they are not qualified to join us in a
cooperation, peace or stability in this project; they should
be excluded until the Middle East problem is resolved.
There
were problems in Lebanon at the time, they were on the brink
of civil war, it could happen, and I hope it wouldn't.
There
are Hezbollah problems, they are Hamas problems... this is
according to Europe and the West who consider it a problem;
there are problems between Kurds and Turks.
Consequently, I asked to exclude the Asian side, since it
was full of problems, they wouldn't benefit us, let us stay
with 6+6, the south Europe and north Africa form a
connection between the European and African Unions... the
European and African continents, becoming a good connection
for cooperation, understanding and friendship.
We,
inhabitants overlooking the Mediterranean Sea, from Egypt to
Mauritania... from Greece to Spain, we have a common ground
that is the Mediterranean Sea, it is subject to pollution,
it should be a sea of peace, clean and there should be
rescue and safety teams, that exchange benefits across the
Mediterranean Sea.
However, Europe and Germany primarily opposed the project
"Sarkozy's project", they said we would not allow the
division of Europe that south Europe joins a union with the
Mediterranean Sea, while the south is in a union with
Europe. Opposite that, we wouldn't allow North Africa joins
a union with the Mediterranean, while it is a part of the
Africa Union. This clear and logical.
Herein,
I cannot join a project that divides Africa to Africa beyond
the Sahara, a white and a black Africa, an Arab and a
non-Arab Africa, this is a discrimination that we do not
want to return to again. This is a project that revives the
idea and the racial separation, we're now in an African
Union that does not acknowledge African beyond or before the
Sahara, and we do not acknowledge a black or a white
Africa... we are the African Union.
Then
Africa has decisions which I cannot overstep, I sanctify,
respect and I am committed to them, no African Union member
state should ignore these decisions which I would read them
out, they are very convincing and clear.
These
are the decisions of the Khartoum summit in January 2006:
"The conference affirms that the African continent is a
human, geographic, political and a cultural unity that does
not accept division or annexing any part of it with another
space or continent other than the African space or
continent".
This
was decided in Khartoum and it is very clear: no country in
the African Union has the right - which is surely shared,
since it was unanimous - to join the project of the "Union
For the Mediterranean" as long as the decision is there,
unless the African summit cancelled the decision. As long as
the decision is valid, it does not permit any country to
join such project, which is presented by Paris.
Libya
is committed to the decision and does not ignore or overlook
it and adheres to it, this is legitimate, and we would not
permit the division, annexing any part of Africa with
another space or continent other than the African space or
continent.
Countries that will join the "Union for the Mediterranean"
would be held accountable by the African Union for its
actions.
The
other decision of the African summit in Banjul says: "The
conference takes note of the commission's report of not
linking north Africa with the Middle East by name, content
or indication, approves the recommendations of the
commission, and charges the chief of the commission to take
necessary measures to guarantee the implementation of the
decision", because they always used to say north Africa
and the Middle East, the African summit decided to sever the
connection, and not link north Africa with the Middle East
following the establishment of the African Union.
Therefore, the European countries triumphed over my friend
Sarkozy and forced him to abandon the project, and presented
a new project which they called "Union for the
Mediterranean".
I do
not know what "Union for the Mediterranean" signifies!!!
Perhaps it means Europe united to take over the
Mediterranean, not the Mediterranean Union.
Naturally, this presents other maps I warned about during
the Lisboan Africa - Europe summit, there are colonial
maps... detested maps which we finished with, we should not
present them again, such as the Roman empire map, this is a
detested colonial map, its signs are present, we should not
present them again, because it is then followed by the
Carthage empire... which is also a colonial map which we
could present.
If Rome
is presented then we would present Carthage.
In my
opinion, we should stay away from detested maps that could
arouse old sentiments of animosities; however, unfortunately
our friends on the northern side seem to insist on
presenting the colonial map once again.
The
project is a form of the Roman empire map... we also have
the Carthage map, and we have the map of the Ottoman
caliphate, we have the map of Andalusia, the map of the Al-
Aghaliba state that takes part of the Mediterranean Sea
including Sicily, Corsica and Cyprus, and we have new
colonial maps that Libya is Rome's fourth shore, Algeria is
an inseparable part of France, the Suez canal is part of
Britain, and still parts of western Africa is part of
Europe.
The
project should be reviewed, we should bear responsibility,
and we should not present detested maps that are met with a
reaction.
If a
Roman map was to be presented in this form, it will be
interpreted as a colonial map and Muslims would interpret it
as a map of the Crusaders, this would be met by another
Islamic empire.
Why
should we open such doors? Because Muslims surely would
challenge the project, and would present the Islamic
caliphate, and would open Jihad in Europe, they would start
from North Africa, which is very dangerous.
The
word "Union" must be called off; this word is very strong
and has serious legal meanings. "Union"… how? Is it wise of
any body, as an Arab, to tell his people that he has made
Union with Scotland, Finland, Green land and Iceland for
their own good? Sure, they will laugh and say: What kind of
talk is this? Then an Arab might say: We have made union
with what so-called "Israel".
Has the
problem been solved, and the only thing left is to make
union with Israel?
I wish
the problem would have been solved; the Palestinians would
have returned; the Israeli weapons of mass destruction would
have been erased and the Israelis and Palestinians would
have been living together in state of
Isratine, as proposed
by the White Book. If these things had been reached,
the idea would have been accepted.
But now
it is not reasonable to say to your people you have made
Union with the Israelis?! This is the proposed union... Why
is the word "Union"? This word is very perilous.
First
of all, the word "Union" must be called off... We, the Arabs
have not made union with each other yet! Shall we make union
with Scotland, Benelux, Scandinavian countries, Baltic and
Israel? Is it reasonable?
The
Arab Maghreb Union has been in the refrigerator for ten
years now. The Arab Maghreb Union has not convened for ten
years. I am the president of the Arab Maghreb Union, which
is frozen; because we the Maghreb people have not agreed
with each other; we have problems; we have not made any
common thing and are not able to carry out any serious work.
I have
been trying for 40 years to make union between Libya and
Egypt; and between Libya and Tunisia; so far we have
achieved nothing for this union.
The
Arabs have not made an Arab union; the Maghreb Arabs have
made, but they put it in the refrigerator... We have not
convened for 10 years. How can we easily make union with
Baltic, Israel, Green Land and Finland...? It is a strange
thing!! How come a "Union?!
I do
not recommend my people to enter such mazes... This will
lead us to serious problems; North Africa and the Arab
states in the Middle East will enter international mine
field extending to the North Pole.
How
come I make my country involved in this problem? My
relations with France, Italy, EU and Brussels are good... I
don't need any a union... How come we unite? There is no
cultural, religious, language or political relations between
us and them; we are quite different in terms of these
things.
Do we
have cultural relations with Europe? Never; the cultures are
different. In Scandinavia, people walk naked in streets; can
you walk naked in Tunisia, Algeria, and Egypt or in Libya?
People will stone you and take you to mad house; but the
matter is quite normal if you see somebody walking naked in
streets in Scandinavia; this is a culture.
Is it
wise thing to make union between naked people with another
who considers such a conduct is madness? This is an example
to show that our culture is quite different from theirs.
Similarly, there is no one religion linking us with them; we
believe in Jesus as a prophet, while Europe does not believe
in Mohamed as a prophet; in contrast, in Scandinavia, they
insulted him and made cartoons for him.
We
never draw cartoons for Jesus (Peace Upon Him), but they
have done.
From
the religious point of view, we appear like enemies; how
come we unite and we have very old religious enmity?!
On the
other hand, we have different policies; are the European and
the Arab policing the same?
Therefore, how can we unite in quite different policies,
religions, cultures and languages?
To
cooperate, to be friends, to make peace, visit each other,
trade, tourism that is fine, but to have a union that is
strange.
I am
saying this because I am keen to have sound good and healthy
relations between us... between Europe and Africa… or
between Arabs and Europeans... or across the Mediterranean
because this project will gets us into a mine field that
begins to explode, and we may even loose gains of the
existing friendship and cooperation and I am keen about that
and we must not loose that.
If my
country joined this project - and I do not advice my country
to enter this project- it will entangle itself in
unnecessary problem... Firstly the problem of Palestine, it
will be strongly on the table and it will destroy this
union, the problem in Kosovo where, tomorrow they will ask
you to recognize Kosovo... one recognizes and one does not.
I have nothing to do with Kosovo and when I enter this Union
I will be concerned with Kosovo crisis.
When
you get involved in Kosovo, you will do the same regarding
Abkhazia, but Georgia will be a member in the Union and
Russia says this is a part of Russia, Georgia says Abkhazia
is part of Georgia, so fighting will start between the two
and we will be a part in this fighting because Abkhazia is a
part of Georgia.
If war
breaks out between Russia and Georgia which is a member of
the Union, then you will be with Georgia against Russia...
So, why should my country enter in confrontation against
Russia? I am a friend of Russia and my relations with it are
good, why should I create a problem with Russia?
You
will faced with the problem of Basque... what have I got to
do with Basque… it's a European problem... they consider ETA
as a terrorist organization... why should I be embroiled in
such issues... this is in the core of the region that will
unite... these are mine fields in this region that will
unite.
We will
be involved in Badania and the problems of Badania… we will
be involved in Zimbabwe... Zimbabwe is part of me because
Zimbabwe is African... we will get in trouble to enter into
conflict or to cooperate.
We will
be embroiled in the missile shield of the Czech Republic...
Russia threatening war... the Czech is part of the union.
We will
also be embroiled in the Iranian nuclear program because the
European Union is against this program... they will
implicate you in Hamas and Hezbollah. You will be implicated
in the north pole... you could end up fighting Russia,
Canada, Scandinavia Norway over the north pole… These are
countries members in this union.
My
fellow Arabs say we will determine our position... why
should we enter into union that's infested with mines... I
am keen to save my country minefields... is it rational that
Libya should enter into a union that spread to Georgia,
Estonia, Lithuania, Greenland. Iceland and the North Pole…
it’s ridiculous... if you suggest such an idea they will
say, you are crazy... what sort of union... you cannot
afford to make it with Tunisia or Morocco... I am the
Chairman of the Arab Maghreb Union, if I invite members to
meet they will not come because there are problems between
Algeria and Morocco and they will not face one another.
Additionally, this project will divide the Arabs into three
parts:
The
Arab state from Egypt to Morocco of the North Africa will be
a part of this union. What about the Arab states, like
Sudan, Djibouti Somalia and Madagascar which do not overlook
the Mediterranean Sea? They will not be a part of the union.
Consequently, we, the Arabs, are divided into two parts; one
part will join the EU and the other will remain within the
AU... These are the member states of the Arab League. The
Arab Peninsula, "The Gulf and Iraq", do not overlook the
Mediterranean Sea either; they will not join this project
too. Therefore, the Arabs are divided into three parts, in
Asia, in Africa and that part which overlooks the
Mediterranean Sea and will join this union. The Arab League
is torn into parts.
While
the Europeans, who were right, told Sarkozy that they would
never allow division and partition of Europe and they would
never allow any part of Europe to join that union which
would divide Europe... Europe must be united.
Now, we
say the member states of the Arab League must be united...
in the south and north... We will never allow tearing of the
Arab League and the African Union as well. I am considering
all of these things will respect; and I am surprised by
those who rushed to join the union with no deliberation.
I
believe this project will increase illegal immigration and
terrorism, it will give a justification for the extremist
Islamists to escalate Jihad operations, and they will
interpret that as a crusade containment of the Muslim world
and as European colonialism. They will accuse rulers of
betrayal, or plotting or of weakness, so they yielded their
countries to this union on a plate of gold... They will
interpret this and I do not want to make my brothers in a
position of being accused.
I
believe that this project will be harmful and useless for
Europe and for all of us and we are not in need of that.
If the
idea was put on the table for discussion, that is some thing
logical and it gives us respect, but presenting it in this
manner, it did not respect us at all.
If my
friend, Sarkozy or any one said I have an idea for a
Mediterranean union and let us discuss this idea, yes this
is reasonable, we sit and discuss and see, then afterwards
we say, no, omit this, or accept this or modify and develop
this, this is reasonable.
But the
idea comes up from someone in Europe then it is set up from
all aspects by the European side, then they ask us to come
and sign it, this is an insult.
Who
among us in the southern shore that is the Arab countries
that will participate now, who among us took part in setting
the articles of this project?
No one
did take part.
They
told them it will be the Mediterranean Union; afterwards
they changed it by themselves and said we named it Union for
the Mediterranean. The change was made by one side, the
European side which changes and we only hear about that in
the news that they called it Barcelona, Union for the
Mediterranean and some thing like that. That it will have a
secretariat and presidency, they are the ones who decided
and said we want joint presidency. We want a president from
the South and president from the North and the headquarters
in Brussels and the capital Brussels.
If I go
back to my country and tell them that I yielded you to
Brussels and that Brussels is the capital now!!! They will
stone me if I told them that I went and signed this Union
with the Israelis and with the North Pole and with this
entire wide world with its capital Brussels. They will not
applaud to some thing like that.
Even
Slovenia which is now presiding and Greece, Slovakia and
Spain oppose the project.
These
are European countries, but they said this project is not
reasonable, very reluctant.
The
equilibrium is not there at all...34 states against 8, or 4
states from the north for every one country from the south.
What kind of equality... what kind of equilibrium when 34
states, united, are faced by 8 from Syria to Mauritania...
When 33 countries if we exclude the Israelis, with
institutions, military might, one currency, a central bank,
European council... a real union.
While
the eight of us have nothing in common we act
individually... paper clippings... it's not rational that we
enter into a process like this... what can eight do versus
34 especially when they are not united while the others are?
We are
committed to 5+5 and I suggest they be expanded to be 6+6
adding Egypt and Greece.
These
countries have good relations, overlooking the
Mediterranean... European and African countries... free of
the Asian part which explosive... we have common
interests... the Mediterranean is our lake that we should
take care of... clean it and secure it... it should be safe
and its resources developed... we should build joint
industries, electrical interconnection, tourism and trade.
My
friendship with my friend Sarkozy will never be affected by
anything, especially he is innocent of this. When the
project was Sarkozy's, I supported it. Now, it is not
Sarkozy's project any longer since it became a German
project, a European project, and a Project of Baltic,
Scotland, Israel and Green Land. My friendship with Sarkozy
is strong and permanent and will never be affected by
anything; they took this idea from him. Our relations with
France are strong; there are deals of billions between the
two countries.
Our
relations with Italy, Germany, Britain, Spain, Portugal,
very close Malta, and all giant Europe are strong. We do not
need any other thing that might take us to an endless sea,
or might take us into an international minefield; it is not
wise to join this project.
I do
not believe there will be financial benefits for these
peoples, because they have bestowed upon us financial
benefits in Barcelona process. Now 10 years have elapsed and
we have not seen anything. The process is dead; the evidence
is that the south part boycotted it; only Abumazen did not.
Will the European governments distribute their budgets among
us? Impossible! Will they divide their factories,
production, technologies and equipment among us?
Impossible!
They
said that all those projects were voluntary and that the
companies and the private sector might invest, contribute or
grant. These things don't need a union. Immigration,
terrorism and cooperation don't need this project... the
union project... Why union? Call it Sarkozy Project,
agreement or even a treaty, but not a union. There will be a
legal accountability, according to international law, for
those who agreed about this, and there will be obligations;
federal, confederal or any other form of union.
In all
circumstances, if Europe wants to help any country that
needs help in Africa or in the Middle East, or if they want
to have any cooperation with us, they set conditions that
you have to enter from this gate... Either Barcelona gate or
Union for the Mediterranean gate. Why is this hand twisting
policy?! That means you twist my hand and say you have to
enter from this gate, otherwise we will not cooperate with
you.
Enough,
we will not enter... Do not cooperate with me if you do not
need me, then I do not need you either.
Is this
a sound international policy that we will not cooperate with
you unless you entered through Barcelona or through the gate
of Union for the Mediterranean, without that there will be
no cooperation?! So, there is no need.
I want
cooperation and friendship, but I do not want to enter
neither through Barcelona gate nor the Union for the
Mediterranean gate.
They
make it a condition that we, who do not recognize the
so-called Israel, have to sit, unwillingly with the Israeli
and may have discussion with him. The Israeli may even
invite you to a meeting in Tel Aviv or in occupied
al-Quds... Why is this insult?!
Why do
not we set conditions in return?!
Is it
acceptable and possible - and this of course is ruled out -
that we say to Europe that we can not cooperate with you or
supply you with oil and gas... that we do not cooperate with
you concerning immigration or terrorism unless you accepted
dealing with (Bin Laden), with (Hezbollah) and with (Hamas)
and to accept exerting pressure on the Iranian nuclear
project?! Is this acceptable?!
They
made it acceptable to us... They said if you want to
cooperate with us, you have to accept the so-called Israel
which must be present.
Alright, on our part, we say, we will not cooperate with you
or supply you with oil and gas and not to cooperate
regarding terrorism and immigration unless you accepted
Hamas, Hezbollah and al-Qaeda... They are Muslims... They
say these are impossible conditions, but they dictate on us
this condition... Do not force me to recognize Israel.
Israel
is a legal stand, international stand a stand of
international law... meaning that one declared his state
unilaterally... Like Cyprus... They recognized Cyprus which
will be one of the problems that we are to get involved in -
I did not mention it in the context of Abkhazia and others -
the Cyprus crisis. Why do not they recognize the Turkish
Cyprus made by Turkey, they said it is declared unilaterally
which is illegal according to international law.
So, is
the case with Israel which was declared unilaterally and
that is illegal according to international law?
This
has nothing to do with Jews or Israelis or the Palestinians,
and even if the Palestinians declared a state unilaterally
and said all this land is ours, I do not recognize it and
stay boycotting it in the same way we are boycotting Israel
now.
The
case is not that of an Israeli, or Arab, Jew or Muslim or
Palestinian... The case is legal one according to
international law, meaning the land of Palestine is disputed
and you cannot come at the proper moment and put your hand
on it and declare your state and name it after you, then
expel its people and declare a state from one side.
According to the international law this cannot be
recognized; be it made by a Palestinian or an Israeli.
This is
the reason for not recognizing the so-called Israel... not
the way they interpret things that we hate Jews or not.
We do
not hate Jews, you are the ones who do, Europe hates Jews,
so is America... who slaughtered Jews and killed them
collectively. It is not the Arabs or the Muslims.
Arabs
and Israelis are cousins, their grandfather is Abraham if we
look at that from the ancestry prospective, and from the
religious aspect, Moses, Jesus and Muhammad all of them are
prophets of God and we recognize them and if I do not
recognize Moses and Jesus, then I am not a Muslim.
However
the issue is legal. It is international law. No one side has
the right to unilaterally declare the establishment of the
state over a disputed land and then expel its people.
I
reiterate even if the Palestinians did so it should not be
recognized. Recognition will take place when the expelled
Palestinians return. They are now present in Syria and they
can see their land with their own eyes and they are also
found in Lebanon, Egypt and Jordan. When those return, I
mean the three million dispersed around the world return,
and the Israeli weapons of mass destruction as dismantled
and a democratic state is established then such talk might
be reasonable. I mean recognition or acceptance and so
forth. But now do not oblige us to recognize those who
established an illegitimate state. Even if a Palestinian
state is established in the West Bank and Gaza Strip I would
not recognize it.
Why do
they force us by saying they will not co-operate with us
until we accept the Israelis. This is ridiculous. Who is the
one that needs the other? We are not in need of the others.
We have the oil. We have the gas and we have the ones who
unfortunately have the terrorism which you claim and said
that Muslims are terrorists. We are the ones from where the
immigration starts. If you want to come here to solve these
problems. It is you who need to come to us.
Have we
been created by God only to be humiliated by you? Are we
always to go to you? I hope that this crusader page is
turned away. We need to turn this colonialist page. This
Roman or Carthaginian page… even the Islamic caliphate.
These pages are to be turned and we live in this era in
co-operation, peace and friendship.
But
these ridiculous projects are very dangerous and
frightening. I want this talk to be heeded by the nations of
North Africa, the Arab nations in the Mediterranean. They
all have to understand this.
If the
projects as was declared such as the transport of goods
which they call the Mediterranean line and the Mediterranean
pollution, the safety waters, food and environment, all
these projects do not need a union. That is done with the
fait accompli.
The
environmental project is overseen by the United Nations and,
with Europe, we could co-operate on this about the
Mediterranean. But we are not the one polluting the
Mediterranean. We do not have chemical industries to pollute
the Mediterranean. It is Europe which polluted the
Mediterranean eighty times more than other seas. The
Mediterranean is polluted eighty times what other seas are
and that is because of Europe. Europe has the factories and
the rivers and they dump their chemical waste into the
rivers and the rivers bring it to the sea and sometimes they
dump it straight into the sea. They are who pollute the sea
and not us. What do we have? Is Mauritanian polluting the
sea? Is Jordan polluting the sea? Whereas it has no direct
access. It is Europe which is polluting the Mediterranean
and this does not need a union going up to the Baltic.
The
food is a world problem. Do we have to make a union with the
Mediterranean so as to solve the good crisis? The whole
world complains about the shortage of food stuffs and the
rise in prices and they have turned it into fuel. Did we
transform it into fuel or is it them who did so.
The
water problem is international and does not need a union
between us and Europe.
Further
more these states are all members in NATO. Does this mean
that Algeria, Libya, Tunisia and Egypt would become NATO
members? Necessarily because that would be the result if you
enter a union with members of NATO.
What
will be the position in respect of NATO and if NATO launches
a war with Russia or China does this mean we are to go
against Russia? What is our interest in war with Russia or
China? All these things are there through partnerships and
through neighbourliness and that are quite enough. There are
trade exchanges and mutual joint benefits and everything is
Ok.
There,
why do we have to go for this project and what is behind it.
You may raise any questions now but you have to stick to the
subject.
 Question from Khalid Hadad, Tunisian newspaper Al Shouruq;
Brother
Leader, your position is quite clear regarding the rejection
to join the Mediterranean Union but I can detect exploratory
view over the prospects of Arab Maghreb and African
co-operation in this particular juncture, especially as you
have highly developed relations with your brothers in
Tunisia, Egypt and Algeria. In fact you have excellent
relations with the Tunisian President, Zine Al Abdine Ben
Ali for example and there is even talk about merger unity
with Tunisia, with the aim of further consolidating these
relations in the light of the distinguished relations that
join you with your brother in Tunisia. There is even talk of
consolidating these relations towards the unification of the
southern flank of the Mediterranean. Thank you.
The
Leader: I have answered this question during my speech
and I said to you that the Arab Maghreb Union has failed and
is frozen. It has ten years without any meeting and it will
not meet. This is as a union we did not meet. But there are
excellent bilateral relations with Tunisia, Algeria,
Morocco, Mauritania, Egypt, Jordan and all these states. The
relations on the bilateral level are excellent. But on the
level of the union we have failed. We have failed to make a
union. In comparison with this how can we succeed? How can
we welcome a union with Scotland, Israel or Georgia when we
are incapable of making a union between ourselves? But as
for bilateral and brotherly relations, these are there and
there are huge mutual interests and investments with
Tunisia, Egypt, Algeria, Mauritania, Morocco and all Arab
states involved with the project.
This is
in respect of bilateral relations. Libya's bilateral
relations at least are excellent. We are linked through
fraternal ties and amity but far from politics. But if we
are to unite we have failed in the union and they are asking
us to unite with Scandinavia and the Baltic. We may through
the union with Europe.
Question from Omar Al Tahki, Al Jazeera English satellite
channel.
You
have said we will raise questions with those who will join
the union inside the African Union. Firstly what are the
mechanisms of these questions? And on the other hand,
wouldn't that be African isolation if we refuse to join at
least from the viewpoint of the West?
The
Leader: In any case there is the constitutive order of
the African Union and I believe there are regulations and
procedures which the African Union has to inspect. And the
African Union is to inquire with those member states that
violated its resolutions in Khartoum and Banjul because what
I have cited to you is quite clear.
Question from the Italian newspaper El Misagero:
ou are
talking about new types of concerns regarding colonization
that could emerge out of this agreement. Do you still think
there is readiness by the old colonization related to North
Africa and against your country?
In line
with this question you have talked about immigration to
Europe. Don't you think that this could be a problem and it
is a problem for the African Union to deal with this inside
Africa?
The
Leader: In respect of immigration it is an African and
European problem. Immigration is not a problem for the Arab
countries outside Africa but this union makes us in the
north of the Mediterranean in particular in a weak position
regarding immigrants. They will say you are in a
Mediterranean and European Union. Why do you prevent us from
working inside the union to which we belong?
This is
correct. Our argument will be weak and our resistance to
immigration will be even weaker because the immigrants have
a strong argument. They will say you have joined the
Mediterranean Union. We exist in this union. The moment we
enter the North African states we become inside the union,
therefore we are free to go to Europe.
This is
one of the problems arising from such a union. This is
immigration. We will have no argument to crack down on
immigration if the union is established and the illegal
immigrants have the right to counter us and argue using the
law.
Question from the French Sixth TV Channel.
What is the nature of French-Libyan relations in the
light of Libya's opposition to the union for the
Mediterranean? What will be the future of the agreements
signed between Libya and France recently?
The
Leader: I have explained this during the talk.
This
has no effect. Libya's rejection to join this project does
not affect Libya's relationship with France or with Europe
as a whole. It will not affect the deal sign or trade deals
or the friendly relations between us. In opposition, if we
go ahead with this project bilateral relations may be
affected because other envious parties will be there and
other parts will spoil everything and we will be in trouble.
But in
this form we have no problems with France and we have no
problems between Europe and Libya. We have no problem
between 5+5. We could stop at this level and we don't have
to cook something else.
Question from Ali Al Delali from PANA.
Is the
Union for the Mediterranean a form of European pre-emptive
strategy to counter the huge demographic growth on the other
flank as 70 percent of the population is less than 25 years
old? And does Europe seek greater sun through this union
like the Club Med or more control of the solar energy and
renewal energy?
The
Leader: Yes, We have said we do not know the idea behind
this project and what the moving force behind is it. When we
met as Arabs in a consultative summit the question was
raised: What is behind this project. What is this project
for? My brother the Leaders said let us go to Paris and see
and we may detect the secret behind. This might be the
explanation. It might be explained as a colonialist project
to control energy sources and to contain these countries and
transform them into satellites. All these explanations are
possible. That is why it is a frightening project and is not
encouraging because it will go out of Sarkozy's hands and
become another European project with many question marks. If
the invitation was to celebrate 14th July French
Revolution anniversary we would have been the first to
accept the invitation and go there to salute the great
French historic revolution because it changed many things in
the world. It changed a lot of history. But the invitation
was to sign the Union for the Mediterranean.
And
before we studied the idea and before we discussed it and
gave our views. They designed it and said come to Paris on
the 13th and put on what we have designed.
I do
not accept a suit that has been designed for me. I wear the
suit of my own design.
Question from the Daily Telegraph.
You
have talked about the imperialist projects in the
Mediterranean. You said that these designs are imperialist
and may increase the activities of jihadists and terrorists
not only in your area but in Europe as well. Can you explain
more?
The
Leader: I have said that Europe with its large union and
its institutions will take with them eight Islamic states.
The Christian Europe will take eight Islamic states. This
may be explained by Muslim extremists as Christian
colonization or occupation. European domination! It could be
explained as European domination of Arab and Muslim states.
This is a crusader war. It is a Roman map. This would lead
the Muslim extremists to act in a counter project. They will
campaign for the Islamic caliphate up to Andalusia and the
shifting of the jihad to Europe. We will have problems.
We are
now trying to extinguish the fires of terrorism and
extremism but this project will, on the contrary ignite the
terrorist sentiment and it will ignite violence and jihad
because it is provocative.
This
project is very provocative and it could be taken as a
colonialist or Christian project. Therefore these forces
will counter it. Why should we provoke these forces? They
are ready for terrorism and jihad and we should not provoke
them with such a project.
Let us
work through 5 + 5 or 6 + 6 to clean the Mediterranean and
develop trade across the Mediterranean, develop tourism and
co-operation. The electric link, the marine wealth etc, this
is the right chain between Europe and Africa. It is much
better and safer than a union for the Mediterranean.
It is
better than taking aid to Muslim countries, colonizing them
and taking it to the Baltic. This is nonsense.
Question from the Egyptian Magazine October.
Will
the co-presidency of the union that is between President
Mubarak and President Sarkozy and equally the participation
of Bouteflika affect your relations with them particularly
as you have just come back from a visit to Egypt? What did
President Mubarak say regarding this project? Thank you.
The
Leader: Our relations are not that simple to be affected
by such a project.
My
relationship with President Hosni Mubarak or Libya's
relations with Egypt or my relationship with Zine Al Abdine
Ben Ali or Tunisia, these are solid, brotherly relations.
That is our destiny. It won't affect us with President
Mubarak joins or not. On the contrary it may be beneficial
if he joins but I don't think we have any weight with 34
United states. We are individuals.
Question from Massoud Al Henawi, Deputy-Editor of the
Egyptian newspaper Al Ahram.
Brother
Leader, you have expressed observations on the Mediterranean
Union including a suggestion to change the name from a union
to an agreement or a convention. Will Libya change its
position if that was the case in future or is this a basic
stance and Libya's position would never change?
The
Leader: It is possible to change the project. It will be
reasonable if it is changed into a co-operation agreement or
a co-operation programme and in this case Libya may give and
take and will study it to see if it is reasonable or not,
useful or not. But Libya would never enter a union in this
form with Europe.
What we
take against this project taken against the Barcelona
process. Its shortages have caused its death. That is arm
twisting. If they say to us you have to enter through this
gate in order to co-operate with you and if you don't we
will not. Why?
If
co-operation is necessary between us why do we have such
conditions? Even if you want to help someone or to be good
to him you cannot tell him to come through this door in
order for us to help you and if you come through another
door we will not. If this person deserves assistance and
help then you are to help him whether he comes through this
door or another. If co-operation is necessary than that
there is no need for such conditions.
Why did
they say, you have to come through the door of the Barcelona
process otherwise there is no co-operation. We will go
through the Barcelona process door and if there is no
co-operation we don't care.
Question from Dina Samk, al-Sa'ah Space Channel.
Brother
the Leader, your stance on the Union Project for the
Mediterranean is clear as well as your rejection to the idea
and your prediction for its failure, but there are some
French sources two days ago reported that Libya would take
part in the summit, which will be held on the 13th
of this month, as an observer; will you boycott the summit,
or you will participate as an observer? How would the
outcomes of this meeting be?
The
leader: No, it is not necessary for Libya to take part in
the summit in any form... It is not necessary.
Question from Issam Ftess, OYA Newspaper:
Brother
the Leader, can we say that participation of some Arab
countries comes under the political deals being carried out
in the region?
The
Leader: Maybe... maybe... Only God knows.
Question from Hassan Areibi, al-Zahef al-Akhdar Newspaper:
Brother
the Leader, do you think that what has taken place and what
Europe has done to present the Union Project for the
Mediterranean is a reward to the Zionist entity for its
possession of nuclear weapons and for its crimes and daily
offensive against the Palestinian people? Thank you!
Leader:
Maybe; your explanation is possible; probable.
Question from Walid al-Hrari, Al-libiya TV:
The
Arab League could not bring the Arabs together... Is the
Union Project for the Mediterranean at least an opportunity
to bring together the Arab countries overlooking the
Mediterranean Sea?
The
Leader: Maybe, if God willing... it is a good thing if
they meet, even in Tel Aviv!!! Thank you... Thank you. |
