The U.S. has resumed full diplomatic relations with Libya.

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

From wikipedia:

On the May 15, 2006, David Welch, US Assistant Secretary of State announced that the US had decided to, after a 45 day comment period, renew full diplomatic relations with Libya and remove Libya off the US list of countries that foster terrorism. During this announcement, it was also said that the US has the intention of upgrading the US liaison office in Tripoli into an embassy. This has been product of a gradual normalization of international relations since Libya accepted responsibility for the Pan Am 103 bombing. Libya's dismantling of its weapons of mass destruction was a major step towards this announcement, and it is seen as an incentive for Iran to do likewise. [1]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_relations_of_Libya

 

[PeteEU]

Why from wikipedia?.. not being critical, just odd source of breaking news :roll:

Was all over the news overhere.. although Fox News basicly avoided it which was funny.

But I guess the US talks to terrorists after all ....

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Why from wikipedia?.. not being critical, just odd source of breaking news :roll:

Was all over the news overhere.. although Fox News basicly avoided it which was funny.

But I guess the US talks to terrorists after all ....

Because it only hit the airwaves last night for some reason and it wasn't in any of the papers I guess it was a delayed thing that took more negotiations but the story that hit last night was comfirmation of the thing that wikipedia mentions for the 15th of May. It was on CSPAN all last night.

 

[Kandahar]

It sounds like a good idea to me. I think we should have diplomatic relations with nearly *all* countries though. It's silly that we don't have any diplomatic relations with Cuba and Iran, when those nations have interests that often coincide with American interests. The only time I'd be against having a diplomatic presence is for regimes that overthrew a legitimate government and there is still some possibility of the legitimate government returning; the early days of the Taliban, for example.

I really don't see what is gained by refusing to even talk to another country, aside from some cheap political points.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

It sounds like a good idea to me. I think we should have diplomatic relations with nearly *all* countries though. It's silly that we don't have any diplomatic relations with Cuba and Iran, when those nations have interests that often coincide with American interests. The only time I'd be against having a diplomatic presence is for regimes that overthrew a legitimate government and there is still some possibility of the legitimate government returning; the early days of the Taliban, for example.

I really don't see what is gained by refusing to even talk to another country, aside from some cheap political points.

Well I believe that we are going to restore full trade relations as well this was not done out of the blue this was done because Libya disarmed and has made clear a legitimate resolve to aid the U.S. in our war against terror that's why we opened up relations I believe it's the right course but to do the same for Cuba and Iran when they have done absolutely nothing to earn it IMO is simply ludicrous. Iran doesn't want the carrot so they're going to get the stick.

 

[Captain America]

Beware of Libyans bearing gifts....

 

[Kandahar]

Well I believe that we are going to restore full trade relations as well this was not done out of the blue this was done because Libya disarmed and has made clear a legitimate resolve to aid the U.S. in our war against terror that's why we opened up relations

Sure, but if we already had diplomatic relations with Libya, we would've still had plenty of carrots to offer in the event of disarmament. More economic ties, for example.

Don't forget that we also have diplomatic relations with Syria and Venezuela, which aren't exactly bastions of liberal democracy...and I'm not saying that we shouldn't, just that it doesn't make sense when we deny those same relations to seemingly random countries.

I believe it's the right course but to do the same for Cuba and Iran when they have done absolutely nothing to earn it IMO is simply ludicrous. Iran doesn't want the carrot so they're going to get the stick.

In the case of Cuba, Castro is of NO consequence to the United States following the collapse of the Soviet Union. It's downright silly to not have diplomatic ties with a country 90 miles away that no longer wants to be our enemy. Even during the Cold War, it might've helped bring Cuba into the American sphere of influence if we had had more dialogue with the government.

Iran certainly hasn't "earned" diplomatic relations with the United States in anything that they've recently done, but the entire concept of diplomatic relations being offered as a carrot is silly. Aside from granting legitimacy to shaky regimes (and there's no question that the Islamic Republic is in charge at the present time), what exactly do we LOSE by opening up an embassy and sending diplomats to negotiate?

It may be that our foreign policy is better for it, or we might not be any better off. But we certainly wouldn't be WORSE off.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

Sure, but if we already had diplomatic relations with Libya, we would've still had plenty of carrots to offer in the event of disarmament. More economic ties, for example.

Don't forget that we also have diplomatic relations with Syria and Venezuela, which aren't exactly bastions of liberal democracy...and I'm not saying that we shouldn't, just that it doesn't make sense when we deny those same relations to seemingly random countries.



In the case of Cuba, Castro is of NO consequence to the United States following the collapse of the Soviet Union. It's downright silly to not have diplomatic ties with a country 90 miles away that no longer wants to be our enemy. Even during the Cold War, it might've helped bring Cuba into the American sphere of influence if we had had more dialogue with the government.

Iran certainly hasn't "earned" diplomatic relations with the United States in anything that they've recently done, but the entire concept of diplomatic relations being offered as a carrot is silly. Aside from granting legitimacy to shaky regimes (and there's no question that the Islamic Republic is in charge at the present time), what exactly do we LOSE by opening up an embassy and sending diplomats to negotiate?

It may be that our foreign policy is better for it, or we might not be any better off. But we certainly wouldn't be WORSE off.

Don't you know, thats the "old foreign policy model". The new Bush Administration Neo-Conservative model simply treats the whole world as if it was a second grade classroom and we were the teacher. You know, we cant reward "bad behavior".

 

[ludahai]

I really don't see what is gained by refusing to even talk to another country, aside from some cheap political points.

What political points are gained by not having formal relations with a democracy like Taiwan?

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Sure, but if we already had diplomatic relations with Libya, we would've still had plenty of carrots to offer in the event of disarmament. More economic ties, for example.

Don't forget that we also have diplomatic relations with Syria and Venezuela, which aren't exactly bastions of liberal democracy...and I'm not saying that we shouldn't, just that it doesn't make sense when we deny those same relations to seemingly random countries.

I don't believe we have normalized diplomatic relations with those regimes.

In the case of Cuba, Castro is of NO consequence to the United States following the collapse of the Soviet Union. It's downright silly to not have diplomatic ties with a country 90 miles away that no longer wants to be our enemy. Even during the Cold War, it might've helped bring Cuba into the American sphere of influence if we had had more dialogue with the government.

Castro is still on the list of terrorist nations, I just heard a speech from him given in Havanna on May day and it doesn't sound at all like he wants normalized relations if you ask me.

Iran certainly hasn't "earned" diplomatic relations with the United States in anything that they've recently done, but the entire concept of diplomatic relations being offered as a carrot is silly. Aside from granting legitimacy to shaky regimes (and there's no question that the Islamic Republic is in charge at the present time), what exactly do we LOSE by opening up an embassy and sending diplomats to negotiate?

It may be that our foreign policy is better for it, or we might not be any better off. But we certainly wouldn't be WORSE off.

I believe the last time we had an embassy in Iran that it didn't go very well you know that little hostage crisis thing.

 

[Kandahar]

What political points are gained by not having formal relations with a democracy like Taiwan?

Political points with the PRC. I agree that we should do more to recognize Taiwan...but they aren't a country and therefore our relations with them are governed by different constraints. If Taiwan declares independence (which I certainly hope they don't given the current geopolitical situation), then yes, I would support American recognition of their independence.

 

[Kandahar]

I don't believe we have normalized diplomatic relations with those regimes.

We have an ambassador and an embassy in Syria and Venezuela. I guess it depends how you define "normalized diplomatic relations," but given the title of this thread I think it's fair to say that we have at least as much diplomatic contact with Syria and Venezuela as we soon will with Libya.

Castro is still on the list of terrorist nations, I just heard a speech from him given in Havanna on May day and it doesn't sound at all like he wants normalized relations if you ask me.

Castro is not a terrorist, that's ridiculous. Castro has never even been in the terror business. He's certainly a ruthless dictator thug, but he isn't funding America's enemies. He can barely fund his own army.

I believe the last time we had an embassy in Iran that it didn't go very well you know that little hostage crisis thing.

So one isolated incident in the last 230 years is a reason to stop all diplomacy? During the Islamic Revolution, the theocrats could just as easily have taken, say, American tourists hostage.

There are times when embassies should be temporarily evacuated during times of security threats, but that's no reason to permanently abandon diplomatic relations with a nation.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

We have an ambassador and an embassy in Syria and Venezuela. I guess it depends how you define "normalized diplomatic relations," but given the title of this thread I think it's fair to say that we have at least as much diplomatic contact with Syria and Venezuela as we soon will with Libya.

Libya has become our ally and assisted us in our war on terror neither Cuba nor Iran have done anything to warrant a normalized relation with the United States.

Castro is not a terrorist, that's ridiculous. Castro has never even been in the terror business. He's certainly a ruthless dictator thug, but he isn't funding America's enemies. He can barely fund his own army.

Regardless of your personnel opinion Cuba is still on the State Departments's list of State Sponsors of Terrorism:

Cuba
Cuba actively continued to oppose the U.S.-led Coalition prosecuting the global war on terror and has publicly condemned various U.S. policies and actions. To U.S. knowledge, Cuba did not attempt to track, block, or seize terrorist assets, although the authority to do so is contained in Cuba’s Law 93 Against Acts of Terrorism, as well as Instruction 19 of the Superintendent of the Cuban Central Bank. No new counterterrorism laws were enacted, nor were any executive orders or regulations issued in this regard. To date, the Cuban Government has taken no action against al-Qaida or other terrorist groups. Cuba did not undertake any counterterrorism efforts in international and regional fora. Official government statements and the government-controlled press rarely speak out against al-Qaida or other designated Foreign Terrorist Organizations. Cuba invests heavily in biotechnology, and there is some dispute about the existence and extent of Cuba’s offensive biological weapons program. The Cuban Government maintains friendly ties with Iran and North Korea. Cuban Foreign Minister Perez Roque visited Iran on November 13. Earlier in the year, Iran offered Cuba a 20 million euro line of credit, ostensibly for investment in biotechnology. The Cuba-Iran Joint Commission met in Havana in January. Cuba and North Korea held military talks at the general staff level in May in Pyongyang. The North Korean trade minister visited Havana in November and signed a protocol for cooperation in the areas of science and trade. The Cuban Government continues to permit U.S. fugitives to live legally in Cuba, and is unlikely to satisfy U.S. extradition requests for terrorists harbored in the country. In previous years, the government responded to requests to extradite U.S. fugitives by stating that approval would be contingent upon the U.S. returning wanted Cuban criminals. U.S. fugitives range from convicted murderers, two of whom killed police officers, to numerous hijackers. Most of those fugitives entered Cuba in the 1970s. The U.S. Government periodically requests the Government of Cuba to return wanted fugitives to the United States. Cuba continues to be non-responsive. On the other hand, the Cuban regime publicly demanded the return to Cuba of five of its agents convicted of espionage in the United States. The Cuban Government refers to these individuals as heroes in the fight against terrorism. The five are variously accused of being foreign intelligence agents and infiltrating U.S. military facilities. One is accused of conspiracy to murder for his role in the Cuban Air Force’s shooting down of two small civilian planes. Cuba has stated that it will no longer provide safe haven to new U.S. fugitives who may enter Cuba. Cuba did not extradite suspected terrorists during the year, but demanded that the United States surrender to Cuba Luis Posada Carriles, whom it accuses of plotting to kill Castro and bombing a Cubana Airlines plane in 1976, which resulted in more than 70 deaths. Posada Carriles remains in U.S. custody. Cuba has also asked the United States to return three Cuban-Americans implicated in the same cases. The Government of Cuba maintains close relationships with other state sponsors of terrorism such as Iran and North Korea, and has provided safe haven to members of ETA, FARC, and the ELN. There is no information concerning terrorist activities of these or other organizations on Cuban territory. Press reports indicate that U.S. fugitives from justice and ETA members are living legally in Cuba. The United States is not aware of specific terrorist enclaves in the country.

http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/65476.pdf

So one isolated incident in the last 230 years is a reason to stop all diplomacy? During the Islamic Revolution, the theocrats could just as easily have taken, say, American tourists hostage.

There are times when embassies should be temporarily evacuated during times of security threats, but that's no reason to permanently abandon diplomatic relations with a nation.

Iran is the number one state sponsors of terrorism, they have done absolutely nothing to help the U.S. in the war on terror they have done nothing that warrants a normalized relation with the U.S..

Iran​

Iran remained the most active state sponsor of terrorism. Its Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) and Ministry of Intelligence and Security (MOIS) were directly involved in the planning and support of terrorist acts and continued to exhort a variety of groups, especially Palestinian groups with leadership cadres in Syria and Lebanese Hizballah, to use terrorism in
pursuit of their goals. In addition, the IRGC was increasingly involved in supplying lethal assistance to Iraqi militant groups, which destabilizes Iraq.
Iran continues to be unwilling to bring to justice senior al-Qaida members it detained in 2003. Iran has refused to identify publicly these senior members in its custody on “security grounds.” Iran has also resisted numerous calls to transfer custody of its al-Qaida detainees to their countries of origin or to third countries for interrogation and/or trial. Iran maintained a high-profile role in encouraging anti-Israeli terrorist activity -- rhetorically, operationally, and financially. Supreme Leader Khamenei and President Ahmadi-Nejad praised Palestinian terrorist operations, and Iran provided Lebanese Hizballah and Palestinian terrorist groups -- notably HAMAS, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, the al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine-General Command -- with extensive funding, training, and weapons. Iran pursued a variety of policies in Iraq, some of which appeared to be inconsistent with its stated objectives regarding stability in Iraq and with the objectives of the Iraqi Transitional Government and the Multi-national Forces in Iraq. Senior Iraqi officials have publicly expressed concern over Iranian interference in Iraq, and there were reports that Iran provided funding, safe passage, and arms to insurgent elements. State sponsors of terrorism pose a grave WMD terrorism threat. A WMD program in a state sponsor of terrorism could enable a terrorist organization to acquire a sophisticated WMD. State sponsors of terrorism and nations that fail to live up to their international obligations deserve special attention as potential facilitators of WMD terrorism. Iran presents a particular concern, given its active sponsorship of terrorism and its continued development of a nuclear program. Iran is also capable of producing biological and chemical agents or weapons. Like other state sponsors of terrorism with WMD programs, Iran could support terrorist organizations seeking to acquire WMD.​

http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/65476.pdf

 

[ludahai]

Political points with the PRC. I agree that we should do more to recognize Taiwan...but they aren't a country and therefore our relations with them are governed by different constraints. If Taiwan declares independence (which I certainly hope they don't given the current geopolitical situation), then yes, I would support American recognition of their independence.

Who says Taiwan isn't a country? Do you actually think they are a part of China? Read the San Francisco Peace Treaty. Please quote the clause by which Taiwan is transferred to Chinese sovereignty. Carter made a colossal mistake by derecognizing Taiwan and every president since has compounded it.

 

[Kandahar]

Libya has become our ally and assisted us in our war on terror neither Cuba nor Iran have done anything to warrant a normalized relation with the United States.

This presupposes that I agree that diplomatic relations are something that should be rewarded for good behavior and taken away for bad behavior, which is the very thing you're trying to prove. What is wrong with having an ambassador in every country, with the possible exception of volatile illegitimate regimes that could be overthrown by more legitimate regimes? What do we lose by doing so?

Regardless of your personnel opinion Cuba is still on the State Departments's list of State Sponsors of Terrorism:

The US State Department isn't exactly an apolitical observer. They answer to the President of the United States, who answers to the fascist Cuban voters in Miami. Just because the State Department is willing to invent some bogus justification for a failed policy is not a good enough reason to continue the policy.

(And since I know someone will accuse me otherwise if I don't say it, let me once again point out that Castro is a ruthless dictator who has driven Cuba's economy into the ground. That is still no reason to ignore all diplomacy.)

Iran is the number one state sponsors of terrorism, they have done absolutely nothing to help the U.S. in the war on terror they have done nothing that warrants a normalized relation with the U.S..

Once again, this presupposes that everyone should automatically agree with the mindset that diplomatic relations are a "carrot" and taking them away are a "stick."

 

[Kandahar]

Who says Taiwan isn't a country? Do you actually think they are a part of China? Read the San Francisco Peace Treaty. Please quote the clause by which Taiwan is transferred to Chinese sovereignty. Carter made a colossal mistake by derecognizing Taiwan and every president since has compounded it.

I'm all for recognizing Taiwan as an independent nation...if Taiwan itself does so. Until then, I see no reason to alter the status quo. Taiwan risks invasion and the United States risks war with China, if Taiwan were to declare its independence. Since the strain that this would put on relations between the three entities is unnecessary and undesirable to all of them, the status quo seems to be the best solution for now. Declaring independence is just not prudent unless Taiwan is sure that China will not attack them...an enormous gamble to say the least.

There may be better opportunities for independence in the future. Just not now.

 

[ludahai]

I'm all for recognizing Taiwan as an independent nation...if Taiwan itself does so. Until then, I see no reason to alter the status quo. Taiwan risks invasion and the United States risks war with China, if Taiwan were to declare its independence. Since the strain that this would put on relations between the three entities is unnecessary and undesirable to all of them, the status quo seems to be the best solution for now. Declaring independence is just not prudent unless Taiwan is sure that China will not attack them...an enormous gamble to say the least.

There may be better opportunities for independence in the future. Just not now.

If there is a little less equivocation from the U.S. on the matter and the U.N. guarantees to Taiwan what it SHOULD have guaranteed in 1952, Taiwanese WOULD call for independence. Unfortunately, both the United States and their KMT puppets are responsible for the current situation Taiwan is in today.

 

[Kandahar]

If there is a little less equivocation from the U.S. on the matter and the U.N. guarantees to Taiwan what it SHOULD have guaranteed in 1952, Taiwanese WOULD call for independence. Unfortunately, both the United States and their KMT puppets are responsible for the current situation Taiwan is in today.

The United States could pull out of Taiwan tomorrow and leave you to fend for your *******ed selves. Why the hell should we risk a nuclear war with our main creditor in defense of an island halfway around the world?

It's so nice of you to be willing to risk the lives of other countries' soldiers for a symbolic declaration of independence, but I think a measure of pragmatism is called for when your main enemy has 1.3 billion people and hundreds of nukes.

 

[Gill]

Don't you know, thats the "old foreign policy model". The new Bush Administration Neo-Conservative model simply treats the whole world as if it was a second grade classroom and we were the teacher. You know, we cant reward "bad behavior".

Yeah, I keep forgetting we had diplomatic relations with Cuba and Iran before Bush became President.

 

[Kelzie]

The United States could pull out of Taiwan tomorrow and leave you to fend for your *******ed selves. Why the hell should we risk a nuclear war with our main creditor in defense of an island halfway around the world?

It's so nice of you to be willing to risk the lives of other countries' soldiers for a symbolic declaration of independence, but I think a measure of pragmatism is called for when your main enemy has 1.3 billion people and hundreds of nukes.

:rofl Fantastic post.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

If there is a little less equivocation from the U.S. on the matter and the U.N. guarantees to Taiwan what it SHOULD have guaranteed in 1952, Taiwanese WOULD call for independence. Unfortunately, both the United States and their KMT puppets are responsible for the current situation Taiwan is in today.

Ya maybe we should have left France and Britain to fend for their ****ed selves, hay maybe we should have left the Muslims in Kosovo to fend for their ****ed selves, maybe we should have left South Korea to fend for their ****ed selves. Maybe we should betray and abandon all of our allies while maintaining good relations with our enemies as you made perfectly clear you want to do with Iran and Cuba.

 

[Kelzie]

Ya maybe we should have left France and Britain to fend for their ****ed selves, hay maybe we should have left the Muslims in Kosovo to fend for their ****ed selves, maybe we should have left South Korea to fend for their ****ed selves. Maybe we should betray and abandon all of our allies while maintaining good relations with our enemies as you made perfectly clear you want to do with Iran and Cuba.

Wow. It'd sure be nice to live in a fantasy world. Meanwhile, here on Earth, we realize we can't always get what we want. Sure it'd be nice for Taiwan to have independence. Seeing as it means war with a country that has the largest standing army, a large amount of nukes, and strategically important economic ties with out country, I think it's safe to say the reality of the situation is that the status quo is going to be maintained until the situation changes. It's not like Taiwan has it that bad anyway. They're only dependent on paper.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Wow. It'd sure be nice to live in a fantasy world. Meanwhile, here on Earth, we realize we can't always get what we want. Sure it'd be nice for Taiwan to have independence. Seeing as it means war with a country that has the largest standing army, a large amount of nukes, and strategically important economic ties with out country, I think it's safe to say the reality of the situation is that the status quo is going to be maintained until the situation changes. It's not like Taiwan has it that bad anyway. They're only dependent on paper.

Ya I'd like to see the Chinese do something about it. If they know the U.S. has got Taiwans back then they won't do jackshit about it. The Chinese need us much more than we need them. We are creating a missile defense shield what do they got? Besides that fact we have first strike capabilities and bases right out side of China ie South Korea and Japan. We could wipe China off the map before they even got a chance to launch a missile in our direction. If we recognized Taiwanese independence the Chinese would have to eat it.

 

[Kelzie]

Ya I'd like to see the Chinese do something about it. If they know the U.S. has got Taiwans back then they won't do jackshit about it. The Chinese need us much more than we need them. We are creating a missile defense shield what do they got? Besides that fact we have first strike capabilities and bases right out side of China ie South Korea and Japan. We could wipe China off the map before they even got a chance to launch a missile in our direction. If we recognized Taiwanese independence the Chinese would have to eat it.

Actually, they would do something about it. They've publically stated they will attack Taiwan if it tries to declare independence, knowing we've already said we will defend Taiwan against any attacks. I for one, believe them.

And, ah, we have second strike capability.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Actually, they would do something about it. They've publically stated they will attack Taiwan if it tries to declare independence, knowing we've already said we will defend Taiwan against any attacks. I for one, believe them.

And, ah, we have second strike capability.

Ya we have first strike capability too, our missilles would be over China before they could launch, because we have bases so close to them.

Anyways I say if China wants it they can get it.