Talk:Foreign relations of Libya/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

US-Libyan relations

It makes more sense for this article to be in chronological order. There's a lot of repetition in the existing article when it is separated into two sections, and some of it doesn't make sense until you flip up and down. If no one has any objections I'm changing it back to a chronological order. (Nimbulan 14:19, 10 August 2006 (UTC))

Libya

I've also synchronized it with the Foreign Relations section in Libya because there are references there. (Nimbulan 14:19, 10 August 2006 (UTC))

ETA

I have been googling for references on ETA-Libya connections and only found second-hand reports about the British and Spanish secret services. I have left a citationneeded in the article. When you add the reference, could you add it to the ETA article or leave a note in Talk:ETA? Thanks. --Error 00:24, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Islamic Call Society

This article has been started and says part of this organisation plays a part in the foreign relations of libya, thought it might be of interest. Hypnosadist 03:36, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Pirate kingdom?

The article looks like a mere colletion of factoids about wars and conflicts. It doesn't mention activity of Lybia in Non-Aligned Movement (especially in its early years) or many other (especially economic) relations to other countries. Is Lybia just a pirate kingdom with nothing else to do? Pavel Vozenilek 14:11, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Relations with the UK

I'm surprised that this article doesn't mention the 1994 killing of policewoman Yvonne Fletcher which led directly to the breaking off of diplomatic relations between the two countries —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sydcarten (talk • contribs) 03:17, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Ethiopia

Does this recognition as a diplomatic count as equivalent to non-exclusive recognition, like that of Russia (and formerly Turkey, before June 3rd)? --Yalens (talk) 02:14, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I was wondering the same thing. My feeling is that putting Ethiopia in the table would be WP:ORIGINAL speculation until Addis Ababa makes a statement regarding the status of the NTC delegates. -Kudzu1 (talk) 02:58, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

US Recognition - Reduce their part + map?

Now that the US has recognised the TNC/Libyan Republic, can some of the prior information be removed, or moved elsewhere? Currently it's taking up a massive part of the article. Also, we need an updated version of the map, I can't replace the current one on Wiki Commons, apparently--MILLANDSON (talk) 13:32, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Possibly moved elsewhere- I'm of the opinion that hte recognition history is very important, especially with regards to US recognition (which in reality happened months ago, but officially happened today).--Yalens (talk) 15:11, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Why is the US any more important than any other country? I thought it was Wiki policy to not be biased towards any particular country. If that's the case, the "recognition history" of all countries should be documented, but I think it should be done elsewhere, or else have all the other countries stuff added here. --MILLANDSON (talk) 16:26, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree, it should be trimmed down while keeping the basic steps and dates. The exact circumstances of which official articulated it where can be omitted, I think. -Kudzu1 (talk) 16:36, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it should be all omitted - I think the amount for most countries, like France, etc, is fine, it's just that most of the US pre-amble over working with them and the like should be removed (since many countries have been doing that, such as the UK, etc, but their entire relationship with the NTC prior to recognition isn't recorded), and instead focus on the actual recognition, since that is what that section is meant to be about. --MILLANDSON (talk) 17:27, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Actually, the UK's pre-recognition relationship with the NTC is on the page. I've reverted you temporarily, so that I can copy-paste the whole history from here onto another page, which deals with the US' involvement in the war as a whole. We might want to put a see-also to that, and summarize it here, I'd say. --Yalens (talk) 17:58, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

(on the other hand though, looking at it now, its not like the US section is that much longer than the average section here; France is short because it never flip-flopped, but they get progressively longer as the page goes down)... Also, as the US being more important, no that actually wasn't what I meant (though it is actually the case considering that it has a UN Security Council seat and is the strongest country in the world). What I meant was that the US is a "special case" in that the official recognition came a long time after recognition actually occurred (i.e. the US had had formal relations, with ambassador, embassy and all, for months already-the only other case of that is Malta).--Yalens (talk) 17:59, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Libya Contact Group Recognition

32 countries have just recognized the Libyan republic, does anyone have a list of the members of the Libyan contact group so I can add them? Skipbox (talk) 07:58, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

I think we should wait for the individual governments to make statements, as the US and Japan (both contact group members) did before adding them. Diplomacy is a complex thing, and the situation may be that they have only recognized them vis a vis the contact group partnership and not in their own right. For example, according to the UK, contact group attendees for the recent Istanbul summit included Brazil and India, neither of whom have seemed inclined to take a side before; regular attendees, including Lebanon and Morocco, haven't issued their own announcements yet and I think it would be WP:ORIGINAL to assume that just because the contact group has done so, each individual government has as well without saying so directly. Let's just keep an eye on it for now. -Kudzu1 (talk) 08:37, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Last I heard it was 31 (30+US, though I guess Japan-not in the contact group though-makes 32). Most of these have probably recognized already (its likely that almost all countries that have recognized are in the group), but we have to wait for confirmation from those that haven't separately. --Yalens (talk) 15:09, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Japan is a member of the contact group. -Kudzu1 (talk) 19:00, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Has anyone got a list of the people who were at the contact group meeting? I've not seen a conclusive list. --MILLANDSON (talk) 22:52, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Here is list of those countries that started creating the group: List of attendees in Doha, Qatar

Bahrain ,Belgium/Netherlands (rotating), Canada, France, Germany, Greece, Italy, Japan, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Malta, Morocco, Nordic countries (Sweden, Norway and Danemark rotating), Poland, Qatar, Spain, Turkey, UAE, UK, USA, African Union, Arab League, EU, GCC, NATO, OIC, UN. Portugal, Tunisia, Holy See and World Bank were observers. Bulgaria joined in June to the Group, and Cyprus, Egypt, Romania, South Africa and Sudan were represented for the first time as observers. In Turkey for the first time of Brazil, India, Senegal, the Republic of Korea and Ukraine joined the Contact Group in an observer capacity. http://www.fco.gov.uk/en/news/latest-news/?id=583349682&view=News;

http://www.esteri.it/mae/approfondimenti/2011/20110505_LibyaContacGroupROME_ListaInvitati.pdf;

http://www.auswaertiges-amt.de/cae/servlet/contentblob/583250/publicationFile/155821/110609-AbuDhabi.pdf;

http://www.fco.gov.uk/en/news/latest-news/?view=News&id=583592582;

http://www.mfa.gov.tr/fourth-meeting-of-the-libya-contact-group-chair_s-statement_-15-july-2011_-istanbul.en.mfa;

That will be enough? 31.63.206.44 (talk) 19:21, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

First you need to sign your post (use --~~~~ or the signature button while editing). Second, do you have a source for this info? (also, you stated Cyprus twice...)--Yalens (talk) 17:09, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Looking at this list, I see 22 countries (rather than organizations) represented if we count rotations as one... I'm not sure how many it is if we count the countries separately, mainly because the phrase "Nordic countries" is vague. The term can be applied to Iceland, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, (usually) Finland, (usually) Estonia, (occasionally) Latvia and (uncommonly) Lithuania, as well as at rare times the UK (already listed) and Ireland (not already listed)... at its most inclusive it includes all 10 of these (we know it doesn't include the UK though), at its least, only Norway, Sweden and Denmark... do you know what the term applies to here?--Yalens (talk) 17:14, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Norway

There have been a couple scattered other references to this, but it seems that despite the lack of major announcements, there are NTC officials in Oslo, and this has been made reference too a couple of times. For example, from al-Jazeera:

“ Speaking to reporters in Tunis on Friday Margelov said the prime minister had told him that representatives from his government were in contact with officials from Benghazi in several European capitals, including France, Germany and Norway. ”

(from http://blogs.aljazeera.net/liveblog/libya-jun-17-2011-1557-0)

We should at the very least keep an eye out and/or get more info about this. This could be informal relations at the least. Does anyone else have any info regarding this matter?--Yalens (talk) 17:35, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

This article says Norwegian officials have met with Libyan Republican officials. I see no indication of permanent informal relations, but I think this other article is certainly worth mentioning in the "other countries" section. -Kudzu1 (talk) 18:42, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

[one] actually mentioned this (quoted below) at the end of the article, which (among other things) says that they recognize the rebels and reject Gaddafi.

“ This latest announcement verifies that Norway recognises the National Transitional Council as a legitimate political body.

“No matter how long it takes, no matter what violence Gaddafi uses, he has lost legitimacy and he cannot defy the will of the Libyan people of getting rid of him and achieving their aspiration of freedom, justice and equality,” Mr El-Gamaty said in the same NRK interview.

“There is no way we could discuss with [Gadaffi] any form of political solution that he is part of. He is part of the problem; he cannot be part of the solution.”

”

I'm moving Norway up now- if you have any objections though, we can remove it. I'm not putting Norway up for complete recognition, I'm not sure about that. "Legitimate political body" is certainly more than "interlocutor" or "negotiator" though. --Yalens (talk) 22:30, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't know about that, actually. Ireland recognized it as "the true interlocutor", while Norway's statement (wish I could find/translate the actual text rather than using a newspaper's paraphrasing) seems more in line with the Russian and PRC position of considering it a legitimate partner for negotiation. I also think the parenthetical aside about France in the Norway section of the table should be removed, as it isn't pertinent to the Norwegian position. -Kudzu1 (talk) 00:09, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

The translation by the site itself says legitimate political body so that's all we can go on right now. Norway didn't say anything regarding negotiations specifically, and furthermore Norway does not have relations with Gaddafi, unlike Russia and China which still do. As for the whole affair with France, I think that could go in France's box, right?--Yalens (talk) 00:35, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

On the other hand, as I just checked, Norway seems to be one of those countries that Gaddafi already didn't have functioning relations with before this whole affair (just like Rwanda, Switzerland, etc.). --Yalens (talk) 00:37, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

A popular gentleman, isn't he? I cleaned up the section - let me know if you have any objections. I also added a list of members to the Libya Contact Group page and improved its linkage over here. -Kudzu1 (talk) 00:53, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I have just one exception regarding [edit]. The deletion of "from Gaddafi (there were a flurry of contradicting statements from various bodies regarding these talks afterwardslater," adjoined the denial of the meetings by the NTC with the sources regarding statements by Russia and France, neither of which being the NTC statement (we could be violating WP:SYN here...). We should either cite the NTC denial (it won't be hard) or, if that would make the section too long/convoluted, just delete the whole thing about the alleged (by Margelov) venue stuffs, in my opinion. --Yalens (talk) 01:42, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I believe the NTC denial is mentioned in the latter of the two Foreigner articles cited. -Kudzu1 (talk) 01:47, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Read it again, and you're right. Missed the one sentence paragraph :(. In that case, I have no problems with it.--Yalens (talk) 01:51, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Malta reloaded

I'm looking at the language we have considered representative of diplomatic recognition and the language used by Malta, and it seems to me that Malta's level of recognition is at least in line with that which has been expressed by Australia and Japan. Should Malta be included in the list of countries that have recognized the NTC as the only legitimate representative of Libya, or has its continued use of language expressing limits to said recognition disqualified it for now from that category (I believe this is the justification we settled on for keeping the U.S. out until Secy. Clinton finally said it recognized the NTC as Libya's only legitimate governing body)? -Kudzu1 (talk) 01:03, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

On June 2nd, the statement from Malta (here) was

“ Dr Borg said Malta had still not formally recognised the National Council as the government of Libya, but the legitimate interlocutor of the Libyan people. ”

That says pretty clearly that it is not the same level as France and the others. And then for [most recent source], it ended with the following:

“ Dr Jibril described this decision as a very important step forward which the Libyan people will never forget. He added that while he hoped that the Maltese government will eventually decide to go for full recognition, this was a development that was very much appreciated. ”

...thus, the sources seem to consistently give the picture of the Maltese giving "incomplete" or not "full" recognition (to use Jibril's words).--Yalens (talk) 01:27, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Morocco

No word of Morocco individually recognizing, but there is this quite interesting editorial we might want to add in some way (or just read if that's not necessary, it is interesting). [[1]] (or if you prefer, PDF form, [[2]]). --Yalens (talk) 17:25, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Another good analysis (possibly for an EL?)

Here (PDF): [3]. I think we should put this in as an external link (though maybe make a note that its old). --Yalens (talk) 17:30, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Recognised as "the only legitimate representative"?

This article says: Currently, 31 countries have announced they recognise the NTC as the only legitimate representative of the Libyan people (or have used similar language to confer the same status), implicitly recognising the Libyan Republic as the only legitimate Libyan state. This list includes the UK which, according to the article, gave such recognition to the NTC on 4 June 2011.

However, this is not correct as such recognition by the UK has been granted only today! UK expels Gaddafi diplomats and recognises Libya rebels I find much of the articles on the Libyan civil war substandard and they feel more like propaganda pieces than encyclopaedia entries. I wonder whether more experienced editors can do something about it as some major edits are needed? albert_humbert 13:12, 27 July 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Albert humbert (talk • contribs)

The UK has done this sort of thing repeatedly. We work off the information we have, and if the UK wants to keep inventing new levels of recognition, that's its prerogative and said information will be provided here as well. -Kudzu1 (talk) 21:54, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Page move

I extensively discussed the issue of 'Libyan Republic' on the Libya talk page [[4]] and also on the Mahmoud Jibril talk page [[5]]. There is no country called 'Lybian Republic' - it's just a term used few times.--albert_humbert 20:19, 27 July 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Albert humbert (talk • contribs)

As a citizen of a country that recognizes a government which refers to the Libyan state as the Libyan Republic - something which is fully referenced on Wikipedia by WP:RS including organs of said government - I wholeheartedly disagree with both this controversial and unilaterally conducted move operation and your rationale behind it. The new title is inconsistent with other foreign relations pages on Wikipedia and marginalizes the stance of a partially recognized government that controls nearly half of Libyan territory, violating WP:BIAS and WP:NPOV. -Kudzu1 (talk) 21:45, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Less accusations more facts please. All the information points to the fact that the entity which has 'foreign relations' is the NTC. Do read all the news items concerning the subject, 'Libyan Republic' is nowhere to be found. If it exists why is nobody mentioning it? I think you are prejudicing the outcome of the Libyan civil war there. albert humbert (talk) 22:42, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Here's your reference: [6] The form used for foreign relations articles on Wikipedia is to refer to the name of the state, not the name of the government. -Kudzu1 (talk) 22:49, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

The reference you offer is all about the NTC, not about 'Libyan Republic'. As for your argument regarding the terminology, I have no problem that the page name be changed to: 'International recognition of the NTC'. That would certainly be more appropriate than 'Foreign relations of the NTC' since the page is mostly about the who and how recognised the NTC. albert humbert (talk) 23:02, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Please re-read the largest font on that page. -Kudzu1 (talk) 23:08, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

The largest font on that page reads: 'The Libyan Interim National Council'. Anyway, it seems that that page is outdated anyway as this is the first page of that web [7] from which it leads to this page as a starting page in English [8]. It is more than obvious that the page is of the NTC, not of some 'Libyan Republic'. albert humbert (talk) 23:20, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

The title of the page, as well as the information presented on the website, disagree with you. Gaddafi calls Libya by one name and the NTC calls it by the other. -Kudzu1 (talk) 23:24, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

There is a clear example here. -Kudzu1 (talk) 23:27, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, that page is all about 'Libya', not 'Libyan Republic'. It even says it: ABOUT LIBYA! But even if the page was about 'Libyan Republic' (which it is clearly not), a single webpage can NOT (typo changed, 'NOT' added albert humbert (talk) 02:17, 28 July 2011 (UTC)) constitute a whole country. Unless it is a virtual country. My final point is, however, that most of the page is about who, how and when recognised the NTC so the title simply reflects that. I am sorry that you feel that somehow this is not right, but we should stick to the verifiable information. I very much value your contribution, but on this point I think you are wrong. albert humbert (talk) 23:49, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

What do you believe the NTC's official long-form name for Libya is, then? -Kudzu1 (talk) 02:36, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Upon reflection, support moving page to International recognition of the National Transitional Council. The foreign policy section proper is short enough that it can either be kept in the article or moved to the National Transitional Council main article and briefly summarized here. -Kudzu1 (talk) 06:18, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Europe section

I'd like to open up a discussion on how to address this painfully outdated section. The table format seems unwieldy in light of the fact that almost half of the EU member states have outright recognized the National Transitional Council and all of them, as well as several European NATO member states who aren't part of the EU, have cut ties with the jamahiriya. -Kudzu1 (talk) 02:41, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

EU and Nato represents in Tripoly Hungarian ambasador http://www.euractiv.com/en/global-europe/hungary-waving-eu-flag-tripoli-news-504469; http://www.bosnewslife.com/17097-news-watch-hungary-takes-over-u-s-interests-in-turbulent-libya31.63.229.88 (talk) 16:32, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Good info, thanks. This is definitely an underreported story. Worth noting of course that Hungary supported UNSCR 1973. -Kudzu1 (talk) 18:11, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Mauritania

I've found this article: http://wires.univision.com/english/article/2011-08-02/libyan-rebel-envoy-meets-with Is it enough to add Mauritania to informal relations with NTC??? 31.63.241.84 (talk) 21:44, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

One visit does not constitute the establishment of permanent informal relations- all it demonstrates is a questionable rejection of Gaddhafi (questionable because there is a possibility of two-facedness here, considering that Nassr also visited Tripoli). However, I did find this (which might mean something slightly more than that is up here): http://blogs.aljazeera.net/liveblog/libya-aug-2-2011-2111. At the very least, this is evidence that there is a concentrated effort by the NTC to secure recognition from Mauritania. --Yalens (talk) 21:55, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Yalens. But it's worth adding to the article. -Kudzu1 (talk) 22:02, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

European Union

Here is something about EU declaration about NTC in recent month http://consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_data/docs/pressdata/EN/foraff/123915.pdf Boniek1988 (talk) 17:35, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Where is any change in the EU's stance here? I thought they already recognized...--Yalens (talk) 16:39, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

List of diplomatic missions in Benghazi

What do you think about creating a list of diplomatic missions in Benghazi (those countries which accredited it's diplomats to NTC)? Boniek1988 (talk) 13:14, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

If you can find sources for a large number of them, go right ahead. --Yalens (talk) 16:38, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Reuters factbox

Our list is very similar to the list Reuters assembled here, though theirs includes 30 countries to our 32 (though it was compiled the day before Portugal recognized the NTC, so it's more like 30 to our 31). Their list does include Malta, however, which we have punted on. The countries they didn't include were Czech Republic and Poland (they forgot Poland!), both of which appear to be oversights, as reliable secondary sources support their inclusion on our list. It is my opinion that we should include Malta while noting that though it has recognized the NTC and rejected Gaddafi's legitimacy, it has declined to refer to the NTC as being the rightful government of Libya. -Kudzu1 (talk) 01:22, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Well not to be immodest, but I think we made a much better list than Reuters :). Not only did they miss Poland and the Czech Republic, but they also missed the many countries whose stances fell in between those of Russia/China and those who recognized (Estonia, Norway, Ireland, etc...). I would guess they just "rounded up" Malta's position to full recognition since it was far closer to that than it was to the positions of Russia and China. I think we've already made it clear that Malta is a "special case" by placing it closest to the ones who recognize and specifying that it has "incomplete" recognition (based on the quote by Jibril himself). --Yalens (talk) 01:54, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

While I don't necessarily disagree with you, I think the preponderance of secondary sources (including those who have done reporting inside Benghazi itself on the issue of foreign relations, such as Der Spiegel) are considering Malta to have granted recognition. It seems like borderline synthesis to differ with those reliable sources. -Kudzu1 (talk) 02:45, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

The problem in my mind that is that, conversely, it feels like more synth to differ with what Jibril (who has every reason in the world to want to say Malta recognizes completely) says when he says that Malta hasn't recognized completely. --Yalens (talk) 15:54, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Poland and the Czech Republic

I am from Poland and I can tell why in Reuters Poland and Czech Republic were not included. It's because of our minister of foreign affairs. He said that "our ambassador in Libya from today (8 July) resides in Benghazi, because we see the NTC as only credible partner to talks." (My translation) Or something like that http://wiadomosci.onet.pl/raporty/operacja-swit-odysei/polska-nie-uznaje-kaddafiego,1,4785418,wiadomosc.html There was no official statement like in other countries. The Reuters sources are: Reuters [sic!]and official government websites. So in Reuters and on polish government website are no such things. I must add that all polish newspapers are sure that we recognized the NTC, because we have send to Benghazi our ambassador. In the eyes of all cental-eastern European nations Czechs always did many strange decisions see here. Oh, just see this articles http://m.ceskapozice.cz/en/news/foreign-affairs/czechs-send-roving-ambassador-libyan-rebels; http://www.ceskenoviny.cz/news/zpravy/czechrep-to-have-flying-ambassador-to-libyan-rebel-govt-press/668528; http://af.reuters.com/article/libyaNews/idAFLDE76S0BQ20110729 And one more thing looke at the sources on the site: a Chinese newspaper and Czech site where is " Talks are talks. They do not mean recognition." So I propose to change the place where are Poland and Czech Republic from Formal recognition to Formal relations.31.63.243.109 (talk) 12:18, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Poland

On Poland, does Pliszka not say here] in English that Poland recognizes the NTC as the "only legitimate government of Libya"? That's full recognition to me.--Yalens (talk) 15:45, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

The "recognition" as writer wrote is not recognition in any way. See that he wrote: “What I can say on behalf of the Polish people is that from today our ambassador to Libya resides in Benghazi.” Is that recognition in any kind? He did not said: The polish government/Poland recognized NTC or sees the NTC as only legitemate government. Look on the words!!! I looked through websites of polish president, prime minister, ministry of foreign affairs and council of ministries. There is nothing in that matter. The is no source or fact to write something like that. And who is this Pliszka? It's a polish surname I'm sure, but to who he writes? It is a credible website? I live in Poland and I would know about something like recognition by my government. I must add that I study history with specialization international relations after 1815 and I know what is official recognition. Sending an ambassador or other kind of diplomat or that someone writes that kind of things is not fully recognition. Official statements and words spoken by minister or prime minister and a official paper published in special newspaper, not one but in two that would be in Poland way to recognition and I can assure you no such thing had place. It's only starting of formal relations just like Switzerland and Malta. 31.63.243.109 (talk) 16:53, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

On the very first sentence of the article, the quote is "the only legitimate government of Libya". I think I read it pretty carefully and I checked it again. (sorry about Pliszka, I mixed him up with Sikorski, Pliszka is the author of the article)--Yalens (talk) 17:08, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Ok. Sikorski said what he said, but the phrase "the only legitimate government of Libya" is only a interpretation of of the author. Sikorski NOT SAID IT. You see the difference between citation and interpretation??? The countries that recognized tne NTC have on it's websites statements other don't. 31.63.243.109 (talk) 17:33, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

The rules of WP:PRIMARY are explicit, though, that for the sake of verifiability, we have to rely on secondary sources. The primary source (the Polish government website) doesn't disprove recognition by omission, and secondary sources were in consensus that Poland has granted recognition. I should note that posting a full ambassador to Benghazi is a bigger step than many other countries who have recognized the NTC have made. -Kudzu1 (talk) 18:03, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Ok I understand all this. I can agree that this might be a recognition de facto, but not recognition de iure. But sending an ambassador is not a recognition. In our (polish) history were one such precedent. In 1938 polish government opened embassy in Harbin in Manchukuo. The League of Nations even tried to raise some sanctions on us, but defended ourselves by that the embassy was opened because the envoy there was not accredited to the Imperial government of Manchukuo and no . This is called recognition de facto. Ewa Pałasz-Rutkowska, Polityka Japonii wobec Polski 1918-1941, Warszawa 1998. What about the government website statement in every country it was. We are ruled with respect to the law. If sending ambassador is recognition it means it is not recognition in the mean of our law. 31.63.243.109 (talk) 19:04, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but it is de jure recognition because in the source the page uses (the one from ArabStates.Net), Sikorski is quoted as saying its the only legitimate gov't. Granted, as you noted, "the only" was not in quotes- but "legitimate government of Libya" is (since we're being nitpicky here). If it was something different, I'm pretty sure the article would say so (especially if, as you yourself unknowingly pointed out, the author is probably Polish himself). If you have a source saying that Poland does NOT recognize, that would be different, but all we have is the source saying they DO. --Yalens (talk) 19:29, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I will send an e-mail to the Department of Africa and the Middle East in Polish Ministry and we will see what will be their response. This case is very strange because on internet is only this article of this Dorian Pliszka. 31.63.243.109 (talk) 23:13, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

...whoa, who are you exactly? (I know I won't get an answer to that). If something does come out about it, you are welcome to post it here. --Yalens (talk) 22:53, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I've wrote many things about me few paragraphs earlier and its everything that you must. 31.63.243.109 (talk) 23:16, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

This guy may be right. There is only one article about polish recognition for NTC and isn't that understanding? Could someone look at the newspapers in Poland? Look on this article in one of the biggest polish newspapers: http://gospodarka.gazeta.pl/gospodarka/1,54642,9914284,Polish_ambassador_to_Libya_moves_to_rebel_stronghold.html; and this http://www.thenews.pl/1/10/Artykul/51137,Polish-Embassy-in-Libya-relocated-to-Benghazi. And here are informations from Asian agencies: http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/90001/90777/90855/7433633.html; http://siamdailynews.com/world-news/2011/07/11/polish-embassy-in-libya-moves-to-benghazi-fm/; http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/xinhua/2011-07-08/content_3129687.html; http://thesaigonnewsoflasvegas.com/foreign/polish-embassy-in-libya-moves-to-benghazi-fm/ Boniek1988 (talk) 12:41, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, the source the page uses is Arab, not East Asian.--Yalens (talk) 14:08, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

This arabstate. net article don't have a source. That EAST ASIAN all have sources in Xinhua (Chinese press agency) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xinhua_News_Agency; correctly in this source http://news.xinhuanet.com/english2010/world/2011-07/08/c_13972218.htm Boniek1988 (talk) 15:16, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

At this point, we're not seeing anything contradicting the claim presented in some reliable sources that Sikorski called the NTC "the legitimate representative" etc. -Kudzu1 (talk) 18:19, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

IP 31.63.243.109. The polish ministry had responded on my e-mail. This is their answer:

Dear Sir,

With reference to your correspondence, I kindly inform that Poland recognizes the Libyan Transitional National Council as the de facto sole political partner in contacts and cooperation with Libya - we believe that Mr Gaddafi's regime has lost all the attributes of legitimacy, and the time of his rules has ended. Min R. Sikorski was the first EU Foreign Minister who paid a visit to Benghazi (11.05), and at the end of June polish activity was resumed in Embassy in Libya in temporary headquarters in Benghazi, until there will be conditions for its return to Tripoli.

Sincerely,

... Counsellor

Department of Africa and the Middle East / Africa and Middle East Department of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs

www.msz.gov.pl www.poland.gov.pl

31.63.207.246 (talk) 12:30, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for taking the effort to write to them. This response among other things, though, tells us that they actually do have a presence in Benghazi, that they recognize, and does not say anything to the effect that Malta or the Czech Republic did of not being "full recognition". So, unless there is something else, it seems we will have to keep Poland on the "recognizing" list. Dzięki, Yalens (talk) 13:54, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm thinking about changing the recognizing date for Poland. They wrote "at the end of June polish activity was resumed [...] in Benghazi". The announcing of sending the ambassador and this citation would mean that the date of recognizing should be 21st June. What do you think??? Boniek1988 (talk) 16:43, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Recognition does not equal the establishment of a permanent office. They are two separate things. That is good for the date of establishment of the diplomatic office though... --Yalens (talk) 16:55, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Czech Republic

As for the Czech Republic (meant to say this earlier, somehow I forgot), it seems that just like on the intervention itself, the Czech government it split. Earlier there was half the public on one side and Klaus on the other, with Schwarzenburg giving contradictory statements alternating his stance daily. This time, they clearly said in June that they recognized, but now they are saying that it was not complete recognition (I'm guessing because Klaus, who is anti-intervention and anti-being-pro-NTC, changed the Republic's stance). I'd agree to moving this to being equivalent to Malta's stance (which is in fact different from that of Switzerland).--Yalens (talk) 17:19, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

If that's what sources say, I agree it sounds equivalent to Malta. Of course, the question is then whether we should consider both to have recognized even if they say they haven't fully recognized (whatever that means). I mean, is it clear that their level of recognition is any less than what, say, Japan or Montenegro (both on the Reuters list) has extended? -Kudzu1 (talk) 18:01, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, we don't need to have a symmetrical approach to the two. In the case of the Czechs, there seem to be sources a month after the recognition in which the Czechs seem to be backtracking; whereas in the case of the Poles, there doesn't seem to be any of that sort of that thing. I'd say keep Poland as recognizing, while having the Czech Republic moved down to Malta's status, since it seems they are now (or as of late July) saying they do not recognize. --Yalens (talk) 19:08, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I was suggesting having Malta moved up, actually. What separates their level of recognition - saying the NTC is the "sole legitimate interlocutor" - from that of Japan's? -Kudzu1 (talk) 19:51, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

That is a good question, though Jibril apparently sees a difference......Pretty much, it seems to be that Malta has complete formal relations with Benghazi, rejects Benghazi, but it recognizes the NTC only as a legitimate interlocutor and not government.--Yalens (talk) 19:53, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

That can be noted, of course; it could just be that because they're EU member states, and other EU member states have been more generous in their statements and aid, he's singled them out to ask for the same level of commitment. But secondary sources have reported their recognition even while noting Jibril's remarks. -Kudzu1 (talk) 19:57, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Well that's a funny way of asking for it. We could, perhaps as a compromise, count Malta as a number and put "Incomplete recognition on (date)." (although moving Malta up makes it more difficult for us to deal with Prague). --Yalens (talk) 20:01, 3 August 2011 (UTC) EDIT: Looking at the sources, it seems that its not only Jibril, but Borg also who says its not a "full" recognition. At the very least, this is confirmed to be a "special case" that the Reuters list failed to note. --Yalens (talk) 20:05, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Okay, let's keep it where it is, then. -Kudzu1 (talk) 20:52, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

And as it appears we have consensus to downgrade the Czech Republic, I'm going to go ahead and do so. -Kudzu1 (talk) 20:53, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Gabon

I propose to add Gabon to formal relations. http://www.gabonews.ga/index.php/actualite/75-politique/5865-politique--gabon--libye--note-dinformation-de-la-presidence-de-la-republique (from 3rd there should be informal relations); http://www.starafrica.com/en/news/detail-news/view/libyan-rebels-on-offensive-6-months-into-183400.html; http://www.thejakartaglobe.com/afp/libyan-rebels-on-offensive-6-months-into-uprising/459067 (and from 13th formal) Boniek1988 (talk) 15:17, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

The first stated that the president said he recognized and urged his government to "initiate" the procedure of recognition; whereas the second stated that Gabon outright recognizes, completely, the NTC.--Yalens (talk) 16:03, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

I meant recognition not relations, sorry. Boniek1988 (talk) 18:21, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Recognition seems appropriate. In countries like Gabon, whatever the president says is effectively law. -Kudzu1 (talk) 18:22, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

M. Jibril is very busy recent days. Mauritania, Gabon, Ethiopia, Kenya, Iran... Boniek1988 (talk) 23:40, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

He's juggling both the PM and FM roles. Seems like they should give him one or the other, and it seems like he's a better FM than he is a PM... -Kudzu1 (talk) 03:28, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

It's like in 1920s and 1930s most PMs of Central and South Europe had some ministry in their jurisdiction, Mosty of foreign affairs, defence, interim. Boniek1988 (talk) 14:14, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

When you have powerful country behind his back it is much easier http://www.islamdaily.org/en/world-issues/middle-east/10015.article.htm 31.63.227.246 (talk) 17:05, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Egypt's Recognition

Can someone verify this? I saw a tweet saying that Egypt recognized the NTC as such...

No one else reporting it as far as I can tell. -Kudzu1 (talk) 05:23, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

That's okay. Oh, sorry I forgot to sign my name above...my bad. Heran et Sang'gres (talk) 06:55, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

AJE confirms that they did! http://blogs.aljazeera.net/liveblog/libya-aug-22-2011-1655 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gunshot123 (talk • contribs) 14:12, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Hey, the Egyptian state-owned Ahram Online just admitted they are recognizing the rebels. Now put Egypt. http://english.ahram.org.eg/NewsContent/2/8/19464/World/Region/Egypt-recognises-Libyas-National-Transitional-Coun.aspx — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.132.139.225 (talk) 14:30, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

And also, don't forget this:

http://www.nowlebanon.com/NewsArticleDetails.aspx?ID=303860 http://www.presstv.com/detail/195201.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.132.139.225 (talk) 14:39, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Jordan's Recognition

According to the Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/middle-east-live/2011/aug/22/libya-middle-east-unrest-live#block-65), Jordan has only today given official recognition to the TNC as the legitimate government - reading the current source for the 24th May recognition, it mostly relates to sending a representative to the TNC, and doesn't directly quote anyone from the Jordanian government as them accepting the TNC as the sole legitimate interlocutor. I suggest the Jordanian recognition date be changed to 22 August. --MILLANDSON (talk) 15:51, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

The UK did this too; not sure what the previous status was, as Reuters and other reliable sources had them as recognizing before now, but I guess it should be 22 August on our table. -Kudzu1 (talk) 17:23, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Palestian Authority

Note quite sure where it would fit, but according to http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4112504,00.html , the PA has recognized the TNC.Naraht (talk) 16:59, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

I would recommend using the Kosovo page as a guide and having a section for partially-recognized countries (Palestine, Kosovo when it gets around to it), unrecognized countries (little if any recognition by UN countries), autonomous regions, governments-in-exile (I vaguely remember the Chechen Republic of Ichkeria saying something pro-NTC,though I may be confusing that with Chechens simply staging pro-NTC demonstrations in Britain), and separatist movements (this one I don't think we'll need). --Yalens (talk) 17:51, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Speaking of Kosovo...

This link was recently posted on the Kosovo recognition page, apparently someone who can read Albanian (I didn't bother with Google translate here, last time I tried to use it for Albanian I was not impressed) translated it to mean there were at least relations between the two and that the NTC had recognized Kosovo (Kosovo also recognized the NTC I think? O.o). Here's the link: http://www.botasot.info/def.php?category=3 . --Yalens (talk) 18:04, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

The NTC has not yet recognized Kosovo, but the Kosovar Foreign Ministry hopes it does so soon. It also referred to the NTC as "the new government of Libya". -Kudzu1 (talk) 18:16, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

UK references

Having any more than two references for UK recognition is citation overkill. Some of these should be removed. Does anyone else agree? -Kudzu1 (talk) 16:17, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

• I agree, though I think we need to decide when the UK actually did recognise them - should we go with the first legit article stating such? Because some go back to March/April as the time of recognition, rather than only a month or so ago. --MILLANDSON (talk) 16:35, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Recognition by Hungary

Tonight, my country, Hungary, also recognized the National Transitional Council as Libya's sole legitimate representative of Libya. So far, the official statement is only avaible on hungarian langauge, on the website of the hungarian foreign ministry, but with a little luck an english version will be avaible soon also. -Bbenjoe (talk) 22:42, 23 August 2011 (CET)

Köszönöm. Do you have the link to the Hungarian? We can use that too, you know.--Yalens (talk) 21:03, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Without a better idea I write the link here for now. http://www.kormany.hu/hu/kulugyminiszterium/hirek/a-kulugyminiszterium-kozlemenye-az-atmeneti-nemzeti-tanacs-katonai-gyozelme-kapcsan

-Bbenjoe (talk) 23:28, 25 August 2011 (CET)

Argentina

I removed the entry that Argentina had recognised the TNC, as the citation given said nothing of the kind - the Libyan Embassy in Argentina defecting to the TNC from Gaddafi does not mean that Argentina now recognises the TNC, they're two very different things. --MILLANDSON (talk) 22:02, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Can someone also revert the image back to the one used before someone decided for Agentina that they'd recognised the TNC? The map is incorrect now too. --MILLANDSON (talk) 22:09, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Done. We should only consider a country to have recognized if they've said they recognize. What the Libyan embassies and consulates in their capitals do is worth noting, but is immaterial as far as that country's stance is concerned. -Kudzu1 (talk) 00:14, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Liberia - verbal recognition?

I've added Liberia to other countries, but I'm not sure to change it's place to verbal recognition. It's surely rejection of Kaddafi, but verbal recognition? What do you all think?Boniek1988 (talk) 07:54, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I'd have said that that constitutes a cessation of relations with Gaddafi's regime, rather than verbal recognition of the NTC. He's have to explicitly state they were recognising the TNC for it to count as recognition --MILLANDSON (talk) 10:04, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Now I've found that Algeria have established contacts with NTC. No recognition. Add to formal relations or informal? http://news.xinhuanet.com/english2010/world/2011-08/24/c_131071754.htm and this http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/90001/90777/90855/7421535.htmlBoniek1988 (talk) 15:19, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Other countries. It's in a very similar position to Mauritania and South Africa, but unlike the PRC and Switzerland, there's no indication Algeria has any diplomatic presence in Benghazi. -Kudzu1 (talk) 15:49, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

To have informal relations there is needed diplomatic presence in Benghazi? What if the NTC will move to Tripoli? What then? There are many embassies that recognize Kadhafi. Boniek1988 (talk) 16:07, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

We'll have to deal with this situation as it develops, I think. If foreign embassies in Tripoli remain open to liaise with the NTC after it moves there, that probably constitutes at least de facto recognition. But that's all speculative for now. We should keep an eye on it. -Kudzu1 (talk) 16:20, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Likely reorganization soon

It's hard to say exactly when the Gaddafi regime will officially cease to be; Gaddafi himself could hold out for months, though the UN is likely to accredit NTC diplomats as representative of Libya well before then, in my estimation. But if and when it happens that the NTC is acknowledged to command overwhelming support as the official Libyan governing authority, I suggest that the table of countries that recognized the NTC during the Libyan civil war (49 and counting, and the war ain't over 'til it's over) be moved to a page called something like International recognition of the National Transitional Council during the 2011 Libyan civil war, preserved for historical purposes, as recognition of the NTC is pretty quickly going to become not notable once the Gaddafi regime is gone. The rest of the content on this page should then probably be merged to Foreign relations of Libya at that time. I imagine there will likely be some holdouts not recognizing the NTC (Venezuela, Cuba, Nicaragua, Ecuador, Zimbabwe, North Korea) for however long, and that can be dealt with the same way a bunch of other partially unrecognized countries are. -Kudzu1 (talk) 16:18, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I think this page is good to keep for the purpose of covering the history of recognition. Couldn't we keep it for that purpose (possibly renaming it and taking stuff out), and deal with the renewed relations with the various states on teh Foreign relations of Libya page?--Yalens (talk) 23:47, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Yep, that's exactly what I'm proposing. -Kudzu1 (talk) 01:23, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I propose to change one thing on this page before reconstructing it. The title: "Representation abroad" to "Representation abroad (before the assault on Tripoli)" or something in that style. Boniek1988 (talk) 18:24, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I think we should keep this going until either the arrest of Gaddafi or the end of the civil war, whichever comes first. In my opinion, unless reliable sources report otherwise, the war should be considered over once Sirte, Sabha, and Tripoli are all entirely under NTC control. -Kudzu1 (talk) 18:47, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Yesterday when the last polish news was broad casted a news from news agencies came and they announced that rebels control 95% of Libya. What an idiots... Returning to that earlier proposition. There should be missions abroad appointed by NTC not be defection, because it would become so enormous...Boniek1988 (talk) 00:48, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Organisation membership recognition percentage

You all may notice that I have removed the percentage of countries of an organisation that have recognised the NTC as the sole representative of Libya. I believe it's a redundancy that many people will simply disregard for being a simple calculational matter.--Ricky id (talk) 17:30, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree. And with the rate recognitions are coming in now that it appears the Gaddafi government is on the run with very few places left to hide, it's just too hard to maintain. We can revisit it once this information is historical rather than current. -Kudzu1 (talk) 18:49, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Factboxes

Few newspapers has created a list of recognizing countries look: http://www.jpost.com/MiddleEast/Article.aspx?id=235378&R=R3 http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43737156/ns/world_news-africa/t/factbox-countries-recognizing-libyan-transitional-council/ http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/n.php?n=growing-list-recognises-libya-rebel-council-2011-08-25 Boniek1988 (talk) 19:16, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Those are taken from the Reuters factbox, if I'm not mistaken. We have all of those countries and several more listed; Reuters lists Finland as having recognized the NTC, but its foreign minister explicitly said it did not recognize the NTC as being Libya's legal government. -Kudzu1 (talk) 19:29, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I was very surprised when I read this: http://www.rp.pl/artykul/118801,706564-Czy-Polska-ma-szanse-na-wzgledy-przywodcow-nowej-Libii.html They write relying on the ministry that Warsaw recognized TNC on 11 May!!! and now this http://www.dailystar.com.lb/News/Middle-East/2011/Aug-25/Growing-list-recognizes-Libya-rebel-council.ashx#axzz1W4NW6DU6 I remembered that I watched this so called recognizing statement in TV. The Algerian foreign minister was on the other microphone, because we were signing some aviation treaty and this was 7 July. Yes now I'm sure. It was 4-5 oclock (tea time)and this http://www.france24.com/en/20110707-seizing-hamlet-rebels-advance-capital-tripoli-gaddafi-nato-offensive http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/-/world/9795585/libya-rebels-battle-in-plains-south-of-tripoli/ (list on the right of the article) grounds it. French are very well informed about situation in Poland ;)Boniek1988 (talk) 06:53, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Media sometimes wrong. Two days ago, during the discussion of experts on TV stated that Poland had not yet recognized the NTC... Aotearoa (talk) 21:12, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Ireland Still does not recognise NTC

Ireland's minister of foreign affairs has just been on state radio, and he made it quite clear, Ireland cannot recognise NTC and is waiting until the next UN meeting which he said is in the middle of Sept, to see who occupies the Libya UN seat, but he added that Ireland supports NTC but cannot formally recognise them because Ireland recognises countries and not governments.Tommyxx (talk) 09:59, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Do you have a link? -Kudzu1 (talk) 15:25, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Rwanda

I found this, and I was wondering how we should categorize it: [9] I can't find anything saying Rwanda using the words "legitimate representative" or "legal government" or anything like that, so my feeling is it should be verbal recognition. -Kudzu1 (talk) 00:45, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

The best we can do here without committing SYNTH is "Rejection of Gaddafi" which doesn't really warrant a place on the table by itself if we go by our current standards (for example, Sweden, Iceland and now Slovakia just reject Gaddafi, but they aren't on the table). We might remember Rwanda has long been supportive of the NTC, but this support has manifested itself only in words, as Rwanda doesn't seem to see any reason to get involved itself. We can put it under other countries, though. Well, that's my view.--Yalens (talk) 00:49, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough. -Kudzu1 (talk) 00:53, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Romania

Shouldn't this count as informal relations of some sort, since they have a delegation there apparently since April?--Yalens (talk) 00:05, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, absolutely. If it's an official delegation and not just a foreign aid office or something, then it should be formal relations. -Kudzu1 (talk) 00:18, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Romania has a diplomatic mission in Libya??? Where it is written?Boniek1988 (talk) 00:21, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

The source said a "delegation". I'm putting it as informal until we verify that it is "formal", since we (Boniek once I give him his source: http://www.nineoclock.ro/libyan-ntc-delegation-invited-to-romania/, right?) all seem to agree there is something there...--Yalens (talk) 00:28, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm not seeing where that article says Romania has maintained a diplomatic presence in Benghazi since April. Unless you can find a source for that, I'm thinking verbal recognition, same as Estonia or Finland. -Kudzu1 (talk) 00:37, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

A "delegation" as per the very title of the article of NTC officials that were invited to set up in Bucuresti counts, right?--Yalens (talk) 00:40, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

It's not clear whether NTC officials are being invited to visit Bucharest or set up an office there, though. To me, it reads more like the latter. -Kudzu1 (talk) 00:46, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't think the former would be viewed newsworthy in the first place... In any case, the wording here makes it clear that Romania is committed to a long term relationship with the NTC, for example offering to help with the transition process or reconstruction. --Yalens (talk) 00:54, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

It is probably invitation on talks about form of help - how, when, where. which sector first, etc. When the delegation will be in Bucharest then it would be a good reason for R. government to grant NTC with full recognition. Boniek1988 (talk) 14:49, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Sierra Leone

Who know something about Sierra Leone People's Democratic League? Is this the same as Sierra Leone People's Party? Are the in government, because there is ALL People's Party and I just can't find anything. I've found something about and mass support of this party for Gaddafi.Boniek1988 (talk) 19:21, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Albania

Can we trim the Albanian note? It's getting ridiculously long. Czolgolz (talk) 00:18, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Is important all Albanian text because in Albanian have disput for this PM Berisha dhe Rama. --Irvi Hyka 16:22, 28 August 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Irvi Hyka (talk • contribs)

Every country is important. Why not make a full article about Libyan/Albanian relations? Czolgolz (talk) 16:57, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes Albania is small country but in Albania the opposition of Edi Rama hesitate recognition of the government. --80.78.79.158 (talk) 17:22, 28 August 2011 (UTC)Irvi Hyka

That merits maybe one sentence. The opposition isn't the government. Please stop copy-and-pasting massive blocks of text into the table, as it violates WP:PLAGIARISM and even if it's attributed it's very questionable as to whether it's fair use. Also, it takes up a lot of space unnecessarily. -Kudzu1 (talk) 17:26, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

strange things

I've found that in recent days countries that recognized NTC some months ago are now recognizing to: [10]; [11];[12] Boniek1988 (talk) 13:14, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

And here is an article about this page written in Ctrl+C=Ctrl+V style [13] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boniek1988 (talk • contribs) 13:19, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Oh lovely. I suppose everything here is in the public domain, but still. As for the countries that are re-recognising, my guess is that it's more about putting their names out there (like, "So this may have gotten overlooked in the jumble of recognitions earlier, but hey, we recognize the NTC too, so how's about some oil contracts?") than it is about actually changing the diplomatic status. At any rate, we go by the information that's available and verifiable, so it's not our fault if we already list, say, Netherlands as recognizing after they say they recognize, and they come out later and say, "Okay, now we're recognizing for real," or whatever. -Kudzu1 (talk) 16:02, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, I guess we should be flattered- citation is a form of flattery as much as than imitation is! As for the re-recognition, I suspect that it could also be that Bulgaria and the Netherlands had been asked whether htey recognize, and they gave their response, and to the newspapers which hadn't been updated that they had already recognized, this was news (though Bulgaria's early recognition was surprising to me at first because of the anti-no-fly-zone comments made by members of its gov't previously, but ah well...). --Yalens (talk) 21:32, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Albania should the entire chronology

Albania should the entire chronology needs of all chronology, because the opposition has been reluctant. To clarify the idea to all information on this issue. I believe that you understand the situation in Tirana.

| 27 || Albania ||Recognised on 18 July 2011||On 29 March, Foreign Minister Edmond Haxhinasto said Albania would open its airspace and territorial waters to coalition forces and said its seaports and airports were at the coalition's disposal upon request. Haxhinasto also suggested that Albania could make a "humanitarian" contribution to international efforts. In mid-April, the International Business Times listed Albania alongside several other NATO member states, including Romania, Bulgaria, Greece and Turkey, that have made contributions to the military effort, although it did not go into detail.. The Government of the Republic of Albania recognises the National Transitional Council in Libya, as the legitimate representative of the Libyan people. The Government of Albania has followed with attention the crisis in Libya and has supported the efforts of the international community towards finding a solution to this crisis in full compliance with the Resolutions 1970, 1973 of the UN Security Council. The Albanian Government, highly praising the Libyan people's aspirations for democracy and development, has followed with interest and has supported the activities of the National Transition Council, its program for a democratic Libya, and considers the Council as a legitimate representative of the Libyan people. The Albanian government expresses its readiness to establish relations with the Council and to give its assistance towards the restoration of peace and building the democracy in Libya. We express our conviction that, by undertaking such a decision, we support the just cause of the Libyan people for freedom and progress. The Albanian Foreign Ministry announced on 18 July in a statement, "The Albanian government backs the activities of the National Transitional Council and its program for a democratic Libya, and considers the council to be the legitimate representative of the Libyan people." Even prior to recognition, Albania was a staunch supporter of the military intervention in Libya. Albanian Prime Minister Sali Berisha said that Albania is ready to help. Prime Minister Berisha supported the decision of the coalition to protect civilians from the Libyan regime of Gaddafi. Berisha also offered assistance to facilitate the international coalition actions. In a press release of the Prime Ministry, these operations are considered entirely legitimate, having as main objective the protection of freedoms and universal rights that Libyans deserve. Statement of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs on developments in Libya Monday, 22 August 2011 17:06. We congratulate the people of Libya in these historical moments, marking the end of the dictatorial regime of Muammar Gaddafi and the beginning of a new era of freedom, democracy and prosperity. Albania and the Albanian people have supported the just cause of the Libyan people, being lined up in front of the Libyan friends. The Republic of Albania and the government of Tirana will continue to support Libya in its way of building democracy and expressed full readiness to strengthen the bilateral relations between two countries., 23 August 2011 Albanian President Praises NTC of Libya Advance. Albanian President Bamir Topi has paid tribute to the NTC of Libyan advance into Tripoli, describing it as a tipping point which could spell the end of the four decade dictatorship of Muammar Gaddafi. “This is a historic moment in the deposal of one of the dictatorial regimes of our era, which committed monstrous crimes against his own people,” Topi said in a statement issued to the press today. “In the name of the Albanian people I would like to wish the Libyan people a swift and peaceful transition [to democracy],” Topi added. The NTC swept into Tripoli during the weekend, but after a swift advance, they encountered stiff resistance in a number of areas from pro-Gaddafi loyalists. In July, Albania recognized Libya’s main opposition group, the National Transitional Council, as the country’s legitimate government. It also backed the UN-mandated no-fly zone designed to protect Libyan civilians. The Interim Transitional National Council is a political group formed to represent rebel groups seeking to overthrow the four decade-old regime of Libyan dictator Muammar Gaddafi. --Irvi Hyka 17:32, 28 August 2011 (UTC)Irvi Hyka

This has been discussed above, and the other editors who have weighed in oppose copy-and-pasting large amounts of text from copyrighted material - press releases and news articles - into the article. I understand it may be difficult and frustrating for you to get your point across, as you seem to be not well proficient in English, but if you can present a link to a source that talks about the information you believe is being excluded from the article on the Talk page here, that would be a good start. Also, you should stop attempting to add this text despite reverts, as you can be blocked from editing Wikipedia for edit warring if you continue to do so. -Kudzu1 (talk) 17:58, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

The Albanian info is important, but takes up far too much room in the table (actually, a lot of countries could use trimming). I think your best bet would be to start and article about Albanian/Libyan relations and link to it. We'd be willing to help you edit, if you're worried about your English. Czolgolz (talk) 22:02, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

In my opinion the beginning should be completely cut. This is page about relations not International reactions to the 2011 Libyan civil war more short versions like NTC and next sentence should be something like this: "We congratulate the people of Libya in these historical moments [...]. The Republic of Albania and the government of Tirana will continue to support Libya in its way of building democracy and [...] the bilateral relations between two countries." Next line completely to cut. Next only to comma. Citation to leave. Hmm... Nothing about events in Libya it is somewhere else. And probably it will be 7-8 sentences, lines left.Boniek1988 (talk) 05:39, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Colombia 22 or 25 August?

Letting the foreign minister to start the process of recognition is recognizing or official statement in this case? Here is source for 22 http://www.eltiempo.com/politica/colombia-reconoce-legitimidad-de-rebeldes-en-libia_10206384-4 (in spanish) someone wrongly translated it. It was "reconoce como interlocutor" - recognized as interlocutor- and there should be "reconoce como único representante legítimo del pueblo libio". Here is for 25: http://en.mercopress.com/2011/08/25/unasur-agrees-to-greater-economic-coordination-but-remains-divided-on-libya; http://news.xinhuanet.com/english2010/world/2011-08/26/c_131076822.htm (full recognition). Give your advises what to do with this.Boniek1988 (talk) 05:23, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I think it should be changed to the 25th with the remarks on the 22nd still being noted. -Kudzu1 (talk) 14:52, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Latvia

What do y'all make of this: [14] I guess we should probably move Latvia to "verbal recognition", at least until Riga makes up its mind already. This is getting really tiresome that countries keep doing this. -Kudzu1 (talk) 15:08, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree. In that earlier one source was only recognising as political interlocutor. We all should look more carefully on sources. The title may be that xyz country recognised NTC, but inside this article is that they recognised as interlocutor. Yes, it is quite irritating.Boniek1988 (talk) 16:09, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Some of the countries that have used the term "interlocutor", though, seem to consider that the same level of recognition as France's initial recognition (Australia, for example). It seems to be fairly random. -Kudzu1 (talk) 16:19, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

AFP is probably better informed than anglo-saxon newspapers. I don't know what those countries (Netheland, Bulgaria, Croatia) are really doing now. Maybe the fight for oil has began and in it the recognition status counts. Or maybe they this is the highest form of recognition in their countries. And on more thing Poland's recognition source has gone. And there is other on the internet. So in Latvia case. Let it be where it is. When they decide "truly" recognize we will change their date or do something else.Boniek1988 (talk) 16:35, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

It could be that there are some countries which differentiate "political interlocutor" and "representative of the people". In any case the difference between the terms is vague enough for it to be manipulated at will, I think at least... and it may be another case of "Hey, by the way we're recognizing again! In case you forgot the first time!! Now please give us special treatment in trade deals!!" In any case, I agree with Boniek's suggestion on how to deal with it.--Yalens (talk) 17:23, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. -Kudzu1 (talk) 17:26, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

In one polish newspaper was a very good article [15] where is: "For most Italian commentators fact that Jibril goes first to Paris and then, and only as a result of feverish Italian diplomacy, will meet with Berlusconi in Milan, is an eloquent proof of the correctness of the thesis of the "new Libyan deal" in which France has all cards. Official "Libero" wrote: "Sarkozy went to the cashier". Boniek1988 (talk) 18:26, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Ummmmm, just wondering if people are reading the same source as I am? We are talking about this source, right? The source states "Foreign Minister Ģirts Valdis Kristovskis says that in the nearest future Latvia could decide on the recognition of Libya’s National Transitional Council as the legitimate representative of Libyan people’s interests until the temporary government of Libya is formed." The operative word in all of that is could. It doesn't say has, or will, or is expected to, but could. In other words, it hasn't decided as yet, but could do so; whenever that is will be anyones guess. Keep it out of the article at moment, because it doesn't say anything of any recognition at all. --Russavia ^{Let's dialogue} 18:50, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

We are also talking about this [16], from the same source in fact it looks like, in which it says "Political Director Razāns expressed support to democratic reforms in the countries of Northern African region and announced that Latvia recognises the Transitional National Council of Libya as the political interlocutor representing the Libyan people during this interim period. " That's the problem, they seem to conflict with each other. --Yalens (talk) 18:54, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

They don't really. The second source, which is the first time i've seen that here, doesn't really conflict at all. It simply says that they recognise the NTC as the unofficial voice (i.e. interlocutor) of the Libyan people. It doesn't say anything about recognising them as the legitimate government in Libya. Therein lies the big difference. --Russavia ^{Let's dialogue} 19:45, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Lithuania

Lithuania seems to have been deleted from the list. Czolgolz (talk) 04:36, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Who agrees with AZAZET to change relation of Lithuania with NTC from recognition to formal relations, because I don't???Boniek1988 (talk) 12:17, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't agree at all. There's no sign Lithuania has permanent relations with the NTC, but it has designated the NTC as the sole interlocutor for the Libyan people. Unless the Lithuanian government explicitly says otherwise, that qualifies as recognition. -Kudzu1 (talk) 13:32, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

SADR

It seems to me that "verbal recognition" might be stretching it. It seems the SADR, based on what the source explicitly says never said that they recognize, but only passively acknowledged the NTC to be the "new authorities" in Libya, which could also mean acknowledging de facto but not necessarily de jure. I would suggest it be moved to a new section of "Other non-internationally recognized countries" or "Other non-UN member governments", etc.--Yalens (talk) 17:44, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

I think it's textbook verbal recognition. They referred to the NTC as "new authorities", but didn't explicitly recognize them or say they were establishing permanent relations. -Kudzu1 (talk) 18:14, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Well its certainly not how we've been using the term in the past, in my opinion. We've been using it in the past to describe the stances of countries like Ireland, Norway and Estonia (before they recognized fully) who said gave explicit verbal support to the NTC (and typically blasting Gaddafi as well); saying things like "recognizing it as a legitimate political body" (Norway), "looking at the council as the true interlocutor and voice of the Libyan people ... [but] recognizing states not political bodies" (Ireland before and Finland still), and "sole partner for legitimate political communication" (Estonia) while none of these to our knowledge set up actual communications with the NTC (at that time). The SADR never said they recognize the NTC as anything at all, and merely referred to them as "new authorities", and I don't think they're the only ones to refer to the NTC as the "new government" or "new authorities" de facto either. --Yalens (talk) 18:30, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough. Do you think they merit a new section, or should simply be added to the "other countries" section? -Kudzu1 (talk) 18:41, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm pretty indifferent on that, but I suppose a new section might avoid Moroccan users (if there are any editing about Libya) getting irked by SADR being called a country when they view it as part of Morocco (or at least their government does), and it might help navigation too. So I'd make a new section.--Yalens (talk) 18:49, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Uganda

It seems Uganda (despite its previous pro-Gaddafi stance) now has an embassy with the NTC and vice versa. Like many other countries, Uganda's Gaddafi embassy defected, but unlike others, Uganda has said explicitly that they are conducting relations with the NTC... should we put it under formal relations?--Yalens (talk) 19:04, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Could you post a link to the source? -Kudzu1 (talk) 19:06, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

It's the one already on the page, here: http://www.newvision.co.ug/D/8/13/763409. --Yalens (talk) 21:07, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

I think we need a source saying explicitly that Uganda and the NTC have relations before we change the status. It reads more like the Ugandan minister admitting a hypothetical than it does him saying Kampala is now working with the NTC. -Kudzu1 (talk) 22:23, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Okay, that sounds good to me, for now at least.--Yalens (talk) 01:23, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Finland and Reuters' list

According to Reuters' list ([[17]]), Finland has recognized the NTC. Granted, this list is rather flawed- it missed nearly 40% of the current recognitions (though it could be that some of our recent additions may have been premature too...)- but I think we might want to look into it nonetheless as there might be something here...--Yalens (talk) 01:52, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

It seems the main difference is that Reuters has fallen behind (unless we've "fallen ahead") in the recent recognition wave (Balkan, Central European and African countries mainly).--Yalens (talk) 01:56, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Let's don't look on those lists and factboxes. They do their job and we do our job (probably we do it better than they). Of course we might change it later, but we look on websites from all over the world. Goverment websites, newspapers websites, websites of local newspapers (often in original language). We should be source to them not they for us ;)Boniek1988 (talk) 04:32, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

I looked into it (namely, I browsed the Foreign Ministry of Finland's official website) and I have no idea where they're getting that from. As far as I can tell, the Finnish government has made no statements to the effect of recognition. -Kudzu1 (talk) 04:36, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

look on this page. I use this to find something in local newspapers: http://www.abyznewslinks.com Boniek1988 (talk) 04:44, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Okay, no changes then I see.--Yalens (talk) 16:23, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Ireland

The Irish government has constantly held a position of non-recognition. That position holds. The minister last week on national radio that until NTC occupies the UN seat physically Ireland with not be recognising.

After the interview media were told the following.

On 26/08/2011 12:14, "Amanda.Bane@dfa.ie" <Amanda.Bane@dfa.ie> wrote:

Dear Sir

It remains the position that Ireland recognises states, not Governments. However, the NTC is now effectively the Government of Libya and we are closely monitoring developments there in this transitional phase. You may wish to be aware of the Tánaiste’s statement on Libya http://www.dfa.ie/home/index.aspx?id=87082

Regards,

Amanda

Amanda Bane | Press Office | Department of Foreign Affairs & Trade | Dublin |

Tommyxx (talk) 15:58, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

That's pretty clearly recognition. It even refers to the statement cited as recognition. -Kudzu1 (talk) 15

52, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

I wish so, but Minister on national radio has just Ireland does not and will not unless the NTC occupies the UN seat at the next general convention in mid-September. He did add he hoped it would be the NTC but no recognition until it was at UN.Tommyxx (talk) 15:56, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs was asked if it recognised the NTC, the minister stated that he hoped the NTC would ' I hope they will quickly be able to establish an effective government' thereby clearly pointing out they are currently not one. The minister said he welcome the end of Gadaffi but will only recognise whoever sits in the UN seats in three weeks at the next UN meeting in mid september. Tommyxx (talk) 16:08, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

You need to provide a link to a reliable source that says this. Wikipedia is based on verifiability. If you don't have a source that can be cited and read (or watched, or listened to) saying what you're saying, you can't delete content. -Kudzu1 (talk) 16:13, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Ukraine

Ukraine recognizes the TNC. [18] --Ahmetyal 16:32, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Problem with Kenya

I found today this articles [19][20] and it is said that Kenya denies the reports about recognition Boniek1988 (talk) 23:09, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Okay, thank you for bringing this here. -Kudzu1 (talk) 14:00, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

This looks pretty cut and dry. Can someone remove Kenya from the list/map? Czolgolz (talk) 16:27, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

It's done. -Kudzu1 (talk) 16:55, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

After few hours I propose to completely kick the Kenya out of the recognition list, because of this article[21] Boniek1988 (talk) 19:56, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Go ahead, I'd say... I'm not seeing any "verbal recognition" here or "rejection of the Gaddafi government" (which no longer exists anyways) at all. --Yalens (talk) 21:59, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. Interesting Nairobi is, to this extent, walking back a statement that sounded pretty unequivocally like recognition. -Kudzu1 (talk) 23:38, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Armenia

Armenia recognizes the TNC. [22] [23] --Ahmetyal 11:25, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Lithuania again...

Someone has again changed the place of Lithuania in the list. Why?! I am asking why again? Does anyone give some reasons of doing this, because I don't understand why someone is doing so without going here and discuss, because we did it before and the change was rejected not without reason.Boniek1988 (talk) 16:15, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

One editor, User:AZAZET, is repeatedly refusing to obtain consensus before making his changes. If it happens again, I'm going to take it to the edit-warring noticeboard. -Kudzu1 (talk) 16:51, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

File:Nasser Gaddafi 1969.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Nasser Gaddafi 1969.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Media without a source as of 4 September 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 10:18, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Cuba

Here is report of AP someone has added Cuba to countries that won't recognize NTC, but I earlier added it to Other countries, so where Cuba should be? He is link:[24]Boniek1988 (talk) 13:29, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Other countries. Unlike Ecuador, Venezuela, and Zimbabwe, Cuba isn't saying it won't recognize the NTC, it's just saying that it doesn't. -Kudzu1 (talk) 13:59, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

New map and countries

I've found a map that includes many types of recognition and countries that we didn't include: [25]Boniek1988 (talk) 01:29, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

This is looks credible (except for a couple things), but we can't use it as a source as its a blog. Where are its sources?--Yalens (talk) 15:16, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Kazakhstan

Kazakhstan have recognized the TNC. [26] --Ahmetyal 13:56, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Botswana

We probably were wrong to join Botswana to the list at beginning of August, because in that article is that NTC is recognised "as a legitimate opposition force in Libya." [27], but official statement about recognition is here [28]. Is there agreement to change date and place? Boniek1988 (talk) 16:01, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, fine with me. Media reported that one kind of oddly, if I remember right. No question they've extended full recognition now. -Kudzu1 (talk) 16:54, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Ecuador

Ecuador is currently listed as 'refusing to recognise'. Their statement implies they are waiting for elections, which is like many other countries and very different to the other countries that still recognise Gadaffi. I think they should just be listed under the 'other countries' section, rather than alongside the countries still loyal to Gadaffi. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.174.156.25 (talk) 15:43, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Dear fellow, when elections will end and government would be created this will be the end of existing of this body. That's why we added this country to "will not recognise" section.Boniek1988 (talk) 18:36, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Jordan recognition again...

I don't think that recognition of NTC on 22 August was the first recognition. Why? That recognition from May was recognition of NTC "as representative of Libyan people" and this form August "as legitimate government". So we probably should change the date and place of it.Boniek1988 (talk) 18:39, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. -Kudzu1 (talk) 20:53, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Ghana

Ghana recognizes the TNC. [29] --Ahmetyal 15:32, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Carribean countries

I don't what they are speaking, but there are representatives of those little, minor Caribbean countries. [30]Boniek1988 (talk) 23:54, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Foreign relations of Libya under Gaddafi

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Kudzu1 (talk) 21:43, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

---

Foreign relations of Libya → Foreign relations of Libya under Gaddafi – We need to call this article what it is. It concerns the foreign relations of Libya under Gaddafi. And if Gaddafi's Libya was just another small country with a very quiet presence on the international scene, it would be totally fine to merge the foreign relations of the Kingdom of Libya and post-Gaddafi Libya into this article, but Gaddafi has been enormously active in international relations. To avoid this article becoming way too large and crowded with lots of information (especially considering that a revolution is a giant "reset" button; Gaddafi's dispute with Switzerland will have no bearing on the current and future Libyan leadership's relations with the Swiss), this article should be moved. There's no need to call it a "history of" or anything; Gaddafi is still de jure recognized by a whole slew of countries as Libya's leader. But Libya under Gaddafi is an entity unto itself, especially in its foreign affairs, and Libya under Gaddafi is what this article is about. -Kudzu1 (talk) 20:02, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

• Interesting proposal. A similar idea was knocked down a while back but things have changed since then. The concerns of one of the users opposing the previous proposal are no longer valid; it appears that Gaddafi is permanently sidelined as the leader of Libya. Assuming that's not too controversial, User:Kudzu1's proposal makes sense. Gaddafi has been enormously active in international relations and he has been a very idiosyncratic figure. We do have some articles that deal with foreign relations of defunct states or the historically (e.g., Foreign relations of Imperial China, Foreign relations of the Soviet Union, History of U.S. foreign policy) but I grant they are relatively rare. The best parallel that currently exists at Wikipedia is the Foreign relations of South Africa during apartheid article. Like Libya pre- and post-Qaddafi, South Africa experienced an abrupt political shift (though in 1994) that changed its entire foreign policy landscape. A move of this article and the starting of a new Libya foreign relations article would preserve the hard work done on the current and make it less likely that historically relevant material will be deleted to conform it with the new regime. The article would correlate with the Libya under Gaddafi article. (This is also a good reason to move the article sooner rather than later.) Eventually, if Qaddafi is derecognised by most of the world, History of Libyan foreign relations might be another possible location for this article. Therefore (finally), I support the move. —  AjaxSmack  20:46, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.