Trial of former President Sarkozy sheds light on France's back-channel talks with Libya's Gadhafi
Sarkozy, 70, who was president from 2007 to 2012, has denied wrongdoing. French prosecutors were not convinced and on Thursday requested a seven-year prison sentence for Sarkozy. The verdict is expected at a later date.
Some key moments in the trial focused on talks between France and Libya in the 2000s when Gadhafi was seeking to restore diplomatic ties with the West. Before that, Libya was considered a pariah state for having sponsored attacks.
French families of victims of a 1989 plane bombing told the court about their shock and sense of betrayal as the trial questioned whether promises possibly made to Gadhafi's government were part of the alleged corruption deal.
The Lockerbie and UTA flight bombings
On Sept. 19, 1989, the bombing of UTA flight 772 over Niger killed 170 people, including 54 French nationals on board, after an in-flight explosion caused by a suitcase bomb.
The year before, a bomb planted aboard a Pam Am flight exploded while the plane was over the Scottish town of Lockerbie, killing 270 people from 21 countries including 190 Americans.
Investigators tied both bombings to Libya, whose government had engaged in long-running hostilities with the U.S. and other Western governments.
Now, families of victims are wondering whether French government officials close to Sarkozy promised to forget about the bombings in exchange for business opportunities with the oil-rich nation and possibly, an alleged corruption deal.
'What did they do with our dead?' the daughter of a man who died in the bombing told the court. She said questions in her mind turn around whether the memories of the victims 'could have been used for bartering' in talks between France and Libya.
Sarkozy said he has 'never ever betrayed' families of victims. 'I have never traded their fate for any compromise, nor pact of realpolitik,' he said.
Libya's push to restore ties with the West
Libya was long a pariah state for its involvement in the 1980s bombings.
In 2003, it took responsibility for both the 1988 and 1989 plane bombings and agreed to pay billions in compensation to the victims' families.
Gadhafi also announced he was dismantling his nuclear weapons program, which led to the lifting of international sanctions against the country.
Britain, France and other Western countries sought to restore a relationship with Libya for security, diplomatic and business purposes.
In 2007, Sarkozy welcomed Gadhafi to Paris with great honors for a five-day official visit, allowing him to bring his bedouin tent near the Elysee presidential palace.
Sarkozy said during the trial he would have preferred to 'do without' Gadhafi's visit at the time but it came as a diplomatic gesture after Libya's release of Bulgarian nurses in a highly-mediatized case.
Bulgarian nurses
On July 24, 2007, under an accord partially brokered by French first lady Cecilia Sarkozy and EU officials, Libya released the five Bulgarian nurses and a Palestinian doctor.
The medics, who had spent over eight years in prison, faced death sentence on charges they deliberately infected hundreds of children with the AIDS virus in the late 1990s — an allegation they denied.
The release of the medics removed the last major obstacle to Libya's rejoining the international community.
Sarkozy travelled to the capital, Tripoli, for talks with Gadhafi the day after the medics were returned to Bulgaria on a French presidential plane.
He told the court his 'pride to have saved those six persons.'
'If you did not discuss with Gadhafi, you'd not get the release of the nurses,' he said.
Libya's spy chief at heart of questions
Accused of masterminding the attack on UTA Flight 772, Gadhafi's brother-in-law and intelligence chief Abdullah al-Senoussi was convicted in absentia to life sentence by a Paris court in 1999 for the attack.
An international arrest warrant was issued for him and five other suspects.
Financial prosecutors have accused Sarkozy of having promised to lift the arrest warrant targeting al-Senoussi, in exchange for alleged campaign financing.
In 2005, people close to Sarkozy, then interior minister, including his chief of staff Claude Guéant and junior minister Brice Hortefeux, travelled to Tripoli, where they met with al-Senoussi.
They both said during the trial it was a 'surprise' meeting they were not aware of beforehand.
Al-Senoussi told investigative judges millions have indeed been provided to support Sarkozy's campaign. Accused of war crimes, he is now imprisoned in Libya.
Sarkozy strongly denied that.
Gadhafi's son accusations
Gadhafi's son, Seif al-Islam, reiterated accusations in January, telling French news network RFI that he was personally involved in giving Sarkozy 5 million dollars in cash.
Seif al-Islam sent RFI radio a two-page statement on his version of events. It was the first time he talked to the media about the case since 2011.
He said Sarkozy initially 'received $2.5 million from Libya to finance his electoral campaign' during the 2007 presidential election, in return for which Sarkozy would 'conclude agreements and carry out projects in favour of Libya.'
He said a second payment of $2.5 million in cash was handed over without specifying when it was given.
According to him, Libyan authorities expected that in return, Sarkozy would end a legal case about the 1989 UTA Flight 771 attack — including removing his name from an international warrant notice.
Sarkozy denied any transfer of money, saying: 'you'll never find one Libyan euro, one Libyan cent in my campaign.'
'There's no corruption money because there was no corruption,' he added.
Sarkozy turning his back to Gadhafi
The Libyan civil war started in February 2011, with army units and militiamen loyal to Gadhafi opposing rebels.
Sarkozy was the first Western leader to take a public stance to support the rebellion.
On Feb. 25, 2011, he said the violence by pro-Gadhafi forces was unacceptable and should not go unpunished. 'Gadhafi must go,' he said.
On March 10 that year, France was the first country in the world to recognize the National Transitional Council as the legitimate government of Libya.
'That was the Arab Spring,' Sarkozy told the court. 'Gadhafi was the only dictator who had sent (military) aircrafts against his people. He had promised rivers of blood, that's his expression.'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Boston Globe
an hour ago
- Boston Globe
How Democrats can stop talking past each other and start winning
A second group of moderates, including important donors, are libertarians who endorse ' Advertisement The third group of moderate Democrats yearns to turn back the clock to the New Deal coalition. A chief spokesperson is Ruy Teixeira of the Liberal Patriot newsletter. '[T]he New Deal Democrats were moderate and even small-c conservative in their social outlook,' he Advertisement Beginning in the 1970s, college-educated progressives began to focus on issues involving race, gender, the environment, and sexual freedom. Teixeira This brings us to the only moderate position that holds promise for Democrats: defining moderate as being pragmatic, rather than doctrinaire. College-educated progressives need to recognize that their priorities and their cultural values don't match those of most Americans. In 2024, inflation and the economy were Advertisement Centering that economic message is the first pragmatic step in rebuilding Democrats' brand to appeal to both college grads and noncollege grads. The second step is to recognize that cultural preferences differ across class lines. Non-elites value self-discipline because they need to get up every day, on time, without an attitude, to work at jobs with little autonomy. Consequently, they highly value traditional institutions that anchor self-discipline: religion, the military, the family. Those same institutions offer non-elites sources of social status independent of their subordinate positions in a capitalist economy. Blue-collar values reflect blue-collar lives. That's why, on cultural issues, college-educated progressives need to stop demanding a mind-meld with the Democratic Party. If you're playing to win, politics requires not purity but an ability to build coalitions with people whose values may differ from yours in fundamental ways. Democrats need to treat voters without college degrees as respected coalition partners, making tradeoffs. Advertisement This doesn't mean that progressives need to abandon their values; it means they have to act on them. Here are two uncomfortable facts: Progressive activists as a group are much
Boston Globe
an hour ago
- Boston Globe
I didn't want to need free groceries
So I share Kidder's lament that feeding the hungry is on track to be a growth industry in Donald Trump's America. The Get The Gavel A weekly SCOTUS explainer newsletter by columnist Kimberly Atkins Stohr. Enter Email Sign Up Experience first. Before 2009, as the son of a judge and the privileged middle class, I'd never been unemployed and in need of charity in three decades of working. I loved what I did, even though freelance writing is a constant scramble for income. I've always read a book before bed; as a freelancer, I chose only books for which I was earning a reviewer's paycheck. Advertisement When the recession and its double-digit unemployment hit, the 'subprime mortgages,' 'mortgage-backed securities,' and unregulated 'shadow banks' that underlay them — and that many Americans had never heard of — unleashed work-killing forces too devastating for individual initiative to counter. Even wealthy Harvard scrapped a lucrative project (by my bank account's standards) that I'd done for four straight summers. My then-wife's part-time job invaluably backstopped the family income. But after a year of little work and with no idea how long I'd be idle, I despaired of ever being employed again. Free groceries to stretch our household resources seemed the only responsible path, especially with a child to feed. Advertisement The other folks in St. Paul's basement made for an interesting cross-section of people. Some were fellow baby boomers. The age and dress of others suggested they were students, presumably not destitute but nevertheless on a budget as they contended with Greater Boston's formidable living costs. No one dressed in rags. (Neither did the recipients Kidder observed, which he attributes to their efforts 'to ward off disgrace' from having to seek charity.) My anxious heart beat fast during my first time at the pantry. Normally a chatterbox, I made little small talk with others. It took a number of weeks before the habitual visits and the saintly volunteers' freedom from judgment thawed some of my embarrassment. I also found psychic balm in the relief of free food for my household's budget. Not everyone adjusted as easily. At least one person at the pantry teared up at having to seek aid in public. I never saw her return. Advertisement The volunteers who set out and distributed food never questioned who we were or why we were there. Hard hearts will call that poor quality control. Those who know better, who relied on the kindness of these strangers, recognize it as mindfulness of recipients' dignity. Today, those who do such work can't fully backfill the Beautiful Bill's shrinkage of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, formerly called food stamps). Kidder notes that the national food bank network Feeding America says SNAP supplied nine times as much food as its own agency's food banks do. That the bill's backers had not just food support but the broader safety net in their sights is clear from the legislation's attaching work requirements to Medicaid. Two years ago, perhaps anticipating this dark American moment, Republican Representative Steve Scalise Yet do work. Work requirements Perhaps if our leaders saw who goes to food pantries and why — perhaps if they spent a week or two living as pantry patrons — the mythic myopia would lift from their eyes. But there are none so blind as those who will not see. Advertisement
Boston Globe
an hour ago
- Boston Globe
Gutting EPA climate rules will put lives at risk
Removing the greenhouse gas regulations will increase extreme weather and pollution, which will put lives at risk, hurt the economy, and increase Americans' health costs by shifting costs to lost productivity and lost income. Advertisement The very real impact of extreme weather is hard to miss. Brutal heat is becoming the norm. Take last month, when Advertisement Further, an estimated But beyond the headlines of death and destruction, extreme weather is also having an impact on daily lives. Climate change compromises livelihoods, particularly for the millions who work outdoors. If it's too hot to harvest a crop or work on a construction site, it will impact workers' incomes as well as the bottom line for businesses. Extreme heat causes In the agriculture sector, extreme heat drives up food prices, because there are fewer days when food can be harvested — a Cutting regulation isn't saving ordinary Americans money; it's saving big business money. The EPA Advertisement The sad truth is the administration is abandoning its responsibility to act, and American citizens and people around the globe will pay the price. Denying the incontrovertible truth about climate change risks more death and damage to property and business. Further, under the guise of deregulation, the administration is strategically undermining the authority of scientists and the public's access to facts on how greenhouse gas emissions will impact lives and livelihoods. White House officials will not back down. Instead Congress and state and city officials, as well as courts, must block the plan. Otherwise, we risk deepening misunderstanding with the public, economic damage, more loss of life, and putting our long-term prosperity at risk. This isn't giving Americans more choice, it's stripping them of their right to clean air, safe communities, and a secure job.
