Talk:Foreign relations of Libya/Archive 2

United Nations decision
General Assembly approved the Transitional National Council as the only representative of Libya. Resolution was adopted by a recorded vote of 114 in favour to 17 against, with 15 abstentions. In favour: Afghanistan, Andorra, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Belgium, Belize, Benin, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Canada, Cape Verde, Chad, Chile, China, Colombia, Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Djibouti, Egypt, Estonia, Ethiopia, Fiji, Finland, France, Gabon, Gambia, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Guatemala, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, India, Iran, Iraq, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kuwait, Latvia, Lebanon, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malaysia, Maldives, Malta, Mauritius, Mexico, Monaco, Mongolia, Montenegro, Morocco, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Oman, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Russian Federation, Saint Lucia, San Marino, Senegal, Serbia, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Sudan, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Switzerland, Sweden, Syria, Thailand, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Timor-Leste, Togo, Tunisia, Turkey, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, United States, Vanuatu, Viet Nam, Yemen – all these states should be listed as "states that have recognised the National Transitional Council as the sole legitimate representative of Libya". Aotearoa (talk) 04:52, 17 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Oh, wow. Thank you for finding this. This may have to be an ongoing project, as I have a full night's worth of sleep to which I should attend at present. I do question whether states that voted for UN recognition but haven't unilaterally recognized should be in a separate category - but they should definitely be noted and recognized in the article. The omission of Indonesia is striking, as are Palau and the Marshall Islands (which usually move in lockstep with the U.S. on foreign policy). Israel voting aye rather than abstaining is interesting as well. -Kudzu1 (talk) 05:08, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

India
India have recognized the council. --Ahmetyal 09:58, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

UN for the NTC
Vote on Deferring Action on Credentials Committee Draft Resolution

The motion to defer action on the draft resolution of the Credentials Committee on acceptance of the credentials of representatives of Member States was rejected by a recorded vote of 107 against to 22 in favour, with 12 abstentions, as follows:

In favour: Angola, Bolivia, Congo, Cuba, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Ecuador, El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea, Jamaica, Kenya, Lesotho, Mali, Namibia, Nicaragua, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, South Africa, Swaziland, Uganda, United Republic of Tanzania, Venezuela, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Against: Afghanistan, Andorra, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Belgium, Belize, Benin, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Canada, Chad, Chile, China, Colombia, Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Djibouti, Egypt, Estonia, Ethiopia, Fiji, Finland, France, Gabon, Gambia, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Guatemala, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, India, Iran, Iraq, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kuwait, Latvia, Lebanon, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malaysia, Maldives, Malta, Monaco, Mongolia, Montenegro, Morocco, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Oman, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Russian Federation, Saint Lucia, Samoa, San Marino, Senegal, Serbia, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Sudan, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Sweden, Switzerland, Thailand, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Timor-Leste, Togo, Tunisia, Turkey, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, United States, Uruguay, Vanuatu, Yemen.

Abstain: Antigua and Barbuda, Bangladesh, Botswana, Dominican Republic, Indonesia, Mauritania, Mexico, Myanmar, Nepal, Saudi Arabia, Suriname, Trinidad and Tobago.

Absent: Albania, Algeria, Bahamas, Barbados, Belarus, Bhutan, Burundi, Cambodia, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Comoros, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Dominica, Eritrea, Ghana, Grenada, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Haiti, Kiribati, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Liberia, Libya, Madagascar, Malawi, Marshall Islands, Mauritius, Micronesia (Federated States of), Mozambique, Nauru, Niger, Nigeria, Pakistan, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Sao Tome and Principe, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Solomon Islands, Somalia, Syria, Tajikistan, Tonga, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, Uzbekistan, Viet Nam.

Vote on Acceptance of Credentials of Representatives of Member States

The draft resolution contained in the report of the Credentials Committee on acceptance of the credentials of representatives of Member States was adopted by a recorded vote of 114 in favour to 17 against, with 15 abstentions, as follows:

In favour: Afghanistan, Andorra, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Belgium, Belize, Benin, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Canada, Cape Verde, Chad, Chile, China, Colombia, Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Djibouti, Egypt, Estonia, Ethiopia, Fiji, Finland, France, Gabon, Gambia, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Guatemala, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, India, Iran, Iraq, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kuwait, Latvia, Lebanon, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malaysia, Maldives, Malta, Mauritius, Mexico, Monaco, Mongolia, Montenegro, Morocco, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Oman, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Russian Federation, Saint Lucia, San Marino, Senegal, Serbia, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Sudan, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Switzerland, Sweden, Syria, Thailand, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Timor-Leste, Togo, Tunisia, Turkey, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, United States, Vanuatu, Viet Nam, Yemen.

Against: Angola, Bolivia, Cuba, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Ecuador, Equatorial Guinea, Kenya, Lesotho, Malawi, Namibia, Nicaragua, South Africa, Swaziland, United Republic of Tanzania, Venezuela, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Abstain: Algeria, Antigua and Barbuda, Cameroon, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Indonesia, Mali, Mauritania, Nepal, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Saudi Arabia, Suriname, Trinidad and Tobago, Uganda, Uruguay.

Absent: Albania, Bahamas, Barbados, Belarus, Bhutan, Burundi, Cambodia, Central African Republic, Comoros, Congo, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Dominica, Eritrea, Ghana, Grenada, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Haiti, Kiribati, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Liberia, Libya, Marshall Islands, Micronesia (Federated States of), Mozambique, Myanmar, Nauru, Niger, Nigeria, Pakistan, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Samoa, Sao Tome and Principe, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Solomon Islands, Somalia, Tajikistan, Tonga, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, Uzbekistan.

The representative of Venezuela said that in a 9 September special declaration, his Government had rejected the occupation of Libya’s United Nations seat by a faction or an illegitimate transitory authority imposed by foreign intervention. That declaration rejected in the strongest terms any attempt to transform Libya into a protectorate of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) or the Security Council. It also denounced the military operation carried out to change Libya’s regime by manipulating the United Nations in line with its own geopolitical and economic interests, and in violation of Council resolution 1973 (2011).

The Assembly, he said, was now asked to recognize a group working under the guidance of the United States Government and NATO, which had no legal or moral authority to decide who should govern a nation. NATO’s belligerent conduct violated the principles of sovereignty and non-intervention in the internal affairs of a State. It also represented an act of aggression, which negated any humanitarian purpose. The perpetrators of those crimes must be brought to the International Criminal Court. The Assembly’s recognition of the National Transitional Council as Libya’s Government represented an “abominable precedent” that violated the most elementary principles of international law.

The representative of Cuba recalled that foreign intervention and military aggression carried out by NATO had actually worsened the conflict in Libya and had hampered the people of that nation from moving towards reconciliation and self-determination. Cuba and other nations had asked the Security Council to adopt measures that would allow for a negotiated political solution without foreign intervention. That had not been possible because NATO had proceeded with its intervention under the guise of a “preventive war” but which in reality had been driven by self-interest and the economic concerns of powerful countries.

Cuba did not recognize the groups that had been ushered to the fore by NATO forces and would only recognize representatives of a Government that had been set up, not by the assistance of foreign intervention, but by the will of the Libyan people. Everyone was aware that under the “clumsy guise” of protecting civilians, NATO had taken upon itself to effect a regime change that had actually killed and wounded thousands of innocent men, women and children. It had also obstructed the efforts of the African Union and other regional groups to bring the conflict to a negotiated conclusion. Cuba would reiterate its call for an immediate ceasefire and an end to NATO bombings. In addition, it would reiterate the need for the Libyan people to be allowed to freely secure self-determination and the sovereignty of their own country, without foreign intervention and thinly veiled attempts to gain control of the country’s natural resources.

The representative of Bolivia said the United Nations had been manipulated into a foreign, armed intervention in Libya. But the Libyan people, who continued to suffer, had not had the opportunity to express their opinions and set up their own legitimate Government representing their interests. Bolivia could not recognize the National Transitional Council, which had characteristics questioned by Bolivia. He expressed worries over the wave of racism and human rights violations against black civilian Libyans thought to be mercenaries. The fact that officials and sectors of the deposed Libyan Government were being incorporated into the new Government also called into question the possibility for real change in Libya.

He said the National Transitional Council was not a unified body and there was still a big question mark concerning its make-up. The decision to send NATO planes had set a dangerous precedent of a Government being overthrown by foreign military intervention. Within Libya there were deep divisions over those who supported the former regime and those who supported the opposition. Libya’s territorial integrity could be jeopardized as a result of foreign intervention. Oil also played an important role in that regard, as those intervening in Libya had very specific geopolitical and economic interests.

The representative of Nicaragua said free determination in Libya must be exercised by the Libyan people and not by NATO. Revolutions must be authentic, and not imposed by a proxy or seized by a group of States with clear hegemonic interests. She denounced and condemned those States that were violating the Charter and Council resolution 1973 (2011). She denounced the NATO bombings and demanded that the Alliance immediately end all military intervention in Libya. She strongly called for respecting the African Union’s role and for supporting its initiative to achieve an end to hostilities and begin a dialogue in Libya without foreign intervention. She rejected occupation of Libya’s seat during the Assembly’s sixty-sixth session by a faction imposed by NATO commanders.

The representative of Angola, speaking on behalf of the Southern African Development Community (SADC), said his delegation had questions of process, legality and principle, which it would raise in connection with the report of the Credentials Committee. The delegation firmly believed that the United Nations should remain an Organization of principles governed by rule of law. As such, rules and procedures adopted by the General Assembly should not be disregarded merely because it was expedient.

He went on to say that the African Union Ad Hoc Committee on Libya had indicated the steps it felt were necessary to be fulfilled in respect of Libya and its representation. In none of its decisions had the African Union indicated that it opposed the National Transitional Council. Yet, the Union had been insistent on the need for an all-inclusive Government that would ensure that Libya moved towards a brighter future. The Ad Hoc Committee had indicated its willingness to assist Libya in any way towards that goal. The African Union Peace and Security Council would meet on the margins of the Assembly’s general debate to decide on Libya’s representation in the African Union.

“Let me be clear: a unity Government has not been formed, and the National Transitional Council had committed itself to doing so and crafting a new constitution and a free Libya,” he continued. Notwithstanding the fact that it was in control, the National Transitional Council was not the Government in Libya, interim or otherwise. Moreover, General Assembly rules indicated that credentials should be presented by a Head of State, Head of Government or foreign minister. In the case of Libya, it was necessary for the Assembly to ask: “Who presented and signed the credentials accepted by the Credentials Committee [and] was such signature in line with rules of the Assembly?”. With that, he moved that the matter be deferred pending further consideration.

Speaking against that motion, the representative of Egypt said that as Libya’s immediate neighbour, his country had been the best witness of the “most horrifying times” the Libyan people had suffered as a result of a repressive regime that had ruled that country for 40 years. The international community had been at the forefront of the efforts to support the aspirations of the Libyan people. Security Council resolutions had been adopted stating the expressed need to protect the Libyan people from Qadhafi and his cronies. That was why the Credentials Committee had voted as it had, approving the National Transitional Council as the only representative of Libya.

He said that the international community should not impede the legitimacy of the Libyan people. Now was “the moment of truth” for all those that had supported the National Transitional Council to do so without question. Arguing against the National Transitional Council would only prolong the suffering of the Libyan people. In addition, some 19 States had supported the National Transitional Council as representing the Libyan people. Those representatives could represent Libya in the African Union, the League of Arab States, the General Assembly and other international forums. Moreover, Egypt was not convinced that at present there was any other legitimate option, and it opposed the attempt to defer the matter of Libya’s representation. He urged delegations to adopt the report.

Following that statement, the representative of Zambia asked for the item to be postponed. As noted by the representative of Angola, the African Union Heads of State had begun a process aimed at resolving the issue on 19 September. He voiced his support for the Angolan representative’s request to delay consideration of the item.

The representative of Gabon noted the social upheavals that had occurred since the beginning of the Arab Spring and the unanimous condemnation of Libya. The National Transitional Council was supporting the Libyan people and it had been recognized as a legitimate authority representing Libya’s national interests. It was necessary to act quickly and in a coordinated way, and to avoid confusion at the United Nations, through the establishment of a Libyan delegation here. The divisions in the Assembly Hall were unnecessary. For those reasons, and as an African State, Gabon did not support the motion to defer action. He called on all those “wishing to take care of the Libyan people” to oppose the motion.

Next, the representative of Senegal said the General Assembly would be “very correct” in adopting credentials for the National Transitional Council. The international community must consider the current humanitarian situation in Libya. The role of the United Nations was to ensure that people of all countries were spared harsh conditions and allowed to live in freedom. The National Transitional Council had taken enormous efforts to improve the situation in that country and those efforts must be recognized. He voiced his support for the statement made by Egypt’s delegate.

Taking the floor a second time, the representative of Venezuela expressed his delegation’s support for the recommendation made by Angola on behalf of the SADC.

The motion to defer action on the draft resolution of the Credentials Committee on acceptance of the credentials of representatives of Member States was defeated by a recorded vote of 107 against to 22 in favour, with 12 abstentions. (See Annex I.)

Explaining his position, the representative of [[Saint Vincent and the Grenadines] said the situation in Libya had been fast-moving, fluid and yet to stabilize. Military action in Libya continued today.  Given the uncertainty on the ground and the lack of a report on recent developments, there was insufficient factual data to extend recognition to the National Transitional Council.  No State in his subregion had had time to elaborate policy on the matter.  The current recommendation by the Credentials Committee was premature.  The existence of a functioning national Government in Libya was an open question.  The United Nations should not attempt to subject the struggles of the Libyan people to the strictures of the Organization’s calendar.  Saint Vincent and the Grenadines would abstain from the vote.

Turning next to the report of the Credentials Committee, the Assembly adopted the draft resolution contained therein by a recorded vote of 114 in favour to 17 against, with 15 abstentions (Annex II).

Speaking after the vote, the representative of Equatorial Guinea said his country, as current President of the African Union, had spared no effort in seeking coordination and harmonization of the Union’s work and activities with the General Assembly. Unfortunately, “some initiatives escaped our control”. He made clear that the African Union had always supported the Libyan people and had emphasized that it would assist the transitional authorities.

He said that the African Union had never said that it would not recognize those authorities. The Union had continually stressed that it would work with all Libyans to form an inclusive Government. However, it would have preferred, at the level of its Peace and Security Council, to discuss the matter of Libya’s representation and take a decision on it as soon as possible. As it had been not possible to do so ahead of today’s meeting, it had voted against the resolution today.

Kenya’s representative condemned the use of violence against innocent civilians and favoured inclusion of a political process towards free and fair elections. Kenya was willing to work with the Libyans to achieve a political solution, which could only be realized through mutually reinforcing political objectives. Given that the situation was still evolving in Libya, Kenya would maintain its position until an effective, democratic Government was formed, and law and order was restored.

The representative of Chad said that since his country was a neighbour of Libya, the Chadian Government was available to work with the National Transitional Council, “which, let’s be clear, has the fate of Libya in its hands”. For those who wished to see an end to the Libya of the past, it was necessary to support the Libya of tomorrow. Also necessary was to accept the idea of reconciliation around the National Transitional Council, which had pledged to establish an all-inclusive Government. Chad supported the efforts of that Council to ensure the rule of law and democracy. Yet, the representative hoped the Libya of tomorrow would be peaceful, stable and free of mercenaries. His delegation had voted in favour of the resolution.

The representative of Iran said his delegation also had supported the resolution. As a nation that had ousted a dictator some 30 years ago, Iran had always supported just struggles against dictatorship, and it would always support the just struggle of peoples to form national Governments of their own and oppose foreign interference in such matters. Such intervention was “counterproductive” as it only made matters more confusing and complex. He hoped that with the end of the NATO intervention, which had already killed and injured countless people and destroyed essential Libyan infrastructure, the Libyan people would be able to pursue a Government of their own choosing. UN for NTC Irvi Hyka (talk • contribs) 12:06, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Map
So what color should countries that recognized the NTC after the UN vote be? India falls under both the light blue and dark blue category, as will any other country that officially recognizes the NTC int he future. Czolgolz (talk) 20:34, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I suggest that we keep one color for countries who issued a recognition statement (regardless whether before or after UN vote) and another color for countries that voted yes, but we don't have additional statement from. If a country changes its position after the UN vote we can make a new "current" map and keep the other one as map "at the time of UN vote". Japinderum (talk) 08:15, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, two countries (Costa Rica, India) have recognized the NTC since the vote, so something needs to be change. I don't think we need two maps, I think we should just change the color from light blue to dark blue. Czolgolz (talk) 14:14, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * A second map will be needed if somebody who voted against changes to recognition or somebody who voted "in favour" withdraws its recognition, etc. Japinderum (talk) 14:32, 18 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I believe Costa Rica recognized just prior to the vote. India and Iran voted in favor and have since issued statements acknowledging their recognition. -Kudzu1 (talk) 21:10, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the map mentioned above, here is that was made regarding recognition-by-time: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Recognition_order_of_TNC.png. --Yalens (talk) 21:00, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Argentina and Iran
Argentina and Iran have recognized the TNC. --Ahmetyal 10:22, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The Argentine source only refers to the Libyan embassy, not the government, while the Iranian source only talks about the UN vote (I think, my French isn't the greatest). Let's hold off on these changes. Czolgolz (talk) 14:34, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Article Length:
This article is now over 16,500 words, discounting references. This is longer than both the Libya and 2011 Libyan civil war articles. Whilst I cannot claim to have any more than a general knowledge of the topic, I fail to understand why all of this information is strictly necessary. Perhaps a broader overview, excepting every single tiny news story concerning the NTC, would be more appropriate? Whether or not Polisario Front mercenaries were arrested in Libya seems of trifling importance considering the scope of the article. Constructing an article of similar depth on the foreign relation of the current US administration would probably leave us with a completely unnavigable, non-user-friendly, article, several orders of magnitude more confusing than this one. I plan to tag this article as being too long. Any discussion would be most welcome. Laika  Talk: Laika  10:19, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree, I really think all those additional notes should be removed the chart. Czolgolz (talk) 14:15, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * No, if the article is too big it can be split (there is such proposal above) - most of the information is important as historical perspective and is not for a "day to day Libya foreign relations" article. But this doesn't mean that it should be trimmed - it's well sourced and should be moved to an appropriate place. In any case the title of this article implies that it will be the "historical resting ground" article and another article about "FR of Libya" will be created (split out of this one + some material from the FR of Gadaffi Libya article + subsequent "regular" FR article information). Japinderum (talk) 13:24, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

African Union and South Africa
South Africa and the African Union have accepted the NTC today. --leuce (talk) 19:25, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Got a source for that? Czolgolz (talk) 20:29, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Sweden
On September 16, the Ministry for Foreign Affairs (Utrikesdepartementet) of Sweden posted on their website:



Sweden has today informed the National Transitional Council in Libya of their attention to appoint a new ambassador...

''The NTC has also been invited to appoint a head for Libya's embassy in Stockholm. That happened at a meeting between the UN missions of the two countries.''

In other words, formal diplomatic relations with the NTC.

Furthermore, the message states:

''EU and the International Contact Group for Libya has concluded that the Libyan National Transitional Council at the present time is the only legitimate representative for Libya. This was confirmed at the Summit in Paris on 1 September. On 16 September the United Nations decided that the NTC represents Libya at the UN.''

Hpa (talk) 07:05, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, previous sources already showed that Sweden and Switzerland reject Gadaffi, but they don't have a policy for recognizing governments - they do only recognitions of states - that's why they haven't issued recognition of NTC earlier. Japinderum (talk) 13:26, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

African Union vote breakdown
Does anyone have a vote breakdown (in favour, against, abstain) for the NTC recognition decision of the AU? Japinderum (talk) 13:28, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Chile
The Chilean government recognised, indirectly, the NTC past September 16th according to this statement. Basically it says: The Government of Chile, considering the consolidation of a new political reality in Libya, expressed its desire to promote with the new authorities of that country all initiatives aimed to strength the bonds of friendship and cooperation between both nations. --201.238.203.178 (talk) 15:54, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

 * 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 not moved per discussion below. - GTBacchus(talk) 05:55, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Foreign relations of Libya → Foreign relations of the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya – Seeing as that there are two competing governments both laying claim to Libya and they have dramatically different foreign relations, I think this page should be moved to Foreign relations of the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya (matching the Foreign relations of the Libyan Republic page). -Kudzu1 (talk) 23:29, 8 July 2011 (UTC) Refactored to list at RM -- Ja Ga  talk 23:37, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose Libya isn't a disambiguation page. This should not be disambiguated unless Libya itself is disambiguated first. -- Ja Ga  talk 16:29, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Strongly oppose: This is WP:RECENTISM run amok. This article covers a state that has been sovereign for 60 years; a civil conflict that has lasted for about six months should not pre-empt the title.  Regardless of which side in the current conflict prevails, there is no reason to think that the sovereign state will not continue to exist in one form or another, and this will be merely one significant incident in its history.  --R'n'B (call me Russ) 21:13, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I agree with JaGa. Follow the base article. The conflict will either go away soon or settle into a long-term thing, at which point we can make our decisions then. Rennell435 (talk) 13:43, 11 July 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.

um, "recentism"? Have you even stopped to think? This article cleary does, and always has, discussed the foreign relations of Libya under Gaddafi. This used to be "current Libya" until the end of the Gaddafi regime, but now this very same topic cannot any longer be identified as "foreign relations of Libya", because "Libya" is no longer "Libya under Gaddafi".

For this reason, the "objection" by JaGa is nonsensical to say the least. Of course Libya is not a disambiguation page. Libya is a country, not a regime. This is precisely why this article needs to be moved, because it does not happen to be about "foreign relations of Libya". It is about the historical foreign relation of Gaddafi's regime, beginning to end.

What JaGa said is true, and it is the reason why the article should be moved, so I am at a loss why JaGa put it next to an "oppose" vote. Perhaps I am missing something, but this really seems like a no-brainer. --dab (𒁳) 08:40, 31 August 2011 (UTC)


 * But your statement, "Libya is a country, not a regime" is also true. Regimes don't have foreign relations (although they may have foreign policies), countries do.
 * I think the objection to the move is not so much renaming the existing article as a question about whether there should be an article about the Gaddafi period as distinct from an article about the foreign relations of Libya as a country that has existed for nearly 60 years. Right now, the article only covers one period of that history; the earlier period is covered under Kingdom of Libya and Kingdom of Libya and the most recent period is covered under Foreign relations of the National Transitional Council.  Might it not be better to merge all three into a single article?  If not, at least there should be a summary article at the main title, Foreign relations of Libya, that provides an overview of the historical changes and development of the topic.  --R'n'B (call me Russ) 20:54, 5 September 2011 (UTC)


 * That's really unwieldy, though. Whatever Libya becomes (and frankly, what it is now, at least in a de facto sense) is an entirely different entity from Gaddafi's Libya. To avoid article overcrowding, I think this article should be moved to Foreign relations of Libya under Gaddafi. This is particularly pressing because of Mahmoud Jibril's statement today that the NTC will be replaced with an interim government within the next ten days. -Kudzu1 (talk) 19:56, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
 * yes, thank you. As I said, it is also a no-brainer. I don't know why perfectly obvious things must always be made so complicated. It's not like writing an encyclopedia was an easy task to begin with, so I really don't see why people make it their mission to make an already difficult task even more difficult just for the hell of it. --dab (𒁳) 10:43, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Move and split?

 * 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: Okay to move page as long as content is preserved. Kudzu1 (talk) 16:03, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Foreign relations of the National Transitional Council → Foreign relations of Libya – Right now, this page is a disambig, as the article dealing with Libya under Gaddafi has been duly moved to Foreign relations of Libya under Gaddafi. The UN recognizes Libya as under the administration of the NTC pending elections; 144 member states, not just the 86 member states that have explicitly recognized the NTC in the interim, voted to accredit its representative. The foreign relations of Libya are now de facto determined by the NTC. As for the list of states that have recognized the NTC individually during the civil war, I suggest spinning off a separate page for International recognition of the National Transitional Council. It may also be worthwhile to create a variant map for said international recognition color-coded by month of official recognition, or even just before/after fall of Tripoli (plus states that voted for UN accreditation, if we can find a comprehensive list). Thoughts? -Kudzu1 (talk) 21:51, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I have actually been working on this map before I got busy... I didn't do it by month, but by significant events. There was a couple categories: 1. Countries (only France) that recognized before UN resolution 1973; 2. After the resolution but before the beginning of the Coastal Offensive (I'm putting that at August 15th; though it doesn't really matter considering the huge break between the recognitions of Portugal- July 28th- and Gabon, August 19th); 3. August 15th to August 28th (the end of the Seige of Tripoli) and then 4. August 29th onward. You wanna see it (might need some updating, but ah well)?
 * As for the move, I think that this page should be kept as regarding the history of the recognition, but I don't oppose any move that doesn't delete this page. --Yalens (talk) 01:28, 17 September 2011 (UTC)


 * about the map - yes, a good idea. Also, I think a Timeline animated map would be good fit for this (like File:Canada_provinces_evolution_2.gif) - I generally agree with Yalens marks. For example: starting with 15 or 17 February, going trough France recognition, the next point/mark line to be UNSCR1973, then going trough subsequent recognitions, the next point/mark line to be the start of the Coastal Offensive (taking of Sorman on 14th August or taking of Zawyia on 19th), then going trough Gabon recognition, the next point/mark line to be the begin of Battle of Tripoli (2011) (20 August), then going trough subsequent recognitions, the next point/mark line to be the end of Battle of Tripoli (2011) (28 August), then going trough subsequent recognitions (last: Costa Rica), the next point/mark line to be 16 September UNGA vote (then coloring with lighter shade countries that voted in favour of NTC, but that haven't issued a recognition statement before the vote; maybe also adding a separate color for those that voted "against" and another one for "abstained"), then the timeline should continue by changing colors when respective statements came (e.g. India from light recognize color to dark recognize color on 17 September; eventually countries voted "against" and "abstain" to dark recognize color or even countries voting "in favour" to color for no recognition if they issue such statement when changing their mind; dark recognize or no recognition color for countries who haven't voted at all and subsequently issue a statement). We can't expect that each and every country will issue a statement or that we will have future voting lists (e.g. at the AU and other organizations, where Gadaffi government is currently still seated), but it's reasonable to expect that there will be reports about ambassadors to and from countries listed here and here.
 * about move or split. I agree that the current page should be kept in some form for historical reference. The "International recognition of the NTC" title seems too narrow (e.g. it's not only the recognitions that are important for historical reference - other kind of NTC relations during the Libya Civil War are also important), that's why I propose keeping the current title and adopting some period that is covered by "Foreign relations of the NTC" and afterwards continuing on the "Foreign relations of Libya" (or Libyan Republic). The question is what period to utilize for the NTC relations page. The starting point is the start of the uprising, and for ending point I suggest when the "transitional" council itself announces its dissolution (by adopting a constitution or by transferring power to "regular government" whether elected or not) or if the Gadaffi government announces defeat (this won't happen if it becomes a "government in exile"). Japinderum (talk) 09:01, 18 September 2011 (UTC)


 * If such a move were to go through, the information on this page aside from the tables would be preserved, and said tables would be moved to a new page with maps to show the history of recognitions during the war. -Kudzu1 (talk) 21:09, 18 September 2011 (UTC)


 * That page has now been split off. Should make editing both this page and the international recognition tables a lot easier. -Kudzu1 (talk) 20:10, 21 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.