March 16, 2004
'CAUTIOUS' OPTIMISM TOWARDS TRIPOLI AND 'MULTILATERALISM'
** The Libya WMD deal is a
"success for the values of pragmatism and moderation."
** The "Libya
model" of "unofficial bilateral talks" may succeed with other
** Skeptics reject Libya as
an "acceptable partner" due to its human rights abuses.
** Critics of the
"sole superpower" assail its "inflamed ego" for forcing Libya
to "bow down."
The 'beginning of Libya's reintegration-- Supporters cited the "American-Libyan
rapprochement" as proof of the "benefits of calm dialogue and
commercial incentives." Britain's
center-left Independent contrasted the Iraq war with how London
"disassociated itself from the use of force" in Libya's case, which
proved "how successful multilateralism can be." Indian dailies agreed
that the U.S.' "global policing" made Tripoli refrain from "its
heinous militaristic ambition"; Tunisia's independent Le Temps
praised the U.S. for its ability to "leverage the dividends of its
victory" in Iraq.
The 'cheap Libyan victory' can be repeated-- German and Asian analysts saw parallels between
dealing with Libya and other rogue states.
As with Libya, Americans "must talk to North Korea
bilaterally" said one German broadsheet, while South Korea's moderate Hankook
Ilbo urged the U.S. to engage in "covert, behind-the-scenes bilateral
contact" with Pyongyang because such efforts were a "catalyst for the
success" of Libya negotiations.
Vietnam's official Lao Dong advised the U.S. to give Libya
"incentives...for its policy adjustments" so that the "Libya
solution" appeals to countries "such as Iran, Syria or North
Qadhafi's 'changed tune' should not create 'enthusiasm'-- Right-leaning dailies doubted Libya's
"closer ties to the West can lead to greater respect for human
rights." Britain's conservative Daily
Telegraph warned Tripoli "remains a dictatorship"; Denmark's Politiken
added that "Qadhafi's police state" cannot be trusted until he
"is no longer a threat to his own people." A Czech writer decried the
"horrifying" human rights situation in Libya, while India's independent
Ananda Bazar Patrika stated that the "Libyan strongman" may
yet be the "greatest state sponsor of international terrorism."
Countries must 'do what the U.S. asks unconditionally'-- African, Arab and Russian writers assailed the
U.S.' "global policy of intimidation" that "forced Libya to
negotiate." Russia's business-oriented
Kommersant sarcastically advised leaders to "stop being disloyal to
the world's only superpower"; the West Bank's independent Al-Quds
also bemoaned the lack of a "leader willing to stand up to
America." South Asian Muslim
writers accused the U.S. of trying to "deprive...Muslim countries"
from having "nuclear capabilities for defense," terming Libya's
accession to this "heavily one-sided deal" a clear "example of
EDITOR: Ben Goldberg
EDITOR'S NOTE: This analysis
was based on 25 reports from 15 countries over 19 January - 12 March 2004. Editorial excerpts from each country are
listed from the most recent date. Media
Reaction reporting conveys the spectrum of foreign press sentiment. Posts select commentary to provide a
representative picture of local editorial opinion. This report summarizes and interprets foreign
editorial opinion and does not necessarily reflect the views of the U.S.
BRITAIN: "Britain Must
Be Cautious, Despite Joining The Rush To Welcome Libya In From The Cold"
An editorial in the center-left Independent read
(2/11): "The meetings in London
were presented as the first fruits of Colonel Gadaffi's decision to comply with
international weapons agreements and the beginning of Libya's reintegration
with the world.... It is understandable
why Britain--and its partners in Europe--might want to demonstrate the benefits
of calm dialogue and commercial incentives.
The speed with which the British government has disassociated itself
from the use of force as a model for international law-enforcement since the
invasion of Iraq has been impressive, as has its diligence in seeking out new
friends, such as Libya and Iran. After
the war in Iraq, everyone--including Libya--has something (different) to
prove.... [Libya] must also show that it
is becoming a country where international norms of human rights and justice are
respected and where such atrocities as Lockerbie and the murder of
(Policewoman) Yvonne Fletcher are not, and will never again be, condoned."
"The Dangers Of Gaddafi"
The conservative Daily Telegraph editorialized (2/11): "In receiving the Libyan foreign
minister in Downing Street yesterday, PM Blair was rewarding Mauammar Gaddafi
for abandoning plans to develop weapons of mass destruction.... Mr. Blair's record of constructive engagement
with recalcitrant Islamic states is not impressive. The reformers in Iran, on whom Britain pinned
its hopes, appear to be heading for defeat in next week's parliamentary
elections, and the promise of change in Syria offered by the death of Hafiz
al-Assad has not been fulfilled by his son, Bashar.... Although the regime in Tripoli has changed,
it remains a dictatorship with a poor human rights record. Taking a leaf from Washington's book, the
Prime Minister should beware lest his enthusiasm for the middle way runs ahead
Gero von Randow judged in center-left weekly Die Zeit of
Hamburg (2/26): "Unilateralism is
no dogma of the Bush administration. The
fact that a ship, laden with machines to enrich uranium, did not arrive in
Tripoli last year, was the work of an international network founded by the
United States. How successful
multilateralism can be was also demonstrated at the beginning of last week in
two internal reports of the IAEA....
They include the latest investigation results from Libya and Iran--and
would not have been possible without U.S. cooperation with other nations and
the IAEA. What is alarming are the
findings from Iran. Obviously Tehran
lied.... Libya got a better
certificate.... What will happen next? Again no unilateral moves: President Bush's
latest proposals and the ones by IAEA head El Baradei aim at putting production
and marketing of nuclear fuel under an international regime."
"Hoping For A Libyan Miracle"
Sabina Muscat and Hendrik Kafsack commented in business-oriented Financial
Times Deutschland of Hamburg (2/25):
"In the long run, Americans must talk to North Korea bilaterally,
despite all reservations. They might
feel blackmailed, but there is no alternative to reach the goal of a nuclear
free Korea. At the end of the day it is
a crisis between Pyongyang and Washington.
Therefore, Americans cannot hide behind China forever."
"Qadhafi As Shining Model"
Henrik Bork declared in center-left Sueddeutsche Zeitung of
Munich (2/25): "Pyongyang is
unpredictable, but it would be a great surprise if North Korea's dictator soon
follows the example of Qadhafi. North
Korea will not make substantial concessions before the elections in the
U.S. Why strike a deal with the current
U.S. government, if it could be outdated in half a year? On the other side, the Bush government must
have an interest to eliminate this tedious issue by successful
negotiations.... But North Korea wants
to sell its nuclear program at a high price and does not want to ask for
forgiveness. Visions of a cheap Libyan
solution will turn out as wishful thinking."
Sergey Strokan commented in business-oriented Kommersant
(2/11): "After the overthrow of
Saddam Hussein Libyan leader Muammar Qadhafi became the first to show his Arab
brethren and others, including North Korea's Kim Jon Il, Cuba's Fidel Castro,
and Venezuela's Hugo Chavez, where they can get indulgences for their past sins
and for how much. A change in the man
who only recently fulminated against anything American and is now ready to kiss
the soil where Bush or Blair walks shows that any 'bad guy' of world politics
has his fate in his hands. It appears
that to get off the U.S. 'black list' is as easy as to get on it. Qadhafi is a case in point. To survive you have to stop beating your
head against the tree. In other words,
you have to stop being disloyal to the world's only superpower. Once you do
this you lose all fear of the morrow and can build a patron-client relationship
with the U.S. It is the kind of
relationship that Saddam had with America until he, unreasonably, decided to
balk and had to pay for it. There is a
good chance that the Qadhafi story will be cited as a sign of deep-going
changes that have been on since Saddam was deposed and are likely to be
credited fully to President Bush, who instills fear in dictators and promotes
"Questions Raised With Regard To The About-Face Of Libyan Foreign Policy"
Bretislav Turecek opined in center-left Pravo (2/12): "From the perspective of the West,
Qaddafi became an acceptable partner when he promised to end the development of
WMD and acknowledged responsibility for the worst Libyan terrorist attacks.... The question is whether other countries of
the Middle East will be inspired by the Libyan change of foreign
policy.... We should not yield to the
illusion that the personality of Qaddafi is a model the other Arab states would
be willing to follow.... Some of his
activities against the Arab League and Muslim religious leaders have brought a
good deal of resentment.... The other
question is whether the closer ties to the West can lead to greater respect for
human rights in Libya.... The truth is
that in this respect the situation in this country has been horrifying for more
than three decades."
DENMARK: “Gaddafi’s Libya Is Still A Police State”
Center-right Politiken noted (2/16): "The photos of a humiliated Saddam
Hussein had hardly reached our screens before Moamar Gaddafi had indicated that
he was ready to abandon his WMD program.
This is clearly a positive development, but is should be remembered that
many basic principles of human rights are still being violated in Qadhafi's
police state.... Perhaps Gaddafi is no
longer a threat to the international community, but Libya will not be an
acceptable partner until Qadhafi is no longer a threat to his own people.”
WEST BANK: "Is The Big
American Stick Making Its Way In The Region?"
Ibrahim Du'ibis commented in independent Al-Quds (3/4): "We all are familiar with the extent of
the criticism, denunciation and insults directed against American policy for
its prejudice against Arab and Muslim issues.... Yet, what we want is one thing, and what is
actually taking place is another. It
appears that the American stick has begun making its way through the region
despite Iraqi resistance.... We have
many examples to prove this, particularly the Libyan one.... We no longer find any leader willing to stand
up to America or to oppose its policies.
On the contrary, everyone tries to satisfy it and gain its
TUNISIA: “Gadhafi, Bush And The...Maghreb”
Editor Raouf Khalsi stated in independent French-language Le
Temps (1/28): “The visit of seven
U.S. Congressmen to Libya and the laudatory press conference that they held in
Tunis about the Libyan regime is considered a success for the values of
pragmatism and moderation that have historically contributed to the maintenance
of positive international relations, particularly at a time when (we feared)
that America, in the ecstasy over its victory in Iraq, would be extremely
radicalized. But contrary to what was
expected, Bush’s America managed to leverage the dividends of its victory into
reshaping relations with their former enemies.... The reason for Gaddafi’s bitterness towards
some Arab leaders is the fact that they associated his decision to give up his
WMD program with a kind of betrayal....
But the American congressmen confirmed that the discussions they had
with Gadhafi were ‘constructive and positive.’
It is clear today that, for Americans, Libya has a role to play in the
Arab regional plan. We cannot know,
however, to what extent the Libyan markets will be of greater interesting to
Washington than the diplomatic ties. Now
that the American-Libyan rapprochement is taking shape...one regrets the
inter-Maghreb region conflict that still persists.”
UAE: "Winners And
Losers In Libya’s Political Volte-face"
Al Hadi Shaloof wrote in the expatriate-oriented English-language Khaleej
Times (2/25): "The
Libyan-American rapprochement, as well as the visit of the Congress delegation
to Tripoli, is part of the American policy of objectives already specified by
the U.S. administration. Such policy is also part of a perceived strategy
charted out by the complicated American state authority.... The history of such policy is known to most
experts in international relations....
Irrespective of these events and until today many Arab rulers have not
yet realised American political ambitions, whose basic and significant
objectives and purposes are to get the natural resources whatever their
geographic locations are and by any way whatsoever.... After 35 years during which the anti-West
foreign policy prevailed, Libya’s foreign policy has tilted.... The foreign policy of Libya along the last 35
years had never intersected with the interests of the Libyan people.... The foreign policy had wasted perhaps more
than $120 billion in arms and financial aid including assistance to set up the
African Union. After 35 years the world
was taken by surprise when the Libyan foreign policy made a radical change and
rapprochement with the U.S. administration and Britain. The Libyan regime declared such a detente and
announced the country’s willingness to renounce its WMD programme as well as
conventional weapons such as long-range missiles.... Other Islamic states such as Iran were told
to emulate the Libyan example. The Libyan regime too did not hesitate to advise
Arab and Muslim countries to get rid of these lethal weapons. The Libyan change did not come from a vacuum
or an internal desire, but was a change that was dictated by...last Gulf war,
which destroyed Iraq and ended Saddam Hussein.... The events of Iraq and the capture of Saddam
have shaken up the Arab world. So the change of the Libyan policy was dictated
by the first and second Gulf wars....
The Libyan regime was smart in exploiting the difficult situation of the
U.S. administration and Britain, which failed to find the WMD in Iraq, the main
cause of the war.... The Libyan stand
was a gift to the American president....
The reaction of the U.S. and Britain hit two birds with one stone as
they proved to the Arabs they are not their enemies, although they fought Iraq
but negotiated with Libya.... The U.S.
had no desire at all to change the Libyan regime but only Saddam’s because Iraq
posed a threat to its staunchest ally in the region, Israel. The Libyan regime took such a stand to ensure
its survival, thus dealt intelligently with the American administration. The
U.S., however, was much more concerned that the regime should not contradict in
any form with its economic interests.
U.S. foreign policy has no friends or ethics but only permanent
interests. America, in my opinion, will not accept the inheritance of authority
in Libya or in non-royal Arab states."
"Libya: The Land Of
The English-language, expatriate-oriented Gulf News held
(1/26): "America and Britain are
almost falling over themselves to patch up their differences with Libya. A U.S.
congressional bipartisan delegation is in Libya--the first since Muammar
Gaddafi took power--to discuss political issues and the possibility of business
development. This, when Libya has for so
long been on the U.S. blacklist and Washington is still showing a reluctance to
lift sanctions against the country. But obviously Americans see an opportunity
to get in early to boost their export business, so regardless of what the
government may edict, business is business as far as the congressmen are
concerned. However, not to be outdone,
it is reported in UK newspapers that Britain's Ministry of Defence has been in
secret negotiations with Libya on conventional defence assistance, including
training and joint exercises. All of which is a very far cry from the days when
Gaddafi was made to suffer in isolation from the west."
CHINA: “From Libya’s Choice
To Look At How Weak And Small Countries Protect Themselves”
Jia Gan maintained in official Communist Youth
League-run China Youth Daily (Zhongguo Qingnianbao) (3/3): “Since last December when Libya declared that
it would give up WMD development...Libya’s plan of cooperation and
normalization of relations with the U.S. is going smoothly.... As a member of the UN, Libya chose to make
contact with the U.S. and UK first to discuss the nuclear issue and to join the
Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty...one important reason is that Gadhafi learned
a lesson from Saddam’s experience: the most beneficial and effective thing to
do is to do what the U.S. asks unconditionally.... Libya initiated the announcement that it was
giving up WMD development. This
undoubtedly proves that in crises third world countries trust the UN’s ability
to maintain a country’s sovereignty and security.... The crisis in confidence with the UN, and the
U.S. taking weak and small countries as its ‘anti-terror’ and
‘anti-proliferation’ targets has further weakened third world countries’
ability to unite, cooperate and be self-sufficient. It also has made some countries turn to
affiliate themselves with the U.S., suffer a weakening of their sovereignty and
just protect their existence.”
“The Reasons Behind Libya’s Change In Attitude”
wrote in official Communist Party-run international Global Times (Huanqiu
Shibao) (2/27): “Analysts think that
although Libya recently bravely adjusted its diplomacy and made great strides
in improving relations with Western countries, Gadhafi has also received many
curses. To regain the respect of the
Arab world, especially respect from African countries, Gadhafi intends to try
to weaken the compromises he made with the West. Therefore some describe his repeated changes
as an image project.... Analysts think
that the improvement in relations between Libya and the West will not change
radically. Libya will continue to
conciliate and cooperate with the West.
But the course will not be as abrupt, and discordant tones may appear at
this or that time to show that Libya is ‘struggling’ to avoid showing people
the image of ‘obedience’ or ‘quick surrender.’”
CHINA (HONG KONG SAR): "Come clean"
Frank Ching asserted in the independent English-language South
China Morning Post (2/20):
"Libya's decision to forego its nuclear weapons program and turn
over relevant documents to the International Atomic Energy Agency has exposed
China as the origin of nuclear weapon designs that Tripoli received from
Pakistan. The Chinese Foreign Ministry
said on Tuesday that it is looking into the matter. This is a major embarrassment for China,
which insists that it is a responsible member of the world community and
'consistently has been opposed to the proliferation of nuclear weapons
technology.' The trouble is, it now
appears that that such lofty sentiments were not always adhered to.... Interestingly, Washington has chosen not to
respond strongly with regard to either Pakistan or China. In fact, because it needs Pakistan as a
partner in the campaign against al-Qaeda, the U.S. has not even criticized
President Pervez Musharraf for pardoning Dr Khan for such egregious acts. And the U.S. also appears unlikely to take
any action against China, which has become an important partner in the war
against terrorism, as well as the international effort to compel North Korea to
dismantle its nuclear weapons program....
China is certainly acting more like a country eager to play a
responsible role in the world. But
Beijing should make a clean breast of its previous behavior, or else the past
is likely to return to haunt it."
"U.S. Military Might Vs. Rogue States"
An editorial in top-circulation, moderate Yomiuri
read (1/19): "It is little wonder
that leaders in Libya, Iran and Syria regarded the use of force by the U.S. to
remove Saddam Hussein from power as a 'none of my business' affair. Libya, who
has agreed to suspend its WMD development, is said to be improving relations
with Israel, while Iran and Syria are also reportedly exploring improved
relations with Egypt and Turkey. If
these countries are seriously considering cooperating with neighboring
countries, it can only be a positive step toward regional stability in the
Middle East. But if their latest moves are mere pretense, they will not be
taken off the list of sponsors of terrorism. The three countries are said to
have close ties with the DPRK, another rogue state, which has reportedly
provided them with missile technology. For those nations who seem to be unable
to learn lessons from the fall of the Hussein dictatorship, the continued
application of intense pressure is the only option."
“Six-Party Talks And The Libya Model”
Moon Chung-in observed in moderate Hankook Ilbo (3/3): “It seems fair to say that the dramatic
resolution of the Libyan WMD problem was made possible by more than nine months
of persistent, behind-the-scenes negotiations between Libya and Britain on
behalf of the U.S. In addition, it paid
off to use Seif al-Islam, Libyan leader Qadhafi’s U.K.-educated son and
purported successor, as a major negotiating channel.... After all, the Libya model shows that the
Six-Party Talks alone will not be sufficient to reach a breakthrough in
resolving the North Korean nuclear issue, and that Washington should engage in
unofficial bilateral talks--whatever form they may take--with Pyongyang. If it is impossible for Washington to do so
due to the upcoming presidential election in November, the ROK should play the
role of mediator similar to Britain’s role.
Furthermore, the U.S. should establish a channel for direct talks with
the North Korean leadership by appointing a policy coordinator or special envoy
on the North Korean nuclear issue. This
kind of covert, behind-the-scenes bilateral contact between the two countries
will certainly serve as a catalyst for the success of the Six-Party Talks.”
La Mich Nhu wrote in official Vietnam General Confederation of
Labor-run Lao Dong (2/5):
"The Bush administration wants to use Libya as a model to solve the
issue of WMD, or in other words to create a sharp contrast between Libya and a
number of other countries that the U.S. is putting pressure on due to the WMD
issue.... The U.S. government should
offer incentives to Libya in return for its policy adjustments and must show
that those adjustments do result in significantly improved relations between
Libya and the U.S., because only by doing so will it be possible for the U.S.
to use the 'Libya solution' to put pressure on other countries, such as Iran,
Syria, or North Korea, in the issue of nuclear weapons."
INDIA: "Wanted Two More
Independent Calcutta-based Bengali-language Ananda Bazar
Patrika editorialized (3/12):
"Muamer Ghaddaffi now is quite eager to turn a 'good boy' and is
keen to wipe out the 'rogue state' label on Libya.... Though Libya has deviated itself from
military preparations, no such evidence of spontaneity for credible peace efforts
is seen either in case of Iran or North Korea.
However, primary signs are apparent in both countries. The American
invasion of Iraq and the threat of attack against Iran and Korea on charges of
stockpiling WMD have brought the rulers of these two countries into the
negotiation table for bargains.... But
it is true that Iraq did not stock WMD and neither did it possess nuclear
bombs. The unnecessary sensitivity that
the US administration had shown in this case was prompted by the exaggerated
need of the American intelligence agencies...and the over zeal of the
administration to start the war. George
Bush will have to face its consequences and will have to fight with his
opponents in this regard in domestic politics. That many others in West Asia were
or are engaged in acquiring nuclear technology is clear. These groups busy in constructing missiles
clandestinely are now cornered thanks only to the U.S. surveillance,
intelligence and the American aggression on Iraq. The dream for the 'Islamic
bomb' has been shattered although Pakistan is amassing stronger bombs and
long-range ballistic missiles. The US
method in creating a constant pressure has been proved effective and there is
no question of relaxing the clenched fists....
The honor deserving of sovereign states must have to be accorded but the
question of slackening the pressure does not arise. The changed tune of the Libyan strongman, the
greatest state sponsor of international terrorism, is a sequel to this
An editorial in independent Urdu-language Nadeem read
(3/8): "Libya's decision to
dismantle its nuclear and missile program in order to please the U.S. is an
example of extreme shortsightedness.
Nothing worse could be done than sacrificing the interests and
self-respect of the Libyan people to soothe an inflamed American ego. In the
heavily one-sided deal only the U.S. will be gaining at the cost of Libya.
Current Libyan leadership might be happy to have finally won U.S. favor as the
U.S. has lifted sanctions, allowing its citizen and companies to resume their
business and tourist activities in the newly surrendered Muslim country. But,
they must also realize the exorbitant cost they had to bear in terms of
compromising on the sovereign right of their country to strengthen its defense
capabilities. In addition to eroding the dignity and credibility of their
country, they will soon regret their decision for being self-destructive from
the economic viewpoint as well."
"Unwarranted, But Inevitable?"
Independent Calcutta-based Bengali-language Ananda Bazar
Patrika declared (2/28): "Does
it offer this lesson that unless put under such a pressure Libya would not have
refrained from its heinous militaristic ambition of becoming a nuclear state
and harboring international terrorists? Will the sole superpower on earth have
to continue global policing in this manner?....
It is true though unfortunate that the U.S. big-brotherly attitude in
preventing proliferation of nuclear weapons is helping to make this world a
safer place.... Public pronouncements of
pursuing nuclear technology for 'peaceful purposes' and 'not cowering to U.S.
pressure' are necessary for rulers to prove their sovereignty to the
countrymen. Almost all the third world countries need to maintain an air of
protestation against the big brotherly attitude of the superpower. That is why
rulers in Korea or Iran are not afraid of flexing their muscles and releasing
threats. But the global community does not have any doubt about their eventual
backtracking. It is certainly good news."
"U.S. And The Shifting Stand On Libya"
Chennai-based independent financial Business Line contended
(2/13): "On December 19 last year,
the U.S. President, George Bush, and the UK Prime Minister, Tony Blair,
surprised the world with their announcement of an agreement with the Libyan
President, Col Muammar Qaddafi. They went on to say that Libya had agreed to
come clean on its weapons of mass destruction (WMD). On their part, they would
lift sanctions once they were satisfied about Libyan compliance. Coming within
days of Saddam Hussein's capture, the announcement was dramatic.... Indeed, there is a need to capture the
changes in U.S.-Libya relations in recent decades and relate them to the
agreement.... Qaddafi had to decide
whether to opt for Libya's growth or stagnation. He opted for growth and
decided to change his behavior.... The
U.S. watched with dismay the sudden rise in European-Libyan investments.
Perhaps around this time, the U.S. started secret negotiations with Libya,
though it took five more years of negotiations to result in an
agreement.... When the attack on WTC
happened on September 11, 2001, Libya was the only Arab country to condemn the
act.... The U.S. was observing these
changes.... The course of negotiations
was driven by factors not related to Iraq. Nor is there any evidence that they
were influenced by it. Libya is not Iraq. As brought out earlier, Europe's
dependence on Libya is vital for its survival. European governments would not
have permitted any U.S. action against Libya.... The climax in negotiations coincided with the
time when the U.S. was under attack for its pre-emptive policy from most
quarters in the world. The U.S. was
defensive as successive American teams had failed to produce any evidence of
WMD and strained credibility about its intelligence.... The spin-doctors stepped in. If the US could
finalize quickly an agreement and Libya would come clean on its WMD...it could
be shown as a surrender by one of the members of the 'axis of evil.' That would testify to the success of the
U.S.' pre-emptive policies. Libya has been more than co-operative in disclosure
and in receiving inspection teams."
Friendship Nor Enmity Of U.S. Is Good"
Sensationalist Urdu-language Ummat asserted (2/18): "The U.S. is trying all-out to deprive Pakistan and
other Muslim countries from using their nuclear capabilities for defense and
other peaceful purposes. It has forced
Iran and Libya to bow down whereas it has succeeded in having the nuclear
scientists of Pakistan arrested. Now its
next target is Saudi Arabia. America’s
own record with respect to proliferation is not very impressive either but being
the sole super power it wants to deprive those countries from achieving this
capability that it has already declared a threat for peace."
Lagos-based independent New Age stated (2/11): Many years of isolation and withering
economic sanctions, in addition to changes in international balance of power
and the intervention of prominent global leaders like the revered Nelson
Mandela, have forced Libya to negotiate with America, France and Britain and
the United Nations in general....
Reciprocity demands that the U.S. in particular encourages the
rapprochement rather than thump its chest at the success of its global policy
"Negative Use Of Power"
Adebomehin Oluwatosin commented in the Lagos-based
government-owned Daily Times (2/6):
"Libya has called on the United States to repeal its 17-year old
sanction regime, saying it inflicts loses of about $3 billion a year on the
North African country. Will the United
States do that or not, time will tell.
It could be true that Libya posed a threat before, as she was viewed. But now, we could see clearly that Libya is
far away from what we thought it to be.
Libya is not a threat to the world as I think in my view that neither
Iraq is. America should not always find
a ground to eliminate its enemies. The
powerful should beware because he is training others to become powerful by
threatening them in whatever form."