International Information Programs
Office of Research Issue Focus Foreign Media Reaction

March 16, 2004

March 16, 2004





**  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 rogue states.


**  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 Korea."


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 extreme shortsightedness."


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. Government.




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 of reality."


GERMANY:  "Lied"


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."


RUSSIA:  "Libyan Tilt"


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 democracy worldwide."


CZECH REPUBLIC:  "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 blessing."


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 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 Opportunity"


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 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”


 Xu Ping 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."


JAPAN:  "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."


SOUTH KOREA:  “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.”


VIETNAM:  "Libya Solution"


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 Wickets" 


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 pressure."


"U.S.-Libya Relations"  


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 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."


PAKISTAN:  "Neither 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."




NIGERIA  "Reciprocate Libya's Gesture"


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 of intimidation."


"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." 



Commentary from ...
Middle East
East Asia
South Asia
Western Hemisphere

This site is produced and maintained by the U.S. Department of State. Links to other Internet sites should not be construed as an endorsement of the views contained therein.

Back To Top

blue rule
IIP Home  |  Issue Focus Home