Proof of American Power
Pundits See Libya's Pledge as a Result of U.S. Policy
By Jefferson Morley
washingtonpost.com Staff Writer
Monday, December 22, 2003; 4:05 PM
The front page cartoon in the Arab News captured the online media reaction to Libya's announcement to jettison its weapons of mass destruction. The Saudi news site portrays Libyan leader Moammar Gaddafi thinking of a bedraggled Saddam Hussein. At the same time, he is saying to a smiling Uncle Sam, "Inspect whatever you want."
Gaddafi's decision is winning the White House a rare measure of editorial approval among European news outlets not always supportive of the Bush administration. In this view, the Libyan decision, coupled with Iran's recent announcement that it will allow international inspections of its nuclear facilities, is a sign that Bush's policy is having a positive effect. Others find the new demonstration of American influence worrisome.
"After the demythologization Saddam Hussein, this is the second Christmas present American President George Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair have put under their Christmas tree," said the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, a leading German daily that was critical of the U.S. war in Iraq. Libya's move "shows that opponents of the Iraq war were premature in saying that America's war on terror would prompt so-called rogue states to start developing weapons of mass destruction."
In France, Le Monde credits the claims of Bush supporters that U.S. policy is making traditional adversaries like Iran and Libya more cooperative.
"Without the American military occupation of Iraq, the diplomatic action of Berlin, London and Paris would not have had as much impact in Tehran. And the fall of Saddam Hussein without doubt counted in Gaddafi's turnabout."
But the editors deny any retroactive justification of Bush's decision to go to war in Iraq.
"One can greet the end of the 'rejectionist front' [of Arab states opposed to the U.S. and Israel] and still say, more than ever, that the Saddam Hussein danger did not justify a unilateral war without U.N. support."
Asahi Shimbun, a leading daily in Japan agrees, saying the "dramatic shift in the Libyan position … is not sufficient grounds to lend legitimacy to the Iraq war."
The Amsterdam daily De Volkskrant (in Dutch) credited America and Britain's "carrot and stick" approach for the breakthrough in Libya and Tehran. The paper said that both cases demonstrate that European and American policies might well supplement each other.
But in London, The Guardian conceded nothing, saying arguments that the Iraq war prodded Libya to act was "sad, shabby stuff."
The Libyan pledge to disarm "was not achieved by military power, by invasion, by shredding inter national law, by enforced regime change or by large-scale bloodshed."
Rather, the paper says, the Libyan decision was the fruit of diplomacy initiated by former British foreign minister Robin Cook and continued by his successor Jack Straw.
"It was achieved by discussion -- by endless talk, mostly in London, latterly in Libya, and finally in a London gentlemen's club. Boring perhaps, but effective; and here, with shock and awe, is a lesson for the Pentagon to absorb."
"Washington's bellicosity formed a worrying backdrop, not a spur," to negotiations, says The Guardian.
"This reasoning simply won't wash," says the Daily Telegraph. "It is no coincidence that, after years of pursuing his scheme in secret, President Gaddafi should have come clean days after seeing the fate of his fellow dictator," Saddam Hussein.
Austria's Der Standard, translated by Deutsche Welle, the German radio network, worries that Gaddafi is merely reinventing himself-as a pro-American dictator.
"Only undemocratic regimes that cooperate with the U.S., like Libya's neighbor Tunisia, can continue to violate human rights and democracy," the Vienna daily notes.
That concern is shared by the Daily Star, an independent daily in Beirut.
"Even if Tripoli curries favor abroad by ending its pursuit of WMDs, it is at home that its policies continue to do the most consistent damage. A strong dose of reality is very much in order."
"Despite a significant relaxation of repression [in Libya] over the past few years, the rule of law continues to be almost completely absent, which means that any gains in terms of human rights are fragile."
Gaddafi's rehabilitation, the editors conclude , should depend not just on eliminating weapons but also on progress in strengthening rule of law.
"To do otherwise would be to abandon his people and humanity's conscience," the editors say.
All of which has pundits in Pakistan, an undemocratic U.S. ally with nuclear weapons, worrying that the south Asian country will be next.
The lesson of Baghdad have been learned, says The News, the English-language sister newspaper of Jang, the Pakistan's most popular daily,
"Baghdad has become symbolical of the pyramid of skulls that were raised by conquerors in the past to terrify nations into submission. Few nations will be willing to defy Washington's edicts and will obsequiously fulfill even the most demeaning tasks."
The Nation, a center-right daily in Islamabad, warns against "complacency."
"No amount of cooperation in the so-called War on Terror will prevent the USA, egged on by the Israeli and Indian lobbies in Washington, from its goal of forcing Pakistan to roll back its nuclear programme. The Libyan and Iranian examples should leave no one fooled. If anyone thinks that surrendering national sovereignty in the attempt to curry favour with the USA will even postpone the day of decision, they are mistaken. Indeed, it hastens it. Pakistan therefore must follow its own national interest, and refuse to accept any pressure. In that lies the only chance of safety."http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A22014-2003Dec22?language=printer |
