Contents
CAMPAIGN AGAINST
LIBYA: Conclusions
A great number of observers
and writers wrongly believed that the end of the Cold War and the
great changes in Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Republics
would be reassuring to the American authorities and that they would
relax and feel secure in the future of their status in the context
of international relations and the new World order. Unfortunately,
this has not been the case. America cannot maintain its dominant
standing in a world where international relations lack the use of
military force. An international community that seeks to establish
relations governed by justice and law, equality of nations and
peoples, multiple cultures and multiple civilizations and peaceful
coexistence, on the basis of this plurality, implies some new
criteria for distinction and differentiation other than that of a
"comprehensive force." The standing of the United States would then
recede, and the imperialist role it has played from the Yalta to
the Malta Summits would disappear. Trying to sail against the tide
of such major changes and seeking to confront a strangling internal
economic and political crises, America and Britain exploited the
Lockerbie crisis to shift attention to an external "enemy," Libya,
and turn it into the scapegoat of their crises.
This was aided by the fact
that over the past two decades their media had nurtured in the mind
of the Western public opinion a picture of Libya as an enemy. The
"Libyan" case is one of long standing in the American mind. It goes
as far back as two centuries ago (1790) when the American navy had
its first military confrontation in Libya on the shores of the
Mediterranean. The statement of Secretary of State James Baker, at
the Madrid Peace Negotiations about the historical considerations
for the choice of Madrid as a venue for the conference, exposes the
"history" which American political forces are trying to fabricate
so as to justify its hijacking of the European will.
Ultimately, the
confrontation between the imperialist West and Libya is due to the
fact that they stand at opposite poles in their international
policies.
The
crises that emerge from time to time in their relations are but a
reflection of a conflict which extends far beyond Libya and the
Arab context, to cover a vast area of the planet. At its roots, is
the fact that the mainstays of the external policy of America, the
Leaders of the West, do not stop at economic hegemony but seek
cultural, ideological, and societal uniformity in addition to
political and military subjugation. On the other hand, the official
Libyan policy is based on the conviction that NATO, under the
leadership of America, is the root of the problems of the world. It
has the upper hand on the economic affairs of the world and seeks
political and military domination of all its countries.
While the Libyan position is
in direct opposition to that of the United States, and has always
been condemned and denounced by America, it is truly difficult to
identify a single act of Libya that led the Western capitals to the
brink of such madness. Whatever Tripoli did it has been nothing
more than an undrstandable attempt to counter colonial schemes:
attempts at achieving "ideological dissimilarity"; repeated calls
for Arab unity; opposition to the colonization of Palestine;
endeavors to control oil prices through a production ceiling at
OPEC; assistance for national liberation movements; support for the
just causes of the peoples of the Third World struggling against
colonialism; rejection of the policy of military bases and
alliances; and refusal to submit to the U.S. claims on its
territorial waters in the Mediterranean.
Nevertheless, the policies of
the Jamahiriya were, and still are, in the context of NATO
strategy, "a zone of tension" that threatens the interests of the
major powers on its designs in the "Third World." This was, and is,
the basis of the hostile attitude of Western media toward Libya,
and of the economic, political, and military boycott imposed on it.
This, in addition to attempts to provoke it into a military
confrontation with its neighbours in the region and with American
forces culminated in such incidents as the air raid of 1986, in which
170 military planes bombed Tripoli and
Benghazi.
It is important, at this
point, to expressly mention some points which highlight the covert
dimensions of the on-going crisis:
The accusations levelled
coincided precisely with the expected stalemate of the so-called
peace negotiations in the Middle East. They were partly aimed at
preventing Libya from influencing the Arab world, whether at the
level of the average Arab person, the Palestinian organizations, or
the radical parties which endorse the Libyan position against
Israel. On Libya's side, there was a need to divert the attention
of Libyan Arab public opinion, the League of Arab States, and
several Arab countries, and make attempts at countering the
accusations and ready the Nation to repel any possible
aggression.
Meanwhile, other Arab and
international parties would meet in Moscow to consider the steps to
be taken to normalize relations between Tel Aviv and an untold
number of Arab capitals, while Syria, Lebanon, and Palestine were
boycotting the negotiations. The absence of Libya greatly curbed
the expected Arab reaction against the multi-party negotiations
which flagrantly bypassed the problem of the occupied Arab
territories and addressed themselves to what is more harmful and
dangerous than "Camp David". The timing of these events was
deliberately planned by America.
After the success of the
dangerous encounter with Iraq, and the West had rid itself of the
problem of Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union, and was envisaging
a new decade during which the major powers could again overtly
apply a policy of heavy artillery to repress their opponents in the
world, the United States, which had viewed the United Nations as a
mere arena for its confrontation with the Soviet Union, turned to
the United Nations to exploit its organs, and provide international
legitimacy for its aggression. What rendered the situation even
more complex is that America wished to rid itself definitively of
the "concept of balance" that prevailed during its conflict with
Moscow. It was no longer satisfied with partial success, namely,
that its conflicts with Libya would culminate into a stalemate or
balance of power.
What America and
its NATO allies continue to seek is the eradication of the Libyan
revolution through the use of force, and total dominance of the new
World order.
It would be opportune
to recall what the French journalist Jean Lacouture wrote when
commenting on the American decision to raid North Vietnam in
1966:
"The Americans
believe that they have the absolute right to attack any place at
any time if they so wish, as if the whole world was a prey of
America, which would impose its domination, organize it in
accordance with its supreme wisdom and subject it to the control of
American forces."
A crucial element of the
conflict in recent years is that the United States and Britain
stand at the threshold of a crippling internal economic and
political crisis, and there is an imperative need for them to draw
attention to an external enemy to make it the scapegoat of this
current crisis. In addition, both nations are seeking to prolong
the life of NATO, although there is no longer any justification for
its existence.
NATO is essential
to America to maintain its hegemony over Europe and to halt
European unity, or at least impede it by concocting an alternate
enemy and a looming danger to compensate for the absence of a
Soviet danger. This time, it is the Arabs and their societal and
spiritual guide, Islam.
It is indeed no exaggeration
to state that the so-called "New international Order" announced by
George Bush during the Gulf war, will continue its efforts to wipe
out "the civilized East" and attack Libya before the Arab world can
recover from the "Iraqi-Kuwaiti" catastrophe, unless one of its
European partners becomes conscious of the seriousness of America's
intent in becoming the ruler of the new World Order. Unless this
comes to pass, Europeans will soon have to bow down to American
hegemony with no hope of release in the future, and the American
strategic objectives will gain control over the natural resources
of the South and impose total domination on all political
systems.
Unit of Political and
Strategic Studies of The Islamic World studies
Centre.
(1st published in
2004 by World Islamic
Peoples Leadership)
