Washington
SIX months almost to the day since the
US air raid of April 15, 1986 the military, air and diplomatic embargo against
Libya voted through by the United
Nations (UN) Security Council has come into effect. To justify the new sanctions, one year after the Gulf War, the UN has been careful to characterize them as being "selective, measured and precise".
LIBYA
The declarations of the 12 Foreign
Ministers of the European Economic Community (EEC) on December 2, 1991, showed that it was vain to hope that the diffe-
That means that imperialism's margin of manoeuvre is not exactly the same as that which it enjoyed against Iraq and that many lessons have been drawn from the preceding conflict. For its part, the Libyan regime, which has been trying to gather support for six months, has only managed to gain an equally "selective and measured" assistance.
LUIZA MARIA
HE new regional balances emer-
T ging from the Gulf War have complicated the relationship between US imperialism, the European imperialist powers and the Arab regimes. The latter two fear a military option, but their margin of manoeuvre is limited by the imperatives of the "New
World Order"
, something which the
Libyan regime seems to have underestimated.
Unexpectedly, the United States has even had to convince Israel of the basis for the sanctions against Tripoli. At the beginning of the crisis, according to the Israeli newspaper Haaretz, the US accusations of
Libyan responsibility in the blowing up of the Pan AM Boeing above the Scottish village of Lockerbie in December 1988 were contested by the experts in Jerusalem. Instead, they argued that the Syrian-backed
Palestinian group led by Ahmed Jibril had been responsible, a viewpoint supported by a Scotland Yard report, made public on
January 21, 1992 by the British Labour
MP Tam Dalyell. It was difficult for the
United States to accuse Syria at a time when the latter had agreed to participate in the US-sponsored negotiations with Israel.
This imperialist hue and cry against
Libya follows the same logic as the campaign against Iraq - opposition to all attempts at mediation, conciliation or propositions. But, Washington has not been able to immediately launch military action. It has had to to maintain the semblance of a desire for conciliation to guarantee the success, at least in media terms, of the opening of the Madrid Peace Conference.
After that, the Paris-Cape car rally, routed through the Gulf of Sirte, the wait for the end of Ramadan, and the final collapse of negotiations postponed any opportunity for a new escalation back to the beginning of April.
This has not prevented imperialism from taking certain measures. Since 1986, $2 billion in Libyan holdings have been frozen by the United States, while the Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) has established a blacklist of companies belonging totally or partially to Libya, which US companies are forbidden to trade with. Those who break the boycott risk fines of $250,000-500,000 and prison sentences of up to twelve years. Twisting the arm of Europe
In the meantime, the United States and their faithful British ally have tried to convince the European imperialists to accept their conclusions and to sweep away their last doubts.
rences between the EEC and the United States could lead the former to distance itself from Bush's strategy. On the other hand, the sanctions decreed by the UN take account of the interests of the European and Arab bourgeoisies.
At first sight, the sanctions against Libya run counter to the plans of the EEC, or at least its Mediterranean component -mainly Italy and France - who have been seeking partners in North Africa, so that "the Mediterranean can form a counterweight to the Baltic".
The Libyan partner
In the view of the European imperialists for whom Libya is one such partner, the embargo should have only been diplomatic. In October 1991, the Italian and French foreign ministers declared themselves ready to lift the sanctions in force since 1986 in order to facilitate a dialogue with the Union of the Arab Maghreb (UAM -comprising Mauritania, Algeria, Libya, Tunisia and Morocco. The summit of the "5 + 5" — five member countries from Southern Europe and five from the UAM — scheduled for January 1992 in Tunis had to be postponed because of the victory of the Islamic Salvation Front (FIS) in Algeria in December 1991 and now it seems definitively compromised - it is difficult to imagine Mitterand and Ohadafi sitting at the same table today!
Thus, the sanctions are "selective'" not, as is claimed in high places, in order to ease the suffering of the Libyan people but rather to preserve European interests. In all, 22 companies from 14 countries participate in the exploration of oil in Libya, two Italian (Agip and Selm), two German (Wintershall and Veba Oil), two British 1. Other countries involved in oil exploration include Soul Korea (five companies), Bulgaria, Ruma. 3 nia and Canada. May 11, 1992 • # 228 International Viewpoint
----- pull-quotes on this page -----
Falling into line behind
International Viewpoint # 228 • May 11, 1992
LIBYA (Lasmo and Napl), one French (Elf-Aquitaine), one Spanish (Repsil), one Belgian (Petrofina), one Austrian (OC Mv) and the British-Dutch Royal Dutch Shell.!
Libya has been using its oil income to pay off its debt towards its European suppliers - 65% of Libyan oil is bought by Germany and Italy. The latter remains Libya's main commercial partner - with trade valued at 30 million French francs in 1990 — and has supported the conciliatory approach of French foreign secretary Roland Dumas and Egyptian president
German foreign minister Genscher, on the other hand, has had more latitude to denounce the "clear responsibility of Tripoli" and to support the demands for extradition. Germany has felt itself obliged to join in the anti-Libyan action, since many of its firms have been involved in supplying military and chemical technology to
France seeks rapprochement
France, already unpopular in North Africa because of its commitment in the Gulf War, feared that the countries of the UAM would no longer be inclined to prefer it to other partners. Trade with North Africa is France's primary outlet outside of the industrialized countries. With this in mind,
Dumas has been seeking a rapprochement with Libya. However, the obligations of imperialist partnership have carried the day in the French foreign ministry, at a time when it had been preparing to hold a joint Franco-Libyan commission in January 1992 in Paris and was trying to defuse tensions exacerbated by the alleged participation of Libya in the uprising of the Tuaregs and in the intrigues of Hissène Habré in Chad against France's protegé, Idriss
Déby.
As for the Arab ruling classes, beyond the verbal support given by this or that regime concerned to forestall popular demonstrations of solidarity, it is noteworthy that no government has sought to justify the Jamahiriya. While most have sought to compromise and soften the sanctions, once these latter were pronounced, they have applied them obediently.3
The Egyptian regime fears the impact of an oil embargo against Tripoli, Libyan oil income currently being of great importance to the Egyptian economy. Since July
1991, co-operation agreements concerning capital goods, tourism and oil have been signed between the two countries, while customs posts and frontier formalities have been abolished.
The oil embargo would mean the halting of currency transfers by millions of Egyptian emigré workers in Libya, as well as the possible exodus of a labour force 4 which would swell the ranks of the Egyptian unemployed, the loss of an export market, and Libyan tourist currency transfers into Egypt. This explains why Qhadafi has seen Mubarak as a mediator with
But Egyptian "support" ends where the "New World Order" begins. Once Cairo had reassured itself that the embargo decreed by the UN would not apply to Libyan companies, banks or investments in Egypt,4 and was authorized to replace its air links with Libya by road links, the air embargo was applied.
### Qhadafi funds PLO
Finally, the support extended to Tripoli by the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) is certainly not disinterested: Libya subsidizes the PLO at a rate of $4 million a month, compensating in part for the suspension of financing by the oil sheikhdoms: furthermore, the 80,000 Palestinians living in Libya make currency transfers to the occupied territories.
The PLO has revealed the results of its own inquiry into Lockerbie, which demonstrated the culpability of Syria and a fraction of the Iranian regime. This was, it is true, just before the Assad-Arafat "reconciliation". The PLO also fears a new escalation, at a time when it has just confirmed Palestinian participation in the next set of Israeli-Arab negotiations.
Libya's partners in the UAM have also sought a negotiated solution and a loosening of sanctions, as much because of their economic links with Tripoli as through fear of the reaction of their peoples. But allegiance to imperialism remains determi-
Thus, Morocco, elected a permanent member of the Security Council on January 1, 1992 voted for resolution 731 without reservation, whereas article 14 of the
UAM charter states: "Any aggression to which any one of its members is exposed will be considered as an aggression against the other member states", while article 15 says: "The member states commit themselves to abstain from association with any alliance or military or political bloc directed against the political independence or territorial unity of the other member
The UAM has not responded to Libya's request for an emergency summit in Tripoli, nor has it demanded to be shown the evidence against one of its members. The summit of heads of state scheduled for the end of April at Nouakchott (Mauritania)
has been put off.
Among the North African states, it is
Tunisia which fears the sanctions against
Libya most. The United States has understood this and, not wishing to repeat Jordan's experience with Iraq, resolution 748 includes a clause taking account of the particular economic difficulties which Libya's neighbours could encounter.
Libyan petrodollars paid for 1.2 billion Tunisian francs of Tunisian exports in 1991, on top of the currency transfers made by some 60,000 emigré workers and the Libyan tourists who daily cross the frontiers. The Ben Ali regime, permitted to bypass the air embargo through desert roads, is hurrying to apply the sanctions and is very determined to respect "international legality" in anticipation of any popular discontent against the widespread repression in the country (see box).
The ruling party has already withdrawn from the committee of solidarity with Libya, which has organized several demonstrations of support. The regime is fearful both of military escalation against Tripoli and of popular demonstrations which would hit tourist income for a second successive year.
### Expulsion of African workers
The Libyan regime has succeeded in annoying a number of African regimes and peoples. The priority given to Egyptian residents meant the expulsion of thousands of workers from Mali, Nigeria, Ghana, Chad or Burkina-Faso in September-October 1991.
Qhadafi has been left only with the circumspect support of Nelson Mandela — Libya has given political and financial support to the African National Congress (ANC). On December 3, 1991 Mandela interceded with Mitterrand in relation to the blowing up of a French DC10, in which Libyan complicity is also alleged, while "exhorting the Colonel to collaborate more thoroughly in the search for the
Conscious of its isolation, the Libyan regime has abandoned its initial attitude of defiance to adopt a defensive policy. In
July 1991, Ohadafi threatened to strike
NATO bases in case of aggression against
Libya: in August, the Jana press agency labelled the tour by US Secretary of State
James Baker as a US-Zionist plot while
Libya denied any involvement in the Lockerbie explosion.
Subsequently, however, Qhadafi has
2. On August 1, 1991, the former director of the
German firm Salzgiller was arrested for having participated in the construction of the unit at Rahta. On
August 6, the trial opened in Mannheim of three industrialists and on August 20 a former director of
Inhausen Chimie was arrested.
3. Only Sudan has said it will not implement the sanctions.
4. El Ahram, March 24, 1992.
5. In exchange, the financial experts of the PLO have helped Tripoli to redeploy its investments, notably to the countries of the Gulf Cooperation
Council, so as to avoid the freeze on its holdings in the imperialist countries.
Tunisia - opposition outlawed