By Yuan Peng
US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice announced on Monday that
the US decided to restore full diplomatic ties with Libya and clear
the nation from the list of terrorism-supporting countries. The
Libyan government welcomed the decision.
This means that the 25-year-old US-Libyan confrontation comes to
an end.
Interpretation of this varies. The sudden announcement of the
rapprochement is closely related to the issue of Iran's nuclear
bidding.
Over a long period of time, Washington called Libya, together
with Iran and others, a "rogue nation," which allegedly supported
terrorism, and was one of the seven countries that could be subject
to possible US nuclear strikes.
The situation altered somewhat since the outbreak of the Iraqi
War in 2003. The military forces of the US and its allies toppled
the Saddam Hussein regime with the excuse that Iraq went in for
weapons of mass destruction (WMD) programs. They did so in hopes of
making the regime a public example that would pressure others to
give up their alleged WMD bidding.
Iran took no heed of this and went on doing what it deemed
should be done. Libya, however, was cooperative, abandoning its
so-called WMD programs.
For the cooperative attitude on the part of Libya, the US gave
some limited encouragement, restoring diplomatic representatives to
the country in 2004.
But restoration of full diplomatic relations did not occur
because Libya, in the eyes of the US, remained a "totalitarian"
country, running counter to Washington's push for US-style freedom
and democracy, even though Libya's cooperation in WMD issues was in
the US' strategic interest.
The deadlock over Iran's nuclear bidding cornered the US to a
dilemma: military strikes are difficult to carry out right now and
diplomatic means are yielding no significant results.
It is in this context that US-Libyan ties were put on the
agenda. The US wanted to convey this message: US-Iranian ties could
be restored if Iran follows Libya's example, despite the fact that
the US dislikes the Iranian regime.
The message is naturally not only for the ear of Iran and North
Korea but also for other "rogue countries" -- Middle-East nations
that are in the throes of transformation and some Latin American
countries.
The US, for instance, decided to impose arms embargo on
Venezuela almost simultaneously while it announced rapprochement
with Libya. The contrast between the punishment and reward helps
bring home to other countries the intention that "those who obey
survive, those do not perish" in the US international strategy.
To what extent this kind of "punishment and rewarding" strategy
would impact the Iran and North Korea's nuclear bidding and those
"disobedient" countries, such as Sudan and Venezuela, is worth
keeping an eye on.
Oil constitutes another important factor behind the
rapprochement. As the second-largest oil producing country in
Africa and an important nation located in the North, Libya enjoys
unique geopolitical and economic value.
Currently, the oil-rich Middle East is in chaos and the last
thing the Bush administration wants is for the US to become an "oil
hostage" to the Middle East, where the US government is strenuously
pushing for democratic transformation.
The situation is compounded by the fact that some Latin American
countries are increasingly tilting to the left, threatening to
become an unstable energy-resources backyard for the US.
In view of all this, opening up new energy resources-supplying
bases becomes a strategic imperative for the US.
More importantly, the US could use Libya as its military and
logistical foothold in the Middle East. So in this sense, both
energy-strategy and geopolitical considerations loom large behind
the restoration of US-Libyan diplomatic ties.
But most importantly, both security interests and oil interests
are at the service of a grander strategic goal -- overhauling the
US' African strategy.
Since the end of the Cold War in the early 1990s, the US
strategic focus has been shifting from Europe and the Middle East
to Central Asia and the Asia-Pacific region, but Africa, a kind of
"strategic vacuum area," has gone largely ignored.
In the latter half of the Clinton administration, the US
government made diplomatic attempts to strengthen US-African
relations, manifested by former President Bill Clinton's 12-day
Africa tour.
But the efforts were largely watered down by a new leader in the
White House and the impacts of the terror attacks on September 11,
2001. As a result, US-African ties have made little progress over
the last few years.
By contrast, other major world countries have made impressive
advances in Africa, taking advantage of the US' non-action.
Britain, France and Italy, which have traditional ties with African
countries, enjoy inherent advantages in advancing relations there.
China, traditionally friendly toward Africa, also enjoys a solid
foundation in promoting Sino-African ties.
The most pressing strategic task for the US is, therefore, to
attach great strategic importance to Africa.
It is against this grand strategic backdrop that the restoration
of full diplomatic ties with Libya, which still has defective human
rights records by US standards, was effected.
The US' overseas strategy puts strategic interests first, and
sidelines other factors like involving values of democracy and
human rights till later on.
Libya naturally has its own strategic considerations --
improving relations with the US as soon as possible so that its
big-country status among African countries and in the Arab world
can be restored.
Where Africa is going is a question that haunts the
international community. It poses a strategic question African
countries themselves must answer as well. With the major world
players, political as well as economic, casting their eyes on
Africa, African countries face challenges and are also presented
with historical opportunities.
Will a chain reaction in African-US relations be triggered off
by the restoration of US-Libyan diplomatic ties and by the US'
increasing strategic input in the continent? This is a subject
worth closely watching and following.
The author is a researcher with the China Institute of
Contemporary International Relations.
(China Daily May 19, 2006)
