LIBYA
The scapegoat ON MARCH 31, 1992, seventy days after its first intimidating resolution against Libyat, the United Nations Security Council voted through an ultimatum to the government in Tripoli with ten votes for and five abstentions.
The resolution states that if that government has not handed over by April 15 the two Libyan citizens accused of being responsible for the bombing of the Pan Am flight over the Scottish village of Lockerbie in December 1988, Libya will be subjected to sanctions, that is, to an attempt to strangle it by means of a blockade. SALAH JABER — April 2, 1992 been seen in Libya as a surrender, would be such as to threaten the stability of the regime.
The temptation to resort to military action will be all the greater for the imperialist powers insofar as they would find it difficult to afford the luxury of a total blockade on Iraqi lines against Libya. The reason for this is not compassion for the country's people, but the same as that for which they have refrained from using the only reliable means at their disposal for the economic strangulation of Libya: an oil embargo. The present state of the oil market and conditions, the effects on world oil prices of an embargo on Libyan oil, a precious Mediterranean source for Europe, would be far harder to control and would prevent an additional obstacle to international efforts to boost the world economy.
This explains why Qadhafi even feels able to threaten the states who apply the air blockade against Libya with a boycott. And this is also why the temptation to undertake a military attack will be strong in coming months, all the more so in that it may fall at a convenient time in the presidential re-election campaign of George Bush, who is short of electoral arguments and no doubt feels nostalgic about the surge of popularity he attained during the anti-Iraq war.
Despotism under the UN flag
The aggressive intentions of the US, Britain and France, the promoters of the anti-Libya resolution, are also
HE main weight of the sanctions is to fall on air links between Libya and the rest of the world; all incoming and outgoing flights to Libya will be forbidden. Furthermore, an embargo will be imposed on arms deliveries to Tripoli, any military cooperation with Libya must cease, diplomatic relations will be cut down to the minimum and police blacklists of Libyan citizens provided for all the UN's member states.
Already quite a big programme, and there will be an escalation up to direct military attack if it does not yield the intended result in the medium term. In the case of Iraq sanctions gave way to military action after five months, while the Libyan resolution talks of revising the sanctions every four months.
### Qadhafi vaccilates
It seems that Qadhafi has little room for manoeuvre. At first he gave in to Western directives and "fraternal" pressure from the Arab states headed by Egypt, declaring that he would hand over the two Libyan suspects to the Arab League. Then he withdrew this offer.
Two explanations have been offered for this: the imperialist version is that Qadhafi feared that his regime's "complicity with terrorism" would be revealed; according to more credible sources, Tripoli-based diplomats? , the tribal and political impact of handing over the two men, which would have of the oil market and shown by the fact that they have not of the world economy, haunted by the spectre of general recession, would make this a double-edged sword.
The consequences of the blockade of Iraq in 1990-91 were fairly easily absorbed, given the adaptation of the market to the hazards of oil exports from the Gulf due to the war underway there throughout the previous decade. The interruption of oil supplies from Iraq and Kuwait could be compensated for by increased Iranian and Saudi exports.
In fact, oil prices only maintained high levels for a period because of speculation, fed by fears of the consequences of a vast conflagration spreading to the oil fields of Saudi Arabia, as Saddam Hussein had promised. As soon as the imperialist military offensive was unleashed and as it became clear within hours of the outbreak of the conflict that the United States had total control of airspace, oil prices fell. Libyan oil; an embargo too far
On the other hand a halt to Libyan oil exports would come on top of the embargo on Iraqi oil and the low level of Kuwaiti production and at a time when the reserves of Saudi production capacity are already being heavily drawn upon.
Furthermore, Saudi Arabia would find it hard to get involved in an action against Libya, which, unlike the anti-Iraqi campaign, has been criticized by the Arab League. In these shown by the fact that they have not restricted themselves to demanding the handing over of the two suspects, but have also required of Tripoli that it "cease all forms of terrorist action" and demonstrate this "promptly, by concrete actions". One can only fantasize about such a resolution being applied to the United States or the State of Israel.
According to the New York Times4 this latter directive means that the three great powers are intending to demand that Libya provide them with the names of all the "terrorists" it has trained and armed, along with information on the operations it has been involved in. In any case, it can only be interpreted as an instruction to inform for and cooperate with the international "anti-terrorist" police network.
Both in its letter and its spirit, this summons is as "innovative" in terms of international law and the traditions of the United Nations as the one that instructed Tripoli to hand over two of its citizens to two states with which Libya has no extradition treaty.
The New World Order is once again shown to be that of the total despotism of chiefs of the imperialist gangs, led by Washington and wrapped in the blue flag of the United Nations. * 1. See International Viewpoint, no. 222, February 17, 1992. 2. International Herald Tribune, March 26, 1992. 3. One of the accused is from the same tribe as the Lbyan no.2, Abdel-Salam Jallud. 3 4. IHT, April 1, 1992.
April 13, 1992
CHINA A "line for a hundred years"? IN RECENT months the international press has been highlighting China's economic success and the revival of the orientation launched at the end of the 1970s, which had been modified after the Tiananmen Square massacre of 1989. According to some newspapers, the dominant group supports the development of capitalism on a wide scale, with a big increase in the role of the private sector, both domestic and international. Paradoxically, it seems that foreign investors are more inclined to get involved in China than in Eastern Europe and the former USSR. Last November, the Central Committee of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) took some important decisions, including the partial rehabilitation of Zhao Ziyang, the "liberal" former party secretary who was sacked after the crisis of May-June 1989, and announced the convening of the 14th party congress for the end of this year. LIVIO MAITAN course. On February 23, 1992, the People's Daily wrote that: "Recent world history teaches us that under-developed countries, in particular those with a long feudal history, must correctly use capitalism rather than simply rejecting it. We can only become prosperous and develop if we assimilate in a critical fashion those elements of Western culture that are useful and not by despising them".
The session of the People's Assembly took place on the same wavelength after a keynote report from Prime Minister Li Peng. Basically, the reformist orientation combined with political control by the bureaucratic centre was restated.
According to Li Peng: "We must... dare to introduce innovations and have a more audacious approach as concerns reforms and opening up". In this optic, stock markets are to be developed and public and private enterprises must compete on equal terms. But, at the same time, Li Peng insisted that it was necessary to "crush all kinds of criminal activity" and retain loyalty to Marxism, Leninism and Mao Zedong thought.
Divisions in leading circles