A day after the April 14 air strikes against Libya, as a heated debate began in the 15-member UN Security Council, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations made a forceful defense of the American action amid a chorus of criticism.
President Reagan, in his nationally televised address April 14, set the tone for America's defense at the world body. Reagan made it clear that the air raids were in "self-defense" and were not an act of retribution. This argument was more clearly elucidated by General Vernon A. Walters when he addressed the council of April 15.
In a voice that at times crackled with emotion, Walters, a former deputy chief of the CIA, said: "The United States took these measures of self-defense only after other repeated and protracted efforts to deter Libya from its ongoing attacks against the United States in violation of the [UN] Charter."
The retired general said "this self-defense action became necessary" after "quiet diplomacy, public condemnation, economic sanctions, and demonstrations of military force failed to dissuade" the regime of Colonel Muammar Qadafi.
However, with the exception of Britain and Israel, no other nation seemed to buy this argument, at least not publicly.
Rhetorical animosity toward the United States reached a vitriolic crescendo as members of the Arab bloc initiated the process of "America bashing," as one U.S. official put it.
The United Nations is a political theater, and there was no exception in this case. Not only was the U.S. action often dubbed "aggressive, barbaric, and imperial," but Israel and "Zionism" were also dragged in as culprits.
Oman, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates, all considered moderate, pro-Western Arab nations, indulged in this hyperbole. For instance, Samir S. Shibabi, the Saudi delegate, thundered; "Does the United States think that if it attacks Libya with its fleets and aircraft it can subdue the struggle against injustice taking place in Palestine, as well as against the oppression Israeli aggression is inflicting upon the area?
"If the United States wanted to stop violent acts, then it had to address Zionist [the Arabic catchword for Israeli] aggression and remove its causes," the Saudi added.
The pitch of the rap against the United States was even more shrill from Iran, Syria, and Afghanistan.
Several diplomats from Islamic nations did not hide their distaste for Qaddafi and his terrorist ideals in private conversations, but when it came to public posturing the matter took a different took a different turn.
One official from an Islamic country said, "Look, we are nonaligned, Islamic, and also very friendly with America. It was a very difficult situation. When it comes to Arab solidarity, we all had to come together on this issue. In our hearts we hate Qaddafi, but couldn't help but support Libya. We only hope the Americans understand our delicate
...
Read Full Article
|
