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)