|
|
|
| Current Issue |
|
|
| Resources |
|
|
|
At Home, Thatcher Takes the Heat
| Article
# : |
11273 |
|
|
Section : |
CURRENT ISSUES
|
| Issue
Date : |
5 / 1986 |
1,100 Words |
| Author
: |
Mark Palmer
Mark Palmer is the London correspondent for the New York City
Tribune. |
Reaction to the United States' air attack on Libya has reaffirmed that in Margaret Thatcher, Britain's prime minister, President Reagan has an ally upon whom he can depend more faithfully than any other leader in the Western world.
Despite overwhelming disapproval of the raid by the vast majority of British people, Thatcher has held her ground and repeatedly insisted that the "United States exercised its inherent right to self-defense against state-sponsored terrorism" and that it was "inconceivable for Britain to refuse the United States the right to defend itself."
Not only did she defend Reagan's decision, but she also spelled out to the British Parliament some of the intelligence evidence about Libya's involvement in the Berlin bombing and other covert support of terrorism, notably its supply of arms to the Irish Republican Army (IRA).
In response, Reagan assured Britons that they have "earned the lasting respect and friendship of the American people." But the feeling is not mutual.
According to a MORI opinion poll of more than 1,000 people in 53 different areas of the United Kingdom, 66 percent disapproved of Regan's action, and an even higher number--71 percent--did not agree with Thatcher's decision to allow American bombers to fly from British bases. When asked whether they thought the attack would increase or decrease the likelihood of terrorist attacks by Libya on Britain, 84 percent said it would lead to an increase.
However, unlike some of its European allies, Britain has no doubts about the evidence regarding Libya's sponsorship of acts of terrorism. In Britain, the disapproval of the U.S. action focused on the means used, not the motives behind them.
As Neil Kinnock, leader of the opposition Labor party, put it: "The use of such force does not punish terrorism. It will not prevent terrorism. Indeed, it is much more likely to provoke and expand terrorism.
"I'm horrified, and I'm sure people right across Europe and a lot of people in the United States will share that sense of horror," Kinnock said, "because this is not the way to fight or defeat terrorism. There are other ways, and much more effective ways, to do it."
It has been
...
Read Full Article
Look for this article in Ask.com
|
|
