NEWS ANALYSIS : U.N. Libya Vote Frays U.S.-Third World Bonds : Diplomacy: Observers say developing nations are reluctant to be seen as merely rubber-stamping larger powers’ actions.

In unexpected ways, the Libyan crisis has regenerated some of the dormant tension between the United States and the Third World at the United Nations, raising doubts about any future actions against Moammar Kadafi.

The Libyan leader has almost no supporters at the United Nations, especially after Thursday’s semiofficial sacking of the Venezuelan Embassy in Tripoli as punishment for Venezuela’s Security Council role in imposing sanctions on the North African country.

Yet many diplomats and analysts see an uneasiness among Third World delegations and think it highly unlikely that the council will deal more harshly with Libya in the future, even if U.N. sanctions fail to pressure Kadafi to give up the two suspects in the terrorist bombing of Pan American Flight 103.

“I think we have to lay off for a while,” an American diplomat acknowledged after a surprisingly close Security Council vote on the sanctions last Tuesday. “There is an exhaustion here at the U.N. with this kind of high-profile, high-politics, high-pressure kind of thing. There is an overload. The Third World is saying ‘Enough,’ for the time being.”

Third World resentment was expressed most publicly and thoughtfully by Zimbabwean Ambassador Simbarashe S. Mumbengegwi as he explained why his country would abstain rather than vote for the sanctions.

Mumbengegwi warned his fellow ambassadors on the powerful, 15-member council, which is dominated by the United States and its allies, that their actions must “withstand the careful scrutiny” of the other 160 members of the United Nations.

“Any approach that assumes that international law is created by majority votes in the Security Council . . . could cause irreparable harm to the credibility and prestige of the organization (the United Nations), with dire consequences for a stable and peaceful world order,” he said.

To an outsider, this week’s vote may not seem so close. The sanctions were approved by a vote of 10 to 0, with five abstentions, all from the Third World: China, Zimbabwe, Morocco, Cape Verde and India. The countries that voted in favor were the United States, Britain, France, Russia, Austria, Belgium, Hungary, Japan, Venezuela and Ecuador.

But the tally was a shocking result to those familiar with U.N. procedures and precedent. A resolution needs nine votes to pass. Thus, two more abstentions would have killed the Libyan sanctions.

The nature of the Libya vote raised a question about the wisdom of the United States, Britain and France in trying to rush the resolution through the Security Council, where they are three of the five nations with permanent seats and vetoes. Third World feelings might have been assuaged if Washington had waited a few weeks for the Arab League to complete its attempts to cajole Kadafi into giving up the suspects, or waited for a preliminary ruling from the International Court of Justice on Libya’s plea that the United Nations has no jurisdiction in the case.

Part of the current resentment on the part of Third World countries may stem from their feelings of impotence. Before communism collapsed and the Cold War ended, many of the poorer, developing countries of Asia, Africa and Latin America felt that they could get their way at the United Nations by playing the Soviet Union and the United States against one another.

But now, the two other permanent council members are no longer the United States’ Cold War antagonists: These days, Russia usually votes with the United States on U.N. issues, and China, afraid to risk economic retaliation from the Bush Administration, never uses its veto to block American-sponsored resolutions, even when, as in the case of Libyan sanctions, it opposes the resolutions on principle.

As a result, many Third World ambassadors chafe under the feeling that they have little choice but to rubber-stamp decisions made in Washington, London or Paris. If not, the three governments might weaken the United Nations by shunting it aside and acting on their own. It’s a subtle form of blackmail.

While there is no doubt that the Libya sanctions vote exposed a division that had seemed dormant in the last couple of years of Security Council cooperation, there is some disagreement about the lasting effects of the division.

It may be hard to rally Third World feelings against the industrialized world for very long with such a lackluster champion as Kadafi.

“I think all the Third World divisions were forgotten when Kadafi burned down the Venezuelan Embassy,” said a European diplomat. “No one can approve of that. It was a very stupid thing to do.”

(Southland Edition) Foreigners in Libya

More than a million foreigners live and work in Libya. U.S. law prohibits Americans from working in Libya, and Washington recently said it would crack down on those who do. The foreigners include: 500 to 1,000 Americans. About 2,000 Canadians. More than 10,000 Europeans. Tens of thousands of Asians, including around 30,000 Thais and 5,000 South Koreans. About a million Egyptians, the largest number from any country. Arabs do not need visas. Source: Times Wire Services