Libya Press Accuses Kadafi of Risking Economic Ruin : Embargo: Envoys say editorials probably came from Kadafi himself, preparing for rapprochement with West.

In an unprecedented reappraisal of Libya’s 23 years of revolutionary Arab nationalism, Libya’s official newspapers Wednesday accused Libyan leader Col. Moammar Kadafi of leading the country’s economy into ruin for the sake of a “mirage” of Arab unity.

Editorials in the two leading government newspapers, addressed to “Brother Moammar,” accused Kadafi of forcing his countrymen to suffer on behalf of Arab causes and declared that Libya, facing an international air and military embargo, must now begin looking after its own interests “even if they were to lie with the Jews themselves.”

“You have wronged us greatly,” said the weekly Jamahiriya in two special editions and the daily Fajr al-Jadid. “You created problems with the West for the sake of your Arabs, and you called for unity, you called for liberation. . . . Every time we believed you, but you never until today allowed us to realize what was in our interest. . . .

“Today, we are not interested in whether you agree, or disagree, whether you have learned the lesson or not. You did not realize the consequences . . . because you were following a mirage. We will not follow the mirage with you this time. If this is your Arabism, then go to it alone.”

The editorials followed dispatches from the official news agency, Jana, that “revolutionary forces” had taken control of the agency and the offices of Fajr al-Jadid. But diplomatic sources said it appeared more likely that the messages were from Kadafi himself, bitterly angry with his Arab neighbors for deserting him and laying the ground for a possible rapprochement with the West.

Faced with international demands that he hand over two Libyans accused in the 1988 bombing of a Pan Am airliner over Lockerbie, Scotland, Kadafi may be creating a scenario in which he is forced to bow to popular will to meet the U.N. demands and prevent further economic sanctions against Libya, the diplomats said.

The new director appointed to head the Jana news agency in the purported revolutionary takeover is a member of Libya’s intelligence services. The ousted director is believed to be a candidate for information minister.

“The language in the editorials is explicit. It’s amazing. I’ve never seen this kind of language,” one senior Western envoy said. “But nothing can be taken over in this country. It’s impossible. Everything has been 1,000% orchestrated by Kadafi himself.”

“Maybe it’s criticizing Kadafi, but maybe Kadafi wants the people to know that he was wrong,” a Jana editor, who asked not to be identified, said in an interview.

The editorials stunned a capital unaccustomed to hearing criticism of the leader of Libya’s 1969 revolution. Kadafi’s image appears on huge posters all over the city. He is usually affectionately portrayed in the government controlled press as a fatherly figure who has selflessly supported the cause of Arab nationalism and Islam against the attacks of Western imperialism and Zionism.

But the U.N. embargo that began April 15, prohibiting all flights in and out of the country and imposing sanctions on military aid, comes at a time when ordinary Libyans are feeling increasingly isolated from the rest of the world. Businessmen express private fears about the prospect of increased sanctions, such as an oil or trade embargo that could starve the country within a few months. Citizens complain that already there is little to buy in the stores and prices are too high.

Kadafi has been stung by the lack of support from his Arab neighbors.

When Libya stood up to U.S. and British demands for the Lockerbie suspects, the sources said, Kadafi was devastated that the other Arab countries first passed weak resolutions criticizing the U.N. demands, then adopted the embargo.

Now, diplomats and political analysts said, Kadafi sees himself squeezed into a corner, caught between the West’s demands and his own population’s growing weariness with living as international renegades.

“The only thing that obsesses him is his survival,” one Western diplomat said. “He’s willing to make modest changes if he knows he will survive. If he doesn’t know this, it will be the other way around. But for him, it’s more important to survive than to keep his ideology.”

One analyst said the new editorial criticism, also distributed on Jana, may be Kadafi’s way of creating “a new populism based on self-criticism. . . . He will pave the way for a change, and he will say, ‘The people asked for it, not me.’ ”

Indeed, Kadafi appeared to be setting just such a stage when he announced that a General People’s Congress, scheduled to be convened Saturday, will make the final decision on extraditing the Lockerbie suspects.

Most local councils debating the issue in recent weeks recommended against extradition, but arguments at some of the councils focused bitterly on the national costs of holding on to the two men.

Though the air embargo has caused few problems in Tripoli, other than a shortage of medicines and medical equipment and some higher prices, most Libyans are worried that an escalation of sanctions would strangle the country.

Oil revenues make up 95% of Libya’s foreign earnings, and even a more moderate freeze on foreign investment or Libyan assets abroad could harm the country’s already troubled economy.

The editorials express above all a sense of disillusionment with the old ideals of Arab unity and a need for Libyans to begin looking out for themselves at a time when all of their Arab neighbors have forged valuable ties with the West.

“You pushed us to confront the West, so we confronted them, and your Arabs ignored us. They ignored us and surrendered and kissed the flags of the enemies,” Jamahiriya wrote. “. . . Others realized what was in their interest and worked toward it.

“We will not believe one word of what you call Arab destiny or Arab blood or Arab feeling,” the newspaper said. “These are things that we have gone beyond, and you must be with us this time. . . .

“The West asked us to wash our hands of all that you involved us in for the sake of your Arabs, and under your urging and pressure, we followed you. The mercenary brokers and merchants turned us into markets for shoddy goods, and you gave us the excuse that these were necessary sacrifices. . . .

“You must face reality. . . . What you call forbidden, we say today it is allowed, because we have realized the truth, which tells us your Arabs are impotent and marginalized.”