Intervention in Libya

D

droid

Guest
If this is an orchestrated campaign by the CIA etc, I still find it confusing; AFAIK, Gaddafi wasn't doing anything to hamper the oil majors' activities out there, so why go and shoot the place up?
I have no evidence to suggest CIA involvement in anything going on in Libya other than the standard embassy type activities. But there have been increasing concerns (since 2007) about 'nationalist rhetoric' regarding oil revenue:

C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 02 TRIPOLI 000967

SIPDIS

SIPDIS

DEPT FOR NEA/MAG, EEB/ESC/IEC/EPC

E.O. 12958: DECL: 11/6/2017
TAGS: ECON EPET LY
SUBJECT: GROWTH OF RESOURCE NATIONALISM IN LIBYA

REF: A) STATE 150999, B) TRIPOLI 912 CLASSIFIED BY: Chris Stevens, DCM, U.S. Embassy Tripoli, U.S. Department of State. REASON: 1.4 (b), (e)

1.(C) Summary: Libya has a long history of resource nationalism linked to the policies and rhetoric of the Qadhafi regime. Beginning in the 1990's, many of these practices were scaled back; however, the removal of U.S. and UN sanctions and Libya's attendant opening to the world have prompted a resurgence of measures designed to increase the GOL's control over and share of revenue from hydrocarbon resources. End Summary.

INVESTMENT SURGE ...

2.(C) With the lifting of UN and U.S. sanctions, foreign investment has surged back in to Libya over the past three years. -- U.S. companies adopted a number of return strategies, from buying back old concessions (Marathon and ConocoPhillips), winning bids for new blocs (Chevron and ExxonMobil), or a combination of both (Amerada Hess and Oxy). Since January 2005, there have been three Exploration and Production Sharing (EPSA) rounds, in which exploration areas have been competitively bid to foreign companies. These steps have produced a flurry of new work, as the more than forty international oil companies (exclusive of oil service companies) toil to discover marketable quantities of oil and gas. -- Several new "one-off" deals have also been concluded, including massive deals with Shell and British Petroleum, and a 25-year extension of Italian company ENI's oil and gas EPSA's. -- The GOL has also shown a growing interest in developing its natural gas capabilities; an EPSA round for gas will come to a close this December.

... SPARKS NATIONALIST RHETORIC, POLICIES

3.(C) With this inflow of capital, and in particular the return of international oil companies (IOCs), there has been growing evidence of Libyan resource nationalism. The regime has made a point of putting companies on notice that "exploitative" behavior will not be tolerated. In his annual speech marking the founding of his regime, Libyan leader Muammar Qadhafi in 2006 said: "Oil companies are controlled by foreigners who have made millions from them -- now, Libyans must take their place to profit from this money." His son, Seif al-Islam al-Qadhafi, said in March 2007 that, "We will not tolerate a foreign company to make a profit at the expense of a Libyan citizen."

4.(C) Beyond the rhetoric, there are other signs of growing resource nationalism. -- Some IOCs with local subsidiaries have been forced to adopt Libyan names this year, including TOTAL (now officially titled "Mabruk"), Repsol ("Akakoss"), ENI ("Mellita") and Veba ("Al-Hurruj"), although these names have yet to catch on. -- The Libyan National Oil Corporation (NOC) is currently in the process of reworking long-standing oil concessions with several different IOCs (Ref B), in an effort to wring more favorable terms. There is a growing concern in the IOC community that NOC, emboldened by soaring oil prices and the press of would-be suitors, will seek better terms on both concession and production-sharing agreements, even those signed very recently. -- Libyan labor laws have also been amended to "Libyanize" the economy in several key sectors, and IOCs are now being forced to hire untrained Libyan employees. The Libyan National Oil Company (NOC) has recently begun insisting that deputy general managers, finance managers and human resource managers in local offices of IOC's be Libyan. -- The enactment of Law #443 of 2006 obligated most foreign companies to form joint ventures with Libyan companies in order to operate in the country. (Note: This currently excludes IOCs, but includes all foreign oil and gas service companies. End Note).

5.(C) The latest EPSA rounds could well prove to be a testing ground for how far Libya will travel down this path. The intense competition of the bid rounds led to winning bids that TRIPOLI 00000967 002 OF 002 are widely considered by hydrocarbon industry experts to be economically untenable. Chinese and Russian bids that allow companies to book only 7-10% of future production were hailed by NOC Chairman Shukri Ghanem as "very good for us...and "[clearly] also good for the companies, since they submitted the offer"...

http://213.251.145.96/cable/2007/11/07TRIPOLI967.html
 
D

droid

Guest
The whole situation seems even more bizarre and morally twisted if you consider recent history.

In 2003, Gadaffi made the famous 'deal in the desert'. He agreed to open up Libyan oilfields to Western companies (greatly benefiting BP and Italian firms), and make efforts to stem the movement of African migrants to Italy in return for the normalisation of business and political links and the eventual lifting of sanctions. Now thats par for the course with friendly tyrants, but the management of perception by the West is where it gets interesting. In order to sweeten the deal the following was requested:

1) That Libya Admit responsibility for Lockerbie and pay compensation to the families of victims
2) That Libya discontinue its WMD/nuclear programs
3) That Libya admit responsibility for the '86 Berlin disco bombing and pay compensation.

The problem with these conditions is 1) that Libya had nothing to do with Lockerbie, 2) it had no WMD or nuclear programs to abandon and 3) it had nothing to do with the '86 bombing, which was itself used as a pretext for the the April '86, US primetime bombing of Tripoli which killed one of Gadaffis adopted daughters.

So in effect, in order to be welcomed back into the fold Gadaffi was asked to rubber stamp and justify Westen propaganda and intervention going back 20 years, which it seems he was happy to do so considering the enormous potential personal gains renewed resource exploitation would bring - only now those same mea culpas are being used to back up the case for the current intervention... :rolleyes: And thats all before we even look at Blairs dodgy dealings...
 
Last edited by a moderator:

crackerjack

Well-known member
Re. Lockerbie, there's been allegations and evidence pointing both to Libyan culpability, and Syrian/Iranian. Think just flatly stating Libya didn't do it is pushing it a little...
 

IdleRich

IdleRich
"There's footage of government forces in Bahrain shooting protestors at point-blank range and one is left to wonder why this kind of repression is not perceived as a "crime against humanity" by the international community.
Oh, and while it's at it, why doesn't the Coalition of the Willing intervene in Côte d'Ivoire? The conflict between president Gbagbo and the supposedly rightful winner of the last election Ouattara is turning into a veritable civil war. A major humanitarian crisis is expected as a consequence. Who will stop it? Or should cacao be of less interest than oil?"
This argument always comes up and I'm not sure why. Just because some atrocities have been ignored it's surely not a reason to ignore others. Would you ever say "we fucked up before, we should fuck up again"? Or are you arguing that we should be in Cote d'Ivoire and Bahrain as well?
I understand the point that the reason for selecting one rather than another is normally cynical but... that's a separate issue.
 
Last edited:
D

droid

Guest
I dont want to drag us off topic, but this is not even controversial.

The bomb was was most likely planted by the PFLP, built by a Jordanian double agent, and paid for with $10 million from the Iranian foreign ministry with intelligence support from Syria, all with the explicit motive for revenge against the US for the shooting down of Iran Air 65 over Iranian waters.

The evidence against Libya is laughable, the trial and attempted trials were all jokes, aviation and intelligence experts have repeatedly testified to the existence of a cover up... Ask Craner if you dont believe me.

On what basis do either of you claim Libya's involvement?
 

IdleRich

IdleRich
"Re. Lockerbie, there's been allegations and evidence pointing both to Libyan culpability, and Syrian/Iranian. Think just flatly stating Libya didn't do it is pushing it a little..."
Yeah, I mean the conviction always looked a bit dodgy to say the least but I don't think you can state it categorically.
Was a grubby little deal to get him out anyway. Good for BP though - at the time.
 

martin

----
The bomb was was most likely planted by the PFLP, built by a Jordanian double agent, and paid for with $10 million from the Iranian foreign ministry with intelligence support from Syria, all with the explicit motive for revenge against the US for the shooting down of Iran Air 65 over Iranian waters.
Yeah, 'Private Eye' covered that pretty extensively (and made a convincing case) back in the early '00s, I seem to remember...
 
D

droid

Guest
I'm not, I'm just not ready to give them an unconditional pardon.
OK, sure, but you realise that this is like saying that you're not willing to give the CIA a pardon for 911? In fact thats a much more credible position!

I honestly didn't think there was anyone left who believed the official line, especially since they released al-Megrahii primarily to avoid what would have been a hugely embarrassing appeal.

Anyway. Id urge you to do some research on this:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...erbie-bomber-threatened-Scottish-justice.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2001/jun/27/lockerbie.features11
http://www.welfarestate.com/panam103/times.htm



 
D

droid

Guest
Always happy to open a crack into your tiny little world of cliches Tea ;)
 
D

droid

Guest
If liberal interventionists were consistent, they would advocate similar Western military action in relation to Saudi Arabia, Yemen, the Congo, Kashmir, Iran, Israel, Burma, etc. etc. etc. This would not only be wildly impracticable but deeply undesirable. It would lead to chaos and escalating violence on a global scale, overwhelmingly detrimental to the poor and vulnerable and fatal to the cause of democratic advance. A policy that if applied consistently and universally would result in disaster is best not applied at all.

Liberal interventionists treat great powers as neutral agents, disinterested entities that can be inserted into a situation for a limited purpose and time, like a surgeon’s knife. In reality, however, these powers have clear and compelling interests – in Libya as elsewhere – and their deployment of military force will be guided by those interests. In action, western troops are accountable not to the people they’re supposed to be protecting but to a chain of command that ends in Washington, London and Paris.

The unleashing of the great military powers undermines the universalism the liberal interventionists claim to honour: outcomes are determined by concentrations of wealth and power remote from the scene of suffering. If we’re to build any kind of just, sustainable world order, then we must (at the least) restrain and restrict great powers, not license them to act where and when it’s convenient for them.

http://www.mikemarqusee.com/?p=1156
Oil supplies will start flowing from Libya in the next few days as the Nato-led air strikes assist rebels to push further westward from their base in eastern Libya.

In recent successes, rebels have recaptured the key oil town of Ajdabiya as well as Ras Lanuf, Brega and Uqayla further to the west.

Nato forces have also struck at Sabha in central Libya and at Misrata, which is the only significant rebel-held city in western Libya and had been under heavy bombardment from government forces.

In between Ras Lanuf and Misrata is Sirte, Gaddafi’s birthplace and the only government-held town outside of the enclave around the capital Tripoli.

This means Colonel Gaddafi’s regime now controls only a small part of the coastline in western Libya, closest to Tunisia, and has none of its oil fields.

It has been a remarkable defeat for a dictator who last week was reported by the western media to be close to winning the battle against the rebels.

http://www.nbr.co.nz/opinion/libyas-oil-flows-again-ancient-times-return
...
 

stevied

Well-known member
"The Great Libyan Distraction"

The entire Libyan conflict of the last month - the civil war in Libya, the U.S.-led military action against Gaddafi - is neither about humanitarian intervention nor about the immediate supply of world oil. It is in fact one big distraction - a deliberate distraction - from the principal political struggle in the Arab world. There is one thing on which Gaddafi and Western leaders of all political views are in total accord. They all want to slow down, channel, co-opt, limit the second Arab revolt and prevent it from changing the basic political realities of the Arab world and its role in the geopolitics of the world-system.

To appreciate this, one has to follow what has been happening in chronological sequence. Although political rumblings in the various Arab states and the attempts by various outside forces to support one or another element within various states have been a constant for a long time, the suicide of Mohamed Bouazizi on Dec. 17, 2010 launched a very different process.

It was in my view the continuation of the spirit of the world revolution of 1968. In 1968, as in the last few months in the Arab world, the group that had the courage and the will to launch the protest against instituted authority were young people. They were motivated by many things: the arbitrariness and cruelty and corruption of those in authority, their own worsening economic situation, and above all the insistence on their moral and political right to be a major part of determining their own political and cultural destiny. They have also been protesting against the whole structure of the world-system and the ways in which their leaders have been subordinated to the pressures of outside forces.

These young people were not organized, at least at first. And they were not always totally cognizant of the political scene. But they have been courageous. And, as in 1968, their actions were contagious. Very soon, in virtually every Arab state, without distinction as to foreign policy, they have threatened the established order. When they showed their strength in Egypt, still the key Arab state, everyone began to take them seriously. There are two ways of taking such a revolt seriously. One is to join it and try thereby to control it. And one is to take strong measures to quash it. Both have been tried.

There were three groups who joined it, underlined by Samir Amin in his analysis of Egypt: the traditional and revivified left, the middle-class professionals, and the Islamists. The strength and character of these groups has varied in each of the Arab countries. Amin saw the left and the middle-class professionals (to the extent that they were nationalist and not transnational neoliberals) as positive elements and the Islamists, the last to get on the bandwagon, as negative elements. And then there is the army, always the bastion of order, which joined the Egyptian revolt late, precisely in order to limit its effect.

So, when the uprising began in Libya, it was the direct result of the success of the revolts in the two neighboring countries, Tunisia and Egypt. Gaddafi is a particularly ruthless leader and has been making horrific statements about what he would do to traitors. If, very soon, there were strong voices in France, Great Britain, and the United States to intervene militarily, it was scarcely because Gaddafi was an anti-imperialist thorn in their side. He sold his oil willingly to the West and he boasted of the fact that he helped Italy stem the tide of illegal immigration. He offered lucrative arrangements for Western business.

The intervention camp had two components: those for whom any and all military interventions by the West are irresistible, and those who argued the case for humanitarian intervention. They were opposed very strongly in the United States by the military, who saw a Libyan war as unwinnable and an enormous military strain on the United States. The latter group seemed to be winning out, when suddenly the resolution of the Arab League changed the balance of forces.

How did this happen? The Saudi government worked very hard and effectively to get a resolution passed endorsing the institution of a no-fly zone. In order to get unanimity among the Arab states, the Saudis made two concessions. The demand was only for a no-fly zone and a second resolution was adopted opposing the intrusion of any Western land forces.

What led the Saudis to push this through? Did someone from the United States telephone someone in Saudi Arabia and request this? I think it was quite the opposite. This was an instance of the Saudis trying to affect U.S. policy rather than the other way around. And it worked. It tipped the balance.

What the Saudis wanted, and what they got, was a big distraction from what they thought most urgent, and what they were doing - a crackdown on the Arab revolt, as it affected first of all Saudi Arabia itself, then the Gulf states, then elsewhere in the Arab world.

As in 1968, this kind of anti-authority revolt creates strange splits in the countries affected, and creates unexpected alliances. The call for humanitarian intervention is particularly divisive. The problem I have with humanitarian intervention is that I'm never sure it is humanitarian. Advocates always point to the cases where such intervention didn't occur, such as Rwanda. But they never look at the cases where it did occur. Yes, in the relatively short run, it can prevent what would otherwise be a slaughter of people. But in the longer run, does it really do this? To prevent Saddam Hussein's short-run slaughters, the United States invaded Iraq. Have fewer people been slaughtered as a result over a ten-year period? It doesn't seem so.
Advocates seem to have a quantitative criterion. If a government kills ten protestors, this is "normal" if perhaps worthy of verbal criticism. If it kills 10,000, this is criminal, and requires humanitarian intervention. How many people have to be killed before what is normal becomes criminal? 100, 1000?

Today, the Western powers are launched on a Libyan war, with an uncertain outcome. It will probably be a morass. Has it succeeded in distracting the world from the ongoing Arab revolt? Perhaps. We don't know yet. Will it succeed in ousting Gaddafi? Perhaps. We don't know yet. If Gaddafi goes, what will succeed him? Even U.S. spokesmen are worrying about the possibility that he will be replaced either with his old cronies or with al-Qaeda, or with both.

The U.S. military action in Libya is a mistake, even from the narrow point of view of the United States, and even from the point of view of being humanitarian. It won’t end soon. President Obama has explained his actions in a very complicated, subtle way. What he has said essentially is that if the president of the United States, in his careful judgment, deems an intervention in the interests of the United States and the world, he can and should do it. I do not doubt that he agonized over his decision. But that is not good enough. It's a terrible, ominous, and ultimately self-defeating proposition.

In the meantime, the best hope of everyone is that the second Arab revolt renews steam - perhaps a long shot now - and shakes first of all the Saudis.

Immanuel Wallerstein
 
Last edited:
D

droid

Guest
Get this - Gaddafi is using cluster bombs... EVIL, INDISCRIMINATE cluster bombs many of which remain unexploded for months or years after use... ...the horror!

I actually had a tea spluttering moment on Saturday when I heard that fat prick from Sky News whinging about the fact that they're, yknow, really bad and stuff and are banned by over 100 countries (except of course the US which is one of their largest manufacturers) :rolleyes:
 
Last edited by a moderator:

luka

Well-known member
Staff member
Bartys been composing a reply to this for the last 25 minutes. Honestly can't wait. It's going to be a major statement on the ethics of western interventionism. Not an easy thing to wrestle with. Craner will be proud. I know Barty has read Craner's seminal essays on Rwanda and Yugoslavia repeatedly as well as grappling with the mistakes he may of made with regard to Iraq as he tried to formulate his own position.
 

luka

Well-known member
Staff member
How will he steer between the Scylla and Charybdis of Droid and Craner?
 
Top