Raubleaux
20th March 2011, 21:36
"With the lifting of UN and U.S. sanctions, foreign investment has surged back in to Libya over the past three years ... 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." - U.S. diplomatic cable released by Wikileaks, November 15, 2007
As with Yugoslavia, much of the "left" has stumbled backwards into supporting the bombing of yet another country. This will undoubtedly lead to an escalation of violence on the ground between government forces and rebels. After untold hundreds and thousands are killed, the imperialist powers of France and the United States will establish a puppet government in Libya. The primary role of this new puppet government will be to protect the private property rights and profits of international oil corporations.
Any talk of protecting human rights can be immediately dismissed. For one, the violence in Libya prior to the French/U.S. bombing was on par with a low-level civil war -- there were no mass killings or genocide. Just days ago a similar uprising in Bahrain was violently crushed with the aid of U.S. ally Saudi Arabia. If it’s not about protecting the lives of innocent people, then what is it about?
Many on the left are quite mystified by all this. Some were inspired by the recent toppling of Hosni Mubarak in Egypt by a seemingly "progressive" movement and are hoping the rebellion Libya was the same type of thing. Frankly, it is not. One can learn a lot by combing through the Wikileaks cables from Tripoli. They tell us a great deal about the nature of the Gaddafi regime, the rebels, and what the real motivations of France and the United States are in Libya.
What is it like in Libya?
The stereotype of Libya's economy under Gaddafi is much like that of the Eastern European economies under the Warsaw Pact. Most are employed in the state sector, which is said to be inefficient. In the Wikileaks cables, U.S. diplomats describe Libya as having a "culture of rent" rather than a "culture of work." While the Libyan economy certainly is not the most dynamic in the region, the Qaddafi regime provides basic services such as housing, education and health care for its citizens. As a result of this state-run system, Libya has the highest living standard in all of Africa. It is ranked 53rd in the world by the UN Human Development Index. Along with Gaddafi's stature as a figure of resistance to Western imperialism, these social programs are the basis for most of the popular support for the regime.
Libya's political system (known as "Jamahiriya") is laid out in a philosophical pamphlet called "The Green Book," written by Gaddafi himself. It establishes a network of councils whereby people ostensibly participate in direct control of the government. While there is a great deal of public participation in political debates at the local level, at the highest level of government the Libyan regime seems to be dominated by technocrats and the Gaddafi family.
Who are the rebels?
It has not been easy to get reliable information out of Libya, as both the Gaddafi government and the rebels are waging a massive propaganda battle. However, we know that most of the rebels originate in Eastern Libya, a region that is historically antagonistic to the Gaddafi regime. Long before he began cozying up to President Bush, Gaddafi was a secular leader and made many efforts to suppress Islamic terrorism. Eastern Libya is a hotbed of Muslim extremist activity, with many disaffected young men traveling to Iraq to commit "acts of martyrdom." Clan loyalties are also a major factor -- some of the ugliest expression of this has taken the form of racist attacks against black Africans. There is a perception among those in Eastern Libya that the Gaddafi regime keeps them intentionally poor as a method of political control. While it is true that poverty levels are higher in Eastern Libya for a variety of reasons, the Gaddafi regime has actually been proactive in trying to promote development in the region precisely to prevent this type of political turmoil.
In other words, the rebellion in Libya is very different from the movement against Mubarak in Egypt. In Egypt the movement was largely led by trade unions and middle-class Egyptians who wanted to see more political freedoms. Despite what some people in the West might wish, there is very little desire for a "democracy" in Libya, except for perhaps among a small sliver of the education bourgeois resistance. In any event, the establishment of a bourgeois "democracy" in Libya would essentially mean rule by international oil companies.
How did we get to this point?
In 2003, Gaddafi made a strategic decision to give up Libya's weapons of mass destruction and normalize relations with the United States. The Libyan government began to privatize some parts of the economy and did everything they could to encourage foreign investment in Libya. In addition to investment, new consumer goods began to flood the Libyan market. In yet another echo of Eastern Europe under the Warsaw Pact, average Libyans became frustrated with their inability to purchase many of these new consumer commodities, especially as they began to witness wealthier Libyans driving around in fancy foreign cars and other examples of conspicuous consumption.
Once the socialist revolutionary, Gaddafi had now turned neo-liberal. Perhaps inspired by the example of China, Gaddafi seemed to hope that liberalization would help bring economic dynamism and diversify Libya's economy. His efforts at liberalization were accompanied by attacks on the government bureaucracy, which Gaddafi said was corrupt and inefficient. He even began to hint that certain high government posts would be filled by a new round of popular elections.
For its part, the Western powers began cultivating one of Gaddafi's sons, Saif, to take the helm of leadership once Gaddafi died. Saif was educated at the London School of Economics and was known to schmooze with the wealthy and powerful in Europe. He also took a leadership role in appeasing the U.S. and Europeans when it came to some of Libya's international controversies, such as the Lockerbie bombing. He would be the Western puppet that would usher in the ultimate unfettered rule of capitalism in Libya.
Gaddafi: the unreliable ally
Despite his old age, however, Gaddafi stubbornly refused to die and remained active in politics. In 2008, Gaddafi proposed a radical restructuring of the government and economy. Claiming that the state-run economy had failed to adequately distribute the nation's oil wealth, he proposed that almost all the functions of the government be privatized, including education and health care. In place of the welfare system of state employment, Gaddafi proposed that the nation's oil wealth be transferred directly "to the people" in the form of cash payments of $4000 a month. The plan was bizarre, to say the least. Half Tea Party libertarian, half utopian socialist. Few in the Libyan government took the proposal seriously, dismissing Gaddafi as a leader who likes to play philosopher-king. Capitalists also feared that the program would lead to runaway inflation if implemented.
Gaddafi's strange brand economic populism, however, was not the only source of frustration for the capitalists. Rising oil prices in recent years prompted the Libyan government to tighten the screws on foreign companies operating in the country. One of the Wikileaks cables described the situation:
"There is a growing concern [among international oil companies] that [the Libyan state-run oil company], 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 [international oil companies] are now being forced to hire untrained Libyan employees."
One case example was a deal with the multinational Italian oil company Eni, which the Libyans renegotiated on terms that were much more favorable to the Libyan government and would cut into Eni's profits considerably. Another Wikileaks cable discussed the matter:
"Representatives of international oil companies (IOCs) operating in Libya have expressed grave doubts about the Eni deal. One executive described it as 'scary,' adding that it raised serious questions about [the Libyan government's] adherence to the sanctity of existing contracts."
In addition to "resource nationalism," Gaddafi began to promote Pan-Africanism in his capacity as leader of the African Union. He resisted attempts by French president Sarkozy to establish a "Mediterranean Union," saying that the European Union should deal on equal terms with the African Union and the Arab League rather than trying to peel off North Africa from alliances with their southern neighbors.
In one private meeting between Libyan and French diplomats, the Libyans reportedly said, "We are not one of your African countries you can boss around."
Some have wondered: why are the French and the U.S. bombing Libya but not bombing Bahrain? This is your answer.
The government and business community in Bahrain have been loyal servants of international capitalism. As Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Mike Mullen recently said on television, "The Bahrainis and that country has been a critical ally for decades." Gaddafi, despite his quixotic adoption of neo-liberal ideology, has proven to be an unpredictable and unreliable ally. It seemed the United States and France were willing to tolerate him until they could install his son Saif, but the uprisings in Eastern Libya have provided the pretext to move in militarily and put Libya on the fast track to full-blown exploitation by international capital.
As with Yugoslavia, much of the "left" has stumbled backwards into supporting the bombing of yet another country. This will undoubtedly lead to an escalation of violence on the ground between government forces and rebels. After untold hundreds and thousands are killed, the imperialist powers of France and the United States will establish a puppet government in Libya. The primary role of this new puppet government will be to protect the private property rights and profits of international oil corporations.
Any talk of protecting human rights can be immediately dismissed. For one, the violence in Libya prior to the French/U.S. bombing was on par with a low-level civil war -- there were no mass killings or genocide. Just days ago a similar uprising in Bahrain was violently crushed with the aid of U.S. ally Saudi Arabia. If it’s not about protecting the lives of innocent people, then what is it about?
Many on the left are quite mystified by all this. Some were inspired by the recent toppling of Hosni Mubarak in Egypt by a seemingly "progressive" movement and are hoping the rebellion Libya was the same type of thing. Frankly, it is not. One can learn a lot by combing through the Wikileaks cables from Tripoli. They tell us a great deal about the nature of the Gaddafi regime, the rebels, and what the real motivations of France and the United States are in Libya.
What is it like in Libya?
The stereotype of Libya's economy under Gaddafi is much like that of the Eastern European economies under the Warsaw Pact. Most are employed in the state sector, which is said to be inefficient. In the Wikileaks cables, U.S. diplomats describe Libya as having a "culture of rent" rather than a "culture of work." While the Libyan economy certainly is not the most dynamic in the region, the Qaddafi regime provides basic services such as housing, education and health care for its citizens. As a result of this state-run system, Libya has the highest living standard in all of Africa. It is ranked 53rd in the world by the UN Human Development Index. Along with Gaddafi's stature as a figure of resistance to Western imperialism, these social programs are the basis for most of the popular support for the regime.
Libya's political system (known as "Jamahiriya") is laid out in a philosophical pamphlet called "The Green Book," written by Gaddafi himself. It establishes a network of councils whereby people ostensibly participate in direct control of the government. While there is a great deal of public participation in political debates at the local level, at the highest level of government the Libyan regime seems to be dominated by technocrats and the Gaddafi family.
Who are the rebels?
It has not been easy to get reliable information out of Libya, as both the Gaddafi government and the rebels are waging a massive propaganda battle. However, we know that most of the rebels originate in Eastern Libya, a region that is historically antagonistic to the Gaddafi regime. Long before he began cozying up to President Bush, Gaddafi was a secular leader and made many efforts to suppress Islamic terrorism. Eastern Libya is a hotbed of Muslim extremist activity, with many disaffected young men traveling to Iraq to commit "acts of martyrdom." Clan loyalties are also a major factor -- some of the ugliest expression of this has taken the form of racist attacks against black Africans. There is a perception among those in Eastern Libya that the Gaddafi regime keeps them intentionally poor as a method of political control. While it is true that poverty levels are higher in Eastern Libya for a variety of reasons, the Gaddafi regime has actually been proactive in trying to promote development in the region precisely to prevent this type of political turmoil.
In other words, the rebellion in Libya is very different from the movement against Mubarak in Egypt. In Egypt the movement was largely led by trade unions and middle-class Egyptians who wanted to see more political freedoms. Despite what some people in the West might wish, there is very little desire for a "democracy" in Libya, except for perhaps among a small sliver of the education bourgeois resistance. In any event, the establishment of a bourgeois "democracy" in Libya would essentially mean rule by international oil companies.
How did we get to this point?
In 2003, Gaddafi made a strategic decision to give up Libya's weapons of mass destruction and normalize relations with the United States. The Libyan government began to privatize some parts of the economy and did everything they could to encourage foreign investment in Libya. In addition to investment, new consumer goods began to flood the Libyan market. In yet another echo of Eastern Europe under the Warsaw Pact, average Libyans became frustrated with their inability to purchase many of these new consumer commodities, especially as they began to witness wealthier Libyans driving around in fancy foreign cars and other examples of conspicuous consumption.
Once the socialist revolutionary, Gaddafi had now turned neo-liberal. Perhaps inspired by the example of China, Gaddafi seemed to hope that liberalization would help bring economic dynamism and diversify Libya's economy. His efforts at liberalization were accompanied by attacks on the government bureaucracy, which Gaddafi said was corrupt and inefficient. He even began to hint that certain high government posts would be filled by a new round of popular elections.
For its part, the Western powers began cultivating one of Gaddafi's sons, Saif, to take the helm of leadership once Gaddafi died. Saif was educated at the London School of Economics and was known to schmooze with the wealthy and powerful in Europe. He also took a leadership role in appeasing the U.S. and Europeans when it came to some of Libya's international controversies, such as the Lockerbie bombing. He would be the Western puppet that would usher in the ultimate unfettered rule of capitalism in Libya.
Gaddafi: the unreliable ally
Despite his old age, however, Gaddafi stubbornly refused to die and remained active in politics. In 2008, Gaddafi proposed a radical restructuring of the government and economy. Claiming that the state-run economy had failed to adequately distribute the nation's oil wealth, he proposed that almost all the functions of the government be privatized, including education and health care. In place of the welfare system of state employment, Gaddafi proposed that the nation's oil wealth be transferred directly "to the people" in the form of cash payments of $4000 a month. The plan was bizarre, to say the least. Half Tea Party libertarian, half utopian socialist. Few in the Libyan government took the proposal seriously, dismissing Gaddafi as a leader who likes to play philosopher-king. Capitalists also feared that the program would lead to runaway inflation if implemented.
Gaddafi's strange brand economic populism, however, was not the only source of frustration for the capitalists. Rising oil prices in recent years prompted the Libyan government to tighten the screws on foreign companies operating in the country. One of the Wikileaks cables described the situation:
"There is a growing concern [among international oil companies] that [the Libyan state-run oil company], 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 [international oil companies] are now being forced to hire untrained Libyan employees."
One case example was a deal with the multinational Italian oil company Eni, which the Libyans renegotiated on terms that were much more favorable to the Libyan government and would cut into Eni's profits considerably. Another Wikileaks cable discussed the matter:
"Representatives of international oil companies (IOCs) operating in Libya have expressed grave doubts about the Eni deal. One executive described it as 'scary,' adding that it raised serious questions about [the Libyan government's] adherence to the sanctity of existing contracts."
In addition to "resource nationalism," Gaddafi began to promote Pan-Africanism in his capacity as leader of the African Union. He resisted attempts by French president Sarkozy to establish a "Mediterranean Union," saying that the European Union should deal on equal terms with the African Union and the Arab League rather than trying to peel off North Africa from alliances with their southern neighbors.
In one private meeting between Libyan and French diplomats, the Libyans reportedly said, "We are not one of your African countries you can boss around."
Some have wondered: why are the French and the U.S. bombing Libya but not bombing Bahrain? This is your answer.
The government and business community in Bahrain have been loyal servants of international capitalism. As Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Mike Mullen recently said on television, "The Bahrainis and that country has been a critical ally for decades." Gaddafi, despite his quixotic adoption of neo-liberal ideology, has proven to be an unpredictable and unreliable ally. It seemed the United States and France were willing to tolerate him until they could install his son Saif, but the uprisings in Eastern Libya have provided the pretext to move in militarily and put Libya on the fast track to full-blown exploitation by international capital.