by Shirien
As Libyan dictator Muammar Gaddafi’s power reaches its final hour, Libyans and Arabs around the world celebrate. With the fall of Tunisia’s Ben Ali, followed by Egypt’s Mubarak, and now Gaddafi, the imagination of Arabs everywhere has been captured once again. The unraveling of decades of repressive dictatorship has inspired and empowered the Arab masses to see what they are capable of accomplishing.
But some outside of the Arab world are not happy about the toppling of Gaddafi. NATO’s intervention, combined with Gaddafi’s anti-imperialist sentiment, has given way to support of the Libyan dictator among certain leftist circles who have painted him as some archetypal “anti-imperialist” hero.
Over the past few months, anti-imperialist leaders have defended Gaddafi. Just last week, Gaddafi supporter Hugo Chavez of Venezuela, along with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran, jointly denounced the West’s “imperialist aggression” in Libya. Since the beginning of NATO’s presence in Libya months ago, Chavez had denounced the operation, claiming it to be an oil grab by Western powers. Back in February, Castro also claimed that NATO would invade Libya for oil.
But where was the outspokenness of these men years ago when Western leaders were in bed with Gaddafi making deals in exchange for Libyan oil?
Despite Gaddafi’s history of strong anti-imperialist rhetoric, he was no anti-imperialist. In fact, since 2001, he was arguably becoming one of the most important tools of Western imperialism in the Arab world.
Libya was declared a state sponsor of terrorism by the US in 1979, during the Carter administration. However, in the wake of the September 11 terrorist attacks, Gaddafi rushed to support the Bush administration’s “War on Terror.” Former CIA agent and State Department anti-terrorism chief Henry Crumpton claimed Libya’s “cooperation on intelligence is strong and getting stronger” and that the Libyan government had helped track operatives of al-Qaeda and allied terror groups. Ever since, US intelligence officials have conducted information-sharing sessions with their Libyan counterparts on a regular basis, continuing through the Obama administration.
The end of the US’s long break in diplomatic relations is attributed to Gaddafi’s decision to abandon a nuclear weapons program, renounce terrorism, and pay compensation for the Lockerbie bombing.
By 2006, the US dropped Libya from a State Department list of state sponsors of terrorism and restored full diplomatic ties. Former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice held up the Great Socialist People’s Libyan Arab Jamahiriya as “a model” for others to follow. Rice also praised Gaddafi’s “excellent cooperation in response to common global threats faced by the civilized world since September 11, 2001.”
As a result of the shift in US policy toward Libya, trade between Libya and the US, Britain, Germany and Italy shot up. Gaddafi welcomed oil companies such as Occidental Petroleum Corp. and ChevronTexaco Corp. to begin or resume exploration in Libya. In November 2007, Exxon Mobil Corp signed an agreement to execute an Exploration and Production Sharing Agreement (EPSA) with Libya’s National Oil Corporation to initiate exploration activity offshore Libya in the Sirte Basin, which included a commitment of at least five years.
Other major Western oil corporations like Royal Dutch Shell PLC and BP PLC committed billions of dollars in exploration projects in Libya through bilateral agreements. Petro-Canada, Italy’s ENI SpA, and Norway’s StatoilHydro ASA also worked in the country.
In recent years, Western leaders visited Libya and developed close relationships with Gaddafi. In 2007, following French President Nicolas Sarkozy’s visit to Libya, the European Aeronautic Defense & Space (EADS) signed two weapons contracts to supply an unspecified number of MBDA anti-tank missiles and communications systems to Libya. MBDA is a joint-venture of EADS, BAE Systems of Britain and Finmeccanica of Italy.
Another friend of Gaddafi was Premier Silvio Berlusconi of Italy, Libya’s former colonial ruler. Berlusconi worked with Gaddafi to combat illegal immigration to Italy. Gaddafi also engaged in business ventures in Itay. Just less than a year ago, Libya’s sovereign wealth fund—the Libyan Investment Authority—was the eighth largest shareholder in the Italian Bank UniCredit. The Libyan Central Bank was the third largest.
The Libyan Investment Authority, which was believed to be worth approximately $100 billion, reportedly flexed its muscle in London as well as in Italy.
In August 2009, a delegation of US senators led by John McCain met with Gaddafi to discuss the possibility of non-lethal defense equipment. McCain reported on Twitter that he had met Gaddafi, whom he described as “an interesting man”. The Libyan news agency reported that McCain praised Gaddafi’s “peace-making efforts” in Africa and called for expanded US ties with Libya.
Clearly, Gaddafi’s relationship with the West was going well…until the Arab Spring made its way to Libya.
In the beginning, as Gaddafi ordered the mass murder of anti-government protestors, Obama and other Western leaders remained silent. But the West saw what happened in Tunisia and Egypt. It saw how the people of the Arab world were growing weary of their repressive governments and were hungry for change. And it saw how unstoppable the people were in the face of brutal crackdowns by their governments. There would be no way that the Libyan people, after 42 years, would let Gaddafi continue his dictatorship. It was over for him.
No matter what Western leaders say, the NATO intervention in Libya was not a humanitarian one. If NATO was a humanitarian body, it would have intervened in the Horn of Africa, where millions of children are starving from famine. More likely, Western nations felt the need to move in, protect their assets, and attempt to assert their influence over the opposition movement. In any case, the West knew the Arab revolutions weren’t going away any time soon. They wanted to get on the “right side of history” in Libya by finally doing something that was genuinely in tune with popular public sentiment.
So on March 19, over a month after the Libyan uprising began, a Western-led NATO intervened in Libya. NATO effectively prevented Gaddafi’s forces from completely crushing the opposition movement, which eventually liberated Eastern Libya and after months reached the capital, Tripoli. The fighting continues, but it is clear that Gaddafi’s forces are quickly losing power.
Without NATO’s help, it would have been much more difficult for the opposition movement to be as successful as it has been. However, the notion that the uprising in Libya is somehow just a Western plot to get oil is not only a gross distortion of the truth; it is a huge slap in the face to Libyans who have died fighting for freedom. Libyans started the uprising. And Libya will soon be free not because of NATO or the US but because of the continuous courage and steadfastness of the Libyan people.
Moreover, Gaddafi supporters who attempt to portray the National Transitional Council (NTC)— the Libyan “rebel government”—as a sellout to Western imperialism completely ignore the fact that Gaddafi sold himself to the West years ago.
The difference with NTC is that they have not yet had the chance to show exactly what they stand for, nor have not been given the benefit of the doubt. We still have yet to see.
A promising statement came Monday from a NTC envoy to the Cairo-based Arab League. “Libya is an Arab and Islamic nation before NATO and after NATO,” he said, adding, “the Libyans revolted from the 1970s against Western bases and there will be no non-Libyan bases.”
The first step for Libya is nearly complete: Gaddafi’s fall from power. The next step is to rebuild Libya. Hopefully, the new Libya will reverse Gaddafi’s doings and break away from Western imperialistic interests so that Libyans can finally take back their nation and reinvent it for the better.
That’s not what the NTC says… They say:
“We don’t have a problem with Western countries like Italians, French and U.K. companies,” Abdeljalil Mayouf, a spokesman for the Libyan rebel oil company Agoco, was quoted by Reuters as saying. “But we may have some political issues with Russia, China and Brazil.”
After 20 years of embargo and sanctions, and following the invasion and occupation of Iraq, Libya did make concessions to the West. I think this is perfectly understandable, seeing what happened to Iraq, and the fact that Libya badly needed technology to develop it’s oil fields.
However, the deals struck with Italian, French, UK and American companies for exploration and exploitation are the toughest in the world. They are much tougher than the deals Venezuela or Iran makes with western companies, for example. Of the existing fields, 80% of the revenue went to the Libya state. Of the exploration concessions, the deal was to have 60% of the oil revenue to go the Libyan state, rather than western oil companies. This is acknowledged by all the involved parties.
The West, especially France, Italy and the UK have an enormous interest in toppling the nationalist regime in Libya. It is naive to think that the NTC has any independent say about the future of Libya.., the NTC is NATO.
Respectfully,
http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/conflict-in-libya-us-oil-companies-sit-on-sidelines-as-gaddafi-maintains-hold/2011/06/03/AGJq2QPH_story.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/23/business/global/the-scramble-for-access-to-libyas-oil-wealth-begins.html?_r=1
Stop being so idiotic Thomas. There are over 100 major oil firms on the globe. You say Qadafi had the toughest terms for oil contracts, 80% & 60%. So why didn’t these oil companies move somewhere else if he was the “toughest”? Do you really believe oil companies are that stupid to invest their capital with the least profitable seller?
And what stops the NTC from offering a tough deal? If Exxon or Shell bulk at those terms, there are 98 other oil firms that would be interested. Obviously you have NO IDEA how competitive markets work. Please take your “imperialism” conspiracy theories elsewhere.
It seems like the UN had little to say against Gaddafi in January, only a few weeks before the protests began http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/docs/16session/A-HRC-16-15.pdf
Oh really the NTC is Nato? That’s a bunch of bs…and a weak argument. Is this like how the CIA and Mossad are the same thing? Do some research and stop spewing out wack conspiracy theories.
This is a well written and fact based article. Thank you
@Al-Khalil: what I mean is that the TNC derives its authority solely from NATO. Without NATO, there would not be a TNC today. Next week, they will be planning the transition with envoys from the US, the UK, France, Turkey and Qatar. That says it all…
It is like Gaddafi derives his legitimacy/authority from anything other than brute force and repression. Did you pay any attention to the genuine marches in Benghazi and soon Tripoli in support of the TNC? Leftists disappoint me; not everything is a conspiracy theory.
“NTC is NATO.” What an asinine statement by Thomas. Qadafi & family was also trained and stooged by the Soviets and then Russia. Qadafi would not have lasted without the T72s from Russia. So Qadafi is USSR. See how silly that sounds?
You deny agency for Libyans and Arabs. A typical RACIST attitude espoused by the REGRESSIVE left and the friends of fascism. Either you have to be anti-west and ant-democracy, or you are a stoog of “imperialism” whatever shit that is.
Get lost Thomas and take your half-brained conspiracy theories to somewhere like North Korea where they will buy it. You managed to make the Left look like total morons.
Hey come on Thomas, just because the TNC meets US, France, UK etc envoys doesn’t mean that the TNC is a tool of imperialist powers. The TNC has already also met Russian and Chinese envoys. What do you say to that? Yesterday the TNC member Mahmoud Jibril said, after asked how the relations with Russia and China will be: “They had their people’s best interests in mind, and we have ours.” The TNC has pledged that the oil and contruction contracts will remain, it doesnt matter whether with a Western state or Russia, China.
Thomas you’re an idiot. TNC was formed BEFORE NATO involvement in Libya! NATO didnt even recognize them at first. This revolution was a PEOPLES revolution that was happening with or without NATO. Libyans were gonna fight to the death.
Are you not aware that Gaddafi slaughtered 30,000 unarmed protesters, and promised to demolish Benghazi, before NATO was involved? Its ridiculous that some people let their contempt for NATO trump their sympathy and support for the Libyan people.
Utter bull pucky- The intervention was absolutely Humanitarian…
no matter what anti Western uninformed people say…
NATO is working under a mandate from the UN. Both the UN and NATO provide a great deal of humanitarian support thru out the world.
This article has some good and valid points but then this Anti West rhetoric just destroys all credibility of the author-
Are you serious?! You obviously don’t know about all the people who have died because of NATO troops in Libya.
I feel sorry for the people who stuck up with the anti imperialism nonsense, All Arab leaders are talking & doing business with the west, name any Arab country it doesn’t. NTC members are all Libyans & after 30days of our peaceful revolution we sought help from the international community simply because Gaddafi is the bloodiest man, not like Bin Ali nor Mubark, once he started using missiles, tanks & rocket launchers. Some people think we should live under Gaddafi’s rule or we are classed as imperialist tools for NATO, A- Gaddafi is not nationalist, simply if he was, he wouldn’t kill his own people, didnt do business with the west, or even sending love letters to Obama (US). B- the collation consists of Qatar, UAE, Turkey & NATO. If you live in a corrupt country & afraid of your own leader feel free to use the anti imperialism & nationalism to justify your guilt.
American journalist John Reed:
“Uncle Sam (or in this case NATO) is not one ever to give anybody something for nothing.
He comes along with a sack stuffed with straw in one hand and a whip in the other. Whoever
takes his promises at their face value will find himself obliged to pay for them with blood and
sweat.”
Why isn’t the author highlighting the deaths NATO has admitted to? Including the killing of children? Also, why no response over my UN link?
Also – guess that the whole “no ground troops” bit is also being ignored ay? Especially since there have been British Special Forces ON THE GROUND for at least two weeks in Libya:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8721291/Libya-SAS-leads-hunt-for-Gaddafi.html
Nato! really! The truth is that Nato as an alliance of government was reluctant most states simply let French, UK and US and a few others to make use of Nato as a military organisation, some members did nothing such as Germany, some other half heatedly participated (remember Berlusconi paroles, “I was opposed to it” taht he has forgotten).
Nobody in France or UK criticized their Gvt for intervening in Libya, in the USA the rabid call of the radical Republicans for the indicment of Obama for breaching the war act was silenced by senior Republicans like Mc Cain who had travelled to libya to judge by himself. US population would not have gone for it in any case.
The truth is that deep inside 80% of the population is the conviction that while a disgusting and murderous clown might have to be entertained while there is no other alternative to minimize loss of life (and economic loss, that is true), it has to stop somewhere and one simply cannot stand by overlooking decent people being killed when there is a genuine possibility to stop it.
It is possible that sending a few troops on the ground would have brought the military end sooner but it would have deprived the Libyan people of its victory. It has not happened and as a consequence Western countries helps will remain what it should be, a helping hand to a population that is forging its future by itself.
I am personnally impressed by the abilities the “disorganised rebels” have shown in organising their western offensive mustering fighters from all Libya while every newsman was commenting wisely over a stalemate and the East/West/tribal divisions. Feb 17 is truly the rebirth of the Libyan people, it does not look like it can be influenced if it choses not.
One question to all: what is better? Gaddafi crushing his people to death, torturing them and imprison them OR get help from the outside world??
I allege that everyone who is against the intervention is a supporter of the first alternative.
Power vacuum will be left and filled by Western contractors and Western Governments pulling the strings, They are already controlling Libyan frozen assets and although they recognise the puppet NTC they are only giving a small amount back at the moment. So who is in charge, we ask?
Gaddafi played the necessary game with the West for wealth and most importantly security (Anti Al Queda and Oil benefits). I call that a wise move, what he did with the money was stupid, but I do not think that makes him a closet imperialist,.However:what will happen now
The west no longer need to play now with Libya and will manipulate all that will happen under the umbrella of introducing ¨Democracy´,when actually they will put the parties they want up for election so that they have the power to control the Libyan assets and have a very important foothold in Sub Saharan Africa. Sound familiar?.
The United states have just agreed with the Afghanistan government to stay in the country until 2024. Hmmm, did you know this, 2024?
They have just agreed with the Iraqi government to be based in Iraq indefinitely. Did you know this, indefintiely?
All done under the banner of Democracy.
What is western democracy nowadays, all it means that those in power have a better publicity machine than the other, once they get in power they generally do whatever they want, start wars for generally economic reasons or vengeance, lie constantly to there own people, control them via the internet, media, phones and ostracize those who disagree. There are very few differences between political parties now in all Western countries, why, because they are onto a winning philosophy, that most have blindly fallen in to and follow like sheep under the pretence of Democracy or as they should call it Utopia..
Unfortunately in the west nowadays: Freedom and Democracy = Control and Power.
I hope that I am wrong on Libya, I really do.
Great article, it is strange for some of the comments here to highlight the neoliberal character of the NTC as though ghadaffi was not just as neoliberal.
It seems to me that a neoliberal economy where there are no arbitrary arrests, torture, disappearances and where minorities have rights and there are elecitons etc is a whole lot better than one where these things are absent.
I am wondering what will the direction be of libya under the national transitional council; both in social policy, (which seems promising) and economic policy (which does not). It looks like many of those responsible for running the economy in the NTC were previously involved in the neoliberal privatisation of the Libyan economy under Ghadaffi.
Also, while I’m sure the NTC is no simple puppet organisation, it is obvious it will be subject to some influence from the NATO countries who’s track record in supporting the independent development of developing nations is not good to say the least.
Add to this the seeming lack of popular political forces; like mass based political parties or unions, which could influence the selection of members of any constituent assembly or pressure the NTC into economic policies which would benefit the majority of Libyans
and the outcome does not look favourable (I have heard of the first independent union being formed in Benghazi but not much more).
So while i recognise that most governments would be better than Ghadaffi
I fear that the democratic development of Libya will be hampered by the same problems (ie high unemployment, Russian style kleptocrats, lack of public services and poverty) which are symptomatic of neoliberal economies and which it seems were major contributory factors in the rebellion.
I hope I’m wrong and that Libyans can pull this one out of the bag
this issue has been causing a great deal of problems, even with friends and family.. everyone is so sure the NATO has no humanitarian interests.. its all about the oil.. and so disagree strongly over their intervention in Libya.. but what is the alternative? i spent so much time reading how Qaddafi is the worst leader ever, and also the best ever.. u don’t know who to believe anymore.. but i remember how this thing started.. i remember the youth, planning on fb.. setting a date, and begin their protests.. that can not be faked.. they simply cant fake a revolution, i saw the Libyans here in Egypt.. protesting here and there.. u stand by them and they cry when they know they have support of others.. they weep for their country and for how their brothers were suddenly forced to fight a complete war.. against each other or against the troops Qaddafi was bringing in from neighbor countries.. and for what? for him to stay in power?? for him to start the gold African dinar? for him to save us all from the economic grasp of the west?? for him to even freaking take us all to heaven?? even if all of this is true.. none of it, justifies for one second spilling all that blood.. even if the rebels are imperialist tools, or damned satin worshipers.. if the people have spoken, then their will be done.. good or bad.. and no reason excuses a single drop of Libyan blood..
[...] anti-Imperialism, his practice of making deals with Western leaders in exchange for Libyan oil is extremely well-documented. For such a staunch anti-Imperialist, he did a great job completely selling out to the West. [...]
[...] is another reason Gaddafi ought to have been taken alive. We already know he was involved in some incredibly shady deals with the West that are documented out in the open. Though he undoubtedly would have [...]
[...] at Yansoon has a great piece on Gaddafi’s “closet imperialism”; his close ties with many Western nations, and what they mean in the context of the NATO [...]
[...] Death As a Triumph of Western Humanitarianism. Not a chance. It’s pretty clear that the West cared little about Gaddafi’s horrific actions as a leader. As recently as 2009, [...]