A tremendous amount of evidence seems to point towards the fact that the war in Libya is a lot more complicated than we are being told. We are made to believe that the involvement in the war by countries such as Italy, USA, England and France is as a result of the tyranny caused by Gadaffi in his refusal to relinquish power to a democratic form of leadership.
On that premise there are a number of factors worth pondering before one can truly understand the nature of the war that’s going on. Lets take a look at a few of them:
Where did Gadaffi get his weapons?
The highest exporters of arms to Libya are Italy, France and the UK. Between 2005 and 2009 the UK sold sold €119.35 million worth of guns and explosives to the Gaddafi regime, with France and and Italy selling €210.15 million and €276.7 million respectively within the same period. These are amongst the same countries spear heading the attack on Gaddafi’s forces.
Gaddafi and past issues with oil
Gadaffi in the past has been known to be a bit difficult when it came to oil negotiations. In the 1950′s the extraction of oil in Libya was predominantly controlled by foreign petrol companies. This meant that even though the oil was found in Libya, the foreign countries were at more of an advantage because they got half of the share of revenue. Gadaffi was not happy about this, so he threatened to close down all of the oil companies if they did not renegotiate their contracts, notably saying “people who have lived without oil for 5,000 years can live without it again for a few years in order to attain their legitimate rights”.
Gadaffi’s refusal to accept unfair foreign economic domination led to Libya becoming the first developing country to obtain a majority share of revenue from ‘its own’ oil production. Other nations soon followed in his footsteps.
Gaddaffi plans to nationalise oil
At a certain point in Gaddaffis rule he proposed that oil in Libya should be nationalised. As you can imagine this was met with an outcry by companies like British Petroleum, Anglo-Dutch Shell, ExxonMobil, Marathon Oil and Germany’s Wintershall, who would lose a fortune if this decision was followed through.
However, the Libyan government voted against returning ownership of the country’s oil to its people, with only 64 out of 468 members voting in favour of the measure. This in itself is quite strange, as one would think that citizens of a country would want to be in control of their economy, rather than having to rely on foreign companies. Clearly, the people at the top of the chain had a lot more to lose and would rather hang on to the fat salaries they were currently receiving from foreign coorperations.
In response to this decision Gadaffi said “My dream during all these years was to give the power and wealth directly to the people, the oil-exporting countries should opt for nationalization because of the rapid fall in oil prices. We must put the issue on the table and discuss it seriously. Oil should be owned by the State at this time, so we could better control prices by the increase or decrease in production.”
More recently Gaddaffi reemphasized his concerns, “The Administration has failed and the state’s economy has failed. Enough is enough. The solution is for the Libyan people to directly receive oil revenues and decide what to do with them,” he said in a speech broadcast on state television.
A statement such as this in a world that is controlled by oil is a very dangerous one to make. Libya is 9th on the list of countries with proven oil reserves, and if its leader insists on spoiling the show for foreign investors, he was going to have to go.
What started the war in Libya?
We were told by the media that the war in Libya began as a protest by Libyan citizens because they were unhappy about the fact that Gadaffi had been in power for so long. This protest quickly escalated, with the emphasis being on the fact that Gadaffis men opened fire on the civilians.
It is difficult to determine just how true or false this sequence of events are. Did Gaddaffis men really fire first? What provoked this action? Was this done by trigger happy soldiers? Or was this done on the orders of Gadaffi? Hang on a minute, where did all the rebels get their weapons from?
At the moment the details at best are left to speculation; but we can always take a look at some of the ‘facts of the past’.
History is a very useful tool when analyzing political issues, because it gives us a very clear idea of what various governments are “capable of doing” simply to further their extent of power or exercise a certain level of control over other countries.
In 1953, there was a coup d’etat in Iran. The democratically elected Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh was overthrown, and this entire episode was created by intelligence agencies in the United Kingdom and the United States, under the code name TPAJAX Project. According to CIA declassified documents, mobsters in Iran were ‘hired to stage riots’ within Iran; 800 people were killed, and Mohammad was sentenced to 3 years in jail, and placed under house arrest for the rest of his life. All of his supporters were tortured and killed.
Why would the American and English governments orchestrate such a thing? One word; Oil.
In 1951 Iran’s parliament almost unanimously supported a bill to nationalise the Iranian oil industry. Previously, Iran’s oil was controlled by the “British owned” Ango-Iranian Oil Company (AIOC). Britain was not prepared to surrender such a valuable asset, so they began by instigating an economic boycott in order to pressure Iran economically, and this was followed through by overthrowing the Iranian government entirely. The CIA notably bribed street thugs, politicians and Iranian army officers into taking part in a “propaganda campaign” against the Iranian government. For the next 26 years Mohammad-Reza Shah Pahlavi ruled Iran “relying heavily on the United States support to hold unto power”, until this governent was finally overthrown by a popular revolt by Iranians in 1979.
It is worth noting that this coup is widely agreed to have been a significant contribution to the anti-American sentiment in the middle east. It was thus an ‘anti-Western’ Islamic Republic of Iran, that replaced the pro-Western royal dictatorship that took over after the coup.
Relating this historical occurence to present day Libya, one can notice a few interesting similarities.
Gadaffi, like Iran, makes known his intentions to nationalise Libya’n Oil. This sends alarm bells ringing all around European and American countries that have a stake in the oil. All of a sudden there is an “uprising”, and what would ordinarily have been labelled a “coup” is presented as a fight for democracy by the Libyan people.
Given European and American history, it is not inconceivable to see how the war in Libya goes tremendously in their favour. As soon as the war in Libya began, governments across Europe and the United States found a convenient excuse to hike up oil prices; and the removal of Gadaffi is essentially removing the main threat of Libyan oil ever being nationalized. Could the American and European governments once again have bribed thugs, politicians and Libyan army officers to jumpstart a fake war?
Is the same twist applied in Iran the exact same twist being applied again in Libya? Creating a “democratic government”, with a military that is being trained by foreign governments, so that there is total dependency on them now and in the future.
Why did the coalition get involved?
President Barach Obama gave an announcement as to why it was necessary for other nations to get involved in the war in Libya:
“In this particular country, Libya; at this particular moment, we were faced with the prospect of violence on a horrific scale,” he said. “We had a unique ability to stop that violence.” He added, “America has an important strategic interest in preventing (Moammar) Gadhafi from overrunning those who oppose him.”
“Some nations may be able to turn a blind eye to atrocities in other countries. The United States of America is different.”
Interestingly, at the time of this announcement there were several countries that were at war, which makes it slightly more suspicious that there is a particular interest in “Libya”. What is this “strategic interest” that Obama claims he has for preventing Gadaffi from overrunning those who oppose him? Does it have anything to do with oil, or gaining control of Libyan resources?
In NATO’s effort to ‘help the rebels’, innocent civilians have been killed and a tremendous amount of infrastructure has been destroyed. This has ofcourse been referred to as ‘casualties of war’, and the media never questions the use of violence and unnecessary death in the Western attempt to institute peace.
When the damage is done we are fooled into believing that the humanitarian aid provided by America and Europe comes at no cost. Little do we realise that this simply provides an outlet to establish an even deeper dependency on foreign governments for survival.
The rebels are dealing oil now?
At the early stages of the war in Libya there was chaos and destruction. Lives were being lost on an hourly basis, yet somehow in the middle of this the “rebels of Libya” had enough time to establish a new Central Bank of Libya, and form a new national oil company. Does anyone else find it intriguing that in the middle of a “war”, fought by impoverished and struggling citizens, there emerged a group of bankers, accountants and management consultants, who created a new central bank and national oil company overnight; without any help whatsoever from foreign governments?
A new Libyan government has barely been formed yet the control of the banks, oil and money supply has been organised into a neatly functioning system.
Guess who buys oil from Libya? Europe currently buys 79% of Libya’s oil; and Italy alone, buys 32%.
By now a clear line of thought should be forming in your mind.
Whose side is the media on?
As always the media only seems to highlight the agenda of its own government, presenting things in a fashion that generates the required support needed from its citizens. Who exactly are the Libya’n rebels fighting against? If the Gadaffi government and his supporters have been fighting ‘the rest of the country’ – including NATO; then there must be an awful lot of them. Is it possible that most of Libya actually wants Gadaffi to remain in power?
We have seen countless hours of footage with the rebels celebrating, burning flags and pursing a cause for democracy. These videos are provided by journalists that ‘follow the rebels’, giving an entirely one sided perspective on the war and on everything that is happening. To what extent should they be believed?
“Democracy” seems to be a righteous justification to kill innocent people. The media has slowly cultivated our minds into overlooking the fact that some people ‘may not want to’ live in a democratic society. The entire world does not necessarily believe in democracy, and a democracy that is established through violence, death and dictatorship is a democracy that i’m not sure i want to be a part of.