Libya
Another War Over Oil Or 'Humanitarian' Intervention?
By Diane Secor
On March 28, President Obama announced that he had obtained a U.N. Security Council resolution to establish a "no-fly zone" in Libya. He said that enforcement of this "no-fly zone" had beŽcome a NATO operation, with the United States in a "supporting role." Obama denied that the purŽpose of this U.S.-NATO military force was "regime change," but admitted that his administration no longer recognizes Qaddafi's regime as "legitimate" and that the U.S. is demanding that Qaddafi "step down."
So, then, is this U.S.-NATO military intervenŽtion in Libya a "humanitarian" mission to save the people of Libya from the evil Qaddafi? Or is this another war about clashing material interests, more specifically about oil?
The history of U.S.-Libyan relations offers some clues. According to CNN.com (June 28, 2004), during the 1960's and 1970's, U.S. oil corporaŽtions, such as Occidental, Exxon Mobil (formerly Esso and Mobil in Libya), ConocoPhillips, AmeŽrada Hess, and Marathon, transformed Libya into an "oil powerhouse" of North Africa. Libya was a key link in Occidental's Armand Hammer's global empire. Qaddafi's own top officials, such as Libyan National Oil Corp. chairperson Abdulla Salem El-
Badri and Prime Minister Ghanem, were trained in the United States and seemed to develop close personal ties to America's oil industry.
This picture changed in the 1980's during the Reagan administration when the U.S. had a seri-ous falling out with Qaddafi's regime. Reagan bombed Tripoli in 1986 and called Qaddafi the "mad dog of the Middle East." Libya was labeled as a "rogue state" and a "sponsor of terrorism," and the U.S. imposed sanctions on Libya in 1986. These U.S. firms officially left Libya.
However, all American capitalists did not toŽtally abandon their Libyan business, partners. For example, some American companies continued to sell oil parts to Libya through their European subsidiaries or through various third parties. General Electric routed transactions to Libya through their Italian subsidiary Nuovo Pignone. These sanctions lasted 18 years, until 2004, when the George W. Bush administration decided that Qaddafi was someone who the U.S. could do busiŽness with.
Libyan Prime Minister Ghanem seemed elated that his U.S. oil business partners were "coming back home." Thus in 2004, the Libyan "black gold rush" brought Occidental and other U.S. firms back to this "powerhouse," which they had ere
ated. But these American corporations seemed to expect that the "high risks" involved in renewing their Libyan investments entitled them to make more lucrative profits. If Qaddafi was eager to get a bigger piece of the pie for himself and his cronies, he and American oil firms were headed for a clash after the initial "homecoming" euphoria.
A February U.S. Department of Energy, EIA (Energy Information Administration) report confirms that the U.S. sanctions against Libya were lifted in 2004. In 2006, the U.S., during the G.W. Bush administration, officially took Libya off the "state sponsors of terrorism" list. This enabled U.S. oil corporations to increase their investments in Libyan oil exploration and production.- Since 2004, Libya had imported more oil to the United States.
For the first two years of his administration, Obama continued these policies toward Qaddafi's regime. Then why the sudden change in policy around the end of February or March this year with Obama's Reagan-era rhetoric, with a U.S.-NATO air war on Libya in coordination with CIA aid to rebels, who are fighting Qaddafi?
This February EIA report suggests that U.S., British, French, and other Western European firms may have had disputes with the Qaddafi regime on the terms of these oil agreements. According to the EIA, the government-owned Libyan National Oil Corporation was in charge of negotiating Exploration and Production Sharing Agreements (EPSA) with international oil companies (IOCs), such as Eni, Total (of France), Repsol YPF, StatoilHydro, Occidental, OMV, Conoco-Phillips, Hess, Marathon, Shell, British Petroleum, and ExxonMobil. The Libyan regime reduced IOC production shares in 2005 and demanded other concessions, which cut the IOC's "share of output" by as much as one-half in some cases. Evidently, these foreign oil firms had not been able to get better deals from the Libyan government.
Then, on March 1, The New York Times reported that tensions between Qaddafi and the Western powers escalated. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, British Prime Minister David Cameron, and French Prime Minister Francois Fillon, the leading NATO powers, declared that ' Qaddafi must step down immediately.
At that juncture, oil corporations estimated that anti-Qaddafi insurgents actually controlled about 80 per cent of all of Libya's oil. Much of the
fighting was taking place in Benghazi and in order to capture the oil refinery at Ras Lanuf. During these and other battles, the insurgents were reportedly aid by the CIA and by British intelligence on the ground and by U.S. air strikes on Qaddafi's forces.
The March 31 New York Times article revealed that "several weeks" earlier, Obama had ordered CIA support for these rebel forces. Also British special forces and MI6 officers were collecting intelligence on Qaddafi's forces, arms depots, and missile installations to help direct the air attacks. Moreover Obama's March 28 speech had specifically referred to the U.S. and U.S. allies saving the people of Benghazi from a "massacre" by Qaddafi's troops.
On March 22, according to Bloomberg, anti-Qaddafi rebels based in Benghazi just happened to announce that their Transitional National Council established a new national Libyan oil company, which would replace the National Oil Corcporation controlled by Qaddafi's regime. The Council also "designated the Central Bank of Benghazi as a monetary authority competent in monetary policies in Libya and the appointment of a governor to the Central Bank of Libya, with a temporary headquarters in Benghazi." Such structures seem to resemble a defacto Libyan government intended to replace Qaddafi's regime. Of course, such a governing entity with its own oil company, would never have existed without covert Western logistical support, the protection of U.S. and NATO air forces, and other aid from imperialist powers.
The Obama administration claims that this U.S. military intervention in Libya is limited in scope. The outcome of this operation remains to be seen. But American workers will recall that during the Clinton administration in the 1990'a that "no-fly zones" were set up in Iraq to defend CIA-backed insurgents, who fought Saddam Hussein. When these actions were deemed insufficient to uphold U.S. oil and strategic interests, U.S. military involvement escalated. The 1999 NATO air war against Yugoslavia also set a precedent for NATO military intervention in non-member states as a means for Western capitalists to get access to valuable raw materials and strategic oil pipeline routes. (See April 2011 SLP Newsletter)
Post je objavljen 04.05.2011. u 11:05 sati.