[Peace-discuss] The US & the World of Oil

[C. G. Estabrook]

Libya and the World of Oil
By NOAM CHOMSKY

Last month, at the international tribunal on crimes during the civil war in 
Sierra Leone, the trial of former Liberian president Charles Taylor came to an end.

The chief prosecutor, U.S. law professor David Crane, informed The Times of 
London that the case was incomplete: The prosecutors intended to charge Moammar 
Gadhafi, who, Crane said, “was ultimately responsible for the mutilation, 
maiming and/or murder of 1.2 million people.”

But the charge was not to be. The U.S., U.K. and others intervened to block it. 
Asked why, Crane said, “Welcome to the world of oil.”

Another recent Gadhafi casualty was Sir Howard Davies, the director of the 
London School of Economics, who resigned after revelations of the school’s links 
to the Libyan dictator.

In Cambridge, Mass., the Monitor Group, a consultancy firm founded by Harvard 
professors, was well paid for such services as a book to bring Gadhafi’s 
immortal words to the public “in conversation with renowned international 
experts,” along with other efforts “to enhance international appreciation of 
(Gadhafi’s) Libya.”

The world of oil is rarely far in the background in affairs concerning this region.

For example, as the dimensions of the U.S. defeat in Iraq could no longer be 
concealed, pretty rhetoric was displaced by honest announcement of policy goals. 
In November 2007 the White House issued a Declaration of Principles insisting 
that Iraq must grant indefinite access and privilege to American investors.

Two months later President Bush informed Congress that he would reject 
legislation that might limit the permanent stationing of U.S. armed forces in 
Iraq or “United States control of the oil resources of Iraq” – demands that the 
U.S. had to abandon shortly afterward in the face of Iraqi resistance.

The world of oil provides useful guidance for western reactions to the 
remarkable democracy uprisings in the Arab world. An oil-rich dictator who is a 
reliable client is granted virtual free rein. There was little reaction when 
Saudi Arabia declared on March 5, “Laws and regulations in the Kingdom totally 
prohibit all kinds of demonstrations, marches and sit-in protests as well as 
calling for them as they go against the principles of Shariah and Saudi customs 
and traditions.” The kingdom mobilized huge security forces that rigorously 
enforced the ban.

In Kuwait, small demonstrations were crushed. The mailed fist struck in Bahrain 
after Saudi-led military forces intervened to ensure that the minority Sunni 
monarchy would not be threatened by calls for democratic reforms.

Bahrain is sensitive not only because it hosts the U.S. Fifth Fleet but also 
because it borders Shiite areas of Saudi Arabia, the location of most of the 
kingdom’s oil. The world’s primary energy resources happen to be located near 
the northern Persian Gulf (or Arabian Gulf, as Arabs often call it), largely 
Shiite, a potential nightmare for Western planners.

In Egypt and Tunisia, the popular uprising has won impressive victories, but as 
the Carnegie Endowment reported, the regimes remain and are “seemingly 
determined to curb the pro-democracy momentum generated so far. A change in 
ruling elites and system of governance is still a distant goal” – and one that 
the West will seek to keep far removed.

Libya is a different case, an oil-rich state run by a brutal dictator, who, 
however, is unreliable: A dependable client would be far preferable. When 
nonviolent protests erupted, Gadhafi moved quickly to crush them.

On March 22, as Gadhafi’s forces were converging on the rebel capital of 
Benghazi, top Obama Middle East adviser Dennis Ross warned that if there is a 
massacre, “everyone would blame us for it,” an unacceptable consequence.

And the West certainly didn’t want Gadhafi to enhance his power and independence 
by crushing the rebellion. The U.S. joined in the U.N. Security Council 
authorization of a “no-fly zone,” to be implemented by France, the U.K. and the U.S.

The intervention prevented a likely massacre but was interpreted by the 
coalition as authorizing direct support for the rebels. A cease-fire was imposed 
on Gadhafi’s forces, but the rebels were helped to advance to the West. In short 
order they conquered the major sources of Libya’s oil production, at least 
temporarily.

On March 28, the London-based Arab journal Al-Quds Al-Arabi warned that the 
intervention may leave Libya with “two states, a rebel-held, oil-rich East and a 
poverty-stricken, Gadhafi-led West. … Given that the oil wells have been 
secured, we may find ourselves facing a new Libyan oil emirate, sparsely 
inhabited, protected by the West and very similar to the Gulf’s emirate states.” 
Or the Western-backed rebellion might proceed all the way to eliminate the 
irritating dictator.

It is commonly argued that oil cannot be a motive for the intervention because 
the West had access to the prize under Gadhafi. True but irrelevant. The same 
could be said about Iraq under Saddam Hussein, or Iran and Cuba today.

What the West seeks is what Bush announced: control, or at least dependable 
clients, and in the case of Libya, access to vast unexplored areas expected to 
be rich in oil. U.S and British internal documents stress that the “virus of 
nationalism” is the greatest fear, since it might breed disobedience.

The intervention is being conducted by the three traditional imperial powers 
(though we may recall – Libyans presumably do – that, after World War I, Italy 
conducted genocide in eastern Libya).

The western powers are acting in virtual isolation. States in the region – 
Turkey and Egypt – want no part of it, nor does Africa. The Gulf dictators would 
be happy to see Gadhafi gone – but, even as they’re groaning under the weight of 
advanced weapons provided to them to recycle petrodollars and ensure obedience, 
they barely offer more than token participation. The same is true beyond: India, 
Brazil and even Germany.

The Arab Spring has deep roots. The region has been simmering for years. The 
first of the current wave of protests began last year in Western Sahara, the 
last African colony, invaded by Morocco in 1975 and illegally held since, in a 
manner similar to East Timor and the Israeli-occupied territories.

A nonviolent protest last November was crushed by Moroccan forces. France 
intervened to block a Security Council inquiry into the crimes of its client.

Then a flame ignited in Tunisia that has since spread into a conflagration.

http://inthesetimes.com/article/7146/libya_and_the_world_of_oil/