More on the oil motive for NATO's intervention in Libya

The difference between the Gaddafi government’s oil policies and those that oil importing governments (such as NATO countries) and companies based in them would prefer are one of the main motives for NATO’s military intervention in Libya – and certainly more of a real motive than protection of civilians.

(A previous post covered some of this and the parallels between US intervention in Libya and in Iran and Venezuela – all primarily due to disputes over oil profits and control of production levels.)

Libya experts like Geoff Simons and Ronald Bruce St. John have described the Gaddafi government’s oil policy as one of playing foreign oil companies off against one another to ensure the best returns for Libya, in deals that get the country the investment and expertise it requires for oil exploration and production. From the beginning Gaddafi’s government used the threat of possible nationalisation in negotiations – a threat that has remained credible as they have sometimes carried it out (e.g in September 1973). (1) – (2).

St. John wrote that ‘In retrospect it seems obvious that the RCC [Revolutionary Command Council including Gaddafi] was determined from the start to reduce oil production to conserve supplies, increase oil revenues by maximising the price, develop upstream and downstream capabilities, and use oil revenues to diversify the economy’ (3).

(‘Upstream’ refers to exploration to find oil and production (i.e extraction) , ‘downstream’ usually means storage, refining e.g oil into petrol, distribution and sale.)

While the details of Gaddafi’s policy have varied, the key aims have remained the same. These aims have often conflicted with the aims of oil importing countries (including all NATO countries) and the oil companies based in them. In his book ‘Fuel on the Fire’ Greg Muttit quotes a report by the US Center for Strategic and International Studies, written by former members of the CIA, US government and American oil companies in 2000. They concluded that, with the increase in demand from developing economies like China, India and Brazil, the ideal scenario from the point of view of oil importers and oil companies based in them would be a 50% increase in production by 2020 to allow oil companies to profit fully from the growing demand and to maintain oil prices at a level low enough to allow continued economic growth in oil importing countries (4).

It’s also likely that Libya developing it’s own refineries (and it’s acquisition of the European oil refining firm Tamoil in 1986 (5)) cut into profits the oil companies could make from refining oil and selling the more valuable final products such as petrol back to Libya, as they do in some oil rich countries (e.g Nigeria ) (6).

The three countries who the CSIS report said would have to maximise production to achieve the 50% increase were Iraq, Iran and Libya – whose production levels were all limited by US government and/or UN sanctions (7). Lifting these sanctions without getting governments who had defied the US either replaced or made to make big concessions would result in huge loss of face and influence for the US government. So the US and it’s allies invaded Iraq and got contracts with their oil companies negotiated while the occupation and insurgency continued, forcing the Iraqi government to negotiate from a position of weakness. They’ve imposed sanctions on Iran and continue to threaten possible military action against it; and they’ve imposed Iraq style sanctions on and carried out air strikes in Libya.

The overthrow of Saddam Hussein failed to promote democracy in the Arab world, but it certainly promoted the interests of US and British oil companies. They got contracts on very favourable terms with the government of Iraq, while hundreds of thousands of their troops and mercenaries were still there (8) – (9). A week after Saddam Hussein was captured by US forces Gaddafi agreed to inspections of it’s nuclear facilities which would be accompanied by the return of US oil companies to Libya, later followed by BP (10) – (12).

While Gaddafi had allowed western oil companies contracts in Libya before the current fighting he was also haggling for a higher share of oil profits from them and hinting at the possibility of nationalisation if they refused. American oil companies became worried he might kick them out (13) – (14).

Oil profits, prices and supplies are one of the real motives for NATO’s intervention in Libya.

(1) = Ronald Bruce St. John (2008) ‘Libya From Colony to Independence’,  Oneworld Paperback/Oxford, especially Chapter 8, p145 -148; Chapter 7, p174 – 177;Chapter 9, p250-254, p 260

(2) = Geoff Simons (1996) ‘Libya the struggle for survival’ 2^nd edition, MacMillan, London, 1996, paperback

(3) = St. John (see 1 above), Chapter 6, page 145

(4) = Center for Strategic International Studies  (2000) ‘The geopolitics of energy into the 21st century’ cited by Gregg Muttitt (2011) ‘Fuel on the fire’, The Bodley Head, London, 2011; chapter 3, pages 35 and 370

(5) = St. John (see 1 above), Chapter7, page 176

(6) = BBC News 6 Jul 2010 ‘China to build $8bn oil refinery in Nigeria’, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10527308

(7) = See (4) above

(8) = Gregg Muttitt (2011) ‘Fuel on the fire’, The Bodley Head, London, 2011

(9) = AP 1 Jul 2009 ‘Iraqi government approves BP oil field offer’, http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/iraqi-government-approves-bp-oil-field-offer-1727287.html

(10) = Jordan Times 23 Dec 2003 ‘Libya could provide intelligence bonanza’,http://www.aljazeerah.info/News%20archives/2003%20News%20archives/December/23n/Libya%20could%20provide%20intelligence%20bonanza.htm

(11) = See sources (55) to (59) on this link

(12) = CNN Fortune 28 Jun 2004 ‘Libya's Black Gold Rush With sanctions lifted, Big Oil is lining up to do business with Qaddafi’, http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2004/06/28/374397/index.htm

(13) = CNBC 03 Mar 2009 ‘Libya Wants Greater Share of Its Oil Revenue’, http://www.cnbc.com/id/29494495

(14) = Forbes Magazine 01 Jan 2009 ‘Is Libya Going To Boot U.S. Oil Companies?’,http://www.forbes.com/2009/01/22/libya-gaddafi-oil-biz-energy-cx_ch_0122libya.html

Libya: NATO governments actions and inactions elsewhere show the intervention in Libya can't be about protecting civilians or promoting democracy

The claim constantly made by NATO governments that they have intervened militarily in Libya to protect civilians and promote democracy is obviously untrue when compared with their actions (and lack of them) in other countries.

Gaddafi’s forces certainly seem to have been killing civilians, but if that was the real motive for NATO intervention, rather than a useful pretext to cover other motives, why is there no intervention in Syria, where around 1,300 civilians are estimated to have been killed so far by snipers and tanks? (1). Why did the US and various EU governments continue to back Saleh’s dictatorship in Yemen as his snipers daily killed unarmed protesters, including children? (only stopping when it was clear Saleh wasn’t going to survive in power). Why do they continue to back the government of Bahrain after it did the same and attacked hospitals, ambulances, nurses and doctors; disappeared at least 500 people ;  and charged doctors with treason for treating the wounded? Why did they continue training Bahraini military officers in the UK during the killings? Why is the British government continuing to provide British military training to Saudi snipers, especially when Saudi troops have moved into Bahrain, with many people (including Robert Fisk) believing the harshness of the crackdown and the reversal of King Al Khalifa’s previous reforms are the result of the Saudis now being the real rulers of Bahrain, in a quiet military ccupation which may have made Al Khalifa a powerless puppet of the Saudi monarchy? At the least, Saudis snipers trained by UK forces have been training Bahraini snipers – and Bahraini snipers have targeted civilians (2) – (5).

The targeting of civilians and ambulances by US snipers in the assault on Fallujah during the Iraq war; and systematic torture by Coalition forces in Iraq and US forces in Afghanistan (albeit under Bush rather than Obama), along with US backing for the ‘El Salvador option’ in Iraq via training for police commando and ‘counter-terrorist’ death squads there, also severely undermine the idea that the US is likely to intervene militarily to protect civilians, prevent human rights abuses and promote democracy (6) – (11).

Clearly the NATO intervention in Libya is not primarily motivated by human rights or democracy or concern to protect civilians. It’s primarily about NATO governments getting votes back home by being seen to defend civilians against one dictator who has been presented as the man behind the Lockerbie bombing; and about securing oil contracts for their firms on more favourable terms; as well as trying to ensure oil prices don’t rise to the point that economic growth in their own countries is threatened, which would be likely to lose them elections.

(1) = BBC News 19 Jun 2011 ‘Syria troops 'raid town' near Turkey border’, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/mobile/world-middle-east-13822249

(2) = PA 16 Jun 2011 ‘Bahrain medics accused of treason’, http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/bahrain-medics-accused-of-treason-2293728.html

(3) = Independent 30 May 2011 ‘UK trained Bahraini army officers even after crackdown began’, http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/uk-trained-bahraini-army-officers-even-after-crackdown-began-2290781.html

(4) = guardian.co.uk 28 May 2011 ‘UK training Saudi forces used to crush Arab spring’,http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/may/28/uk-training-saudi-troops

(5) = Independent 14 Jun 2011 ‘Robert Fisk: I saw these brave doctors trying to save lives – these charges are a pack of lies’, http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/fisk/robert-fisk-i-saw-these-brave-doctors-trying-to-save-lives-ndash-these-charges-are-a-pack-of-lies-2297100.html

(6) = Guardian 17 Apr 2004 ‘'Getting aid past US snipers is impossible'’, http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/apr/17/iraq

(7) = BBC News 23 Apr 2004 ‘Picture emerges of Fallujah siege’, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3653223.stm

(8) = On torture in Afghanistan and Iraq see sources on this link

(9) = BBC News 27 Jan 2005 ‘‘Salvador Option’ mooted for Iraq’, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/from_our_own_correspondent/4209595.stm

(10) = NYT magazine 01 May 2005 ‘The Way of the Commandos’, http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/01/magazine/01ARMY.html

(11) = The Nation 03 Jun 2009 ‘Iraq's New Death Squad', http://www.thenation.com/article/iraqs-new-death-squad ,(Shane Bauer, the journalist who investigated and wrote the article is currently being held in jail by the Iranian government on the ludicrous charge that he is a ‘US agent’)

Libya : Why military intervention by the US, Egypt or Tunisia would cost more lives than it would save and boost support for Gaddafi

My last two posts were on why Libyan defectors' claims about Gaddafi and Lockerbie may be lies like Iraqi defectors' claims on WMD; and on western governments' ulterior motive in Iraq, Libya, Iran and Venezuela - oil profits.

This post looks at the calls for military intervention by the US, Egypt or Tunisia - and suggestions for a 'no fly zone' to stop Gaddafi bombing rebels and whether these would be likely to save lives or cost them

Given the methods used by Coalition forces in Iraq – systematic torture and targeting civilians for instance – and the “El Salvador option” death squads and torturers they helped train for the new government - military intervention by the US and it’s allies would not be likely to result in any lives saved. Despite much propaganda most Iraqis were not better off as a result of the 2003 invasion and far more lives were lost than saved (1) – (3).

There are suggestions (for instance from Ian Birrel, a Guardian columnist and former speech writer to David Cameron)  that the Tunisian or Egyptian military could intervene to overthrow Gaddafi with UN Security Council approval, but these countries’ militaries don’t even have a good record on how they treat their own people and are both still run by dictatorships themselves (despite David Cameron’s attempts to portray any country he’s still promoting arms sales to as democracy, Egypt and Kuwait remain dictatorships) (4).

The Egyptian military have been involved in have recently been involved in the torture of opponents of the dictatorship according to Amnesty International (see 'Egyptian military urged to halt torture of detainees' Amnesty 17th February 2011). It doesn’t seem likely that either dictatorship would particularly want to promote democracy in the Arab world either.

An example of this kind of US and European government backed “humanitarian intervention” by proxy took place between 2006 and January 2009 in Somalia, when the US government backed an Ethiopian invasion of Somalia to overthrow the Islamic Courts Union which had just won a civil war with non Islamic fundamentalist,, but extremely brutal, warlords’ militias (5) – (6).

This resulted in Ethiopian army units raping and torturing Somalian villagers and slitting villagers’ throats as if they were goats according to witnesses who spoke to Amnesty International. The UN reported that there was a humanitarian crisis worse than in Darfur during the Sudanese genocide in both Somalia and among the 4.5 million inhabitants and refugees in the Ogaden region disputed between it and Ethiopia , many of whose people are Somali rebels who oppose Ethiopian rule. This was largely due to Ethiopian forces and their US backed Somalian warlord allies preventing food getting to areas held by their enemies and firing indiscriminately on entire towns and villages. Survivors said Ethiopian forces even killed children and a million refugees were left in Somalia and it’s neighbours. The Ethiopians eventually gave up due to heavy casualties and withdrew, just like the US in Iraq. All the killing and chaos did nothing to prevent Al Qa’ida operating in Somalia. As in Iraq, if anything the chaos made it easier for it to do so (5) – (12).

Once again oil and gas profits and control of a major export route (via the Gulf of Yemen or ‘Gulf of Aden’ between Somalia and Yemen – where Western oil companies are already operating) was probably a key motive for US involvement in Somalia too. Several oil companies - Agip of Italy , BP Amoco , and US company Conoco - have exploration and drilling rights for oil and gas which they negotiated with the murderous US-backed dictator Siad Barre before his overthrow in 1991 by his chief of police Mohammed Aidid. Those contracts remain on hold due to civil war. The bloody US-led Operation 'Restore Hope' in 1993 saw the killing of many UN peacekeepers and hundreds of Somali civilians - but failed to resolve the civil war in favour of America's protege - Barre's former interior minister Abdikassim Hassan (13) – (14).

Sending NATO fighter jets to enforce a no-fly zone in Libya has been suggested by President Sarkozy of France and by former Labour MP and Minister David Owen, to stop Gaddafi using planes on his own people. This did save some Kurdish lives from Saddam's helicopters in Iraq, but soon began to involve constant bombing by the USAF and RAF, killing Iraqi civilians along with military – and ramped up massively during ‘Operation Desert Fox’ under Clinton (which was the cause of Saddam  refusing to re-admit UN weapons inspectors until 2002, not a response to it – and they left, on US government directions, he didn’t expel them); and in the months before the March 2003 invasion under Bush (15) – (18).

Gaddafi would also most likely gain support among Libyans from any foreign military intervention in the country, which is why, in his televised speech, he asked them “Do you want America to occupy you, like Afghanistan and Iraq?” (19)

Many Iraqis who hated Saddam would fight foreign invaders or occupiers. The same would happen in Libya. Even a no-fly zone would have to be enforced by shooting down Libyan jets - and this and foreign fighter jets over Libyan skies would persuade many Libyans an invasion or occupation like Iraq was coming. This doesn't rule out a no-fly zone if Gaddafi begins having civilians bombed on a large scale, but has to be taken into account.

It’s better to let Gaddafi’s regime fall as more and more Libyans (including army units and tribal leaders with their armed followers) turn against him – and in future stop selling arms to dictatorships before the fact that they use them to kill their people in large numbers becomes headline news, instead of afterwards (20) – (21).

(1) = BBC News 23 Apr 2004 ‘Picture emerges of Falluja siege’, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3653223.stm

(2) = Guardian 17 Apr 2004 ‘'Getting aid past US snipers is impossible'’,http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/apr/17/iraq

(3) = Also see the links below and numbered sources listed for them, http://www.duncanmcfarlane.org/who%27s_right_on_Iraq/bothsides/ and http://www.duncanmcfarlane.org/replytogray/Iraq/ and http://inplaceoffear.blogspot.com/2010/09/are-iraqis-better-off-as-result-of-2003.html

(4) = guardian.co.uk 23 Feb 2011 ‘On Libya we can't let ourselves be scarred by Iraq’ http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/feb/23/libya-iraq-2003-invasion-gaddafi

(5) = USA Today 26 Dec 2006 ‘U.S. backs Ethiopian attacks in Somalia’http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-12-26-us-somalia_x.htm

(6) = guardian.co.uk 23 Feb 2011 ‘On Libya we can't let ourselves be scarred by Iraq’ http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/feb/23/libya-iraq-2003-invasion-gaddafi

(7) = Napoleon A. Bamfo (2010) ‘Ethiopia’s invasion of Somalia in 2006: Motives and lessons learned’, African Journal of Political Science and International Relations vol 4(2), Feb 2010, pages 55 -65,http://www.academicjournals.org/ajpsir/PDF/pdf2010/February/Bamfo.pdf

(8) = Independent 22 Nov 2007, 'Somalia war-refugee crisis surpasses Darfur in its horror', http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/africa/somalia-warrefugee-crisis-surpasses-darfur-in-its-horror-759034.html

(9) = Independent 03 Dec 2007 'Humanitarian crisis' facing Ethiopia, says UN', http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/africa/humanitarian-crisis-facing-ethiopia-says-un-761354.html

(10) = Independent 09 Feb 2008, 'Somalia: The World's forgotten catastrophe', http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/africa/somalia-the-worlds-forgotten-catastrophe-778225.html

(11) = Amnesty International 06 May 2008 ‘Routine killings of civilians in Somalia’,http://www.amnesty.org/en/news-and-updates/report/routine-killings-civilians-somalia-20080506

(12) = See (5) above

(13) = Los Angeles Times 18 Jan 1993 'The oil factor in Somalia',http://articles.latimes.com/1993-01-18/news/mn-1337_1_oil-reserves or  LATimes archive link

(14) = US Energy Information Administration ‘Yemen – Background’,http://www.eia.doe.gov/cabs/Yemen/Background.html

(15) = New York Times 18 Aug 1999 ‘With Little Notice, U.S. Planes Have Been Striking Iraq All Year’, http://www.nytimes.com/library/world/mideast/081399iraq-conflict.html

(16) = New Statesman 17 Aug 2000 ‘Labour claims its actions are lawful while it bombs Iraq, starves its people and sells arms to corrupt states’, http://www.newstatesman.com/200008070012

(17) = Guardian 19 Feb 2001 ‘Raid shows Bush-Blair bond on Iraq’, http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2001/feb/19/usa.iraq2

(18) = Counterpunch 04 Dec 2002 ‘No-Fly Zones Over Iraq : Washington's Undeclared War on "Saddam's Victiims"’, http://www.counterpunch.org/scahill1204.html

(19) = Channel 4 News 22 Feb 2011 ‘Gaddafi – I am not going to leave this land’,http://www.channel4.com/news/gaddafi-i-am-not-going-to-leave-libya

(20) = Reuters 20 Feb 2011 ‘Libyan unit "defects" as more Arab protests simmer’,http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/02/20/us-protests-idUSTRE71F41K20110220

(21) = Al Jazeera 21 Feb 2011 ‘Libya revolt spreads to Tripoli’,http://english.aljazeera.net/news/africa/2011/02/201122131439291589.html