West leaves Libyan rebels to swing in the wind

Written By: - Date published: 10:14 am, March 12th, 2011 - 40 comments
Categories: war - Tags: , , , , , ,

Faced with the choice between short-term stability offered by a military strong-man or the long-term stability that would emerge from a democratic revolution, the West has long backed dictators in key resource supplying third-world nations. As the West backs away from saving the Libyan rebellion, it appears that little has changed.

The West’s primary interest in the Middle East is a continuous (ideally, growing) supply of cheap oil and natural gas. The uncertainty and violence of revolutions, and worries over who might win democratic elections, casts doubt over that supply, adding a large ‘risk premium’ to the price of oil. The fact that the spread of popular rebellions against dictators in the Arab world has been widely referred to as ‘contagion’ speaks for itself.

The so-called ‘colour revolutions’ swept the Russian periphery states in 2004-05, starting in Serbia, achieving their most famous outcome in the Ukraine, before being stopped dead by the massacre by government forces of protesters in the Uzbek city of Andijan. Likewise, the Arab revolts started in Tunisia, grabbed world attention in Egypt, and will coming to a screeching halt if Gaddafi is allowed to prevail in Libya.

Despite all the talk that Gaddafi had to go and of not allowing a Balkans-style conflict to develop between the tribe of Libya, the West seems happy to let Gaddafi roll back the rebels. He has crushed unrest in Tripoli (which must mean many a huge number are dead) and is now destroying rebel-held towns with heavy weapons while it appears that most of the army sits on the sidelines and lets amateurs do the fighting for the rebels. Gaddafi may never be able to retake the seat of the rebellion, Benghazi, but he will massacre the rebels in any town he does retake, as he already has in Zawiyah.

Following the West’s failure to stop genocide in the Balkans and Rwanda in the 1990s, the UN developed the ‘Responsibility to Protect’. This reversed one of the tenants of the Westphalian state system by reinstating the old concept that a government’s right to govern its own people as it wishes is not absolute and other governments may depose a depraved ruler to protect the people. Unfortunately, it looks like it’s all talk.

The failure of the West to help the Libyan people overthrow Gaddafi will have far-reaching consequences. I’ll bet you anything that, if the West was blowing any Libyan fighter-bombers out of the sky that were foolish enough to fly right now, we would see the rebellions in Bahrain and Yemen redoubled, and we would have seen those tens of thousands in the streets of Riyadh who, instead, cowered in their homes. Of course, the Western leaders know that too, which is precisely why they’re talking big and doing nothing.

40 comments on “West leaves Libyan rebels to swing in the wind ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. chris73 1
    12 March 2011 at 10:26 am

    Funny but when the west (which lets face it means the USA) invade or otherwise get involved with another country its bad and they’re only doing it for their own ends and when they don’t well its also bad…

    Personally I think the west should go into and take over all the oil supplies in third world countries because its far too precious a commidity to leave in the hands of people that can’t look after themselves let alone oil

    • Eddie 1.1
      12 March 2011 at 10:39 am

      it’s not about oil, it’s about helping democratic revolutionaries by offering them some protection from heavy weapons.

      But nice to see some racism from you early on a saturday morning.

      • chris73 1.1.1
        12 March 2011 at 10:46 am

        No not racism as such (I don’t think someone of a different race is inferior) but someone of a different culture (like a third world country) is not as advanced as someone from a first-world, western democratic country

        • Eddie 1.1.1.1
          12 March 2011 at 10:54 am

          uh huh. no racism there.

          • chris73 1.1.1.1.1
            12 March 2011 at 10:59 am

            Racism:

            Racism is the belief that the genetic factors which constitute race, ethnicity, or nationality are a primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that ethnic differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race.

            I’m glad you agree that there was no racism

            • bbfloyd 1.1.1.1.1.1
              12 March 2011 at 12:17 pm

              fisking isn’t arguing from a position of principle…… i have heard your statements many times before being used as justification and rationalisation for ignorant bigotry..

              do you really beleive anyone is fooled by your rhetoric? if so,,, then the fool is you…

    • Marty G 1.2
      12 March 2011 at 10:39 am

      you don’t get it. The West’s proxies already control must of the third world’s oil. That’s why they’re not helping.

      • chris73 1.2.1
        12 March 2011 at 10:55 am

        The West run Libya?

        • Rosy 1.2.1.1
          12 March 2011 at 11:02 am

          The west runs it’s oil industry

          • chris73 1.2.1.1.1
            12 March 2011 at 11:07 am

            Got any links or proof?

            • Rosy 1.2.1.1.1.1
              12 March 2011 at 11:27 am

              “Libya’s oil industry is run by the state-owned National Oil Corporation (NOC). The NOC is responsible for implementing the Exploration and Production Sharing Agreements (EPSA) with international oil companies (IOCs). NOC is also responsible for field development and improvements as well as downstream activities. IOCs operating in Libya work in exploration, production, transportation and refining. IOCs with operations in Libya include Eni, Total, Repsol YPF, StatoilHydro, Occidental, OMV, ConocoPhillips, Hess, Marathon, Shell, BP, ExxonMobil and others.”

              Although Libya is a venture holder, the people running the ventures are oil companies.
              Furthermore the mass evacuations of oil workers fom Libya by France, UK, Italy etc were their own nationals – not Libyans or immigrants.

              OMV is still operating there – providing 20% of Austria’s oil imports.

              Also you don’t think the release of the Lockerbie bomber from the UK to Libya was on compassionate grounds do you? BP certainly had a hand in that in exchange for oil concessions.

              • chris73 …
                12 March 2011 at 11:34 am

                Agreed, if I was from Lockerbie I’d be mighty pissed

                • Bill …
                  12 March 2011 at 2:14 pm

                  Nah. Whereas the families of American victims contend there was a Libyan connection, there has always been a feeling in Scotland that the Libyan connection was borne of political expediency.

                  If you google various Scottish press from around the time of al-Megrahi’s release, you’ll see that there was no overwhelming condemnation of the move.

            • Lanthanide 1.2.1.1.1.2
              12 March 2011 at 11:59 am

              Saudi Aramco is famously Saudi-owned and operated (making them an exception to the usual western-rule). They are one of the oil companies at the forefront of invement into new oil extraction technologies as well. They’re very responsibly managed – they avoid stressing their oil wells to ensure a greater total recovery of oil over a long time frame.

              One of the impetus’ for the invasion of Iraq was Hussein’s nationalisation of all of the oil company assets in the country and the locking out of western oil companies.

              This was also a big deal with Venezuelan hydrocaron laws that came into effect in January 2002 which locked out foreign oil companies except for a few existing deals. You might recall a lot of belligerence from the US about Venezuela during the Bush years, and that nationalisation was a primary driver behind a lot of it.

              So yes, westerners love to get their grubby hands on the oil supplies of ME countries. I think a lot of the US’ support for Israel is based around this agenda – having a friendly ally in the area they can use as a proxy and a platform to continue to exert their influence on oil supply in the region.

    • Rosy 1.3
      12 March 2011 at 10:42 am

      Yeah that went well last time didn’t it?

      • chris73 1.3.1
        12 March 2011 at 11:21 am

        Well the intent was good (assuming you’re talking the first gulf war?) and the americans got the tactics right until Saddam was toppled but from that point on they screwed the pooch big time

        • Rosy 1.3.1.1
          12 March 2011 at 11:35 am

          The second one – but yeah oil is far too precious a commodity to leave in the hands of people who can’t even run the aftermath of a war of shock and awe to get it.

        • bbfloyd 1.3.1.2
          12 March 2011 at 12:23 pm

          chris…yet another ill thought out and facile hypothesis from the resident redneck… you really don’t have a clue do you…..your mealy mouthed attempts at dissembling are as annoying as they are woefully bereft of intellectual vigour….

          i have to assume you were told you were “special” far more than it was justified as a child.. i can’t think of any other reason for your delusions of intellect…

          • chris73 1.3.1.2.1
            12 March 2011 at 3:09 pm

            Ok so you think my views are wrong which justifies your very personal attacks about me yet you fail to offer a valid counter-argument against my views

            Its easy to say someones wrong but quite another to prove they’re wrong with a well reasoned argument. So maybe you should settle down, have a nice cup of tea, think about why you think I’m wrong and then add them to this post 🙂

            • Pascal's bookie 1.3.1.2.1.1
              12 March 2011 at 3:47 pm

              I’ll bite. And I’ll see how I go without googling anything and instead just winging on memory. And you do the same and we’ll see how it turns out shall we?

              Well the intent was good (assuming you’re talking the first gulf war?) and the americans got the tactics right until Saddam was toppled but from that point on they screwed the pooch big time

              This kind of starts well, I’m happy enough with the intent of the first gulf war, and most of the way it was fought. There were some very disturbing aspects however, but I’ll let them slide for the moment.

              However Saddam wasn’t toppled in the first gulf war. You somehow moved on to the second gulf war. What happened there?

              But again. I’ll generously let that slide in order to get to the meat of it and assume that although the intent may not have been good in the 2GW (you’ don’t say), you think it went well up until the toppling of Saddam and only after that did it turn to shit. This is not an uncommon view in hindsight. At the time however many of the supporters of the war insisted it was going well right through to 06.

              A few data points however:

              i) The war was intended to topple Saddam. The post Saddam phase of the operation was therefore, critical. It is no good intending to do something if you do ot have some plan for what will happen if you succeed. The complete lack of planning for this phase negates any claims to success for the initial phase. A surgeon that makes a lovely incision has no business claiming credit for that if he then just watches on dumbfounded as the patient bleeds to death on the table.

              ii) The ‘success’ of the initial phase needs to be looked at with a mind to what Saddam’s strategy was. Everything I’ve read points to the fact that he not only knew that much of his military was not up to a shit fight, (duh), but was not loyal. He had deceived them about what assets he had. He needed to look strong to them to maintain power. So; his plan was to order a fight be put up, knowing the regular army would get stomped, but that was no strategic loss to him because they were useless and of suspect loyalty anyhoo. Instead, the plan was to use his fedayeen as irregulars hindering the US forces and establishing a template for a drawn out insurgency as the regime elements went into hiding.

              So claiming that, by golly, we sure pounded that there regular army, and by gosh, the regime toppled might quick, ignores the fact that these things were also elements of Saddam’s strategy.

              iii) The rapid fire collapse of the regime (which was predictable) led to a power vacuum that the US, astoundingly, did not have a plan to fill beyond ‘ friendly exiles’, many of whom turned out to be not only wildly unpopular in Iraq, but active stooges for Iran. Again, this is a fault with the initial work. None of this should have been a surprise.

              You are correct inasmuch that after this, things got very much worse.

  2. Bill 2
    12 March 2011 at 11:19 am

    In general it would appear that Arab and African people don’t want ‘the west’ involved in their struggles. Which is perfectly understandable given the history of the regions. Looking back and as an aside, the ‘democracies’ of ‘the west’ don’t have much of a record when it comes to supporting popular revolutions. (Think 1930’s Spain). What was to stop the US ‘secretly’ supplying arms to the revolutionaries through a Saudi Arabian conduit? That might have brought things to an end, no?

    Gaddafi has supported some fairly heinous regimes in Sub-Saharan Africa. These regimes are now supplying troops or ‘mercenaries’. And they are black. And that feeds into racist sentiments in Libya and elsewhere. I’ve read reports that black Africans in N. Africa are living with increasing levels of fear.

    From the persective of ‘our’ elites and in answer to the question posed above, the longer Gaddafi hangs on, the more whipped up the racist brew will become and the more likely the prospect of Balkanisation across N. Africa. And that will spell an end to any coherent revolutionary trajectory for the peoples there. And in such a situation, entry for ‘the west’ becomes far less problematic than at present.

    Why support a given government that may or may not look favourably upon your business ambitions, when you can occupy the country and effectively be the government; controlling economic activity and dictating resource use, while the populace is distracted and tearing itself apart under the watchful eyes of ‘peace- keepers’?

    • Marty G 2.1
      12 March 2011 at 11:39 am

      the rebels are asking for a no fly zone

      • dave brown 2.1.1
        12 March 2011 at 12:15 pm

        Which rebels are asking for a NFZ? Its the leadership of the Provisional National Council most of whom are recently defected former generals, ministers, and diplomats of Gaddafi’s regime. They are just Gaddafi lite. From what I know the mass base of the rebels have been opposed to any form of Western intervention, though the call for a NFZ has become more widespread as they have been bombarded into smithereens by Gaddafi’s heavy weaponry. I agree with Bill that the Western powers are not going to support the rebels as this would limit their options to keep the oil. Gaddafi is doing what they know all the other dictators must do to keep the oil – exterminate all popular resistance.

          • Bill 2.1.1.1.1
            12 March 2011 at 1:05 pm

            Interviewed people were definately saying ‘No’ to any western intervention. Granted, that was when things were going well for them. Will some opinions have shifted? Perhaps. Even probably.

            But as always when I’m presented with pictures of non-English speaking people holding placards written in English, I ask myself where that new found bi-lingualism came from. And why the slogans often reflect some rumbling that has emanated from ‘the west’.

            Hell. Where are the slogans in Mandarin or Russian or whatever if they are appealing to the UN?

            • marty mars 2.1.1.1.1.1
              12 March 2011 at 3:43 pm

              (I hope this doesn’t double post.)

              The Angry Arab (As’ad AbuKhalil) says on 11 March

              “I signed this petition protesting against any foreign military intervention in Libya. Why? Let me count the ways. Yesterday, NATO was bragging–literally–that it only killed 440 civilians in Afghanistan last year, and it said that it was a substantial decline from its previous year record of murdering civilians in Afghanistan. So maybe I am not impressed with NATO’s military record as some in the Western world were. No to mention that any foreign military intervention would serve to discredit the uprising against Qadhdhafi.”

              http://angryarab.blogspot.com/2011/03/no-foreign-armies-in-libya.html

              This fear of discrediting the uprising is real I believe – it is a terrible situation and I send my support to the people.

      • Just Me 2.1.2
        12 March 2011 at 1:06 pm

        The Rebels are asking for Western Forces to risk their lives engaging in military operations against another sovereign country.

        It amuses me how Libya (and this Website) was very anti Western forces conducting military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan however now that it suits their own needs are crying out for assistance. Instead of looking to the West they should be looking towards the East at Russia and China both of whom have supplied military aid to Libya in the past.

        • Rosy 2.1.2.1
          12 March 2011 at 1:43 pm

          Where to start…. Not that I agree or disagree with the call for a NFZ…
          “engaging in military operations against another sovereign country.”
          The (il)legitimacy of the government almost renders this point moot. The west (NATO/EU) are calling for Gadaffi to but not providing any help to make that happen. Although France has already recognised the Benghazi people as the new government, so if they wanted a NFZ it would be an invitation by they government.

          “It amuses me how Libya (and this Website) was very anti Western forces conducting military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan” Amuses you???
          No-one in Iraq and Afganistan was calling for western help – the U.S and allies were not invited – it was an invasion.

          “Russia and China both of whom have supplied military aid to Libya in the past.”
          Britain was on a trades mission selling arms in the M.E just a week or two before this all blew up. The EU sold millions in arms and military equipment to libya since the embargo was lifted in 2004. To check – just google “Britain arms sales Libya” and take your pick.

          • Just Me 2.1.2.1.1
            12 March 2011 at 3:29 pm

            Just because NATO and EU may want to see regime change in Libya it doesn’t make it either their right or obligation to enforce their position. Otherwise why shouldn’t the New Zealand Government try to implement regime change in Fiji? As for the French, if they choose to recognise the rebels as Libya’s new government they can equally choose to enforce a no fly zone without the the support of the UN, EU, NATO.

            You are incorrect re: nobody was calling for the invasion of Iraq or Afghanistan. Both Country’s had active freedom movements calling for just that event to occur however the regimes of Iraq and Afghanistan had very effectively silenced them through years of suppression. However I do agree that the military operations in both of these country were invasions. Fully justifiable invasions.

            Yes Britian had a arms selling mission the fortnight before it blew up, however how many British weapons have you seen being used by either the Government or Rebel Forces? I’ve seen Russian/Chinese Assault Rifles, Heavy Machine Guns, Anti Aircraft Weapons, Rocket launchers, Tanks and Aircraft. I can’t say however that I’ve seen 1 British made one.

            • Marty G 2.1.2.1.1.1
              12 March 2011 at 4:16 pm

              there’s a difference between trying to institute ‘regime change’ from out of the blue, without a ground-up movement in the country and the West trying to impose an interim government, you’re going to have Iraq-style chaos and giving some limited assistance to a rebel movement that is, still, on the verge of overthrowing a terrible dictator.

              if they do nothing the blood is on their hands.

              • Pascal's bookie …
                12 March 2011 at 4:31 pm

                So what do we do?

                A NFZ won’t change much as most of the killing is happening, as always, at ground level. Putting one in place can only be first step, and it’s a step that will be opposed by whom? Who else will we be pissing off with this step?

                When the NFZ fails to prevent the killing, we will be obligated to step up a notch. Flying overhead while tanks crush villagers will not be any good at all. This step up will have been predicted by those that oppose the NFZ, and the step up will be claimed as vindication by them, but that’s by the by.

                So when the time comes to step it up a notch, which logic dictates we will have to do, how do we step up?

                Do we start attacking mechanized units? Artillery batteries? Infantry Columns? Deploy SF units?

                How long are we prepared to stick it out? Are we prepared to start fighting an insurgency once the regime is toppled?

              • Just Me …
                12 March 2011 at 9:08 pm

                If blood ends up on any one hands it will be the leaders of the rebellion for failing to have put in place proper preparations for protecting the people who have joined them.

                Back to whether the west should get involved or not the reality is it’s simply not worth it for them (us). Assistance will cost millions of dollars, put at risk lives and equipment that are need in existing theatre’s of operations and do nothing for enhancing the West’s reputation within the Middle East.

                A harsh as it sounds the Rebels have mad their bed and now have to lie in it.

            • Rosy 2.1.2.1.1.2
              12 March 2011 at 11:03 pm

              Yes, just because some rebels mau want intervention doesn’t make it right, but there is the imperative of intervention, after Rwanda, that when a government is killing it’s people other nations intervene. I don’t know that threshold for that intervention. France and some M.E nations seem to think it has been met, other western nations seem to think it has not been met (there is also the self-interest of wanting to remain dealing with the devil it knows for it’s oil supply)

              The insurrection by the swamp arabs was supported by, at least, the U.S after the first gulf war, then U.S dropped it’s support and people were massacred. So the calls, for intervention were ignored and were not the reason for invasion IMO. The U.S went in for it’s own self-interest. I don’t agree they were fully justified invasions at all, but then history will decide if that is correct.

              Apparently the rebels have said they don’t need arms – Qatar has said it will supply them. Qatar’s arms include a far proportion of EU and US weapons. Other arms have come from Libya’s own captured arms depots and army defectors. If the rebels have them from elsewhere as well that would not be surprising, but as for knowing what they are carrying and using, I wouldn’t have a clue, I’m not up to speed at identifying arms on tv.

              I’d suggest the rebels are well aware the China and Russia are very happy to deal with a dictator. The west pontificates about human rights and democracy so maybe the rebels think they’ll put their money where their mouth is. IMO the west has a moral duty – arming and training the military of a dictator and educating the dictator’s family and supporters only to have the lot used against the population – whether than duty includes NFZ or other interventions is, to me, the discussion.

      • Bill 2.1.3
        12 March 2011 at 1:20 pm

        “If you don’t want to do something, you rely on the diplomatic side. It is not enough when people are dying,” said Iman Bugaighis, spokeswoman for the revolutionary council. “We need more than diplomacy. We need a no-fly zone but we need more than that. We need air strikes. I think they know where to bomb if they want to bomb. They know how to intervene. It’s urgent.”

        http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/mar/11/libya-rebels-air-strikes-gaddafi

        Question. Who comprises this ‘Revolutionary Council’? How did it come into being? Who does it claim to represent? Who does it actually represent? Why is ‘the west’ affording their particular voice more prominance than others?

  3. HC 3
    12 March 2011 at 1:21 pm

    There is no need for any other country to send in troops. What can be done though is to deliver support in various forms (involving some military equipment) to the so-called rebels. But there is more at stake here. Ultimately the European and other countries that import oil from Libya are somehow dependent on this resource. With all the talk about human rights, freedom and democracy we see once again that those countries are very hypocritical. They can walk around preaching and demanding human rights in certain countries. But when it comes to oil or whatever resources they depend on, then they swiftly know how to “prioritise” what is really important to them.

    Would the US ever have invaded Iraq if it would have been an insignificant impoverished country without the rich oil reserves it has? I doubt it.

    The same applies for the NZ government. We trade with countries like Saudi Arabia, Iran and so forth, because we depend on some exports going there. Whether human rights get breached is another – yes “not so important” matter to the people living off this trade.

    The list can go on and on.

    What will happen if the people in Benghazi and other towns, where democracy is now being demanded, get crushed and suppressed is predictable. They will learn that the “west” only talks about democracy and human rights, but it does not really care so much about it when there are other issues at stake.

    I am sure that Al Qaeda will only gain new followers in that case.

    Libya is anyway likely to break up into different regional states eventually, because Gaddhafi and his clique will not live and rule forever.

    Oil trade will continue, no matter what happens and who rules in Tripolis and other parts of Libya.

    • Marty G 3.1
      12 March 2011 at 1:28 pm

      you start off by saying that the west shouldn’t intervene. then you say that the west only talks democracy

      • HC 3.1.1
        13 March 2011 at 3:45 am

        Marty G –
        What I meant was that it is not necessary for the west or other countries to send in troops. Instead they could and should supply arms, besides of other needed assistance to the people fighting for more democracy.

        The way things are they seem to be doing neither.

        The ‘rebels’ themselves do not want foreign forces on Libyan ground. A No Fly Zone would of course be another measure to interfere, but how do you enforce it? It would only work if planes could be shot down if needed.

        Ground to air missiles and other weapons could instead be supplied to the “rebels”.

  4. Drakula 4
    13 March 2011 at 12:02 am

    I don’t think any individual country should intervene but the United Nations which is what it is set up for – – – – for preventing wars!!!!

    This is why the UN originally set out initiatives to to provide a platform to level off fair trade so that some countries would not get the raw end of the deal.

    Unfortunately that process got corrupted into ‘free’ trade where a small oligarchy of capitalists hijacked the platform.

    This is why they have dictators like Gadaffi, Mubarac, Hussein, etc.etc. firmly in their pocket.

    The inactivity to take any action on Libya is proof of that and furthermore governments in our countries like the US, Canada, Australia, Britain, France are actively closing down democracy!!!

    What are we going to do about it???????

Links to post

The server will be getting hardware changes this evening starting at 10pm NZDT.
The site will be off line for some hours.