[Marxism] Refuting Juan Cole: The Myth of Libyan Liberation
intnsred at golgotha.net
Fri Aug 26 19:07:19 MDT 2011
Refuting Juan Cole: The Myth of Libyan Liberation
by CONN HALLINAN
In his essay, “Top Ten Myths about the Libyan War,” Juan Cole argues that
U.S. interests in the conflict consisted of stopping “massacres of people,”
a “lawful world order,” “the NATO alliance,” and oddly, “the fate of Egypt.”
It is worth taking a moment to look at each of these arguments, as well as
his dismissal of the idea that the U.S./NATO intervention had anything to do
with oil as “daft.”
Massacres are bad things, but the U.S. has never demonstrated a concern for
them unless its interests were at stake. It made up the “massacre” of Kosovo
Albanians in order to launch the Yugoslav War, and ended up acquiring one of
the largest U.S. bases in the world, Camp Bond Steel. It has resolutely
ignored the massacre of Palestinians and Shiites in Bahrain because it is
not in Washington’s interests to concern itself with those things. Israel is
an ally, and Bahrain hosts the U.S. Fifth Fleet. Cole accepts the fact that
Qaddafi would have “massacred” his people, but his evidence for that is
thin, and he chooses to completely ignore the deaths and casualties
resulting from the NATO bombing.
The U.S. is interested in a “lawful world order.” That would certainly come
as a surprise to the Palestinians, the Shiites in the Gulf, and peasants in
Colombia who suffer the deprivations of death squads aided by the U.S. (see
the Washington Post story of 8/20/11) etc. The U.S, supports international
law when it is in its interests to do so, undermines it when it is not, and
ignores it when it is inconvenient. I wish Cole were correct but he is not.
The record speaks for itself.
Okay, spot on for the NATO alliance, which is exactly the problem. Africa
has increasingly become a chess piece in a global competition for resources
and cheap labor. It is no accident that the U.S. recently formed an African
Command (Africom)—the Libyan War was the organization’s coming out party—and
is training troops in countries that border the Sahara. It is already
intervening in Somalia, and a recent story in the New York Times about an
“al-Qaeda threat” in Northern Nigeria should send a collective chill down
all our spines. NATO has already “war gamed” the possibility of intervention
in the Gulf of Guinea to insure oil supplies in the advent of “civil
disturbances” that might affect the flow of energy resources.
NATO represents western economic and political interests, which rarely
coincide with the interests of either the alliance’s own people, or those of
the countries it occupies. The Libyan intervention sets a very dangerous
precedent for the entire continent, which is why the African Union opposed
it. Who will be next?
Ummm, Egypt? Certainly the U.S. has “a deep interest in the fate of Egypt,”
which ought to scare hell out of the Egyptians. But overthrowing Qaddafi was
important because he had “high Egyptian officials on his payroll”? Is Cole
seriously suggesting that Libya’s 6.4 million people have anything to do
with determining the fate of 83 million Egyptians?
Opposition to the Libyan War is not based on supporting Qaddafi, although
Cole’s portrait of the man is one-sided. For instance, Libya played an
important role in financing the African Bank, thus allowing African nations
to avoid the tender mercies of the World Bank and the International Monetary
Fund. Libya also financed a continent-wide telecommunications system that
saved African countries hundreds of millions of dollars by allowing them to
bypass western-controlled networks. He also raised living standards. This
does not make him a good guy, but it does say that Libya’s role in Africa
cannot be reduced to simply “sinister.”
Lastly, the charge that this was about Libya’s oil is “daft”? Libya is the
largest producer of oil in Africa, and the 12th largest in the world. Its
resources are very important for NATO’s European allies, and over the past
several years there has been competition over these supplies. The Chinese
have made major investments. During the war China, Russia, and Brazil
supported the African Union’s call for a ceasefire and talks, and pointed
out that UN Resolution 1973 did not call for regime change. One of the first
statements out of the Transitional National Council following Qaddafi’s
collapse was that China, Russia and Brazil were going to be sidelined in
favor of French, Spanish, and Italian companies. Quid pro quo?
The war was not just over oil, but how can anyone dismiss the importance of
energy supplies at a time of worldwide competition over their control? The
U.S. is currently fighting several wars in a region that contains more than
65 percent of the world’s oil supplies. Does he think this is a coincidence?
Sure, the companies that invested in Libya will take some initial losses,
but does Cole think those Libyans beholden to NATO for their new positions
will drive a hard bargain with the likes of Total SA and Repso when it comes
to making deals? If I were those companies I would see the war as a very
lucrative investment in futures. In any case, when the U.S., China, and
Russia are locked in a bitter worldwide battle over energy resources, to
dismiss the role of oil in the Libyan War is, well, daft.
Special Forces are taking over the U.S. military. Africom is increasingly
active on the continent. NATO has just finished its first intervention in
Africa. With Qaddafi gone, every country that borders the Mediterranean is
now associated with NATO, essentially turning this sea into an alliance
This is not a good thing.
"Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless
world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people."
-- Karl Marx
More information about the Marxism