Jamahiriya defeated. Who’s next?: Page 2 of 2

these universal values can lead to such revolutions if satisfactory living conditions are provided and the basic needs are met.

 And here it is easy to agree with Colonel Gaddafi’s son who said that “neither we nor any one of the civilized countries in the world will ever accept armed bandits, wandering in the cities, will not accept terrorists, capturing oil rigs and refineries. The requirements of democratic freedoms and an attempt to capture the country by armed terrorists - they are different things and should not be confused”.

 What he really meant is that there were external forces, seeking Gaddafi’s ouster from power. And it seems like he was not so far from the truth.

 It is sometimes wrongly imagined the uprising in Libya is connected with so called “Arab Spring”, the revolutions in neighboring Tunisia and Egypt. This version doesn’t stand up to criticism, first of all because living conditions in those countries were much lower. If it is possible to believe in the situation when the poor fights for better living conditions, it is much harder to believe that stable and prosperous nation fights for “democracy”. Moreover, Libya’s revolution had a very different nature, than those in Tunisia or Egypt. There the aim of the coups was to overthrow the ruling monarchs, while the ruling elites remained in power. But in Libya the situation changed drastically and rebels tried to destroy everything possible, refusing to negotiate with Gaddafi.

 In general what we witnessed was really a rare and unique situation. An opposition, coming out of nowhere and without having any reasonable grounds for it, refuses from negotiations with the government and very quickly seizes power by any means necessary with the support of its superpower patrons.

 It seems unlikely that ethnic and tribal cleavages, which are called by some experts as a reason for the conflict, could affect the country’s stability, first and foremost just because during Gaddafi’s longtime rule tribal affinities have weakened, being replaced by the Jamahiriya ideology, which supposes the building of Islamic socialism, based on Gaddafi’s Third International Theory and revolutionary policy. Yes, it is well known that some tribal leaders from eastern Libya held grudges against Gaddafi. But could they combine forces so quickly and without any help outside? It’s commonly estimated that minorities in Libya (mainly Berbers) make up around 10-15% of the populations, so their efforts were obviously not enough. So it is very unlikely that hatred for Gaddafi can be explained by something tribal or ethnic.

 Making a conclusion it seems obvious that only ethnic or social-economic factors in general were unlikely to cause such a serious conflict. So, it means that external factors have played a role in the civil war, and a provocation from outside has taken place. The answer to the question “Who?” seems so obvious. But what for? It is much more interesting. 

“Humanitarian” intervention for oil or fight against Gold Dinars?

 The direct reason for NATO’s intervention by the U.S., France, Britain, Spain, Canada, Belgium, Italy, Denmark and other countries, was the protection of civilians. But this version doesn’t stand up to criticism taking into the account the casualties.

 A fight for resources? This theory is not very convincing as well. Oil, for example, supplied more or less evenly among main users in Europe, North and South America and Asia. Such famous companies as ENI (Italy), BP (Britain), Statoil ASA (Norway), Royal Dutch Shell (the Netherlands), Total (France) carried on business in Libya. Gas supplied to Europe, mainly to Spain and Italy. Maybe somebody wasn’t happy with the fact that China’s presence was growing steadily and that all oil and gas companies in Libya were controlled by the government. But Europe didn’t suffer much from it. As for the U.S., the conflict in Libya was really beneficial for them. It was necessary, on the one hand, for taking control over Libyan resources and, on the other hand, for destabilization of Europe with oil and gas supply problems and increased number of immigrants. Was it advantageous for the U.S.? Oddly enough the answer might be “yes” since strong and united Europe, even while being America’s greatest ally, still concentrates political and economic power, weakening of which will anyway bring advantages to the U.S.

 Some specialists went even further starting to talk about theory of a worldwide conspiracy. Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya, a famous independent Middle East analyst from Canada, was among them. According to him, Washington’s longstanding plan is to “create an arc of instability, chaos, and violence extending from Lebanon, Palestine, and Syria to Iraq, the Persian Gulf, Iran, and the borders of NATO-garrisoned Afghanistan.” He explained, that “it also includes redrawing the Eurasian map, balkanizing or reconfiguring countries like Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Jordan, perhaps Baltic states, the entire Persian Gulf, Syria, Lebanon, and, of course, Libya to assure Western control of its valued resources, besides already having created three Iraqs. The strategy involves dividing and conquering to serve Anglo-American and Israeli interests in the broader region.” But it’s already too much if to take into account that instability doesn’t grant access to resources, and Washington knows it perfectly.

 Another opinion, which has a right to exist, but sounds not so convincing as well, is that the main reason for the intervention was the Libya’s plan to develop irrigation system and to construct the Great Man-Made River. Gaddafi called this project the “Eighth Wonder of the World”. It was almost completed and included the construction of the largest global underground network of pipes and aqueducts, connecting aquifers beneath the Sahara with populated coastal cities in the northern part of the country. Funded by Gaddafi without loans from other nations or Western banks, the project cost $25 billion. Due to the project the price of one cubic meter of fresh water came down to 35 cents, while Europe sells desalinized water to Africa countries for $3,75 per cubic meter. Feel the difference… Such examples were absolutely unnecessary for the Western nations.

 Libya’s refusal to cooperate with NATO and to enter into partnership with the Pentagon through AFRICOM along with Sudan, Ivory Coast, Eritrea and Zimbabwe can be named among other reasons. And if they were not direct causes for the intervention, they were contributing factors at least.

 There is one more point of view which seems to be very realistic. For example, it was expressed by German Sterlingov, a former Russian millionaire. He thinks that Gold Dinar was behind the war on Libya. Gaddafi was planning to introduce the Golden Dinar just before the war; Gaddafi also wanted gold in return for his oil, which was very unprofitable neither for the US, nor for Europe. This idea is not a new one; the discussions began in the early 2000s, but the last world economic crisis made a number of the Eastern countries (especially oil producing countries) start discussion about use of one currency once again. “It could be a real disaster for the USA and would lead to destruction of the western world’s banking system, based on the fractional reserve rules, or money from nowhere as a matter of fact,” Sterlingov said. “Could Western countries allow Gaddafi to establish global economic rules in the region where traditionally Islamic banking was the foundation for financial stability? No, of course not”.

 That is why, he is sure, “a large-scale military operation under the pretext of promoting democracy started against Colonel Gaddafi. The truth is that the Libyan leader wanted to refuse from banknotes and start using gold coins again like in old times, which caused a threat for financial security of mankind”.

 For example, let’s pretend that the Middle East has started to use Gold Dinar and demand not Dollars or Euros but its own currency for oil and gas. What is the solution for the USA and Europe as the main consumers of these resources? The answer is clear – to buy Gold Dinars. But then the countries of the Middle East can dictate their conditions as far as Western economies are more dependent on imported resources, than these countries are dependent on the export of resources.

 Such an initiative of Libya was very negatively estimated by the United States and the European Union, which was confirmed by French president Nickolas Sarkozy, who said in one of his public speeches, that “Libyan people caused a threat for financial security of mankind”. It should be a good reason why NATO has decided to intervene and use all the means to overthrow the Gaddafi regime, shouldn’t it?

What is right and what is wrong?

 The conclusion from the whole situation can be done only one, but it is even difficult to call it a conclusion, it actually looks more like a confirmation of a well-known but always concealed fact. The fact is that Western countries (and the U.S. first of all) are ready to do everything, and even take military actions despite any resolutions, restrictions and appeals when protecting their financial and economic interests. And the economy is their weakest point taking into consideration their dependence on imported resources.

 So any country can share Libya’s fate. This can be confirmed by the words of William Izarra of Venezuela who is now in charge of the Centre for ideological training of the United Socialist Party of Venezuela. He has no doubt that “aggression against Libya will whip up the processes of destabilization in Venezuela and prompt active moves by Chavez opponents in 2011 and 2012, in the run-up to presidential elections”. 
The Libyan example shows that the West can always add fuel to the flame. So, it is not only oil-rich and pursuing a line of independent policy Venezuela that is in danger. Reasons and opportunities for destabilization can be found anywhere, if there is a wish. And those who will benefit from “saving civilians” will be easily found too. So, there’s only one question left to answer – who is the next?

P.S.

 Muammar Gaddafi was ferociously murdered without trial by mercenaries in his own country. The NATO officials immediately began to speak about the end to the military operation, referring to the fact that power in the country had passed into the hands of the National Transitional Council (who are these people and where did they come from to Libyan politics?). Besides, the NATO generals are trying to avoid linking the death of the former leader and their own desire to withdraw from the conflict as soon as possible. Well, the mission is over and it seems that “democracy” triumphed in one more country. Apparently, yes ... Now, who is next, gentlemen?