Libyan Oil

So it begins. With Libya. Why on Earth is the United Kingdom in Libya? Humanitarian reasons? There are journalists all over the region – from Tripoli to the rebel-held eastern cities. If there are mass graves or evidence of the kind of atrocities that would prompt the UK (as part of the UN) to fly operations over Libya then we sure haven’t heard of them. It seems the rebels can’t identify them and neither can African / Western journalists.

Colonel Gaddafi is undoubtedly a poor leader, a megalomaniac and a man for whom unwarranted violence is a preferred solution. There are few around the world that want him as Prime Minister of Libya. Like most politicians, he has demonstrated himself across his career to be untrustworthy. Unfortunately, the problem with the UN action (legal though it might be), and the UK’s role in leading the charge in Libya, is that it is based upon what Gaddafi might do, not what he has done. That is not to say Gaddafi is entirely innocent: he has lead a military coup in his own country and undoubtedly assassinated individuals considered his opponents - both around the world and in Libya. He has attempted to procure weapons of mass destruction and openly supported terrorist groups like the IRA.

The problem with even these deeply troubling actions is that there are countries around the world, including our own, that have also committed such acts. The UN have not invaded every country around the world that suffers a military coup (e.g. the Democratic Republic of Congo – where the abuse of human rights and loss of life is considered far in excess of Gaddafi’s own regime). Countries like North Korea and Iran actively pursue programmes aimed to produce weapons of mass destruction and the UN have not invaded them. Possessing weapons of mass destruction is not an international crime since many member states of the United Nations do so, including the UK. Finally, since we have a policy of negotiation with terrorist groups like the IRA and respect their right to have political representation according to the law of the group’s origin, we can hardly hold Gaddafi’s support of the IRA against him to any great degree.

Our reason for invading Libya and desiring regime change cannot be based on any of these factors since Gaddafi has been legitimised by the leaders of many United Nations states in the form of political visits and meeting with the Libyan colonel. Russia had worked with Gaddafi to establish military bases in Libya; US Secretaries of State and the President of the United States have had diplomatic meetings with Gaddafi; UK Prime Ministers sit with Gaddafi for meetings on the economy, the French president has signed trade deals with him and the Italian president has ratified treaties of cooperation between Italy and Libya. Add to this the many US and European businesses, organisations and celebrities that have been happy in recent years to receive money from the Libyan colonel and, despite Gaddafi’s violent words and strange behaviour, it is difficult to view Libya as a pariah state anymore.

Enough of such defences. Regardless of everything stated above, the man is obviously dangerous. As Sudanese President Gaafar Nimeiry once said of Gaddafi: "He has a split personality—both parts evil”. This is not enough evidence (taken as fair comparison with other such world dictators) for Western nations to kill him and impose a regime change on a North African state, however. In terms of the Arab League that support the UN action, many countries that are part of the league struggle with their own legitimacy and suffer opposition within their own countries – not dissimilar to Gaddafi himself. If we take an example like Qatar - which might be considered to have more standing on the world stage (despite having been ruled by an absolute monarchy since the mid-19th Century and suffered coups of its own) – we soon find problems with international motive. Despite the speed of events in Libya, Qatar has already signed an oil export deal with the Libyan rebels fighting Gaddafi for oil extracted from rebel-held territory. Qatar – held up by the UN and the UK as an example of support for action in Libya from the Arab world.

While we spend so much time focussing on Gaddafi our eyes are off our own western leaders, leaders like Prime Minister Cameron. The US went into Iraq and despite the illegitimacy of their claims (and those of the UK government concerning the presence of weapons of mass destruction), US oil companies are pumping oil from under Iraq and securing just a little more of the State's energy future. The speed with which the European nations signed up to action in Libya could be down to a sense of not missing out on the next oil mother lode. All of these leaders are intent on securing their own political futures and the energy futures of their own states. This does not legitimise the action in Libya – vaguely legal though it might be (let's not forget that there are already countries that claim the UN have exceeded the parameters of their original agreement). Libya has 3% of the world’s claimable oil reserves (the United States with its huge oil operations only have 1.7%). There are estimated to be 40,000,000,000 barrels of oil beneath Libyan soil, made all the more attractive by their proximity to Europe and the relative ease of physical extraction in comparison to other oil fields. Add to this the fact that much of Libya has not been explored by oil companies and the fact that it is the largest oil reserve in Africa (ninth in the entire world) and you have excellent reasons for western nations desiring military action and regime change in Libya. Some might argue that if Prime Minister Cameron is not pursuing action in Libya because of oil then why isn't he?

It seems plain that he is. When asked why Libya must come first for intervention on humanitarian grounds, given the many other countries committing atrocities upon their populations, he simply claims that just because you cannot intervene everywhere doesn’t mean you shouldn’t intervene somewhere. Very noble, Mr Cameron, but why does that somewhere need to be Libya where there is so little evidence of current atrocities instead of a country such as Burma where the volume of evidence is substantial? Is it because Burma is sitiing on the same amount of oil as the tiny Caribbean island of Trinidad and Tobago? That is, hardly any at all.

We should all watch with vigilant interest as the UK falls over itself to get to Libyan oil: bungling evacuations, secret SAS missions, exceedingly poor assessments of rebel capability to take over the country and, worst of all, accidental airstrikes against innocent Libyan civilians and rebels. Gaddafi cannot be trusted: neither can our cash-strapped and profit-hungry Coalition government.  A government I am convinced is lying to the public they claim to represent about the real motivation behind the decision to commit billions of British pounds to effect regime change in Libya.  They are trying to pull, with the collusion of European leaders in similar situations, an international ‘fast one’ right before our very eyes. They must think that they are very clever and, by the same rationale, the British public very stupid. We should make them pay for that misjudgement.