The Mineral Wars

You do not just happen upon colossal amounts of valuable mineral deposits in a war-torn country unless you are looking for them. US geologists have discovered an estimated $1 trillion dollars of gold, iron, copper and lithium in contested areas of Afghanistan. Prospecting companies take decades to locate and verify rich seams of valuable minerals and fossil fuels. It takes years to determine the ease of their extraction. In the wake of the 9/11 bombings, Afghanistan is one of the wars even fairly cynical people regard as moderately just and understandable.

In light of subsequent wars fought against ‘terrorist groups’ or ‘rogue nations’, even US motivations to go into Afghanistan have been brought into question. After all, the United States has never actually caught Osama Bin Laden. Other nations have taken to brokering peace with terrorist groups (e.g. the IRA) rather than all out military confrontation. Looking back in a generalised, history book-style fashion, the late twentieth century and early twenty first century will be seen to be dominated by mineral wars fought under the guise of a ‘War on Terror’. Taking place right before the world’s eyes is a resource-snatching exercise, whereby western nations venture imperialistically into other parts of the world. They do this on the premise of dealing with terrorist threats but are in fact only bolstering their dwindling energy reserves and economies. Of course, the US is going to want a healthy share of the mineral resources in Afghanistan in reparation for their ‘efforts’ within the country. About $1 trillion should cover it. Lithium also has a special significance given its extensive use in the computer and mobile phone industry. This is a highly sought-after metal during a global technology- boom.

What of the true terror in our world? What of the countries rich in human-rights abuses, dictatorship and innocent deaths, but poor in mineral resources? Their present existence will continue and the evil within them will be allowed to fester, since no country in the United Nations appears to have any intention of taking a war on terror to a place with unprofitable prospects.

The Weaklings’ War

Prime Minister David Cameron and Presidents Sarkozy and Obama have published a letter declaring that they will keep pressure on Colonel Gaddafi until he is gone. Despite UN Resolution 1973 existing to ‘protect civilians’, the letter from the three leaders claims, ‘But it is impossible to imagine a future for Libya with Gaddafi in power...so long as Gaddafi is in power, Nato and its coalition partners must maintain their operations.’ It is clear that these men wish to exceed the resolution and enforce regime change in Libya. Cameron and Sarkozy particularly want to escalate the military conflict and bring more hardware into the operation – a desire not shared by the other UN member nations. Some nations already believe that the resolution has been exceeded. Why would these three leaders so desperately want to exceed the resolution and commit greater military resources to the conflict? What are their motives?

In Britain we were told by Prime Minister Cameron to expect Libyan government defections: these have not materialised. We were warned of massacres that have not happened and were encouraged by promises of Libyan uprisings as the rebels made progress supported by the military might of the UN. There are no reports of country-wide uprisings. It seems that they will never happen. With little of the promised evidence materialising, Britain shouldering a much greater burden of operational responsibility than first envisaged and Cameron’s desperation growing, his own Conservative Party MPs are beginning to call for a parliamentary recall to re-examine Britain’s involvement in Libya.

David Cameron did not win over the British public in the UK election. He did not win enough seats to form a government and was forced to negotiate a coalition. The Conservative Party’s poll ratings have slumped further since then, Conservative Party membership is down and both Cameron and some of his key players – the Foreign Secretary William Hague, the Education Secretary Michael Gove and Health Secretary Andrew Lansley have made embarrassing public mistakes. The Prime Minister is not in a strong political position. Perhaps he believes he can recreate Margaret Thatcher’s Falklands War victory and following success in the opinion polls?

President Nicholas Sarkozy is bombing in the French polls and is regarded as an unpopular leader. He is despised by the Left and even criticised by some on the political Right. He routinely re-shuffles his own cabinet in response to public criticism and has been personally involved in numerous embarrassing incidents. He is quoted as calling French youth “racaille” or ‘scum’, he believes that paedophilia, depression and suicidal tendencies are “genetic” and, during a speech in Senegal, Sarkozy referred to “African peasants”, angering many Africans who regarded the comment as racist. He was also filmed telling a voter to “get lost” after the man refused to shake hands with him : he then called him a “dumb-ass”. Sarkozy has been accused of receiving illegal campaign donations by French newspapers. He has also distributed photographs of himself that were subsequently proved to be forged. With elections looming, this is a president badly in need of a foreign war to distract his people.

What of President Barack Obama? Obama was always onto a loser. He could never live up to the colossal expectations of his voters. He could never live up to the world’s expectations of the first black president of the United States. Unfortunately, he is a politician and so he indulged those unrealistic expectations. Like Cameron and Sarkozy, his job approval ratings are down. Oil prices are rising and no American president likes to see that. With the Democrats losing the House of Representatives, it is increasingly difficult for Obama to get through the reforms he promised his voters. The Mexican Gulf oil spill was very damaging to his presidency. This demonstrted Obama to have little power to effect change in the face of environmental and economic disaster.

These men are ‘weak’ in a political sense - whether we agree with them or not. Regardless of other very significant problems in their own countries, all three are facing the economic consequences of a global financial meltdown and have little in the way of a solid solution. They are trying to hide their weakness behind a largely unnecessary war: a show of ‘strength’ to disguise their desperation and political vulnerability. They should not be leading the charge in Libya. This is war for all the wrong reasons. A war of political weaklings. At present, it wouldn’t be hard to imagine that Colonel Gaddafi is still more popular amongst the Libyan people than Cameron, Sarkozy and Obama are with their own.

Blood On ‘Our’ Hands...

The most recent polls suggest that support for Great Britain’s military intervention in Libya is waning. The British Parliament voted 557 to 13 in favour of military intervention: a no fly zone over Libya. Members of Parliament should be representing their constituents’ opinions: this would suggest overwhelming support for the action in Libya. A poll conducted by ICM for the BBC has revealed that 38% of people support such military intervention, whereas 35% said that it was the wrong decision. This is a fairly even split and says worrying things about the way politicians represent their constituents. How can 557 politicians vote for military action if 35% of the country opposes it? Political representation is complex. If our present voting system can create such an extreme skew then it definitely needs overhauling.

The present figures suggest that politicians are prioritising their personal opinions over the views held by thousands of their constituents. Those politicians who are voting because of party allegiance are certainly not taking into account opposing voices: voices that are as strong as those calling for military action. The fact that this has support across many countries in the UN has given these politicians the confidence to push the agenda for military action. If the politicians in these other nations have voted similarly and under comparable circumstances, then this would result in strong support across the UN member states. If the eventual acquirement of continued and cheaper oil reserves is the ultimate goal in Libya for these nations, then it is no surprise that the political votes in these countries are going to become self-fulfilling prophecies. Which of the UN member states is uninterested in securing the future of its energy sources?

Perhaps this has something to do with ‘mission creep’. The majority of people are probably behind the idea of a no-fly zone – as it was first described. NATO jets would keep the Libyan skies free of Gaddafi’s jets: an air force that ultimately would destroy any chance the rebels have to take the country. Almost immediately NATO, amongst a great deal of controversy, started airstrikes across Libya and in the capital city of Tripoli, at great risk to innocent Libyan civilians. Attacks committed by NATO jets - that are supposed to be keeping the skies safe for the rebels - have resulted in friendly-fire incidents and rebel deaths. How long will it be before a UN, frustrated with the lack of progress made by a disorganised rebel force and confronted with public disillusion in the face of a drawn-out engagement in Libya, resort to putting ground forces into action? Undoubtedly a way will be found to achieve this without ‘strictly’ breaking the UN resolution.

The situation in Libya is troubling for a whole host of reasons beyond the collateral consequence of military intervention. After Libya, agreement across the UN will no longer carry the legitimacy it has (for example, in relation to the invasion of Iraq). It will have been tarnished by oil-driven motivations, the blood of innocent Libyan people and its seeming refusal to assist rebel elements in other countries throw off their dictators, simply because those countries have less to offer in the energy-equivalents of victory spoils. Countries cannot be invaded – even with UN agreement – on the basis of what their leaders ‘might’ do. Colonel Gaddafi is undoubtedly a very shady figure. When Libya is over, however, and no mass graves are found as evidence of his ‘actual’ dictatorial brutality (on scale that would necessitate an invasion by the United Nations), then we are all going to look very foolish and greedy. It is going to be ‘weapons of mass destruction’ all over again, except this time it will be the evident reality of the Gaddafi threat under scrutiny, and David Cameron in the dock rather than Tony Blair.

Transocean Give Bonuses After Gulf of Mexico Oil Spill

In other oil-related news, the offshore drilling firm Transocean, the company responsible for the Deepwater Horizon rig and blamed along with BP for last year's massive spill in the Gulf of Mexico, has given its top executives bonuses for its 'best year' for safety. Eleven workers, nine of whom worked for Transocean,died when the Deepwater Horizon exploded.

Oil companies and their commercial partners-in-crime seem to live in a completely different universe. Transocean claim that it was their best year for safety yet. How can we trust people who make such greedy and questionable decisions? A few more votes for the Green Party there.

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.