Murderers Without Borders Imperialists Cloak Libyan Oil Grab with Phony ‘Humanitarianism’

Obama’s invasion of oil-rich Libya marks U.S. imperialists’ first major use of their phony “Responsibility To Protect” (RTP) excuse for waging wider wars. The RTP doctrine, adopted at a 2005 UN summit, despite China’s and Russia’s objections, eliminates capitalist national borders as obstacles to imperialist intervention. The invaders have only to assert that they’re “rescuing the locals.”

Bombing and missile raids by the U.S. (with junior partner Britain and temporary ally France) supposedly aim at saving Libya’s citizens from dictator Qaddafi, under RTP. But the wave of Mideast rebellions made U.S. rulers and their imperialist allies shaky over maintaining the oil deals they’ve made with each other and Qaddafi over past years.

Obama was very ready to allot hundreds of millions for this latest war while cutting billions from education and social service budgets, causing massive layoffs of teachers and other government workers. The initial U.S. Navy attack with 110 Tomahawk cruise missiles alone cost nearly $100 million. As of March 29, the Pentagon had spent $550 million in the first ten days.

The upsurge that spread from Tunisia to Algeria to Egypt, where thousands of workers struck for higher wages and against mass unemployment as they did in Iraq — and continues to spread throughout the region — made the oil-thirsty imperialists nervous. Therefore, the U.S.-led campaign focused on protecting the Libyan assets of oil giants Exxon Mobil, Marathon, and Occidental (U.S.); BP (U.K.); and Total (French). At this writing, NATO air strikes were helping pro-U.S. rebels seize two oil refineries and a strategic export terminal. On March 27, they captured two oil-export ports.

Of course, the U.S. chose not to “rescue” protestors in Bahrain, the base of the U.S. Navy’s 5th Fleet, and allowed its government and invading Saudi troops to kill hundreds to ward off any rebellion that might eventually threaten Saudi’s oil fields, the world’s largest.

In a March 24 article, the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), U.S. imperialism’s top think-tank — bankrolled by Exxon Mobil-JP Morgan Chase — trumpets U.S.-led killing in Libya as “A New Lease on Life for Humanitarianism.” Its author, war criminal Stewart Patrick, who helped shape Afghan strategy in Bush, Jr.’s State Department, called RTP, as executed in Libya, the “biggest challenge to state sovereignty in three and a half centuries.”

Patrick was referring to Obama’s effective trashing of the long-lived 17th century Treaties of Westphalia. Those Treaties had enshrined the existence of capitalist nation states and defined invasion — the rulers’ ultimate means of sorting out differences — as war.

But today, after the demise of the old communist movement, U.S. bosses, though in decline, temporarily enjoy unequaled ability to project military force anywhere on earth. So Obama & Co. claim the RTP right to selectively invade any country, cloaked as “saviors” rather than aggressors. Patrick writes, “it [RTP] makes a state’s presumed right of non-intervention contingent on its ability and willingness to protect its citizens and threatens collective, timely, and decisive action if it does not.”

Liberal Rulers’ ‘Responsibility To
Protect’ = License to Invade and Kill

In addition to the elite, Rockefeller-backed CFR, the lethal, hypocritical “responsibility-to-protect” pretext has a champion in Human Rights Watch.  HRW, a mass organization founded and funded by billionaire swindler and Rockefeller ally George Soros, lures well-meaning people to liberal causes that aid U.S. imperialism. In a March 25 web article praising both the Libyan invasion and RTP, Human Rights Watch approved killing civilians:

“Opposing forces may attack a military target that is making use of human shields, but it is still obligated to determine whether the attack is proportionate — that is, that the expected loss of civilian life and property is not greater than the anticipated military advantage of the attack.” Oil facilities, presumably, meet the callous cost-benefit test. HRW also urges U.S. “humanitarian intervention” in Ivory Coast’s violent presidental dispute in which China and the Western imperialists back opposing sides.

U.S. Bosses in War Policy Disarray: Isolationist Tea Partiers vs. World War III Imperialists

But not all U.S. capitalists embrace Obama’s North African foray. In fact, fearing opposition from forces lacking imperialist interests (personified by Tea Partiers), Obama did not consult Congress before raining missiles on Tripoli.  More importantly, to some power brokers within the dominant imperialist wing of U.S. rulers, Libya pales beside bigger worries:

“We clearly have much more vital interests to protect in Yemen and Bahrain [neighbors of the U.S. oil empire’s cornerstone Saudi Arabia — Ed.]” says Rockefeller Brothers Fund trustee and former State Department planner Nicholas Burns. (Boston Globe, 3/22/11) But, says Burns. “We have no choice now but to lead in order to save Libya from its dictator and to redeem U.S. power, credibility, and purpose in the Middle East.”

Richard Haass, CFR president and advisor to mass murderer of Iraq War I, Colin Powell, looks even farther down the road to his masters’ ultimate requirements. On Libya, he expressed doubts (CFR website, 3/21/11) about “committing the United States to another costly foreign intervention at a moment we owe it to ourselves…to get our economic and military houses in order so we can meet our obligations at home and be prepared to meet true wars of necessity (North Korea for one) if and when they arise?” Haass speaks not so indirectly about U.S. imperialists’ needs to militarize the nation for all-out war with China (North Korea’s enabler).

Supporting oil-thirsty Pentagon-backed Libyan rebel leaders as “freedom fighters” — however courageous the rank and file is — leads down a political dead end. Rather workers must build for the ultimate destruction of the profit system that constantly produces regional resource wars, like Libya, as preludes to global inter-imperialist conflict.

That’s why PL’ers and our supporters must expose the racist exploitative profit system and its oppression at every turn, in factories and unions, among GI’s and in schools, churches and all mass organizations. More important, we must up the ante of the class struggle in these areas, escalating and leading the anti-racist fights against the ruling class and its lackey politicians.

Consequently, as the class struggle intensifies, the rulers will strike back with their state power (as they’re doing in the Mideast and in Wisconsin). This can be used still further to turn the class struggle into a “school for communism.” This means winning workers and their allies to see that the system cannot be reformed and to understand that building PLP and it’s goal of organizing a communist revolution — that will end the capitalists’ deadly dogfights and put the working class in power — is the only road to follow.

Tagged , , , , , , , , , ,

8 thoughts on “Murderers Without Borders Imperialists Cloak Libyan Oil Grab with Phony ‘Humanitarianism’

  1. I beleive the last paragraph of this excellent article is exactly correct and could not be better put. -And,it is important to understand that we in the USA do have the technlogical and social organizational base to build toward communism immediately without a long intermediary stage (as was necessary in the backward countries where we first seized power.) Perhaps one of your writers can elaborate on this most important principle which only PLP as far as I know is advancing (other than ouselves, that is,).
    By the way we have a new website up about Peru which may be of interest to your readers:
    Good Luck.


    • Karl says:

      PLP advances that “a long intermediary stage” between capitalism and communism was NOT necessary in Russia and China. In fact far from being “backward” the policies of War Communism in the Soviet Union and large scale communes and “free things” movement in China showed in practice the possibility of organizing communist relations immediately after the seizure of power. PLP’s call for communism is based on the very advanced successful implementation of aspects of communism in Russia and China.

      For more info see the Political Economy pamphlet on the PLP website. Specifically section VII called “COMMUNISM: THE ILLUSION THAT WORKING CLASS LIBERATION WILL NEVER HAPPEN, THE REALITY THAT IT ALREADY HAS–AND WILL AGAIN”

      Also see also the the 1971 article “Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution and the Reversal of Worker’s Power”. If this is not on the website try emailing Challenge/Desafio to see if they have a file of the article they can send you.


      • Dear Karl: (1) I take it we do agree that the immediate construction of Communism as a sociocultural evolutionary stage in the USA is possible. Which is the most important thing in my humble opinion.
        (2) Af or your ideas about what happened and what could have happened in Russia and China I think they betray (a) ignorance of history; (b) unwarranted prejudice about what could happen in backward countries going it alone (wishful thinking in other words) which is itself a form of ignorance considering sociocultural evolutionary laws of causality and process. (An interesting article on this topic [causality and process] was published in the PL theoretical organ in 1966 or 1967 as I recall by a subatomic physicist.) Both of these areas of ignorance can be corrected (in a preliminary way) by reading, with regard to the point about Russian and Chinese history, chapters 13 through 16 of my book ABC’s of Communism, Bolshevism 2011 ( and with regard to the laws of history and causality and process in sociocultural evolution by reading chapters 1 through 10.
        My experience with North Americans tells me that they don’t read. Even the intellectuals. So, who knows whether these comments will be of any impact.
        But, even so, I will try and make a point or two relevant to the statements you made. (1) first of all there is a general law in science that the universe is always unfolding as it should. In social science this means history is always unfolding as it should. The task is not to wish it did not happen in a certain way but to determine why what happened did happen. The idea that one could have done anything other than what the Soviet or Chinese leaders did is absurd. The ideological template of the Servitude Epoch imprinted upon workers and farmers as much as anyone else does not melt away the instant of our armed seizure of power. If it did there would be little need for the armed dictatorship of the proletariat once our class enemies were liquidated. (2) -And, the idea that one can “wish” for things to be different, and then try and find some indication that they were indeed different, on a scale of an order of magnitude sufficient to justify the conclusion you stated (i.e., individal success we had at places like Magnitogorsk are proof that we can build toward the kind of society where our slogan of “from each according to her ability to each according to her needs” is possible but nothing more)is methodologically incorrect and at any rate substantively foolish. A little real world experience (e.g., take a look at my new website might educate you out of that ivory tower nonsense and make you more useable as a vanguard leader of which we need very many.
        If this sounds harsh it is not meant to be. I have a great deal of respect for PL and always have. At one time I organized PL in Los Angeles (along with Phil Taylor, Jim Dan and John Harris) and left not for reasons of disagreement but because I was anxious to tackle the problems of social and cultural evolution Karl Marx was tackling in the last seven years of his life. That meant becoming proficient in archaeology and so I did. The results of that work can be seen in the first nine chapters of the ABC’s book cited above.
        So, best wishes to all of you and hopefully we can all come together soon in one Party because time is running out. The gringo rulers are finished and armed conflict is close. The important thing is we convince working people (almost all North Americans) to take up arms and fight for state power.


  2. From MSN on A Real Reason (in the minds of war contracting capitalists) in Addition to Oil for Europes anxious to participate position on Lybia.

    In Libya, West showcases new weapons for sale
    Potential buyers from India to Brazil get to see Europe, US jets in action
    Advertise | AdChoices

    Jean-Paul Pelissier / Reuters fi
    A French Rafale fighter jet at an air base on the Mediterranean island of Corsica, where France runs its military operation against Libya. French Rafales flew the western alliance’s first missions over Libya just over two weeks ago.
    By Tim Hepher and Karen Jacobs

    updated 2 hours 34 minutes ago
    • Share
    • Print
    • Font:
    • +
    • –
    PARIS — The photograph shows a French Rafale warplane at the Mitiga air base outside Tripoli. A small crowd of men, women and children mill around the fighter jet, its tail fin lit up by the North African sun.
    Taken at an air show in October 2009, the picture is one of several grabbed by military aviation photographers from Dutch website that highlight one of the ironies in the West’s enforcement of a no-fly zone over Libya. To take out Moammar Gadhafi’s air defenses, Western powers such as France and Italy are using the very aircraft and weapons that only months ago they were showing off to the Libyan leader.
    French Rafales like those on show in 2009, for instance, flew the Western alliance’s very first missions over Libya just over two weeks ago. One of the Rafale’s theoretical targets: Libya’s French-built Mirage jets that Paris had recently agreed to repair.
    The Libyan operation also marks the combat debut for the Eurofighter Typhoon, a competitor to the Dassault Rafale built by Britain, Germany, Italy and Spain. An Italian Air Force version of that plane was snapped at the 2009 show hosted by Libyan generals. Two weeks ago, that base — to which arms firms including Dassault returned last November — was attacked by the West.
    Times change, allegiances shift, but weapons companies will always find takers for their goods. Libya won’t be buying new kit any time soon. But the no-fly zone has become a prime showcase for other potential weapons customers, underlining the power of western combat jets and smart bombs, or reminding potential buyers of the defensive systems needed to repel them.
    “This is turning into the best shop window for competing aircraft for years. More even than in Iraq in 2003,” says Francis Tusa, editor of U.K.-based Defense Analysis. “You are seeing for the first time on an operation the Typhoon and the Rafale up against each other, and both countries want to place an emphasis on exports. France is particularly desperate to sell the Rafale.”
    Almost every modern conflict from the Spanish Civil War to Kosovo has served as a test of air power. But the Libyan operation to enforce U.N. resolution 1973 coincides with a new arms race — a surge of demand in the $60 billion a year global fighter market and the arrival of a new generation of equipment in the air and at sea. For the countries and companies behind those planes and weapons, there’s no better sales tool than real combat. For air forces facing cuts, it is a strike for the value of air power itself.
    Advertise | AdChoices
    Advertise | AdChoices
    Advertise | AdChoices
    “As soon as an aircraft or weapon is used on operational deployment, that instantly becomes a major marketing ploy; it becomes ‘proven in combat’,” says a former Defense export official with a NATO country, speaking on condition of anonymity about the sensitive subject.
    A spokesman for the Eurofighter consortium said it had “never been involved in talks to sell the aircraft to Libya” and its presence at the Lavex air show outside Tripoli in 2009 was part of an Italian delegation organized at government level. Defense sources tell Reuters that Britain and Germany had vetoed any sale of Italian Typhoons to Libya, but the amount of other Italian military hardware on display demonstrated warm relations at the time between Tripoli and the government of Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi .
    France has been less timid about announcing arms talks with Libya which briefly held an exclusive option for Rafale jets. A French source, who asked not to be named, declined to comment in detail on past negotiations but said arms sales were handled at a government-to-government level.
    ‘Hot war’ solutions
    Air shows like the one outside Tripoli 18 months ago are a routine fixture of the arms industry’s marketing calendar. But to convince potential buyers, Defense equipment needs to be tested and survive what marketers call a “hot war.”
    1. Only on
    1. Near disaster at 36,000 feet, then many questions
    2. Shut down government? Uncertainty could cost US
    3. Gingrich gets $7 million from casino mogul
    4. Nixon library now telling full Watergate story
    5. ID theft: 4,000 ‘kids’ found with loans, gun licenses
    6. Nike goes to pot with Cheech & Chong shoe
    7. Libyan-Americans head home to fight Gadhafi
    8. Chinese man wakes up — minus his kidney
    “Battle-testing is something often referred to by the arms industry as an important factor for promoting their wares to export customers,” says Paul Holtom, director of the Arms Transfers Program at the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI).
    A ‘hot war’ gives arms buyers a chance to cut through marketing jargon and check claims are justified. “Everyone is looking at Libya. It is definitely a showcase,” one western Defense company official told Reuters on condition of anonymity. A Dassault executive, who did not want to be named, said the Rafale had been “combat-proven” since being deployed in Afghanistan in 2007.
    What buyers and the world’s military attaches are actually watching out for may be far less dramatic than Top Gun-style dogfights, which are unlikely to feature in the one-sided Libyan campaign. Instead, according to industry executives, prospective buyers will be hungry for detailed information on reliability, the ability of aircraft to operate seamlessly with other forces or systems and the ability of operational squadrons to generate high sortie rates for the minimum amount of repair.
    The rewards are huge. India, Brazil, Denmark, Greece, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Oman and Kuwait are among a growing list of countries shopping for one or more of the fighters flying sorties over Libya.
    The deal of the moment: India’s plan to buy 126 fighter jets, an order which should be worth an estimated $10 billion. Reliability, say industry experts, is likely to be the key to winning the exports.
    Four of the six companies in the running to sell New Delhi planes — Dassault’s Rafale, the Eurofighter Typhoon, Lockheed Martin’s F-16 and Boeing’s F/A-18 — have already helped enforce the no-fly zone over Libya. A fifth contender, the Saab Gripen, arrived in Sicily at the weekend, ready to take part in the first air combat action by the Swedish air force in decades.
    France is also using its new Horizon-class frigate and latest air-to-ground missiles.
    But it’s not just offensive equipment such as planes and missiles. Aerial shock and awe provides free advertising for companies that build early warning systems and missile defenses.
    Advertise | AdChoices
    Advertise | AdChoices
    Advertise | AdChoices
    “Libya is a reminder that if you can’t compete on the level of attack platforms, then you need to compete on the level of Defense systems,” says Siemon Wezeman, senior fellow at SIPRI. “Libya had reasonable air defenses and yet they didn’t make a dent. If you want to defend yourself, you need either the aircraft or the defensive systems. You will see countries asking people like Russia and China what they can provide.” U.S.-built systems from companies like Lockheed Martin and Raytheon are already in high demand in the Gulf, to counter the perceived threat from Iran.
    ‘Cradle to grave testing’
    But convincing countries to buy expensive weaponry and equipment requires more than just showing it off. “If you meet 100 percent of the operational requirement, you have still have won only 25 percent of the race,” the former NATO Defense export official told Reuters.
    U.S. diplomatic cables, obtained by WikiLeaks and seen by Reuters, detail repeated efforts by U.S. diplomats to drum up high-level political support for fighter jet and other sales — efforts which according to Defense industry sources are matched by intense lobbying by France Britain, Russia and others. One cable, from around the time of the 2009 Libya air show, comes from the U.S. embassy in New Delhi which recounted how India, once a major Soviet arms buyer, was warming to the idea of U.S. weapons thanks to their proven combat capability.
    “They recognize the quality of U.S. systems and have been astounded by the mission-capable rates quoted for U.S. aircraft compared to their older Russian inventory,” the embassy told Michele Flournoy, U.S. Undersecretary of Defense for Policy, in October 2009.
    But a few months later, Saudi Arabia, which buys the vast bulk of its arms from the United States, had concerns about quality. Unhappy about the number of GBU-10 laser-guided bombs that had failed to explode when used against Houthi rebels in Yemen, according to a dispatch from the Riyadh embassy, Saudi officials asked how the number of duds compared with the failure rate of the same weapon in Afghanistan. In response, a visiting U.S. general described the U.S. Air Force’s careful “cradle-to-grave testing and maintenance on its bombs.”
    Saudi officials also complained about a lack of progress in obtaining U.S. munitions and technology for strikes in Yemen. In the same January 2010 meeting, the Royal Saudi Air Force chief said that when the U.S. sold its weaponry, “it was like a car dealer selling five cars, but with only eight tires.” Saudi Arabia is crucial to U.S. weapons makers who are discussing a huge arms package valued at over $60 billion including 84 F-15 fighter jets and 70 Apache helicopters built by Boeing.
    When it comes to Libya, Paris was almost as eager to take on Gadhafi as it was to open up military ties after the EU lifted an arms embargo on the country in 2004. But France was not alone in wooing the country after Gadhafi renounced weapons of mass destruction.
    In conversation with an aide to Gadhafi’s son Saif al-Islam in December 2009, U.S. embassy officials in Tripoli referred to an offer for purchases or refurbishment of C-130 transport planes and “military exchange and training opportunities,” according to a diplomatic cable from that month. The cable also mentioned a U.S. offer to Gadhafi’s younger son Khamis to “travel around the United States to tour U.S. military installations.” There was no indication how the conversation was followed up. Khamis, whose forces are fighting the revolt against his father’s rule, is the commander of the military’s elite 32nd brigade, seen by many analysts as the best-trained unit in Libya.
    The same cable also suggested that Washington had resisted Libyan requests for MH-6 “Little Bird” light assault helicopters, and noted Libyan complaints about slow progress in refurbishing Vietnam-era M113 armored personnel carriers. Lockheed Martin, manufacturer of the C-130 transporter, declined to comment. The State Department did comment for this article.
    ‘Most unseemly’
    In the immediate PR battle over Libya, analysts say the Rafale appears to be winning. Not only was it handed a front-page role on the first day of the conflict, but it also scored a symbolic victory by reaching Libya equipped for air-to-ground attack, something the Typhoon has so far only done in tests. The Typhoon is focusing instead on air-to-air warfare against an enemy whose air force has been more or less pinned to the ground by strikes on radars and air defenses.
    French officials dismiss any suggestion of deliberate showmanship in the deployment of Rafales in the opening hours of the conflict, saying their flexibility made them right for the task of destroying tanks that were closing on rebel positions in eastern Libya. But there is no doubt the lead taken by Sarkozy signals a more confident diplomatic posture that France hopes will benefit Rafale sales indirectly. Countries buying fighters must be ready to invest in a diplomatic relationship lasting 30 or 40 years, and competitors are bracing for an all-out French sales offensive once the conflict is over, or even before.
    “Sarkozy has done a great job in getting the Rafale out there and hitting a convoy early on. He will go to export markets and say this is what our planes can do,” said a defense executive from a rival arms producing nation.
    Advertise | AdChoices
    Advertise | AdChoices
    Advertise | AdChoices
    That’s something Washington will watch closely. Dispatches over many months show U.S. efforts to track the hyperactive French president during official visits as he campaigned from Libya to Brazil, India and the United Arab Emirates, for the first foreign sale of the Rafale.
    U.S. officials were so outraged by the “frothiness” surrounding Sarkozy’s two-day trip to open a French naval base in Abu Dhabi in May 2009 — a “poorly planned” French military maneuver interrupted vital fuel deliveries to Afghanistan — that the U.S. ambassador reported the visit had brought out the “most unseemly” aspects of both host and visitor. “The Emirati desire to be the object of unrestrained praise met its match in the French willingness to abase themselves in front of rich clients,” according to the confidential cable.
    French defense sources say unflattering things about U.S. lobbying too.
    Another potential customer the French and the Americans are fighting over is Brazil, where the Rafale was until recently seen as best-placed to beat the U.S.-made F/A-18 and Sweden’s Gripen. Brazil is the focus of a fierce diplomatic contest between Sarkozy and U.S. President Barack Obama to win an order for 36 fighter planes. Obama visited Brazil’s new president last month and Sarkozy is expected to follow suit.
    A time of cuts
    Arms exporters typically do well at times of international instability. But they also depend on budget stability in their home country. That’s because arms importers prefer to buy from places whose own armed forces are signing up for the same weapons, guaranteeing future support and spares.
    Turmoil in the Middle East emerged just as defense officials and lawmakers were gearing up to cut U.S. defense spending, which accounts for half of the world’s arms business, for the first time in a decade or more. The ferment may make it harder for American lawmakers to argue the case for immediate cuts — though it may also, analysts say, encourage them to scrutinize more closely the release of technology to loyal buyers whose governments are looking less stable.
    “There are probably positive impacts over the next five years on the defense industry because of what has happened in the last couple of weeks. When the U.S. military is used as it is being used in Libya, and in an invisible humanitarian sense in Japan, it probably discourages the Congress from taking an axe to the defense budget,” said Joel Johnson, analyst with Virginia-based Teal Group.
    At the same time, defense industry executives and military officials say they do not expect a return to the double-digit revenue growth seen after the September 11, 2001 attacks — given the sheer size of the U.S. deficit and a generally more sober approach to military requirements and programs.
    “We’re probably facing a flat period” of U.S. spending, Johnson said, “but flat at pretty high levels.”


    • I want to point out for those of you too busy to read all this MSN report that their key pont is that the reason France et al is so anxious to get into Lybia is MORE than just oil. They want to sell these very expensive warplanes and missiles! You should be aware that the cap economies of Western Europe are in desperate shape. These weapons deals if made could bring in trillions over the next few years. The very nature of the cap system prevents the governments of France etc from just seizing the assetts of most of the potential purchasers (e.g., Saudi “royal” family)and they must seduce them with proofs. {When they have a sufficient excuse they will seize these assets (as they have seized Gadafi’s billions.)} However, this general situation implies several things, two of which are, for example: (1)The cash reserve situation in France etc is desperate. (2) The capitalists of Western Europe will do anything to save themselves from imminent collapse.

      As I have pointed out (chapter 28 and 29 of ABC’s of Communism, Bolshevism 2011) it is too late. Nothing can save gringo imperialism. Nothing can save global capitalism. So, we need to act accordingly and prepare to lead North American workers in an armed seizure of power for the immediate construction of communism (not just socialism.)


  3. New Muckraking expose from Beijing Peoples Daily 18 April 2011

    ‘US to recoup Libya oil from China’

    Libyan ruler Muammar Qaddafi has made two mistakes: It blocked the US Africa Command by not joining it and let China into Libya with major energy investments instead, says a former US official.

    Press TV has interviewed Dr. Paul Craig Roberts, former assistant secretary of US Treasury from Panama City, who gives his insight on the revolution in Libya and why US President Barack Obama needs to overthrow Qaddafi when no other US presidents did.

    Press TV: Russia has criticized NATO for going far beyond its UN mandate. In other news a joint Op Ed is going to be written by Obama, Cameron and Sarkozy who have said that “leaving Qaddafi in power would be an unconscionable betrayal to the Libyan people”.

    We do know that the mandate does not call for regime change; the Obama administration has been saying they are not in there for regime change; but things seem a little different now don’t they?

    Roberts: Yes they do. First of all, notice that the protests in Libya are different from the ones in Egypt or Yemen or Bahrain or Tunisia and the difference is that this is an armed rebellion.

    There are more differences: another is that these protests originated in the eastern part of Libya where the oil is – they did not originate in the capital cities. And we have heard from the beginning, credible reports that the CIA is involved in the protests and there have been a large number of press reports that the CIA has sent back to Libya its Libyan asset to head up the Libyan rebellion.

    In my opinion, what this is about is to eliminate China from the Mediterranean. China has extensive energy investments and construction investments in Libya. They are looking to Africa as a future energy source.

    The US is countering this by organizing the United States African Command (USAC), which Qaddafi refused to join. So that’s the second reason for the Americans to want Qaddafi out.

    And the third reason is that Libya controls part of the Mediterranean coast and it’s not in American hands.

    Press TV: Who are the revolutionaries. The US say they don’t know who they’re dealing with, but considering the CIA is on the ground in contact with revolutionaries – Who are the people under whom Libya will function in any post-Qaddafi era?

    Roberts: Whether or not Libya functions under revolutionaries depends if the CIA wins – we don’t know that yet. As you said earlier, the UN resolution puts constraints on what the European and American forces can achieve in Libya. They can have a no fly zone, but they are not supposed to be in there fighting together with the rebels.

    But of course the CIA is. So we do have these violations of the UN resolution. If NATO, which is now the cover for the world community, succeeds in overthrowing Qaddafi the next target will be Syria because Syria has already been demonized.

    Why are they targeting Syria? – Because the Russians have a very large naval base in Syria. And it gives the Russian navy a presence in the Mediterranean; the US and NATO do not want that. If there is success in overthrowing Qaddafi, Syria is next.

    Already, they are blaming Iran for Syria and Libya. Iran is a major target because it is an independent state that is not a puppet of the Western colonialists.

    Press TV: With regards to the expansionist agenda of the West, when the UN mandate on Libya was debated in the UN Security Council, Russia did not veto it. Surely Russia must see this expansionist policy of the US, France and Britain.

    Roberts: Yes they must see that; and the same for China. It’s a much greater threat to China because it has 50 major investment projects in eastern Libya. So the question is why did Russia and China abstain rather than veto and block? We don’t know the answer.

    Possibly the countries are thinking let the Americans get further over extended or they may not have wanted to confront them with a military or diplomatic position and have an onslaught of Western propaganda against them. We don’t know the reasons, but we know they did abstain because they did not agree with the policy and they continue to criticize it.

    Press TV: A sizeable portion of Qaddafi’s assets have been frozen in the US as well as some other countries. We also know that the Libyan revolutionaries have set up a central bank and that they have started limited production of oil and they are dealing with American and other Western firms. It begs the question that we’ve never seen something like this happen in the middle of a revolution. Don’t you find that bizarre?

    Roberts: Yes it’s very bizarre and very suggestive. It brings back the fact of all the reports that the CIA is the originator of this so-called revolt and protest and is fomenting it and controlling it in a way that excludes China from its own Libyan oil investments.

    In my opinion, what is going on is comparable to what the US and Britain did to Japan in the 1930s. When they cut Japan off from oil, from rubber, from minerals like ore; that was the origin of World War II in the pacific. And now the Americans and the British are doing the same thing to China.

    The difference is that China has nuclear weapons and it also has a stronger economy than do the Americans. And so the Americans are taking a very high risk not only with themselves, but with the rest of the world. The entire world is now at stake on American over-reach; American huberus – the drive for American hegemony over the world is driving the rest of the world into a World War.

    Press TV: In the context of America’s expansionist policies, how far do you think the US will stretch beyond the UN mandate? Are we going to see boots on the ground?

    Roberts: Most likely – unless they can find some way of defeating Qaddafi without that. Ever since we’ve had Bill Clinton, George W Bush and now Obama, what we’ve learned is law means nothing to the executive branch in the US. They don’t obey our own laws; they don’t obey international law; they violate all the civil liberties and buried the principal of habeas corpus – no crime without intent; of the ability for a defendant to be legally represented.

    They don’t pay any attention to law so they’re not going to pay any attention to the UN. The UN is an American puppet organization and they will use it as a cover. So yes if they cannot run Qaddafi out they will put troops on the ground – that’s why we have the French and the British involved. We’re using the French elsewhere in Africa also; we use the British in Afghanistan – they’re puppets.

    These countries are not independent. Sarkozy doesn’t report to the French people – he reports to Washington. The British PM doesn’t report to the English people he reports to Washington. These are puppet rulers of an empire; they have nothing to do with their own people and we put them in office.

    Press TV: So these other countries would welcome having NATO troops on the ground?

    Roberts: Of course. They are in the CIAs pocket. It’s a CIA operation, not a legitimate protest of the Libyan people. It’s an armed rebellion that has no support in the capital city. It’s taking place in the east where the oil is and is directed at China.

    Press TV: Where do you see the situation headed? There seems to be a rift between NATO countries with Britain and France wanting to increase the momentum of these air strikes, but the US saying no, there is no need.

    Roberts: The rift is not real. The rift is just part of the cover, just part of the propaganda. Qaddafi has been ruling for 40 years – he goes back to Gamal Abdel Nasser (before Anwar Sadat) who wanted to give independence to Egypt.
    He (Qaddafi) was never before called a brutal dictator that has to be removed. No other president has ever said Qaddafi has to go. Not even Ronald Reagan who actually bombed Qaddafi’s compound and tried to kill him. But all of a sudden he has to go. Why?

    Because he’s blocking the US African Command, he controls part of the Mediterranean and he has let China in to find its energy needs for the future. We (the US) are trying to cripple our main rival, China by denying it energy. That’s what this is really about; a reaction by the US.

    If the US was concerned about humanitarianism, it wouldn’t be killing all these people in Afghanistan and Pakistan with their drones and military strikes. Almost always it’s civilians that are killed. And the US is reluctant to issue apologies about any of it. They say we thought we were killing Taliban or some other made-up enemy.

    Press TV: Who will benefit from all of this other than the US? The other countries that comply with US wishes- What do they stand to gain from this?

    Roberts: We are only talking about NATO countries, the American puppet states. Britain, France, Italy, Germany, all belong to the American empire. We’ve had troops stationed in Germany since 1945. You’re talking about 66 years of American occupation of Germany. The Americans have military bases in Italy – how is that an independent country? France was somewhat independent until we put Sarkozy in power. So they all do what they’re told.

    America wants to rule Russia, China, Iran, and Africa, all of South America. They want hegemony over the world. That’s what the word hegemony means. And they will pursue it at all costs.

    China’s Interests in Gaddafi

    What a sight. Chinese president Hu Jintao pulling a vintage John Lennon performance in Beijing and telling self-styled Arab liberator and French neo-Napoleonic president Nicolas Sarkozy to “give peace a chance” in Libya.

    The top four BRICS countries (Brazil, Russia, India, China) all abstained at the voting of UN Security Council Resolution 1973. In his subtle address to Sarkozy, Hu also implied his displeasure that the African Union, which was overwhelmingly against a foreign intervention in Libya, had their proposals totally sidelined by the West.

    Only three days before UN Resolution 1973 was voted on, Gaddafi met with the ambassadors of BRICS members China, Russia and India, and told them, according to the JANA news agency: “We are ready to bring Chinese and Indian companies to replace Western ones.” That may go a long way to explain the BRICS abstentions.

    It would be tempting to see the Beijing leadership merrily watching Washington walk into another open-ended quagmire in a Muslim nation – part of a Chinese grand strategy of letting the US be distracted in peripheral Muslim countries in the arc from northern Africa to Central Asia.

    Well, it is slightly more complicated than that.

    Shopping for suppliers

    China has 50 large-scale projects in Libya, but still invests less than in Angola and Zambia. From a Libyan point of view, China is a major Gaddafi financial partner – the third-largest buyer of Libyan oil behind Italy and France, with the added bonus of following its world-famous “non-interventionism” policy.

    Yet in energy terms, China’s top African oil suppliers are Angola, Sudan and Nigeria – all ahead of Libya.

    Around 80 per cent of Libya’s oil reserves, of roughly 44 billion barrels, are in the Sirte basin – spread out between Tripolitania and Cyrenaica, a great deal of it under on and off rebel control.

    Some 70 per cent of Libya’s GDP is connected to oil. Beijing would hate to contemplate a balkanisation of Libya along Korea’s lines – an impoverished, oil-less, Gaddafi-ruled west/North Korea opposed to an affluent, oil-rich, Western-aligned Cyrenaica/South Korea.

    Beijing never really worried about a Western embargo on Libyan oil. Who would dare strike a tanker navigating under the Chinese flag?

    What Beijing wanted was for the rebels to collapse, with Gaddafi back in charge of the whole country and no “regime change”.

    Now with a Libyan stalemate as the most possible scenario, Beijing is factoring its influence in the price of oil. Oil consumption in China is about 4 per cent of GDP. Each $10 increase in the price of a barrel dangerously increases that proportion by 0.4 per cent.

    Chinese reaction to the complex Sunni/Shia tumult in Bahrain has been silence. Why? That may be a good question for Saudi foreign minister Saud bin Faisal bin Abdul-Aziz, who repositioned the House of Saud post-Cold War to a preferential footing with China.

    Saudi Arabia is China’s top oil supplier (1.1 million barrels a day; the Middle East as a whole exports a total of 2.9 million); that limits Beijing’s leverage to really influence the Arab world.

    Africa is absolutely crucial for China’s energy strategy. Let’s take a look at China’s top oil suppliers: Saudi Arabia, Iran, Angola, Russia, Oman and Sudan.

    At the strait of Hormuz – through which transits Saudi, Iranian and Omani oil – China is hostage of the local policeman, the US 5th Fleet, which also patrols the Bab el-Mandeb, the gateway to the Red Sea and the naval highway for Sudan’s oil to reach the Indian Ocean.

    Then there’s the strait of Malacca, between Sumatra and the Malay Peninsula, patrolled by the US 7th Fleet – the key chokepoint for oil navigating towards China.

    China also has to worry about Iran, its number two supplier (of oil and also natural gas), under severe sanctions that have shrunk its energy production.

    So it is no surprise Beijing has connected the dots between Libya being bombed and Bahrain and Yemen getting away with repression of pro-democracy protests. The 5th Fleet calls Bahrain home, and Aden, in Yemen, is the key to the Red Sea.

    Whichever the latitude, Beijing finds the Pentagon’s mighty machine interfering with most of its key sources of energy; half of China’s oil imports in 2011 came from MENA (Middle East/ Northern Africa). The threat is graphic, as Beijing sees it.

    Iran News/Al jazeera

    As the foreign affairs and defense issues, the U.S. and China seem hardly to exactly agree with each others over the energy issue – so does the Libya’s oil business.

    The longer U.S. trapped in Libya, the weaker the veins it controls over the domestic anti-war calls, but ironically, it equally means more possibilities that U.S. to “recoup” Libya oil back from China.

    So where exactly will U.S. decide to ahead ? And what kind of possible deals would be made between U.S. and China in the Game? This time, not the ideological vacuum only, but the OIL.


  4. On Libya from The ABC’s of Communism, Bolshevism 2011
    (Chapter 26
    Libya and Dr. Hammer: the Collapse of Capitalist Oil Pricing
    Another Seed of Gringo Imperialism’s Eventual Destruction
    Among the most important of the Nasser inspired military revolts was that of the Libyan army officers under the sincere dedicated nationalist leader Colonel Muammar Khadafi. –And stepping in to help was long time US Communist Armand Hammer.
    You will recall that the defeat of the 1905 Russian Revolution resulted, in subsequent years, in the flight of tens of thousands of political refugees to Europe and North America. One of these had been Dr. Julius Hammer, Social Democrat of the Lenin variety (Julius Hammer attended the Joint Bolshevik-Menshevik Congress in London in 1907), who arrived in New York and established a medical practice and a pharmacy. Imprisoned eventually on trumped up abortion charges for anti-communist political reasons in New York, Dr. Hammer spent several years in New York State prison where his son Armand Hammer visited him weekly. See Hammer’s autobiography entitled Hammer.
    Armand Hammer had become a millionaire in his own right by selling a home remedy (in alcohol) at the outbreak of the prohibition period when he had a virtual monopoly on this particular “medicine” which was sought really for its legal alcohol content. Armand was finishing medical school, visiting his father and running the family business when Lenin seized power in Russia (in the US November 7-9, 1917). Not long thereafter, as committed as his father to the theory of Bolshevism, Dr. Armand Hammer arrived in Moscow, with an entire US Army Field Hospital he purchased as a gift for the Red Army, and a plan to do business in Russia along the lines allowed by the Government.
    To make this long story too short (Read Armand Hammer’s autobiography Hammer) let me skip ahead to say, at the age of 65 when most men are thinking about retirement, Armand had drilled on two leases he purchased in Signal Hill California. Signal Hill is a town surrounded on all sides by the city of Long Beach. It has a long distinguished US oil history and at one time around the turn of the 20th century Signal Hill (1901) was the center of California oilfield production. Hammer struck it big there and got bit by the oil bug. So by the time he arrived in the Libyan capital of Tripoli he was President of Occidental Petroleum the largest major independent in the US.
    Hammer made the deal of the century for himself and his oil company and set the standard for decades of foreign oil company cooperation with established regimes. It began with the concession Hammer grabbed for Occidental under Libyan King Idris.
    As usual the always ignorant US CIA told its bosses what they wanted to hear “Libya is completely stable today and for the next five years or so and a smooth transition is then expected to occur.” In actuality everybody in Libya knew the Army was getting ready to move. So ready there were several coups planned by different Army officer groups for the same day! Of course, the gringo “intelligence” establishment managed to miss all of that. (As they had managed to miss the build-up to the Suez invasion.)
    Beating the others to the punch on September 1, 1969, Khadafi seized the Government. Fulfilling High School boy vows (to follow Nasser and liberate their own country and join in the war of the Arabs against imperialism) these Army officers stepped up to the plate and brought the foreign domination of Libya to a close.
    Dr. Hammer stepped lightly from the ship of Monarchy to the new ship of State under the Army officers led by Khadafi. The Revolution proceeded to expel the gringo and British military bases. Then it expelled the Italian population, originally settled in North Africa under the Fascist occupation of Mussolini. In the midst of all of this Hammer got what he wanted which was Libyan oil in large quantities and the Libyans got 55 percent of the take. The other companies were forced to accede to this new Agreement, and the world of producing countries vs. producing companies had taken on a new and ominous perspective, as far as the exploiters of the world were concerned.
    On Feb 14, 1971, all the companies gave in at Tehran to the demand for 55% of the take to go to the producing countries. Over the intervening years the companies had lost more and more power to the producing countries and now Hammer had finished them off.
    Hammer was welcomed in Moscow as a conquering hero for he had broken the imperialist stranglehold on the pricing of world oil. Something the imperialist bosses in Washington and Europe would never regain and this loss of control over capitalist pricing would, over the coming decades, lead them into devastating military adventures and eventual economic collapse! Lenin must have slept well that night with his favorite American back in the fold and successful for the cause.


  5. Actual stories about environment….

    Murderers Without Borders Imperialists Cloak Libyan Oil Grab with Phony ‘Humanitarianism’ « COMMUNISM NOW!…


Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: