The Libya contact group must push for transparency to prevent leaders treating oil resources like a personal piggy bank
Share30
Comments (83)
Brendan O'Donnell
guardian.co.uk, Friday 15 July 2011 09.33 BST
Article history
Muammar Gaddafi has prevented oil revenues flowing to the people of Libya. Photograph: Ahmed Jadallah/Reuters
The 40-nation Libya contact group is meeting the Interim National Transitional Council to decide how best to support the rebels against Muammar Gaddafi's forces. Top of a fairly extraordinary agenda will be how to unfreeze Libya's assets so that its oil revenues can flow to the insurgents.
But negotiators must also look beyond their immediate objective, and recognise that they are presiding over an unprecedented opportunity to ensure that these flows benefit the people of Libya. If they are serious about laying the foundations for long-term peace and stability, transparency in the oil sector is the right place to start.
One of the clearest lessons from the Arab spring is that a lack of transparency over how a country manages its resources helps keep dictators in power, and creates the conditions for new ones to emerge. It's what allowed Gaddafi to exert his stranglehold over the Libyan oil sector and what enabled the collusion of foreign companies and banks in his doing so.
The results of this collusion are being played out on the streets of Misrata and Benghazi, as Gaddafi recruits mercenaries to brutalise Libya's people using money that is rightfully theirs.
Global Witness has spent more than 18 years investigating corruption in the oil industry, often in autocratic and unstable states like Libya. Our experience is that once bad practice is established in a state's natural resource sector it takes decades to undo – by which time citizens have been robbed of the benefits of their natural wealth. Gaddafi treated Libya's oil money like a personal piggy bank, so transparency is urgently needed to prevent this happening again.
It is crucial that the National Transitional Council's positive statements about transparency and accountability are translated into practice. Mechanisms must be put in place that make it a mandatory requirement for information about the country's oil sector to be made public. This means full disclosure of information to the Libyan people about how much money is earned from each oil field, where this money is paid and how it is managed and spent.
We must also remember that while Gaddafi is bad, he is not unique. He's simply one of the worst symptoms of a very old problem, the roots of which stretch well beyond Libya's borders and into the heart of our extractive industries, political institutions and banks.
Essentially, because oil companies do not currently have to disclose what they pay to foreign governments for resource deals, and banks do not have to report on their financial dealings with sovereign funds, it's very hard for citizens to know how their leaders are using their countries' natural resource wealth.
Global efforts to combat this problem are now gathering steam, with the United States leading the way.
A year ago President Barack Obama signed the Dodd Frank Act, part of which (1504) requires US-listed companies to report the payments they make to governments in resource extraction deals. The idea is that making companies publish the payments they make to governments for resource contracts will enable citizens to scrutinise where that money has gone and what it has been used for.
The implementation of this legislation is being negotiated now, and there is an emerging appetite for similar measures in Europe, with George Osborne and Nicolas Sarkozy recently going on record in support of legislation. This represents significant progress towards a new global standard of transparency, which would help weed out corruption at the root, and make life a good deal harder for the likes of Gaddafi.
***
Comments in chronological order (Total 83 comments)
WhereBeaglesGlare
15 July 2011 9:45AM
Meet the New Boss
Same as the Old Boss
bailliegillies
15 July 2011 9:48AM
This represents significant progress towards a new global standard of transparency, which would help weed out corruption at the root, and make life a good deal harder for the likes of Gaddafi.
Unless of course they are working for and on behalf of the west and global capitalism. So let's have the truth as to why the west suddenly turned on Gaddafi but chooses to ignore other, even more vicious dictators who have valuable resources at their disposal?
bobbyscarfe
15 July 2011 9:50AM
Gaddafi treated Libya's oil money like a personal piggy bank
At least he's Libyan. What's our excuse? Or are we also ensuring the flow of oil wealth benefits the people of Iraq and Libya?
It is crucial that the National Transitional Council's positive statements about transparency and accountability are translated into practice. Mechanisms must be put in place that makes it a mandatory requirement for information about the country's oil sector to be made public.
I agree entirely. Please can we also see the same transparency with regard to to Iraqi oil and the number of reconstruction contracts going to US conglomerates.
Double standards. Propaganda. And piss poor propaganda at that.
orwellfan
15 July 2011 9:59AM
This all sounds OK to me. But I want to congratulate the author on the tone and general sympathy of the article.
His approach appears to be that the great problem of our age is despotism, and that democratic and relatively civilised governments, like America's, need positive suggestions about how to deal with tyrannical regimes. What matters is that the international community takes its opportunities for positive intervention in world affairs.
This is very different from so many CIF articles, whose authors appear to think that the only serious source of evil is America.
saf312
15 July 2011 10:02AM
I agree with most of what is said, but by far the worst Royal family for this is the Saudi royal family, they treat the countries Oil as their personal asset, and then use strict Islamic law to oppress the people and tell the people that their leaders know best. But I guess we dont really mind as long as they spend that money in our western casinos and brothels and keep supporting our policies.
capmint1
15 July 2011 10:04AM
Global Witness mission statement:
For 18 years, Global Witness has run pioneering campaigns against natural resource-related conflict and corruption and associated environmental and human rights abuses. From Cambodia to Congo, Sierra Leone to Angola, we have exposed the brutality and injustice that results from the fight to access and control natural resource wealth, and have sought to bring the perpetrators of this corruption and conflict to book.
Global Witness does valuable work to ensure tansparancy and thereby partial accountability; but there work fails to take fully into account that the root cause of conflict in MENA; corruption, human rights abuses are symptoms, the real root cause is control over scare natural resources.
A review of Spiri figures of %GDP spent on arms show that the oil producing nations spend 5-10%; Germany recently sold Leopold main battle tanks to Saudi; the UK also sold Typhoon on the back of bribery and corruption including the earlier Al Ammarah contract.
The arms industry is one of the least regulated and helps to fuels conflict; sales of landmines and cluster munitions has led to unkown civilian deaths. To remain impartial, Global Witness should add the arms industry and governments who support it to their list of perpatrators of corruption.
capmint1
15 July 2011 10:04AM
Global Witness mission statement:
For 18 years, Global Witness has run pioneering campaigns against natural resource-related conflict and corruption and associated environmental and human rights abuses. From Cambodia to Congo, Sierra Leone to Angola, we have exposed the brutality and injustice that results from the fight to access and control natural resource wealth, and have sought to bring the perpetrators of this corruption and conflict to book.
Global Witness does valuable work to ensure tansparancy and thereby partial accountability; but there work fails to take fully into account that the root cause of conflict in MENA; corruption, human rights abuses are symptoms, the real root cause is control over scare natural resources.
A review of Spiri figures of %GDP spent on arms show that the oil producing nations spend 5-10%; Germany recently sold Leopold main battle tanks to Saudi; the UK also sold Typhoon on the back of bribery and corruption including the earlier Al Ammarah contract.
The arms industry is one of the least regulated and helps to fuels conflict; sales of landmines and cluster munitions has led to unkown civilian deaths. To remain impartial, Global Witness should add the arms industry and governments who support it to their list of perpatrators of corruption.
Recommend? (15)
Report abuse
Link NunOfTheAbove
15 July 2011 10:12AM
Act now on capitalism to avoid future Obamas, Bliars, Browns, Clintons, Bushes, Reagans, Thatchers, Camerons.........
foilist
15 July 2011 10:15AM
Well I support the "pubish waht you pay" line, but I'd have more support for it if Transparency International' and other NGOs had critised the Angolan government severly following the Angloan government's rabid response to BP doing just that a few years ago. This action by BP revealved that Sonangol had "lost" about half a billion dollars of BP's payments- this was a little embarrasing, so Angola threated BP's guys in Angola with treason charges, and the rest of the oil industry in Angola kept their heads down- sensibly considering the reaction from Angola and the following lack of reaction from the outside world.
And of course, full transparency doesn't guarantee the governement in question will use the money sensibly... just that the money may be pissed away rather than funding expensive cars and houses for a corrupt elite: the UK publishes full reciepts on a field by field basis and year by year- Mrs Thatcher used the enormous oil revues in the 80's to keep 3 million people unemployed rather than say, investing in a sovereign wealth fund or reinvesting the the UK's infrastructure or restructing the UK's industry.
THe other advantage of transparency is that it would point out to various sectors of the public that a) "the west" already had access to Libyan oil, and also b) that the Libyan NOC and say, NNPC in Nigeria get the vast bulk of the oil & gas reciepts, rahter than "the West" stealing the resources.....
Rippleway
15 July 2011 10:16AM
@orwellfan at 9:59AM
.
.. democratic and relatively civilised governments, like America's, need positive suggestions about how to deal with tyrannical regimes
Like, develop an alternative to oil.
theonionmurders
15 July 2011 10:18AM
I recently read Ellen Brown's article in which she makes points about the 'rebels', The Bank of International Settlements and the Libyan National Banking system and have been thinking about it for the last few weeks.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=24306
I strongly dislike Gaddafi's authoritarian populist government and his actions against his own people but what I keep thinking about is the fact that UN Human Rights Council Reports in the last year have cited Libya as a prosperous country with by far the best living standards in Africa: free health care and higher education are the norm, while a massive irrigation project has brought abundant water supplies to the parched South of the country. The government also provides cheap subsidised bread and public transport and gives a $50,000 interest free loan to newly weds.
Gaddafi, like Saddam Hussein six months before the Iraq invasion, also planned to refuse to trade oil supplies in dollars (possibly why US oil contracts have been cancelled in recent months) and Euros. Instead they intended to use the Libyan Dinar tied to a new 'African Gold Standard' (backed up by 144 tons of Libyan gold) which could be used in most African and some Arab countries to promote sustainable development across Africa and free the continent from Western financial interests. Support for this idea was apparently strong amongst these African nations while it also has the tacit support of Russia and China, though Sarkozy and other Western leaders have spoken fiercely against it.
Secondly, Libya's economic system is based around 'The State Theory of Money' whereby currency creation is exclusively controlled by the national state banking system - this method cleverly bypasses the private banking monopoly and control of money and credit creation favoured by the Bank of International Settlements and the IMF which is commonly practised in Europe and the US, and which has bring about globalisation and the introduction of neolibral economic policies over the past 30 years.
By all accounts this system of investment halves the cost of public infrastruture and redevelopment programs and has so far been reasonably successful - primarily because it is difficult for Western multinationals to have any leverage or to apply economic pressure to clients - as they do with African nations at present - when trading within this economic system.
It seems to me that this is a 'coup' by factional elements led by Arab and Libyan business 'elites' and supported by ordinary people from the marginalised Eastern sector of the country. I find it massively ironic that wealthy elites from the brutal dictatorships of Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Jordan and The UAE are funding the rebels offensive (Which I believe does not have the support of the majority of ordinary Libyans?) against Gadaffi's regime. They clearly have their eyes on lucrative national banking and energy interests. There are now reports in the NY Times of how the rebels are dispensing 'summary justice' and violent executions to anyone who disagrees with their actions in the occupied eastern sector of the country.
Britain, France and other elites in the ME clealy see an opportunity within the Libyan banking and energy sectors - its obvious that this intervention is a clear case of present day neo-colonialism against a national government which refuses to become a supplicant of western mltinationals, backed by Western and Arab corporate interests and supported by NATO and the UN plain and simple.
conanthebarbarian
15 July 2011 10:19AM
Take off your rose-tinted glasses pal. Nature is red in tooth and claw. While people need oil there will always be those happy to grab it. More's the pity no one realises there is a humongous nuclear fusion reactor up in the sky. Imagine if we could all tap into that.
saf312
15 July 2011 10:23AM
I am not pro war but anyone who thinks Gaddaffi was doing a good job is either a total idiot or has a few screws loose. How can you have so much oil with a population of only 6 million and yet the country is so undeveloped and so many people live in poverty. Libya should be like UAE, Qatar or Kuwait, to add insult to injury the Gaddaffi family have billions in accounts abroad.
There is no exuse for anyone to be in power for that long and not being able to imporove the country. I am no supporter of the hypocritical US foreign policy but there is no exuse for defending Gaddaffi.
foilist
15 July 2011 10:28AM
orewellfan:
"... that democratic and relatively civilised governments, like America's, need positive suggestions about how to deal with tyrannical regimes."
I agree: what should say, the EU or the USA or Canada do with a country run by a tyrranical regime? Trade with it (ie buy what they make- wether manufactured goods form China or natural resources from say, Libya, and sell then what ehy want, even if it's mainly guns, and more guns) attracts critisism. But not trading with such a nation- boycotting it- also attracts critsism...
digitalmantra
15 July 2011 10:28AM
I'm sick of these dirty fallacies to justify all-out attempt to topple a foreign government.
yourhavingalaugh
15 July 2011 10:37AM
gaddafi and his select band of merry men have been ripping off the Libyan people for years. All this western crusade baloney is just a cover to keep him in power. He runs to the west to help build his infrastructure when he is ready.
exArmy
15 July 2011 10:40AM
orewellfan:
that democratic and relatively civilised governments, like America's, need positive suggestions about how to deal with tyrannical regimes.."
Let them buy up your debt an do lots of business with them is a good approach.
IvyLeague
15 July 2011 10:41AM
The idea is that making companies publish the payments they make to governments for resource contracts will enable citizens to scrutinise where that money has gone and what it has been used for.
Does it also cover large cash bribes paid into offshore accounts?
Keo2008
15 July 2011 10:49AM
Normally I am amongst the first to denounce the brutal dictatorship of Gaddafi and I have no doubt he has milked the oil profits for his own benefits.
However, it should be pointed out that he at least distributed much of the profits to ordinary people so that Libya came to enjoy the highest GDP, Health and Education in North Africa (and maybe even Africa as a whole?)
His predecessor King Idris was the one who started the oil profits- and he kept all the profits for himself, his family and the elites. Resentment at this was one of the major causes of the easy success of Gaddafi's coup in 1969.
Gaddafi is certainly no angel when it comes to profiting personally from oil- but he was a lot better than King Idris.
(Probably the last time I will ever write anything kind about Gaddafi)
Exodus20
15 July 2011 10:52AM
Gaddafis is one of several puppets and stooges setup and supported by .... to control the population and facilitate exploitation. The problem with Gaddafis is that he did not do as he is told.
ilovemytshirt
15 July 2011 10:59AM
Brendan O'Donnell
In a word: Bravo!
More words to follow...
BrianWhit
15 July 2011 10:59AM
Gaddafi might not be the flavour of the month, but this is the man who's stabilized a volatile part of the world for quite some time.
Well, he may have kept Libya stable by imprisoning and executing his opponents. But beyond Libya, his record is one of trying to destabilise things.
TomLars
15 July 2011 11:03AM
For one Gaddafi was a pretty good leader. Libya was a nice country before the armed rebellion. Oil and Food was subsidized for example. People were well educated and Health services are free for all citizens (last info from http://i-cias.com/e.o/libya.health.htm).
For example, here we can see the gigantic (in million of people) support to Gaddafi (under-reported in western media).
But even if you don't like Gaddafi, which is your perfect right. The issue must be settled by Libyan people through democratic elections open to all candidates (with international observers and after negotiation between warring parties, etc).
Gaddafi is the most serious contender against the rebel leaders in any elections. Its a bit too convenient to want your main contender left out of the ballot paper and won't create long lasting peace between Libyan people of different side (pro-gaddafi, pro-rebels). Libya needs real democracy. Not a democracy among rebels leaders. And that is a free elections open to all candidates for immediate saving of Libyan life and long lasting peace.
Keo2008
15 July 2011 11:04AM
@Exodus20: A ludicrous conspiracy theory post.
The West was doing very well indeed out of the oil when King Idris was in charge, keeping 50% of the profits for themselves. Here was a ruler after their own hearts- willing to give away his resources to the West, and also following dutifully the West's line in International Affairs- King Idris was the only Arab leader to oppose the Arabs whenb they went to war with Israel in 1967, to support the British attempt to overthrow Nasser in 1956. Idris also gave the west air bases in Libya and accepted British advice on everything.
The West could not have asked for a more pliant loyal puppet ruler.
So the idea that they would prefer to have a young firebrand pro-Nasser nationalist as leader of Libya is so stupid that it could only come from one of the conspiracy-theory-leftists that seem to pop up here from time to time.
Yours is possibly the most stupid comment on CiF for at least a week- so that's quite an achievement.
TomLars
15 July 2011 11:06AM
I forgot to paste the link to one of the gigantic demonstration in support to Gaddafi above (among other ones) :
http://vimeo.com/user7648947/green-square-tripoli-libya-1st-july-2011
Keo2008
15 July 2011 11:07AM
@TomLars:
The issue must be settled by Libyan people through democratic elections open to all candidates (with international observers and after negotiation between warring parties, etc).
Quite so. Such a shame Gaddafi has refused to hold any elections- or allow any political parties- for the last 43 years.
Not surprising that those opposed to him felt they had no choice but to revolt against him, wouldnt you say?
TomLars
15 July 2011 11:16AM
@Keo2008
Some people says its better to have political stability at the beginning of a developing countries. Europe, America and China are historic examples. Gaddafi got considerable support among Libyan people.
But now the rebel and Nato have won. Gaddafi is willing to sit with the rebels and hold internationally supervised elections. Letting Libyan people decides who they want to lead or not lead them through democratic elections open to all candidates. True democracy.
One of the advantage is:
1) Immediate saving of lives of Libyan people
2) Long lasting peace between pro-gaddafi and pro-rebels supporters since the matter would be settled in democratic and inclusive elections.
foilist
15 July 2011 11:19AM
theonionmuders:
It's a pity that your thinking into the Libyan war only seems to go as far as reading Ellen Brown's article and nothing else:
Gaddafi, like Saddam Hussein ...planned to refuse to trade oil supplies in dollars (possibly why US oil contracts have been cancelled in recent months) and Euros. Instead they intended to use the Libyan Dinar tied to a new 'African Gold Standard' (backed up by 144 tons of Libyan gold) which could be used in most African and some Arab countries to promote sustainable development across Africa and free the continent from Western financial interests. Support for this idea was apparently strong amongst these African nations while it also has the tacit support of Russia and China, though Sarkozy and other Western leaders have spoken fiercely against it.
hmmm... Libya operates a PSA system, so the oil companies (incidentally, which US oil contracts have been cancelled as you claim?) in Libya are 'paid' in oil, which they have absolute title to, and they can trade it for whatever currency they want. The Libyan NOC's share of the oil can be traded in whatever currency they want... the oil I help produce in the North Sea is sold to the Grangemouth refinery on long term futures contracts denomiated in Sterlng, and I haven't noticed anyone about to bomb the UK, nor have I noticed the dollar crumbling.
You are going to have to show me that support for a pan-African currency backed by 141 tonnes of gold was strong, especially in those African nations Libya had fought wars or proxy wars with. Ellen Brown says in her article: "Gadaffi suggested establishing a united African continent, with its 200 million people using this single currency. During the past year, the idea was approved by many Arab countries and most African countries." with no support at all (and apparently forgetting the United Arab Republic of the 60's that fell apart that so far no Arab nation has shown any inclination to resurrect). And also Ghaddafi has suggested a lot of things in the past 42 years, few of which have proved more that bluster.
UN Human Rights Council Reports in the last year have cited Libya as a prosperous country with by far the best living standards in Africa: free health care and higher education are the norm,
Well with a small population and a lot of oil revenue they should have high living standards, but perhaps they should be compared to ME Arab countries rather than African countries? Countries like Oman, showing a much larger improvement in their HDI? The UN Human Development Indicators are here.
And the health care may be free- as long as you don't mind your childred getting AIDS due to the dirty unsanitary conditions in the hospitals...
while a massive irrigation project has brought abundant water supplies to the parched South of the country
Actually the Great Man Made River project (which was a very ambitious solution to water shortages in Libya) takes water from the aquifers in the south to the northern coastal strip .... that's where most of the Libyans live after all.
By all accounts this system of investment halves the cost of public infrastruture and redevelopment programs and has so far been reasonably successful -
Which would be why those countries practising the State Theory of Money, those countries outside the BIS, like Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Iran, have such wonderfully good infrastructure and redevelopemnt, seeing as they can do it twice as efficiently? Oh, but their infrastructure is terrible, so perhaps you are wrong?
Britain, France and other elites in the ME clealy see an opportunity within the Libyan banking and energy sectors - its obvious that this intervention is a clear case of present day neo-colonialism against a national government which refuses to become a supplicant of western mltinationals
The western multinational oil companies are there already (that's what all those UK nations that were evacuated back in February were doing there!! That;s what I was doing in Libya in the late 90's- working for Lundin Oil).
I think the Western Elites say this as opportunity to get rid of a nasty dictator who has bombed airliners (if you don't accept the Pan Am bombing as Libyan then the UTA bombing certainly was Libyan), backed western terrorist groups from the IRA to the RAF, invaded neighbouring countries and generally been a nasty person, and do it on the cheap, and with popular support in the region. France saw it as a chance to make up for backing Ben Ali in Tunisia, the UK saw it as a way for a new PM to look statesman-like, and in Italy, a sucessful war is a good way for an unpopular leader to get re-elected and the US had to be dragged very, very reluctantly
saf312
15 July 2011 11:21AM
@JaneKnowles
My god for a moment I thought you were just a wind up merchent but I read you previous post and your are actually serious. Let me tell you something there are two ways to stablise a country, one is to oppress the people and put fear in their minds, the other is to improve the standard of living of the population and give them hope and prosperity. With the amount of Oil Libya has Gaddaffi could have easily obtained the goal of stablisation by improving the lifes of his people but instead he chose the route of oppression.
As I said before I am no supporter of American or Western foreign policy but using the state oil as you own personal wealth is a joke that oil belongs to the people of Libya and it cannot be justified even if a single drop is used to enrich Gaddaffi.
smtx01
15 July 2011 11:22AM
@saf312 ''I am no supporter of the hypocritical US foreign policy but there is no exuse for defending Gaddaffi.''
Well you'l find plenty of excuses for defending Gaddafi here on Cif - He's an 'anti imperialist' /'Freedom Fighting' / 'Arab Folk Hero'... dont ya know
digitalmantra
15 July 2011 11:24AM
In the era of nation-state, a leader's job is to make sure their national resources are utilised for the benefit of the nation.
And any sensible person with minimum education to interpret statistical data must appreciate that Gaddafi rather did a fantastic job!
He pulled his nation from extreme poverty to be the best place to live within the whole continent.
He made quality education and health care a right (not privilege) for every citizen. Food is hugely subsidised. The UN Human development index say it all.
He raised the status of women to the same level of men. Compare with any other Arab or African country for yourself.
But such nationalistic policies are not good new at all for the nations with military might who depend on the resources of other nations like Libya. They like to see puppet leaders (like Idris) there who would allow super-powers to plunder resources.
In sharp contrast to Libya these nations rip off their citizens to bribes large corporations and banks so that they can continue coming to power by their support. In order to continue their vicious cycle of power and profit they must rob the resources of other nations.
When they do this, their powerful media machinery comes into play.
Iraq is a good example. People around the world actually believed that Saddam had WMD. Where are the WMDs that triggered the western nations to bomb the country to stone-age? Have you questioned your leaders? Yet you claim your nations to be democratic?
All those kind words of democracy and humanity are words of farce. Its the military might that counts in the real world.
Good luck Gaddafi, give these bastards a good lesson.
John18551
15 July 2011 11:25AM
@foilist
Yes, it seems whatever the white man does he's screwed.
Trade with those poor, benighted people of the world who just happen to live in those parts of the world that have all the natural resources we need (and don't have!) to finance our great western civilization with all its 'superior' moral values like bourgeoise liberal neo-facist corporatist-capitalist democracy;
Or,
not trade with them and become just like the third world despotisms with their corrupt, nepotistic and monarchical regimes that we affect to disdain.
The truth of the matter is the capitalist west lives like a rentier off the unearned increment of the rest of the world but is, like the British monarchy, never grateful and genuinely thinks itself morally superior to everybody else.
smtx01
15 July 2011 11:28AM
This comment was removed by a moderator because it didn't abide by our community standards. Replies may also be deleted. For more detail see our FAQs.
digitalmantra
15 July 2011 11:33AM
@smtx01
15 July 2011 11:28AM
digitalmantra 'Good luck Gaddafi, give these bastards a good lesson.'
Go to hell
I'm sorry, but your abusive words won't change the reality. Good luck to you too.
ilovemytshirt
15 July 2011 11:34AM
This is an article of exceptional clarity and hits the nail firmly on the head. While obviously there are many others examples, in the case of Libya - Madcap Muammar and his brutally despotic Qaddafi mafia have for decades been milking the country's resources for their own nefarious purposes. George Orwell's 'Animal Farm' was written with Stalin in mind, but fits this ugly scenario perfectly - as does the Pete Townshend / Who classic, 'Won't Get Fooled Again'.
Yes... "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss" begone!
foilist
15 July 2011 11:40AM
He pulled his nation from extreme poverty to be the best place to live within the whole continent.
He made quality education and health care a right (not privilege) for every citizen. Food is hugely subsidised. The UN Human development index say it all.
And yet the UN HDI index shows that other countries, some nowhere near as oil rich, have done better at improving themsleves, either in absolute terms (like Oman, Saudi Arabia, Morroco, China, Korea) or in percentage terms (Oman, China, Laos)
As I've said above, I'm unconvinced that Libya's free health care system is a "quality" system.
Is subsidising food and fuel a sensible way to spend government money? What above improving wages so that people don't need subsides?
But such nationalistic policies are not good new at all for the nations with military might who depend on the resources of other nations like Libya. They like to see puppet leaders (like Idris) there who would allow super-powers to plunder resources.
As I have said, over and over and over again, "the West" already had access to Libya's resources, and has done for decades, under the Libyan PSA terms. There were no indications that "the West" was about to loose this access- the most recent PSA award gave Shell the plummest block for example. yes Russian and Chineese oil companies were starting to compete for the contracts too (but then these companies are also bidding for Brazil's very attractive acerage, and I haven't noticed anyone suggeesting we bomb Brazil!)
John18551
15 July 2011 11:41AM
@TomLars
What if Libya already has a kind of democracy, one which isn't based on the party system of Europe and allows only individual candidates to stand for election, not political parties? One, furthermore, that is based on tribal councils who are liable to support sharia law and political islam?
Should we force our own parliamentary-style (secular and pro-capitalist) so-called democracy on the Libyians; a system where corrupt political parties representing no-one but themeselves get to power and push through unpopular policies in complete disregard to what most of the electorate would want (if they weren't so misinformed)?
Antigones
15 July 2011 11:45AM
This is a craven ambush, using thugs and NATO pirates to steal oil from Gaddafi and his people to satisfy western Markets and redistribute oil contracts, as was done in Iraq.
All else is propaganda—and those, like the writer Brendon O’Donnell, are being hypocritically judgmental in singling-out Gaddafi as a rogue in this rogues’ world of oil and riches.
Gaddafi is a warrior in this feckless political world—and has done a great service in creating high standards of living for most of his people, over the years of his time in power. As recently as the-new-boy-on-the-block Obama (the bending), Gaddafi was hugged, kissed and hand-shaken by double-crossing “Leaders” of the West.
Might is right—as ever—so don’t flavour it with sanctimonious human rights, or democratic excuses.
foilist
15 July 2011 11:48AM
This is a craven ambush, using thugs and NATO pirates to steal oil from Gaddafi and his people to satisfy western Markets and redistribute oil contracts, as was done in Iraq.
Why is there any need to redistribute oil contracts that BP, ENi, Occidental, Veba etc etc already had?
Bangorstu
15 July 2011 11:50AM
Libya's health service is so good those who can afford it go to Tunisia...
So let's have the truth as to why the west suddenly turned on Gaddafi but chooses to ignore other, even more vicious dictators who have valuable resources at their disposal?
Logistics - he's nice and close the NATO bases.
Practicality - he has no powerful allies.
Opportunity - he overplayed his hand, and unlike Iraq here seems to be a well organised opposition with an idea on what happens next.
exArmy
15 July 2011 11:57AM
Bangorstu
wrote
"Opportunity - he overplayed his hand, and unlike Iraq here seems to be a well organised opposition with an idea on what happens next."
As Bangorstu said, an he should know used to creep to the bigger kids an steal dinner money of those who could not fight back.
exArmy
15 July 2011 11:59AM
This comment was removed by a moderator because it didn't abide by our community standards. Replies may also be deleted. For more detail see our FAQs.
TomLars
15 July 2011 12:00PM
@John18551
Sure, if people of Libya (probably through referendum) agrees to it.
Keo2008
15 July 2011 12:09PM
@John: You ask "what if" Libya had a different kind of democracy.
Only it doesn't. They have no elections for individuals let alone political parties.
And the idea that in the modern world with a well-educated population they would be satisfied with such a "system" is patronising to the Libyan people.
Curious that Gaddafi himself has never put himself up for election for any position ever, wouldnt you say? Or perhaps your different type of democracy doesnt actually apply to the dictator himself.
Your comments remind me of the way Fellow-Travellers in the 30s used to praise Stalin's brutal dictatorship as a new kind of democracy
smtx01
15 July 2011 12:13PM
@digitalmantra - ''Good luck Gaddafi, give these bastards a good lesson.''
OK I will try again- watch this - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=38EXALI60hg&feature=player_embedded#at=94 (Tell the World what is happening)
Is Mohammed Nabbous the sort of 'bastard' who deserved to be taught 'a good lesson' by Gaddafi?.
That video was his first live broadcastbroadcast from Benghazi in the early days of the revolution. In his remarkable efforts, he became the voiceo of the people in Libya and the eyes of the world into the country.
'After capturing the world's attention, Mo launched the first independent internet tv station in Libya: Libya Alhurra TV. Throughout his broadcasts this past month, he was able to show the world first hand of the crimes that the Gaddafi regime was committing against innocent people. He also successfully coordinated efforts with viewers from all around the world to get humanitarian aid to people and assisted the media's efforts to getting information. From finding pilots and planes to fly out patients to hospitals in Egypt and to working with key UN officials - Mohammed used Libya Al Hurra TV as a platform to helping anyone he could.
In the last few hours of his life, Nabbous went out to investigate and report via video the sounds of Gaddafi forces firing missiles on Benghazi. He bravely took to the streets to get us the real story. Early this morning, he went around the town to survey the damage of the attacks by Gaddafi and the death of the youngest Gaddafi victims: 4 months-old and 5 year-old children killed, while sleeping in their bedroom by a missile in the morning of March 19. Nabbous was shot in the head by snipers soon after exposing the Gaddafi regime's false reports related to the cease-fire declaration'.
http://feb17.info/editorials/in-loving-memory-of-mohammed-nabbous/
John18551
15 July 2011 12:18PM
@ Foilist
Which would be why those countries practising the State Theory of Money, those countries outside the BIS, like Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Iran, have such wonderfully good infrastructure and redevelopemnt, seeing as they can do it twice as efficiently? Oh, but their infrastructure is terrible, so perhaps you are wrong?
Perhaps it's because: -
The west continually destabilises the region by sponsoring terrorists and insurgents who deliberately target and destroy critical infrastructure (the Taliban in Afghanistan during the 80's, for example); Puts brutal kleptomaniac tyrants in power (like Doc Duvalier of Haiti, or Mobuto of the Congo) who pilfer their own countries resources but at least make the world safe for western business interests; Subjects third world countries to harsh sanctions, embargo and, in the case of Iraq and Palestine, blockade, when they don't cooperate with the west; as well as maintaining grossly unfair and iniquitous global trading regimes (GATT, WTO, NAFTA, IMF, World Bank) where privatisation of the public domain (theft, by any other name) is at the very heart of the system.
digitalmantra
15 July 2011 12:22PM
@smtx01
Before you fall into more media lies, let me ask you an interesting question - do you know when was the domain feb17.info registered?
The answer is 14-Feb2011!
3 days before the so called 17 Feb revolution, they knew that Gaddafi will kill people on the 17th! Check out here.
Shocked? Please don't be. I guess, more interesting things will be uncovered over time as happened with the Iraqi WMD.
Cheers.
littleriver
15 July 2011 12:23PM
http://edition.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/africa/07/14/libya.gadhafi/index.html
olvejoivej posted this CNN link on another thread:…Moussa Ibrahim talks about the regimes commitment to OIL.
‘’The government spokesman, Musa Ibrahim, also issued a warning that he said he hoped would make headlines around the world. "We will die for oil. We will kill for oil," Ibrahim said. "We will kill everyone who comes near our oil. Rebels, NATO, we don't care. We will defend our oil to the last drop of blood that we have."
foilist
15 July 2011 12:52PM
’The government spokesman, Musa Ibrahim, also issued a warning that he said he hoped would make headlines around the world. "We will die for oil. We will kill for oil," Ibrahim said. "We will kill everyone who comes near our oil. Rebels, NATO, we don't care. We will defend our oil to the last drop of blood that we have."
I'm sure he did, LittleRiver, possibly for the benefit of people who can't be bothered go the Libyan NOC's website and see all the recent oil contracts Libya has signed with foregin multinationals? Or the fact that the Libyan NOC, as part of their plan to produce 4MMbopd, has explicilty said it needs more inward investment (ie more multinationals)?
After all, it's in the Ghaddfi regime's interest to get this war characterised as ALL ABOUT OIL and so easy to do it, especailly when there are so many people in the West who don't even know the difference between a "Nationalised Oil Industry" and a "National Oil Company"... Libya has the latter and not the former and has not made any recent moves towards the former....
http://en.noclibya.com.ly/ for all the details who got the most recent EPSA contracts, the NOC's future plan and so on
MarkMaruyama
15 July 2011 12:54PM
One of the clearest lessons from the Arab spring is that a lack of transparency over how a country manages its resources helps keep dictators in power
As opposed to being financially and millitarily backed by the USA other usual suspects, then?
digitalmantra
15 July 2011 1:05PM
@foilist
there are so many people in the West who don't even know the difference between a "Nationalised Oil Industry" and a "National Oil Company"... Libya has the latter and not the former and has not made any recent moves towards the former....
Sorry, but Wikileaks says a different story. The US was concerned that the Libyan leadership was taking the direction to nationalise their oil in 2007.
In 2009, Gaddafi disclosed his intention of 'nationalisation' publicly, see the Reuters's report:
http://uk.reuters.com/article/2009/01/21/businessproind-us-libya-gaddafi-oil-idUKTRE50K61F20090121
_______________
Các anh chị có nhận xét, ý kiến, phê bình gì qua bài viết "Act on oil now to stop future Gaddafis" và một số ý kiến , phê bình trong số "83 comments" của đọc giả ?
Các anh chị có suy nghĩ gì về "comment" ngắn đầu tiên ? "Meet the New Boss
Same as the Old Boss" của đọc giả có nick WhereBeaglesGlare ?
Cả thế giới đã thấy rõ Gadhafi là một "nhà cầm quyền" ĐỘC tài, đã nắm quyền lực suốt 42 năm vẫn chưa chịu nhả, những kẻ tàn bạo, tham quyền cố vị, thẳng tay giết dân như vậy thiết nghĩ chẳng những phải bị dân LẬT ĐỔ mà còn PHẢI bị trừng trị.
Nhân lọai ngày một tiến bộ và không ngừng tranh đấu cho cuộc sống được tốt đẹp hơn, và điều căn bản nhất là QUYỄN LÀM NGƯỜI. Không ai có quyền TƯỚC ĐỌAT của người khác cái QUYỀN THIÊNG LIÊNG này .
Tất cả những tên cầm quyền độc tài trên thế giới đều TÀN BẠO, KHÁT MÁU như nhau .
Và hậu quả của sự ĐỘC tài đó là kết cuộc Ô NHỤC không thể tránh khỏi, khi người dân đồng lọat đứng lên chống lại, phản kháng lại thì dù có quyền lực tới đâu cũng PHẢI SỤP ĐỔ.
Chắc chắn trong thời đại thông tin điện tử tòan thế giới ngày nay, những sự thay đổi theo chiều hướng tự do dân chủ sẽ đem đến sự phát triễn, tiến bộ cho xã hội, và sự tranh đấu cho tự do dân chủ ngày càng mạnh mẽ hơn .
Riêng bè lũ phản quốc CƯỚP NƯỚC diệt chủng BÁN NƯỚC ĐỘC tài ĐỘC đảng Việt gian cộng sản VN sớm hay muộn cũng sẽ có ngày TÀN trong Ô NHỤC như hầu hết những tên độc tài sát nhân giết dân trên thế giới .
Thêm vào TỘI ÁC tương tự như những tên độc tài khác, bè lũ Việt gian csVN còn TỘI BÁN NƯỚC .
Lũ súc sinh buôn nòi bán giống Việt gian csVN TỘI ÁC tầy trời . NGÀY TÀN của lũ ÁC THÚ này và bè lũ tay sai theo giặc giết dân hại nước không chừng còn thê thảm hơn những tên độc tài khác.
Xin mời các anh chị theo dõi bài viết kế tiếp "Libyan rebels win international recognition as country's leaders"
Chân thành cám ơn Quý Anh Chị ghé thăm "conbenho Nguyễn Hoài Trang Blog"
Xin được lắng nghe ý kiến chia sẻ của Quý Anh Chị trực tiếp tại Diễn Đàn Paltalk: 1Latdo Tapdoan Vietgian CSVN Phanquoc Bannuoc .
Kính chúc Sức Khỏe Quý Anh Chị .
conbenho
Tiểu Muội quantu
Nguyễn Hoài Trang
16072011
___________
Cộng sản Việt Nam là TỘI ÁC
Bao che, dung dưỡng TỘI ÁC là đồng lõa với TỘI ÁC
No comments:
Post a Comment