The 'something else at play' is the ongoing Eurozone crisis. The economic situations in Ireland and Greece are well-known and the potential effects of the increasing instability of the Eurozone on Spain, Portugal and (on the economic e-lists) Italy and France are potentially disastrous. The interconnectivities between national banks in terms of both bank debt and sovereign debt exposure are massive
(see this NYT graphic http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/05/02/weekinreview/02marsh.html?ref=weekinreview).
The connectivities between the financial services sector and the 'real' economy are also only too evident, as the ongoing global economic crisis keeps showing us and the last thing that the EC needs is an already unstable economic situation and a weak and fragmented so-called recovery made worse by a catastrophic failure in a substantial part of the European fuel supply network, particularly in view of already-rampant fuel prices in the EU (see this Bloomberg piece http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-03-04/record-gasoline-grips-europe-while-california-faces-4-a-gallon.html).
What this means in terms of Libya is that while the uprising there was part of the 'Arab Spring' and looked likely to be of short duration, one way or the other, there was no need for intervention and a positive incentive not to get mixed up in it. Once Qaddafi proved more durable and things were no longer going the way of the insurgency then unless the insurgents were crushed quickly (which I think also seemed unlikely) then what the EC was faced with was a probable long drawn-out stalemate in which a prolonged disruption to a critical fuel supply seemed likely. In the long run the Libyan component of oil/gas could be replaced from elsewhere, but at what cost to oil/gas prices and to the EC economy?
So, if you're of a cynical turn of mind the urgency for the EU/NATO to help 'settle' the Libyan situation has been increasing rapidly, linked into a keen interest on the part of the US because of the substantial exposure of US banks to the European financial services sector and therefore the economy of the eurozone more generally....
Dr Jon Cloke
Lecturer/Research Associate
Geography Department
Loughborough University
Loughborough LE11 3TU
Office: 01509 228193
Mob: 07984 813681
________________________________________
From: Nicholls, Walter [[log in to unmask]]
Sent: 20 March 2011 13:44
To: Jonathan Cloke; [log in to unmask]
Subject: RE: Western-imperialist attack on Libya
The motives behind this intervention are unclear. I have a hard time believing that altruism is motivating this intervention (for reasons listed here already). However, if I were an imperialist power, I would have allowed Qadaffi to reassert his domination over the country and then resume business as usual. I wouldn't have placed my money on rebels I don't know or trust (unless I were a very irrational imperialist).
So far, the altruist and straight imperialism hypotheses aren't very convincing. There must be something else at play...
Walter
________________________________________
From: A forum for critical and radical geographers [[log in to unmask]] on behalf of Jonathan Cloke [[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Sunday, March 20, 2011 2:09 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Western-imperialist attack on Libya
The situation in Libya is particularly interesting in the light of the 'bringing Qadaffi in from the cold' process which culminated in the signing of the near-billion dollar oil contract between the Libyan regime and BP, following Tony Blair's visit (who else?) in May 2007. If you look at the spreadsheet of arms sales to Libya provided by the Guardian (https://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=0AonYZs4MzlZbdGFBN1NWM0hrbFc0OWd1dDR2dUVfbnc&hl=en#gid=1), the three countries which provided 72.6% of the €834,540,386 in arms sold to Libya between 2005 and 2009 are (in order of importance) Italy, France and the UK.
So Libyan gas supplies 10% of Italy's gas needs and in return Italy is the second biggest arms seller to the Qadaffi regime; Libya supplies 10% of France's oil and petrochemicals and in return France is the biggest seller of arms to the Qadaffi regime, and last but not least the UK-based company BP had (as of 2007) an investment in Libyan oil intended to increase to $2 billion (expected to boost Libyan oil production from 1.8 million barrels a day (2007) to 3.5 million barrels a day by 2020) and in return the UK was the third largest seller of weapons to the Qadaffi regime.
And so, when UK and French fighters using Italian airbases implemented the no-fly zone over Libya last night, we should understand that they did so with the purest and most humanitarian of motives and with the horror of Qadaffi's recently-discovered-but-long-known-about torture chambers foremost in their minds, not because their most urgent priority is getting the two-way flows of arms and oil/gas flowing again as soon as possible... because we're just like that, we care!
Dr Jon Cloke
Lecturer/Research Associate
Geography Department
Loughborough University
Loughborough LE11 3TU
Office: 01509 228193
Mob: 07984 813681
________________________________________
From: A forum for critical and radical geographers [[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of francesca recchia [[log in to unmask]]
Sent: 20 March 2011 07:55
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Western-imperialist attack on Libya
Dear Raju
Thank you for your message!
The general lack of debate around western intervention in Libya is appalling and so is the assumption that UN interventions coincide with heavy shellings on countries that need "liberation"
I have been living and teaching for two years in northern Iraq and I have had the opportunity to see what is the role of western economic powers when a woar is supposedly over.
I think there is a serious reflection that needs to be made not only on the relation between "liberation" and oil, but also on the possible benefits and implications of western countries in post-conflict reconstruction.
Best
francesca
francesca recchia
it +39 338 166 3648
uk +44 7866477605
travel-snippets.tumblr.com
http://www.veleno.tv/bollettini/?lang=en
________________________________
From: Raju Das <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
Sent: Sun, 20 March, 2011 4:30:00
Subject: Re: Western-imperialist attack on Libya
The military assault on Libya which has just started is another bloody, western imperialist war of aggression against a poor country, a former colony.
Apparently western governments want to protect Libya’s civilians. It is as if other governments are not killing civilians in the region. How hypocritical.
The war is more about the control over oil and stopping the rebellion of workers and younger people in the region from being more radical and anti-systemic. The war is about a regime change: to create a new regime that will be deferential to oil companies and western imperialist states more than the current one.
Also: what better way to divert attention from western governments’ attack on the political and economic rights of their own people, thousands of whom languish in jails, than to start another war? The governments launching the assault on Libya have been saying that they do not have money for education and health care, etc., but how are they finding the money to support a war now. Liars.
The military attack on Libya proves the theory of endless war in the age of new imperialism. The question is: what is to be done?
Raju J Das
York University, Toronto
|