Hi,

I very much appreciated the comments by Marco and Walter. I have been working in a conflict area to the south of Libya for years (DR Congo), where the clashes between self-proclaimed anti-imperialists (who say that this war is all about Western interests trying to exploit Congo's resources) and economistic blood diamond campaigners (who think this war is sonehow about the economy gone awry) has been killing any kind of agency-oriented debate for decades... Very frustrating.

Still I am surprised by the lack of interest for the supposedly democratic cause of these anti-Ghedaffi forces: who are they, what are their aims, grievances, political agendas, mode of organization... While media reports about Egypt and Tunisia were all about social revolution, all we get from Libya is talk about strategy and interests - strangely enough. So again: where can we get more information about the alternative to Ghedaffi? Are there any geographers, anthropologists around that can give us some additional insight?

Kind regards,

Tim

On Mar 20, 2011, at 4:01 PM, Marco Allegra wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> I completely agree with Walter Nicholls about the flaws of the "straight imperialism hypotheses".
> 
> The figures presented for European-Libyan relations are indeed true (from Italy, I can add that Qaddafi owns I think about 7% of the Juventus football team, is the main stakeholder of the Unicredit bank, that is one of the major Italian banks; Libya is also one of the main destination for Italian developers and Berlusconi's friends).
> 
> Yet, in order to preserve these and other interests the governments of France, Italy and UK could just shut up and wait for Qaddafi to crush the resistance in Bengasi - until yesterday, a matter of days or weeks following all analysts.
> 
> Does that mean that Italy France and UK - along the US but also the Arab League in general - are now disinterested freedom fighters?
> 
> Well I don't think so. Suffices it to say that whatever is going to happen in Bahrein, Yemen or Saudi Arabia we will probably never see an equivalent European or American reaction there (I mean a military one).
> 
> The support of the Arab League - and especially Saudi Arabia - means precisely that they are going to trade Qaddafi's head for their own security because they are scared to death by how quickly the international communities dropped people like Ben Ali, Mubarak and Qaddafi (aging dictators with big personal fortunes invested abroad.. can you think of anyone fitting this profile in the Gulf area?)
> 
> That said, I think there is a need to point out a few things:
> 
> - protesters in Middle Easter countries DO have agency. They are not the puppets or the passive objects of the politics of anyone else. They achieved things - like in Egypt and Tunisia - that no area studies analyst (I offer to you geographers a mea culpa on behalf of the category) thought possible.
> 
> - a result of this agency: the protests changed the political and media context in Europe; every Qaddafi-friendly government was forced to step forward because too much people here is sympathetic with the rebels. Maybe Libya is an easy target; but we should not forget that both Americans and Europeans were very quick to abandon Ben Ali and a veritable pillar of US politics in the region like Hosni Mubarak. This happened because of the powerful political earthquake unleashed by the protests and I think we should be glad about that...
> 
> - this is, I think, the correct frame to place the reaction of European and American government; then we can discuss (i) the less noble motives to embark in this adventure (Sarkozy's need to be at the center of the stage, or Berlusconi's to obliterate his past praising of Qaddafi; I swear that once he actually kissed Qaddafi's hand in public, try and get the footage) and (ii) the chaos marking the foreign policies of many of the states favoring - as well as opposing - military intervention in Libya. Sometimes these guys are less smart and rational than we can imagine...
> 
> - finally, I totally agree with Paolo Giaccaria's remarks about the risk of simply not considering what people in Bengasi may feel right now. This is why I frankly don't accept the argument that "since the US did not protect protesters in China (or the people of Gaza, or... you name it) the military intervention in Libya is wrong". If one thinks that the US or Italy should have done more for Gaza, or people in Srebrenica, and in the same time supports the rebels in Bengasi, this actually means that they should do something for people in Bengasi (who are actually asking for even more military intervention): politics it's not a marathon, where the runners should complete the race alone not to be disqualified...
> 
> I don't think that these considerations automatically mean that military intervention is the best option. I am especially worried about the timing of it, because a quicker reaction - let's say declaring the no fly zone when the rebels were just about to take Tripoli - would probably push Qaddafi's shoulders on the wall and maybe even cause the end of the regime with no military intervention at all.
> Plus, we really don't know what is going to come after Qaddafi - if there is an after Quaddafi, of course - who exactly is going to take his place, who are the rebels, etc. so that big question marks still remain on the geopolitical and moral horizon.
> 
> That said, if/when Qaddafi gets down, no "straight imperialism hypothesis" will stop me from raising my glass and congratulating the Libyan people..
> 
> best
> marco
> 
> Dr. Marco Allegra
> Research Fellow
> Department of Political Studies
> University of Torino
> via Giolitti 33
> 10123 Torino - Italy
> [log in to unmask]
> (+39) 347.2320209 (Italy)
> (+972) 054.3927683 (Israel)
> http://www.dsp.unito.it/it/assegn_collab.asp?d=allegra&n=marco&c=allegra
> 
> 
> 
> On 3/20/11 2:44 PM, Nicholls, Walter wrote:
>> 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
>>