The Crime of Resource Nationalism

June 14, 2011 6:28 AM

Why the NATO powers are trying to assassinate Moammar Gaddafi.
posted by klue (21 comments total)

Washington Post:

In 2004, President George W. Bush unexpectedly lifted economic sanctions on Libya in return for its renunciation of nuclear weapons and terrorism. There was a burst of optimism among American oil executives eager to return to the Libyan oil fields they had been forced to abandon two decades earlier. . . . Yet even before armed conflict drove the U.S. companies out of Libya this year, their relations with Gaddafi had soured. The Libyan leader demanded tough contract terms. He sought big bonus payments up front. ...

But all was not well. By November 2007, a State Department cable noted "growing evidence of Libyan resource nationalism." It noted that in his 2006 speech marking the founding of his regime, Gaddafi said: "Oil companies are controlled by foreigners who have made millions from them. Now, Libyans must take their place to profit from this money."

... when representatives of the rebel coalition in Benghazi spoke to the U.S.-Libya Business Council in Washington four weeks ago, representatives from ConocoPhillips and other oil firms attended, according to Richard Mintz, a public relations expert at the Harbour Group, which represents the Benghazi coalition. In another meeting in Washington, Ali Tarhouni, the lead economic policymaker in Benghazi, said oil contracts would be honored, Mintz said.

"Now you can figure out who’s going to win, and the name is not Gaddafi," Saleri said. "Certain things about the mosaic are taking shape. The Western companies are positioning themselves."

posted by Trurl at 6:35 AM on June 14, 2011

Let freedom reign!
posted by Threeway Handshake at 6:38 AM on June 14, 2011

The author of this story seems to have made up the notions of 'condemning' the 'crime' of resource nationalism. Read the cable itself. It is written in an entirely matter-of-fact tone.
posted by Anything at 6:40 AM on June 14, 2011

“growing evidence of Libyan resource nationalism” by the Gaddafi government."

it is all MINE!

-Gaddafi

this is what bugs about newsfilter, other then agendas.

INNACCURATE INFORMATION!
esp in comments, i mean, we are smarter then that/this.

The USA wants all the oil. Nothing new there it seems.

No, sorry, that is allocated to europe and the Chinese.
posted by clavdivs at 6:42 AM on June 14, 2011

He's also a jackass
posted by fusinski at 6:44 AM on June 14, 2011

It is written in an entirely matter-of-fact tone.

Internal documentation of government crimes usually is.
posted by Trurl at 6:46 AM on June 14, 2011

I must be missing something, because all I can see is a single, massively paranoid link that cites "Akbar Muhammad of the Nation of Islam" as if that's a good thing.
posted by 1adam12 at 6:48 AM on June 14, 2011

That article was idiotic. While there is a clear interest in the foreign oil, it is pretty obvious to me that the proximate cause of the bombardment was the uprising against him and his brutal repression of that uprising.

Would she have preferred that NATO stand by while he bombed the shit about of Benghazi and Misrata?
posted by Aizkolari at 6:48 AM on June 14, 2011 [1 favorite]

This is the US government describing actions of Libya's government so I'm not sure exactly what you mean.
posted by Anything at 6:49 AM on June 14, 2011

Referring above to Trurl's previous comment.
posted by Anything at 6:49 AM on June 14, 2011

ANSWER? Really?

Those opportunistic fuckwits ruined every fucking anti war protest i went to in the lead up to Iraq. Go away.
posted by empath at 6:50 AM on June 14, 2011 [3 favorites]

In 1970, when Gaddafi had threatened to nationalize oil operations, Occidental Chairman Armand Hammer flew to Tripoli for face-to-face negotiations. Each night, he flew back to Paris, where he felt safer. At one meeting, the deputy prime minister put his .45 revolver down on the table. The result: Libya extracted higher prices and a boost in royalties.

And now the revolver is in the other hand, so to speak.
posted by three blind mice at 6:51 AM on June 14, 2011

Single-link, single-line newsfilter to a fring website supporting a speaking tour by Cynthia McKinney, 9/11 Truther, peddler of Katrina conspiracy theories, friend of Charles Taylor and Gaddafi, and generally unpleasant nutcase.

Not best of web. Flagged.
posted by Skeptic at 6:52 AM on June 14, 2011 [2 favorites]

all I can see is a single, massively paranoid link

I'm usually a person who is at least conscious enough to make an attempt to examine a situation from more than one side, but whenever I note that Cynthia McKinney is somehow implicated, all I see is kahrayzee.
posted by jsavimbi at 6:55 AM on June 14, 2011

This is the US government describing actions of Libya's government so I'm not sure exactly what you mean.

You said "read the cable". I did. It says:

those who dominate Libya's political and economic leadership are pursuing increasingly nationalistic policies in the energy sector that could jeopardize efficient exploitation of Libya's extensive oil and gas reserves

It is indeed more "matter of fact" to say "increasing nationalistic" rather than "anti-Western corporate interests" and to say "efficient" rather than "pro-Western corporate interests". But I submit that this is the intended meaning and was understood as such.

Single-link, single-line newsfilter to a fringe website

As linked to earlier, the Washington Post is reporting the same news.
posted by Trurl at 7:01 AM on June 14, 2011 [1 favorite]

Would she have preferred that NATO stand by while he bombed the shit about of Benghazi and Misrata?

Yes. I really wish there was a word as insulting as "whore" but not related to prostitution, that would apply to sock puppets like McKinney. She will prefer whatever her paymasters prefer.
posted by ocschwar at 7:03 AM on June 14, 2011

uh, I'm as skeptical as the next MeFite of the underlying motives of any American military action outside its borders... actually most of those inside its borders too... um, come to think of it, any large group of Americans wearing uniforms these days kind of makes me nervous at least until I know what orders they're following.

But this is a bit ridiculous.

The proximal cause of this action is that Gaddafi responded to a challenge to his rule by murdering Libyan civilians on a large scale. The underlying reason we (the West) are taking action in this case and not in any of the others in which governments start murdering their civilians on a large scale is that as fusinki says, he's a jackass.

More reverently put, he's become a liability no matter how you do the math. This has been going on for a while -- he went from being a crazy unpredictable bastard (bad) to a crazy marginally predictable bastard who was willing to play ball on al-Qaeda (good) to being a crazy marginally predictable bastard who took Swiss hostages in retaliation for his son getting arrested in Geneva (bad but Switzerland's tiny so nobody cares enough to waste ink on it in the English-speaking press) to killing people in the streets (very bad). At this point there's no outcome in which having him still in charge of the west-central Libya is better than all of those in which he is not. The collateral damage of removal is less than the collateral damage of inaction, which is sadly not yet the case in the rest of the large-scale-civilian-murder situations. So the bombs fall until Benghazi can figure out how to run a revolution.

Oil? Some might come on to the market as a result. Is that a compelling reason? No. Would the differential profit even pay for the action? We all saw how well that worked out in Iraq.
posted by Vetinari at 7:04 AM on June 14, 2011

Would she have preferred that NATO stand by while he bombed the shit about of Benghazi and Misrata?

Let's not kid ourselves about the West's motives. NATO is standing by while Syria does exactly the same thing to its own citizens, after all.
posted by KokuRyu at 7:06 AM on June 14, 2011 [3 favorites]

(But if we're not making an effort to save this thread, I can probably rustle up a scanner and a kitten or two...)
posted by Vetinari at 7:06 AM on June 14, 2011 [1 favorite]

The proximal cause of this action is that Gaddafi responded to a challenge to his rule by murdering Libyan civilians on a large scale.

One man's "proximal cause" is another man's "pretext".

Greenwald:

After almost three months of fighting and bombing -- when we're so far from the original justifications and commitments that they're barely a distant memory -- is there anyone who still believes that humanitarian concerns are what brought us and other Western powers to the war in Libya? Is there anything more obvious -- as the world's oil supplies rapidly diminish -- than the fact that our prime objective is to remove Gaddafi and install a regime that is a far more reliable servant to Western oil interests, and that protecting civilians was the justifying pretext for this war, not the purpose? If (as is quite possible) the new regime turns out to be as oppressive as Gaddafi but far more subservient to Western corporations (like, say, our good Saudi friends), does anyone think we're going to care in the slightest or (at most) do anything other than pay occasional lip service to protesting it? Does anyone think we're going to care about The Libyan People if they're being oppressed or brutalized by a reliably pro-Western successor to Gaddafi?

posted by Trurl at 7:07 AM on June 14, 2011 [1 favorite]

The proximal cause of this action is that Gaddafi responded to a challenge to his rule by murdering Libyan civilians on a large scale. The underlying reason we (the West) are taking action in this case and not in any of the others in which governments start murdering their civilians on a large scale is that as fusinki says, he's a jackass.

There is also the slight matter that the Ben Ghazi rebel coalition initially requested NO interference, but changed their mind in a hurry when Ghadaffi was about to overrun them, and literally asked for NATO help.
posted by ocschwar at 7:11 AM on June 14, 2011