Libya - civil unrest & now NATO involvement

[likesfish]

Within hours we'd have to set up a NFZ over the P&P forum to prevent the massacre of the Trots.

I think we can agree that Jazz gets a drawing of a gun and some wax crayons
to be on the safe side.

 

[liquidlunch]

just wait till a US base or air craft carrier is attacked, the US will get more than a fingers bloodied in this fight with a guy they tried killing in '86.

lol,2 men on camels with sticks have attacked the U.S.Nimitz from the shore

 

[London_Calling]

^ They were in Tahrir Square last month, as well. Can we get them to London for the TUC demo on Saturday?

 

[Lock&Light]

Anyone wondering why the Arab league is so keen to endorse this war? Noone can seriously think this collection of regional despots is in anyway interested in democracy in Libya.Several of them are busy crushing their own democracy movements. Saudi has just invaded Bahrain. Bahrain and Saudi are drowning democracy protests in blood. Yemen has just shot its own demonstrators. So why are the Arab league suddenly so concerned about the democratic aspirations of the Libyan people?

The reason is that they are watching the regional events rolling across North Africa and they are watching what seems to be a diminishing role for the USA. The end of the US empire in the region in fact. Mubarak, America's man is gone. Saudi is facing unprecedented Shia protests in Bahrain and unrest in other border nations. The US is meant to be pulling out of Iraq next year and Iran is beginning to flex its regional muscles. In this context intervention in Libya is intended to tie the US back into the region and secure Saudi hegemony in the region against Iran.That's what this is about, creating an excuse for the USA to remain in the region in order to influence (read roll back) the wave of revolutions that threaten their regional interests. And what better way than installing a US puppet regime in Libya? Little wonder then that the Arab league are not only endorsing this adventure but are bankrolling it too with the UAE and Qatar promising to finance much of it

Everyone pillories Jazzz for his way-out conspiracy theories, but I fear he's not he only one who sees the equivalent of Reds Under The Beds.

 

[TruXta]

Everyone pillories Jazzz for his way-out conspiracy theories, but I fear he's not he only one who sees the equivalent of Reds Under The Beds.

And your illuminating analysis refutes dylans' how?

 

[dylans]

Everyone pillories Jazzz for his way-out conspiracy theories, but I fear he's not he only one who sees the equivalent of Reds Under The Beds.

You're a fucking idiot

 

[London_Calling]

I presumed the USA paid them off in some way for their support - obv. not with cash but whatever tickles their fancy. Only self-interest ever makes sense.

 

[dylans]

I presumed the USA paid them off in some way for their support - obv. not with cash but whatever tickles their fancy. Only self-interest ever makes sense.

By promising to look the other way when Saudi and UAE troops invade Bahrain and drown the Shia protests in blood?

in any case, the Arab league have their own self interested reasons for backing the attack. As I said, they have every reason to want an excuse to tie the US into the region in the light of its percieved declining influence visavis Egypt, Iraq etc

 

[London_Calling]

Maybe. May also be a long way down the road. We won't ever know.

 

[TruXta]

It's worth pointing out that the Chinese have stepped up the anti-UNSC rhetoric today, presumably to keep their African dictator relations sweet, while playing to traditional anti-Western sentiments at home. I'm firmly of the belief that the Chinese don't give a rat's ass who governs where, Libya or elsewhere, as long as the regimes in question are willing to play ball economically. They're pragmatists first and foremost.

 

[Lock&Light]

You're a fucking idiot

I don't think you are; just mistaken.

 

[dylans]

By promising to look the other way when Saudi and UAE troops invade Bahrain and drown the Shia protests in blood?

in any case, the Arab league have their own self interested reasons for backing the attack. As I said, they have every reason to want an excuse to tie the US into the region in the light of its percieved declining influence visavis Egypt, Iraq etc

A few weeks ago, long before the Western intervention. Robert Fisk speculated that the US might use Saudi Arabia to arm the rebels. This thesis has been superseded by events somewhat but what he said at the end of his article is illuminating and in light of present events very accurate

After pouring troops and security police into the province of Qatif last week, the Saudis announced a nationwide ban on all public demonstrations.

Shia organisers claim that up to 20,000 protesters plan to demonstrate with women in the front rows to prevent the Saudi army from opening fire.

If the Saudi government accedes to America's request to send guns and missiles to Libyan rebels, however, it would be almost impossible for President Barack Obama to condemn the kingdom for any violence against the Shias of the north-east provinces.

Thus has the Arab awakening, the demand for democracy in North Africa, the Shia revolt and the rising against Gaddafi become entangled in the space of just a few hours with US military priorities in the region.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...secret-plan-to-arm-libyas-rebels-2234227.html

 

[scooter]

Re the Arab League's support, I thought it was more to do with the leaders of those countries playing to their domestic audiences. The rebellions in Egypt, Tunisia and now Libya obviously have a lot of support among ordinary people so the leaders want to be seen to be supporting the revolters in an attempt to prevent the same thing happening to them.

This explains their half-hearted endorsement - they want to be publicly seen to be on the side of the revolt but secretly they are on the side of the encumbent leader (whoever that happens to be - in this case Gaddafi).

They're in a tricky situation - they can't come out in favour of an unpopular dictator so they have to come out in favour of the people. However, they themselves are unpopular dictators. They're trying to have it both ways - start off by supporting the NFZ but then try and twist it into American aggression by saying they are going too far.

 

[dylans]

Re the Arab League's support, I thought it was more to do with the leaders of those countries playing to their domestic audiences. The rebellions in Egypt, Tunisia and now Libya obviously have a lot of support among ordinary people so the leaders want to be seen to be supporting the revolters in an attempt to prevent the same thing happening to them

.

I don't think this is particularly true. First because there is no guarantee that the Arab populations will support Western intervention. Western involvement in the region raises the prospect of a rerun of Iraq something that still burns in the Arab imagination.
Second the same Arab league countries are presently actively crushing democratic movements across the region. This alongside the Arab states long acquiescence and acceptance of israel's treatment of the Palestinians have left the Arab populations with little illusions in their leaderships.

This explains their half-hearted endorsement - they want to be publicly seen to be on the side of the revolt but secretly they are on the side of the encumbent leader (whoever that happens to be - in this case Gaddafi).

There is nothing half hearted in the Arab leagues support for Western intervention and Amr Mussa's remarks yesterday have more to do with covering the Arab leagues back in the inevitable event of civilian casualties. The Arab league's pathetic attempt to pretend they didn't know the consequences of supporting this adventure is utterly transparent and fools noone. Not only are two Arab league nations contributing forces for the war, they are also bearing a large part of the cost.

Arab League Secretary General Amr Mussa said in Cairo yesterday he fully supported UN Resolution 1973."

"We are committed to the UNSC Resolution 1973, we have no objection to this decision,

Interestingly the one member of this "coalition" which was slow to endorse this adventure was Obama himself. Both Europe (especially France and UK) and the Arab league have been much more proactive in pushing this UN resolution. It was only at the last minute with Gaddafi at the gates of Benghazi that the US got on board. What does this tell us? Well I think it strengthens my argument that the Arab league (especially the Sunni Monarchies) have siezed on this as a method of committing the US to the region in the light of a percieved decline in US influence in the region.

To Saudi Arabia this entire revolutionary process is seen through a lens which sees things in terms of a regional hegemonic struggle for influence between Sunni Monarchical Arab power enshrined and defended by the US and a growing Iranian/Shia/ Persian regional influence in the wake of the US declining power. In this perspective then any decline in regional US power amounts to a decline in Saudi influence and will be filled by a corresponding rise in Iranian influence.
In the case of Libya this desire to restore/prevent further decline of/US power coalesces with US struggling attempts to formulate a strategic policy in the light of recent events.

 

[Idaho]

I don't think this is particularly true. First because there is no guarantee that the Arab populations will support Western intervention. Western involvement in the region raises the prospect of a rerun of Iraq something that still burns in the Arab imagination.

...

To Saudi Arabia this entire revolutionary process is seen through a lens which sees things in terms of a regional hegemonic struggle for influence between Sunni Monarchical Arab power enshrined and defended by the US and a growing Iranian/Shia/ Persian regional influence in the wake of the US declining power. In this perspective then any decline in regional US power amounts to a decline in Saudi influence and will be filled by a corresponding rise in Iranian influence.

I don't think Arab opinion is anywhere near as singular and particular as you suggest with regard to Iraq. Like most people in the world, their views on the US are often mixed. And I think there is more understanding, although perhaps not support, for US actions in the region than you might think.

I also think that the Arab rulers are desperate to make popularist gestures that they (wrongly) don't believe will have any repecussions at home. Especially against a figure that both Arab governments and populations have little liking for - Gaddafi.

The Saudis have always been obsessed with Iran. Their vision is limited to seeing government as either a Royal dictatorship (them) or a theocratic one (Iran). Perhaps the greater theological/political credibility of the Iranians in this regard makes them edgy.

 

[dylans]

don't think Arab opinion is anywhere near as singular and particular as you suggest with regard to Iraq. Like most people in the world, their views on the US are often mixed. And I think there is more understanding, although perhaps not support, for US actions in the region than you might think.

That's simply not true. Arab opinion is universally agreed that the Iraq invasion was a tragic mistake. I used to live in Egypt and I have yet to find a single person who wasn't outraged by the invasion. Do you have any evidence to suggest otherwise?

The only poll of Arab opinion I could find is from 2003 but there is no reason to think it has got any better. In fact there is every reason to think opinion against the US has hardened.

A survey conducted in six Arab countries in late February and early March found an unprecedented tide of public opinion running against the United States as American troops massed outside Iraq. Only 4 percent of respondents in Saudi Arabia, 6 percent in Jordan and Morocco, 10 percent in the United Arab Emirates, and 13 percent in Egypt expressed a favorable view of the United States. Even in Lebanon, where opinion was more positive, only 32 percent of respondents had a favorable view (see table 1). And when respondents were asked, in an open question, to name the world leader they most admired, the name mentioned most often was French Prime Minister Jacques Chirac, who confronted the Bush administration directly to try to stop the U.S. war effort.

Most of the 3,020 respondents polled agreed that their negative view of the United States was based on American policy in the Middle East, not on their values as Arabs (see table 2). In four countries--Saudi Arabia, Morocco, Lebanon, and Jordan--large majorities of respondents (from 58 percent to 67 percent) explained their unfavorable attitudes toward the United States as being based on American policy in the Middle East. In the UAE and Egypt almost a majority--47 percent and 46 percent, respectively--based their attitudes on U.S. policy.

The Saudis have always been obsessed with Iran. Their vision is limited to seeing government as either a Royal dictatorship (them) or a theocratic one (Iran). Perhaps the greater theological/political credibility of the Iranians in this regard makes them edgy.

For sure. Iran is a natural regional power in the area. Something that goes back long before the 79 revolution. This geopolitical reality goes beyond the politics of Iranian regime and represents not only a Shia/Sunni divide but a Persian Arab one too. The important point is that Saudi political hegemony has been guaranteed by US power and that power is being challenged by the events that are sweeping the region. That makes the Gulf states very nervous

http://www.questia.com/googleScholar.qst?docId=5001987908

 

[cybertect]

I say again: Libya is a member of OPEC, with its economy depending primarily upon revenues from the oil sector, which constitutes practically all of Libya's export earnings and makes it one of, if not the richest country in Africa.

Well, it is seventh, falling just after Angola and just before Sudan.

If you squint a bit, you might almost make 78 stretch to being bigger than 354.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)

Top 10 African countries by GDP (millions of USD)

South Africa 354,414
Egypt 216,830
Nigeria 206,664
Algeria 158,969
Morocco 91,702
Angola 85,808
Libya 77,912
Sudan 65,930
Tunisia 43,863
Ethiopia 30,941

 

[TruXta]

Well, it is seventh, falling just after Angola and just before Sudan.

If you squint a bit, you might almost make 78 stretch to being bigger than 354.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)

Top 10 African countries by GDP (millions of USD)

South Africa 354,414
Egypt 216,830
Nigeria 206,664
Algeria 158,969
Morocco 91,702
Angola 85,808
Libya 77,912
Sudan 65,930
Tunisia 43,863
Ethiopia 30,941

Heard of GDP per capita?

 

[creak]

Well, it is seventh, falling just after Angola and just before Sudan.

If you squint a bit, you might almost make 78 stretch to being bigger than 354.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)

Top 10 African countries by GDP (millions of USD)

South Africa 354,414
Egypt 216,830
Nigeria 206,664
Algeria 158,969
Morocco 91,702
Angola 85,808
Libya 77,912
Sudan 65,930
Tunisia 43,863
Ethiopia 30,941

Now try it per capita

 

[Idaho]

Perhaps they were referring to the per capita figures? In those Libya comes out on top. One of the reasons I think a social democratic state would work. Also the size of the place could potentially defuse some of the historical tribal stuff.

 

[TruXta]

I think cybertect might have got the message now, peeps..

 

[cybertect]

Now try it per capita

Still 5th

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/e..._gdp_per_cap-african-countries-gdp-per-capita

The US should be more interested in Equatorial Guinea on that basis.

 

[TruXta]

They are interested, what with all the oil they've got in EG. Like EG, Mauritius and the Seychelles come out top because of small populations and massive tourist money. Morocco tho - the US have got plenty of fingers in that pie.

e2a: also "With an area of 28,000 square kilometres (11,000 sq mi) it is one of the smallest countries in continental Africa. It is also the most prosperous; however, the wealth is concentrated in government and elite hands, with 70% of the population living under the United Nations Poverty Threshold of $2/day." Wiki.

e3a - compare life expectancy in Libya and EG, EG stands at 51 years at birth, Libya at more than 74 years.

 

[cybertect]

my quibble was simply with the stament that Libya is the richest country in Africa.

By either measure, it's not by a significant margin

 

[elbows]

Tory fuckwits annoy the MOD, story from Guardians live updates page:

Today's briefing at the Ministry of Defence reflected the tension that exists between the commanders and officials who are planning operations against Colonel Gaddafi, and their political masters, writes our security and defence correspondent Nick Hopkins.

Almost every question asked of Major General John Lorimer, Air Vice Marshall Phil Osborn, and naval Captain Karl Evans focused on targets – and whether the Libyan leader was among them. That only became an issue thanks to Liam Fox, the defence secretary, whose opaque remarks about Gaddafi yesterday were compounded by the foreign secretary William Hague, in his interview on BBC's Today.

The discomfort at the MoD about Fox was obvious – without anyone actually having to say anything. The eyebrows said it all.

 

[elbows]

Interestingly the one member of this "coalition" which was slow to endorse this adventure was Obama himself. Both Europe (especially France and UK) and the Arab league have been much more proactive in pushing this UN resolution. It was only at the last minute with Gaddafi at the gates of Benghazi that the US got on board. What does this tell us? Well I think it strengthens my argument that the Arab league (especially the Sunni Monarchies) have siezed on this as a method of committing the US to the region in the light of a percieved decline in US influence in the region.

Not sure about this. It may very well have been that the US just didnt want to be seen to be taking the lead on this stuff. Its possible they came onboard at the last minute but its equally possible that they were just keeping out of sight. Likewise its hard to know to quite what extent the gulf countries were pushing the agenda, rather than being encouraged to go for it in return for something from the USA & pals. Either way, Im not thinking that they pushed it in order to secure US commitment to the region, for the US is very well committed to the region regardless of what happens, unless we ever manage to have a non-oil-powered economy that is. There are signs that the Saudis have perhaps been paranoid in the past that the world will move away from oil long before Saudi reserves run low, but Im not sure how much they really believe that prospect is possible, I certainly dont.

 

[elbows]

Also from the Guardian earlier:

1.10pm: My colleague Peter Beaumont emails to say the reports that one of Gaddafi's sons is seriously ill in hospital are probably not true. Earlier we noted that some news organisations were reporting a son had been injured when a fighter jet crashed into the Bab al-Azizia compound last week – Peter says he was near to the compound at the supposed time of the incident, and says there was "absolutely no jet crash".

 

[Lock&Light]

Not sure about this. It may very well have been that the US just didnt want to be seen to be taking the lead on this stuff. Its possible they came onboard at the last minute but its equally possible that they were just keeping out of sight. Likewise its hard to know to quite what extent the gulf countries were pushing the agenda, rather than being encouraged to go for it in return for something from the USA & pals. Either way, Im not thinking that they pushed it in order to secure US commitment to the region, for the US is very well committed to the region regardless of what happens, unless we ever manage to have a non-oil-powered economy that is. There are signs that the Saudis have perhaps been paranoid in the past that the world will move away from oil long before Saudi reserves run low, but Im not sure how much they really believe that prospect is possible, I certainly dont.

That's a good post, elbows.

 

[dylans]

That's a good post, elbows.

Creep

 

[creak]

Still 5th

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/e..._gdp_per_cap-african-countries-gdp-per-capita

The US should be more interested in Equatorial Guinea on that basis.

And how much oil does Equatorial Guinea produce? Anyway, audiotech said 'one of, if not the richest country in Africa'. TBH it's not worth arguing about.