Page 1 of 3 Libya and the decline of the petrodollar system
By Peter Dale Scott
The present campaign by the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) against
Muammar Gaddafi in Libya has given rise to great confusion, both among those
waging this ineffective campaign and among those observing it. Many whose
opinions I normally respect see this as a necessary war against a villain -
though some choose to see Gaddafi as the villain, and others point to US
President Barack Obama.
My own take on this war, on the other hand, is that it is both ill-conceived
and dangerous - a threat to the interests of Libyans, Americans, the Middle
East and conceivably the entire world. Beneath the professed concern about the
safety of Libyan civilians lies a deeper concern that is barely acknowledged:
the
West's defense of the present global petrodollar economy, now in decline.
The confusion in Washington, matched by the absence of discussion of an
overriding strategic motive for American involvement, is symptomatic of the
fact that the American century is ending, and ending in a way that is both
predictable in the long run, and simultaneously erratic and out of control in
its details.
Confusion in Washington and in NATO
With respect to Libya's upheaval itself, opinions in Washington range from that
of Republican Senator John McCain, who has allegedly called on NATO to provide
"every apparent means of assistance, minus ground troops" in overthrowing
Gaddafi, [1] to Republican Congressman Mike Rogers, who has expressed deep
concern about even passing out arms to a group of fighters we do not know well.
[2]
We have seen the same confusion throughout the Middle East. In Egypt, a
coalition of non-governmental elements helped prepare for the nonviolent
revolution in that country, while former US ambassador Frank Wisner, Jr, flew
to Egypt to persuade Hosni Mubarak to cling to power. Meanwhile, in countries
that used to be of major interest to the United States, like Jordan and Yemen,
it is hard to discern any coherent American policy at all.
In NATO, too, there is confusion that occasionally threatens to break into open
discord. Of the 28 NATO members, only 14 are involved at all in the Libyan
campaign, and only six are involved in the air war. Of these, only three
countries - the US, Britain, and France - are offering tactical air support to
the rebels on the ground. When many NATO countries froze the bank accounts of
Gaddafi and his immediate supporters, the US, in an unpublicized and dubious
move, froze the entire $30 billion of Libyan government funds to which it has
access. (Of this, more later.) Germany, the most powerful NATO nation after
America, abstained on the UN Security Council resolution, and its foreign
minister, Guido Westerwelle, has since said, "We will not see a military
solution, but a political solution." [3]
Such chaos would have been unthinkable in the high period of US dominance.
Obama appears paralyzed by the gap between his declared objective - the removal
of Gaddafi from power - and the means available to him, given the nation's
costly involvement in two wars, and his domestic priorities.
To understand America's and NATO's confusion over Libya, one must look at other
phenomena:
Standard & Poor's warning of an imminent downgrade of the US credit rating;
The unprecedented rise in the price of gold to over $1,500 an ounce;
The gridlock in American politics over federal and state deficits and what to
do about them
In
the midst of the Libyan challenge to what remains of American hegemony, and in
part as a direct consequence of America's confused strategy in Libya, the price
of oil has hit $112 a barrel. This price increase threatens to slow or even
reverse America's faltering economic recovery, and demonstrates one of the many
ways in which the Libyan war is not serving American national interests.
Confusion about Libya has been evident in Washington from the outset,
particularly since Secretary of State Hillary Clinton advocated a no-fly
policy. President Obama said he wanted it as an option, and Secretary of
Defense Robert Gates warned against it. [4] The result has been a series of
interim measures, during which Obama has justified a limited US response by
pointing to America's demanding commitments in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Yet with a stalemate prevailing in Libya itself, a series of further gradual
escalations are being contemplated, from the provision of arms, funds, and
advisers to the rebels, to the introduction of mercenaries or even foreign
troops. The American scenario begins to look more and more like Vietnam, where
the war also began modestly with the introduction of covert operators followed
by military advisers.
I have to confess that on March 17 I myself was of two minds about UN Security
Council 1973, which ostensibly established a no-fly zone in Libya for the
protection of civilians. But since then it has become apparent that the threat
to rebels from Gaddafi's troops and rhetoric was in fact far less than was
perceived at the time. To quote Professor Alan J Kuperman,
...
President Barack Obama grossly exaggerated the humanitarian threat to justify
military action in Libya. The president claimed that intervention was necessary
to prevent a "bloodbath'' in Benghazi, Libya's second-largest city and last
rebel stronghold. But Human Rights Watch has released data on Misurata, the
next-biggest city in Libya and scene of protracted fighting, revealing that
Moammar Khadafy [Gaddafi] is not deliberately massacring civilians but rather
narrowly targeting the armed rebels who fight against his government.
Misurata's population is roughly 400,000. In nearly two months of war, only 257
people - including combatants - have died there. Of the 949 wounded, only 22 -
less than 3% - are women... Nor did Khadafy ever threaten civilian massacre in
Benghazi, as Obama alleged. The "no mercy'' warning, of March 17, targeted
rebels only, as reported by The New York Times, which noted that Libya's leader
promised amnesty for those "who throw their weapons away". Khadafy even offered
the rebels an escape route and open border to Egypt, to avoid a fight "to the
bitter end.'' [5]
The record of ongoing US military
interventions in Iraq and Afghanistan suggests that we should expect a heavy
human toll if the current stalemate in Libya either continues or escalates
further.
The role in this war of oil and financial interests
In American War Machine, I wrote how:
By a seemingly inevitable
dialectic, ... prosperity in some major states fostered expansion, and
expansion in dominant states created increasing income disparity. [6] In this
process the dominant state itself was changed, as its public services were
progressively impoverished, in order to strengthen security arrangements
benefiting a few while oppressing many. [7]
Thus, for many years the foreign affairs of England in Asia came to be
conducted in large part by the East India Company... Similarly, the American
company Aramco, representing a consortium of the oil majors Esso, Mobil, Socal,
and Texaco, conducted its own foreign policy in Arabia, with private
connections to the CIA and FBI. [8] ...
In this way Britain and America inherited policies that, when adopted by the
metropolitan states, became inimical to public order and safety. [9]
In the final stages of hegemonic power, one sees more and more naked
intervention for narrow interests, abandoning earlier efforts towards creating
stable international institutions. Consider the role of the conspiratorial
Jameson Raid into the South African Boer Republic in late 1895, a raid devised
to further the economic interests of Cecil Rhodes, which helped to induce
Britain's Second Boer War. [10] Or consider the Anglo-French conspiracy with
Israel in 1956, in an absurd vain attempt to retain control of the Suez Canal.
Then consider the lobbying efforts of the oil majors as factors in the US war
in Vietnam (1961), Afghanistan (2001), and Iraq (2003). [11] Although the role
of oil companies in America's Libyan involvement remains obscure, it is a
virtual certainty that former vice president Dick Cheney's Energy Task Force
Meetings discussed not just Iraq's but Libya's under-explored oil reserves,
estimated to be around 41 billion barrels, or about a third of Iraq's. [12]
Head
Office: Unit B, 16/F, Li Dong Building, No. 9 Li Yuen Street East,
Central, Hong Kong Thailand Bureau:
11/13 Petchkasem Road, Hua Hin, Prachuab Kirikhan, Thailand 77110
