What’s Behind the West’s Involvement in Lybia?

posted by Nima

September 18, 2011 · Posted in Foreign Policy 

Some food for thought regarding Lybia (a friend forwarded several articles to me):

First off, I believe it’s quite curious that the IMF was so quick to recognize the TNC as Lybian government:

International Monetary Fund (IMF) today recognised the rebel’s National Transitional Council (NTC) as the legitimate government of Libya, assuring the war ravaged country of rapid and sustainable economic recovery.

“I am happy to report that reflecting the views of the international community, the IMF will deal with the NTC as the government of Libya,” IMF Managing Director Christine Lagarde said.

“In this context, the Fund stands ready to help the authorities through technical assistance, policy advice, and financial support if requested, as they begin to rebuild Libya’s economy,” she said.

… it certainly helps motivate “rebel” leaders to seize power when they are given the ability to request massive financial aid, pay it out to themselves and their cronies, and kindly pass the bill on to the country’s future taxpayers, in short … the IMF’s modus operandi.

In March BBC already reported:

Libya has declared gold reserves worth more than $6bn at current prices, thought to be held largely at home.

The reserves are substantial, ranking in the global top 25, according to International Monetary Fund (IMF) data.

… since then gold has risen by about 30%, so those total reserves would now be closer to $8bn, if the reports are accurate.

And Asia Times Online asks Libya all about oil, or central banking?:

(…)

I have never before heard of a central bank being created in just a matter of weeks out of a popular uprising. This suggests we have a bit more than a rag tag bunch of rebels running around and that there are some pretty sophisticated influences.

(…)

Another provocative bit of data circulating on the Net is a 2007 “Democracy Now” interview of US General Wesley Clark (Ret). In it he says that about 10 days after September 11, 2001, he was told by a general that the decision had been made to go to war with Iraq. Clark was surprised and asked why. “I don’t know!” was the response. “I guess they don’t know what else to do!” Later, the same general said they planned to take out seven countries in five years: Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Iran.

What do these seven countries have in common? In the context of banking, one that sticks out is that none of them is listed among the 56 member banks of the Bank for International Settlements (BIS). That evidently puts them outside the long regulatory arm of the central bankers’ central bank in Switzerland.

The most renegade of the lot could be Libya and Iraq, the two that have actually been attacked. Kenneth Schortgen Jr, writing on Examiner.com, noted that “[s]ix months before the US moved into Iraq to take down Saddam Hussein, the oil nation had made the move to accept euros instead of dollars for oil, and this became a threat to the global dominance of the dollar as the reserve currency, and its dominion as the petrodollar.”

According to a Russian article titled “Bombing of Libya – Punishment for Ghaddafi for His Attempt to Refuse US Dollar”, Gaddafi made a similarly bold move: he initiated a movement to refuse the dollar and the euro, and called on Arab and African nations to use a new currency instead, the gold dinar. Gaddafi suggested establishing a united African continent, with its 200 million people using this single currency.

During the past year, the idea was approved by many Arab countries and most African countries. The only opponents were the Republic of South Africa and the head of the League of Arab States. The initiative was viewed negatively by the USA and the European Union, with French President Nicolas Sarkozy calling Libya a threat to the financial security of mankind; but Gaddafi was not swayed and continued his push for the creation of a united Africa.

(…)

So is this new war all about oil or all about banking? Maybe both – and water as well. With energy, water, and ample credit to develop the infrastructure to access them, a nation can be free of the grip of foreign creditors. And that may be the real threat of Libya: it could show the world what is possible.

Most countries don’t have oil, but new technologies are being developed that could make non-oil-producing nations energy-independent, particularly if infrastructure costs are halved by borrowing from the nation’s own publicly owned bank. Energy independence would free governments from the web of the international bankers, and of the need to shift production from domestic to foreign markets to service the loans.

If the Gaddafi government goes down, it will be interesting to watch whether the new central bank joins the BIS, whether the nationalized oil industry gets sold off to investors, and whether education and healthcare continue to be free.

Of course health care is never free, so just ignore that nonsensical statement. The article also makes some, in my opinion, very questionable analyses about monetary policy and central banking which I am sparing you in the excerpts above. But that doesn’t mean it doesn’t provide a lot of interesting journalistic insights into what may be going on behind the scenes in this project.

As my friend who sent me these articles pointed out: Let’s see how long it’ll take until we hear stories about Lybian assets missing.

Bit.co.in Advertisement: Get your shortlink before someone else does at Bit.co.in.








Related Content

Comments

Leave a Reply




 

Subscribe without commenting