Tuesday, 10 May 2011

Why Libya?

A lot of people will have forgotten by now, but the last I heard NATO was still bombing Libya and trying to topple Gaddafi. With the latest Matrix distraction of OBL's ninth death, attention on has largely been elsewhere.

Other countries in the region continue to gun down protestors. In the case of Syria, the 'international community' is happy to condemn, whereas Bahrain, as a long-standing asset, gets a free pass, and who knows what's going on in Yemen or Saudi Arabia today? The key question right from the start has been; what makes is Libya different? I can't recall a swifter decision to intervene in another country.

I know this is not up-to-the-minute news, but it is indeed curious that one of the first acts of the rebels was to set up a central bank. As noted by 'The Economic Collapse' blog:
The rebels in Libya are in the middle of a life or death civil war and Moammar Gadhafi is still in power and yet somehow the Libyan rebels have had enough time to establish a new Central Bank of Libya and form a new national oil company. Perhaps when this conflict is over those rebels can become time management consultants. They sure do get a lot done. What a skilled bunch of rebels - they can fight a war during the day and draw up a new central bank and a new national oil company at night without any outside help whatsoever. If only the rest of us were so versatile!
Elsewhere Ellen Brown writes:
According to a Russian article titled "Bombing of Lybia - Punishment for Qaddafi for His Attempt to Refuse US Dollar," Qaddafi 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. Qaddafi 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 Qaddafi was not swayed and continued his push for the creation of a united Africa.
Whatever the reasons for this war on Gaddafi, I do not believe it is his human rights record. Such peccadillos can always be overlooked, if the regime is useful to the powers behind the West. If Gaddafi poses any kind of threat to those powers, it is not military in nature. In any case, militarily the West is strong. Where it is weak is its financial system, a smoke and mirror-shrouded house of cards, and perhaps the rebels' new central bank indicates the true motivation behind the intervention.


NewsboyCap said...


As you are aware there were rumours last year that the Colonel wanted to nationalise the Libyan oil industry and sell the oil to the Russians and Chinese. The fact that the Libyan central bank was not aligned with the 'western' CBs meant that the west could not control him.

Now with a 'controlled' CB set up by the 'REBELS' the only minor problem is Gadaffi himself.

Or am I just paranoid ?

James Higham said...

I'm in the middle of a series on war just now and the golden rule is - follow the money. Very interesting about that CB, wasn't it?

Trooper Thompson said...

james, definitely - cui bono and all that.


you're probably not watching enough TV. You might even, I fear, be reading books and not getting your information from approved sources.

I definitely think the banking thing is what tipped the scales against him. He was just too damned independent. I reckon his trip to the UN when he lambasted the Security Council was when the decision may have been made.