AS THE world is witnessing adventures to reinvigorate the existing hegemony, a new theory for ‘revolution’ is being formulated: intervention to support the Libyan ‘revolution’ is justified and is in the United Kingdom’s national interest. David Cameron, the British prime minister, said this while speaking on the BBC Radio 4’s Today programme. He said intervening was ‘the right thing to do.’ (BBC, Libya: UK forces should
be proud of role, says Cameron”, September 2)
Speaking after the Paris summit on Libya, Cameron said ‘the UK had played a significant military role in the NATO-led operation... We should be proud of what our forces did.’ (ibid)
Then, the world heard a proud pronouncement from leader of a proud nation as Cameron said: ‘I really want to challenge this idea that somehow the Americans see us a weak ally, they don’t—they see us as their strongest and most staunch ally.’ He said: ‘Americans were “very impressed” by what the UK and European forces had achieved.’ (ibid)
On the same news-event the Guardian made the following report:
Cameron ‘hailed Britain’s role in the intervention as “very significant”.’ He ‘insisted Britain would remain a “full-spectrum player” in the future and ‘signalled further interventions may lie ahead as he revealed that some members of the Arab League were “toughening their stance” over the situation in Syria.’ ‘[T]here were “lots of lessons to learn” from the conflict in Libya. ‘Despite trumpeting Britain’s role, Cameron said there was a danger of people in the west “taking too much credit for themselves” for what was really a Libyan triumph.’ (‘Libya intervention: British forces played key role, says Cameron’)
He ‘challenged House of Commons library figures that suggested Britain had performed just 10% of all strike sorties, saying the figure was twice that. ‘There were somewhere just less than 8,000 sorties,’ he insisted. ‘Britain performed 1,600 of those, so around a fifth of strike sorties.
That is punching at our weight
or even above our weight. We played a very important role, not just in the number of strike sorties but also in the fact that we were there right from the beginning.’ (ibid)
‘On the lack of intervention in Syria,’ according to the report, ‘he said Britain had “been in the vanguard in arguing for a tougher approach”.’ (ibid)
Now, the following observations can be made: (1) intervention is ‘justified’ irrespective of pronouncements in the UN charter; (2) national interests of world powers are integrally connected with ‘revolution’ in some other country; (3) any south or central or east Asian or Latin American country can expect a Libya intervention experience if there is any strategic resource in the country or the country is strategically important and intervention-able; (4) junior partners of the empire are not now suffering from inferiority complex, and they will take active role, signifying shifts in balance of power; (5) the empire has to be impressed, also having underlying meaning of a geopolitical reality; and (6) coming days may witness reinvigorated campaign from the world metropolis to reinforce its hegemony having significance in the periphery.
It can be expected that not only pro-people forces, but also ruling elites in resource-rich, strategically-positioned and intervention-able countries will take into consideration implication of these observations. The implication ranges from international arena to national periphery, from the lives of common people to the ruling elite’s or its faction’s ‘fate’.
It will not sound wise to imagine that the Libya expedition was planned after initiating expression of discontent in a Libyan town. Planning for actions like Libya expedition is not possible to formulate within days. Because, basically and primarily, it is not a planning for military movement, assault, supply, recovery, armaments, etc. Basically and primarily, it is a political planning that takes into account factors related to geopolitics, geo-economics and geo-strategy. This type of planning cannot be completed within a week or two and instantly after expression of a domestic discontent in a country. The planning turns complex as competing interests vie for respective shares. Not only political leadership, economic interests don’t plan, actually cannot plan, similar undertakings within weeks. So, ruling elites in some countries may sleep unaware while its fate will be determined on planning board long before the elites wake up.
It will be a daydream for the ruling elites of the type of countries mentioned above to assume that they will be spared by naked imperialism or energy imperialism if they cross swords with their masters. (Now, it seems, crisis imperialism will be an appropriate term as imperialism is moving through crises, as it is deepening its crises while it is trying to get rid of its crises, as crises it is creating are not only of peoples, but also of its world system, as it delves external issues more vigorously than issues in its home, as it is expanding the expanse of crises while it is moving/jumping from one theatre of adventure to another, and some more reasons.) Facts already in hand produce tragic-comical stories/characters: Noriega, Marcos, Suharto, Pinochet, and some more. None of them took the role as Gaddafi, and Gaddafi was not like these lackeys. They were pliable. But they were ‘relieved’ the day they appeared useless to their master.
Some other facts are there that help understand a ‘revolution’ with companies’ ‘fair and logical benefits’:
‘The race for Libya’s oil’, the Guardian says, ‘appears to have started: […] BP is already holding talks with members of the interim government, while France’s foreign minister, Alain Juppé, said it was “fair and logical” for its companies to benefit.’ (‘Libya: Gaddafi says he will fight to the end – live coverage’)
‘The [UK] government’, the Guardian says, ‘has admitted that the international development minister, Alan Duncan, took part in meetings between officials operating a Whitehall cell to control the Libyan oil market and Vitol – a company for which Duncan has previously acted as a consultant.’ The ‘Libyan oil cell’ in the Foreign Office since May silently waged a crucial campaign against Gaddafi. It prevented Gaddafi importing and exporting oil while allowed oil to reach the rebels, and that oil came via Vitol. ‘Duncan, a former oil trader and multi-millionaire, has had a 30-year friendship with the managing director of Vitol, Ian Taylor, at one point operating as a consultant to the company and as a non-executive director to a subsidiary firm. Taylor has also been a Tory donor, declared on Duncan’s parliamentary register of interests. Douglas Alexander, the shadow foreign secretary, said the government’s disclosure of the existence of the oil cell was mired in mystery about Duncan’s role in it. “Given Alan Duncan’s reported links with Vitol this curious briefing from within government actually raises more questions than it answers,” he said. Civil servants in the Foreign Office are known to have expressed deep concerns about the existence of the cell, warning that it appeared to be encroaching too far on commercial purposes. One person with knowledge of the Whitehall machinations described their mood as “mutinous”.’ (‘Government admits Alan Duncan’s links to company in “Libyan oil cell”’, September 2)
Vitol, the world’s largest oil and refined products trader, handles about 5 million barrels a day and controls 200 super-tankers and other vessels. The company with annual turn over of more than $140bn is engaged in exploration from Russia to West Africa, and has a presence in every leading oil-producing country including Iraq and Syria. Vitol paid $17.5m in fines in 2007 for providing kickbacks to Saddam’s Iraq, and had to face court in 1996 over oil deals in Serbia as it made a $1m payment to a Serb and a secret oil deal to provide fuel to Milosevic’s Serbia. It came under investigation in 1993 for selling ‘contaminated’ oil to Pakistan causing the country £100m damage. (ibid)
‘Good wishes’ for ‘revolution’ and its connections are now coming to light: ‘revolution’ is ‘connected’ with national interests of the world powers and oil companies’ benefit, with ‘reputed’ oil traders and minister! Everything is ‘fair’ and ‘just’ in war, revolution and friendship! Ethics and moral standing of interventionist-‘revolution’ stand above all ethics and morality! These facts are helping people in countries learn lessons in a charged world. Probably, ruling elites in countries will also learn from the Libyan experience.
By tearing of all masks the ‘humanitarian’ interventionists have imposed their crude logic over Libya, and are re-conveying the old message to all: rulers, lackeys and independents, and people yearning for democracy. The message is: capital shall not spare anybody including friend and foe, and any place as it faces deep, prolonged crises. Its crises have made it more aggressive and crude, and have pressed it to shed of all pretensions. Its adventures will deepen and complicate its inner relationships instead of resolving its crises. Factors of the complication are within its entities and between its entities.
