Pilger: The West brings gifts of war and racism

April 16, 2011
NATO bombing in Libya.

The Euro-US attack on Libya has nothing to do with protecting anyone; only the terminally naive believe such nonsense.

It is the West’s response to popular uprisings in strategic, resource-rich regions of the world and the beginning of a war of attrition against the new imperial rival, China.

US President Barack Obama’s historical distinction is now guaranteed. He is the US’s first black president to invade Africa.

His assault on Libya is run by the US Africa Command, which was set up in 2007 to secure the continent’s lucrative natural resources from Africa’s impoverished people and the rapidly spreading commercial influence of China.

Libya, along with Angola and Nigeria, is China’s principal source of oil. As US, British and French planes incinerate both “bad” and “good” Libyans, the evacuation of 30,000 Chinese workers is under way, perhaps permanently.

Statements by Western officials and media that a “deranged and criminal Colonel Gaddafi” is planning “genocide” against his own people still await evidence.

This is reminiscent of fraudulent claims that required “humanitarian intervention” in Kosovo, the final dismemberment of Yugoslavia and the establishment of the biggest US military base in Europe.

The detail is also familiar. The Libyan “pro-democracy rebels” are reportedly commanded by Colonel Khalifa Haftar who, according to a study by the US Jamestown Foundation, set up the Libyan National Army in 1988 “with strong backing from the Central Intelligence Agency”.

For the past 20 years, Haftar has been living not far from Langley, Virginia, home of the CIA, which also provides him with a training camp.

The mujahideen in Afghanistan, which produced al-Qaeda, and the Iraqi National Congress, which scripted the Bush/Blair lies about Iraq, were sponsored in the same time-honoured way, in leafy Langley.

Libya’s other “rebel” leaders include Mustafa Abdul Jalil, Gaddafi’s justice minister until February, and General Abdel-Fattah Younes, who ran Gaddafi’s interior ministry: both with formidable reputations for savagely putting down dissent.

There is a civil and tribal war in Libya, which includes popular outrage against Gaddafi’s human rights record.

However, it is Libya’s independence, not the nature of its regime, that is intolerable to the west in a region of vassals. This hostility has barely changed in the 42 years since Gaddafi overthrew the feudal king Idris, one of the more odious tyrants backed by the West.

With his Bedouin hyperbole and bizarre ways, Gaddafi has long made an ideal “mad dog” (as the Daily Mirror called him), now requiring heroic US, French and British pilots to bomb urban areas in Tripoli, including a maternity hospital and a cardiac centre.

The last US bombing in 1986 managed to kill his adopted daughter.

What the US, British and French hope to achieve is the opposite of a people’s liberation. In undermining the efforts of Libya’s genuine democrats and nationalists to free their country from both a dictator and those corrupted by foreign demands, the sound and fury from Washington, London and Paris has succeeded in dimming the memory of January’s days of hope in Tunis and Cairo.

On March 23, the US-backed Egyptian military issued a decree barring all strikes and protests. This was barely reported in the West.

With Gaddafi now the accredited demon, Israel, the real canker, can continue its wholesale land theft and expulsions.

Facebook has come under Zionist pressure to remove a page calling for a full-scale Palestinian uprising — a “Third Intifada” — on May 15.

None of this should surprise. History suggests nothing less than the kind of machination revealed by two senior diplomats at the United Nations, who spoke to the Asia Times.

Demanding to know why the UN never ordered a fact-finding mission to Libya instead of an attack, they were told that a deal had been done between the White House and Saudi Arabia.

A US “coalition” would “take out” the recalcitrant Gaddafi if the Saudis put down the popular uprising in Bahrain. The latter has been accomplished, and the bloodied king of Bahrain will be a guest at the royal wedding in London.

The embodiment of this reaction is British Prime Minister David Cameron, whose only real job has been as PR man to the television industry’s asset stripper, Michael Green.

Cameron was in the Gulf selling arms to the British-invented tyrannies when people rose up against Yemen’s Abdullah Saleh.

On March 18, Saleh’s regime murdered 52 demonstrators. Cameron said nothing of value.

Yemen is “one of ours”, as the British Foreign Office likes to say.

In February, Cameron revealed himself in an attack on what he called “state multiculturalism” — the code for Muslims.

He said: “We need a lot less of the past tolerance of recent years.”

He was applauded by Marine Le Pen, leader of France’s fascist National Front. “It is exactly this kind of statement that has barred us from public life for 30 years,” she told the Financial Times. “I can only congratulate him.”

At its most rapacious, the British empire produced Camerons in job lots.

Unlike many of the Victorian “civilisers”, today’s sedentary Westminster warriors — throw in William Hague, Liam Fox and the treacherous Nick Clegg — have never been touched by the suffering and bloodshed which, at remove in culture and distance, are the consequences of their utterances and actions.

With their faintly trivial, always contemptuous air, they are cowards abroad, as they are at home. War and racism and the destruction of Britain’s hard-won social democracy are their gift. Remember that when you next take to the streets in your hundreds of thousands, as you must.

[Reprinted from www.johnpilger.com .]


The premise of the article written by John Pilger is correct, the hypocrisy of the West's intervention into Libya and the Middle East in general and David Camerons general bigotry is worthwhile exposing but I think the article veers off-course from the beginning when writing about Libya. When many have written that this is a war for oil, it hardly stands up to scrutiny. Firstly, for all intents and purposes it already was under foreign control , Libya's oil was already in foreign hands The New York Times reported in 2004 that ”The risks of entering Libya now are relatively low, in terms of politics and getting to the oil,” said Stephen Davis, co-head of the Middle East and North Africa section of Vinson & Elkins, a Houston law firm that is handling much of its Libya business through a new office in Dubai. ”There’s really nothing quite like it, since the terrain is already familiar to many American companies.” " More so, his government was on a mad push to privatise everything that was once nationalised. Reuters reported in 2010 that "Libyan officials say that in the past 10 years they have privatised 110 state-owned companies – a third of the total – and they want to go further. " Abdelkarim Mgeg, head of the Libyan government's Privatisation and Investment Board, said in an interview that "We want to put 100 per cent of the economy under the control of private investors but we are still far from that goal. The speed and time to get there depend on the appetite, capability and successes of the private sector," And look at what Gaddafi said about the rebels "These gangs made oil companies scared, run away and stop production." Something (a) that the west certainly did not want and (b) shows where Gaddafi's priorities lie, he was complaining on behalf of Western oil companies. Libya, since 2003, has been a client state of the West and more so, he wanted to deepen western control of Libya, not curtail it. Gaddafi's pathetic letter to Obama shows this up quite well, he said "What would you do, so I can follow your example." Nor do I think it is very convincing about intervening in Libya to stop China accessing oil. This graph shows it up quite well: http://www.economist.com/blogs/dailychart/2011/02/libyan_oil China's reliance on Libyan oil is close to that of Australia. European nations are more reliant on Libyan oil than China and have more at stake if things in Libya "go wrong'. The U.S reliance on Libyan oil is minuscule. More so, I think Pilger is wrong on many other points regarding to Libya. In a roundabout way, he compares the "pro democracy rebels" (always the quotation marks) to that of the Mujaheddin or the Iraqi National Congress, by stating a rebel leader Colonel Khalifa Haftar is working for the CIA. Even if we take for granted that he is (we only know of some of his dealings twenty years ago), how can you compare that to the Mujaheddin and the Iraqi National Congress? The rebels are a movement, not an organisation and any movement will involve all sorts of shady characters, opportunists etc but just because they are involved, doesn't determine the nature of the rebellion. In Egypt, we had the same, figures in the movement were on the payroll of the US, that is clear but we don't, from that alone, determine the Egyptian democracy movement were CIA stooges. Because the Libyan revolution is based primarily on the bravery and revolutionary action of the youth of Libya, who through their own actions, liberated Benghazi and other cities. It is a popular movement with the support of the vast majority of Libyans. The National Transitional Council has been formed and plays a political leadership role, in a sense but they do not actually have any on the ground control in cities that have been liberated. So, in Benghazi, there is actually an absence of a central government and instead we have Libyans organising and arming themselves. The question of the leadership of the process and where it will end is not yet answered, NATO intervention certainly will help those which it finds pliable but it is not yet a shut book. We can probably only conclude that it is a shut book if the independent actions and self organisation of the Libyan masses is destroyed. Nor do I think it is particularly helpful to say "Statements by Western officials and media that a “deranged and criminal Colonel Gaddafi” is planning “genocide” against his own people still await evidence." The ones who were most using the term "genocide" were Libyans themselves and they had pretty good reason to believe it to be so. If we look through his statements, Gaddafi he threatened them with the death penalty and calling them "rats" and drug addicts. and pointed to Tianamen Square and Waco as examples for the type of violence he might use Gaddafi also vowed to hunt opponents of his regime, purging them "house by house" and "inch by inch". He vowed to "fight until his last drop of blood" and die as a martyr but beyond words, look at the actual record. When peaceful protests began in Benghazi, they were drowned in blood. This is some footage of gaddafi's armed thugs putting down a protest: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BziVTiifPDI Misrata is an example of what the people of Benghazi were facing. The town has been under siege for over a month, because it dared to rebel. A doctor from there estimated that 1,000 people have been killed by the siege. The town has 550,000 people. Benghazi as the centre of the rebellion, certainly would have faced more intense violence. In fact, John Lee Anderson reported that 30 people were killed in Benghazi in the short time that Gaddafi forces were there. Lastly, I think the statement "the sound and fury from Washington, London and Paris has succeeded in dimming the memory of January’s days of hope in Tunis and Cairo." is unduly pessimistic. The Egyptian revolution has deepened since the Libyan intervention, nor has there been an onset of reaction in Tunisia. The movement in Syria has intensified, as it has in Yemen, we've even seen it in Iraq. Though, certainly the Libyan intervention played a role in allowing for a massive crackdown in Bahrain. If the Libyan intervention is NATO's attempt to strangle the Arab Spring, we can see that it has only been able to do it on a limited scale, because people power in the Middle East, the counter-weight to imperial intervention, has much momentum at the moment and NATO cannot at this time impose its will. Tim Dobson
. Susan Lindauer, an ex-CIA agent who had a lot of dealings in the area, thinks that Libya was extorting US oil firms to the amount of compensation that Libya paid for the Lockerbie bombing. While there's a lot of stuff in her article that's hard to verify (and she quotes dodgy sources like Michel Chossudovsky), there's also a lot that can be verified elsewhere. It's worth having a read just to see a possible explanation as to why the west is willing to intervene against Gaddafi but not (for example) Mubarak. Which is not to say that I support Gaddafi in this fight, apparently neither does Lindauer. BCC
like the Palestinians in 1982.....hope he takes his own advise and goes down in his personal stalingrad.....this guy talks...now he has the oppurtunity....
I think Libya IS about oil. But it is not about maintaining the flow of oil into the 'free' market. The primary effect intended is to push up the price of oil. The secondary aim is to siphon off as much Libyan oil as you can, stealing it from both the Libyan people and the oil companies. You then can sell it once the price is at its zenith. So who do I think is doing it? Well, I can't say for sure. Whoever they are, they clearly find it easier to work with Western governments, military and "intelligence" agencies, rather than Gaddafi. I'm not saying I'm a fan, but to have so much Western pressure against Gaddafi, you'd have to think he must be doing something RIGHT. There's nowhere near the same pressure, even on Assad or Ahmedinejad!
Gadafi wanted to nationlize all the oil companys. Why did China abstain. Well the first oil shipment went to them, but cannot be traced to chineese Gov.. Go figure...
John Pilger's analysis of the situation in Libya is spot on, and his reports of the Western air strikes on civilian targets in Tripoli upset and disturb me, reminiscent as they are of the 1986 US attack on Libya, in which dozens of civilians died.
A lot of inquiry and knowledge have gone into John Pilger's, and Tim Dobson's words here. Both deserve credit. But, the news today, 01/05/11, of Saif Gaddafi and three of Muammar Gaddafi's grandchildren killed by a NATO strike, add weight to John's thoughts and investigations, and weaken Dobson's argument. Both have credible points, but let's not be soft about how brutal the 'north' are prepared to be - anywhere! Nothing as 'wildfire' as the north African and now Middle-East uprisings could be spontaneous, considering the mellow outcomes in Tunisia and Egypt. And as known, the CIA, aka MI6 et al et al, have had their greasy hands in 'foreign affairs' aka other resource-rich regions/cultures/peoples' lives for centuries. So it is safe, methinks, to assume that the same skullduggers have been planning and orchestrating these north African 'revolts' for some time. Always, while wealth rules, and not Wisdom, as one nation's resources dwindle, the knee-jerk reaction is to look at other, more vulnerable peoples' supplies. Eurape, Britain and the USA are on-the-brink of utter utter disaster, economically, socially and what amounts to culturally. So it was for Britain in the 18th century, but it found a 'vent' in newly discovered Australia. Also, their over-confident (too much 'faith'!) delusional schemes (think 'Cecil Rhodes' and covens) of the last 150-to-200 years are at last coming catastrophically undone. As these have been based on 'occult dreaming' of their absolutely lunatic 'secret societies' thus, are totally egomaniacal, and have no Science or Reason underlying them, the threatened outcomes, are sending them into the most dangerous reactionary patterns of thought and behavior. Consequently, insane actions are taken, with the worst outcomes for everyone. See how close to correct I am, in a few years. Africa, the Middle-East, and most every other less-developed region will be endless warzones, IF, the Honorable, Wise and Intelligent do nothing now. As for the 'first world' - all-round chaotic basket-cases. 'Nuclear families' will be a thing of the past. Only large, ORGANISED tribes, sharing everything, will survive beyond the next decade. How well they co-exist with their neighboring tribes, depends totally on how well we, WE, get REAL about the use and distribution of resources now. CRAPitalism simply does not work. Sadly, the west will as likely have to go through horrible times before the People sack the tyrannies of banking, media and corporate government, and assume, resume control of - the land, and ReBalance things generally. King Commo

You need Green Left, and we need you!

Green Left is funded by contributions from readers and supporters. Help us reach our funding target.

Make a One-off Donation or choose from one of our Monthly Donation options.

Become a supporter to get the digital edition for $5 per month or the print edition for $10 per month. One-time payment options are available.

You can also call 1800 634 206 to make a donation or to become a supporter. Thank you.