 | Lehman: more socialising the losses of the rich | The Oil Drum: Europe | 7th ASPO International Conference: Barcelona |  |
38 comments on World Oil Exports [02] Libya
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
| Show without comments | PDF version
38 comments on World Oil Exports [02] Libya
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
| Show without comments | PDF version
User login
Personnel
Editors
Contributors
Peak Oil Primers
Archives
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- August 2007
- July 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
- April 2007
- March 2007
- February 2007
- January 2007
- December 2006
- November 2006
- October 2006
- September 2006
- August 2006
- July 2006
- June 2006
- May 2006
- April 2006
- March 2006
Vital Trivia
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.
GAIA Host Collective
Very interesting, thanks.
It's easy, in the Western media, to ridicule and demonize leaders like Gaddafi. His primary 'crime', in the eyes of the West, is that he's a fiercly 'patriotic' and nationalist leader, who for decades has steered his country in an independent direction, always putting, what he percieves, as Libya's interests first. Leaders who follow this course and oust pro-Western regimes are never going to be popular in our part of the world.
He isn't a democrat, but then, who really is? He's more like a knight who kicked out an old, incompetent and deeply corrupt, king; and Gaddafi, the new 'king' set about building a new country virtually from stratch. Such a task, as one sees from European history, isn't easy and certainly isn't pretty, absolute monarchy is a risky business. A good king can reform and strenthen a country, a bad one - like George Bush - can lead it to disaster.
Whatever one thinks of Gaddafi's politics and form of government, he has proved, on balance, remarkably successful in steering his new 'kingdom' forward. He is also incredibly popular with ordinary people all over Africa and the Middle East, who look with envy towards Libya. I've talked to people in Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, Morocco, who dream of the day when a 'hero' like Gaddafi will appear and sweep away the corrupt and incompetent old guard and finally make their countries independent of Western domination.
This is, of course, something of a nightmare scenario for Western leaders and economic interests, a free and independent Middle East, but it really is what the vast majority of the ordinary people want, which is why we support and arm the various dictatorial regimes spread throughout the region. Gaddafi, is also a kind of dictator or absolute monarch, the main difference being that he is a nationalist ruler rather than a controlled client or vassal, content to reap the benefits of serving the primacy of Western interests.
Sorry, but that is incorrect.
Qaddafi was ostracized by the United Nations and the West because he supported and participated in terrorism, including support for the Irish Republican Army, the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), and other extremist Arab and Islamic groups..
Qaddafi has been linked to the 1986 Berlin disco bombing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1986_Berlin_discotheque_bombing), the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pan_Am_flight_103), the bombing of UTA Flight 772 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pan_Am_Flight_73), and the hijaaking of Pan Am flight 73 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pan_Am_Flight_73).
These actions resulted in United Nations Resolution 748 (http://www.cfr.org/publication/11211/) as well as others.
And don't forget the tanks in the desert in Chad for instance with Qaddafi's name written all over them.
At the same time, it seems he has quite matured, at least on the international scene. Before that, he was like a Mafia Boss he surely took good care of his own family.
Plays very well not only to the Arabic culture..
Cheers, Dom
Peakplus,
I'm not really a 'fan' of Gaddafi. I think most leaders of countries pretty much resemble Mafia bosses competing with one another over 'territory' and 'protection money'. Especially the leaders of 'new' countries. I don't think I was defending Gaddafi.
People interested in Lybia need to read some history, especally pre-Qaddaffi. This note on Quaddaffi's motives is enlightening.
January 29, 1970: Negotiations with the oil companies begin in Tripoli for the raising of prices. Libya asks for an increase of 40 cents a barrel. The oil companies agree to only 10 to 13 cents; Gadhafi threatns to break off negotiations, declaring: "My country has done without oil for five thousand years and can do without it for a few years more. http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/dr_ibrahim_ighneiwa/libyans.htm
I simply cannot find the reference, but I clearly recall reading a book about the founder/owner of one of the US oil companies who played a large part in development of oil in Libya pre-Quaddaffi. The author interviewed the former CEO of the company (a career employee) who described the founder a "essentially amoral", without concern for right or wrong, and strictly focused on getting the a good deal for his company from Idris, whether through threats, bribes or whatever.
Those who condemn Quaddaffi for some of his offenses need to recall that his son was killed in an unwarranted air attack on his compound by representatives of the oil companies he hated and fought much of his life.
GeoPappas,
Being a supporter of 'terrorism' has never been a disqualification for receiving support from the West, at least not until we need to label some leader this season's Hitler. If Gaddafi had been 100% our SOB he could literally have gotten away with murder, like they usually do, until they outlive their usefulness. His primary 'crime' wasn't his support for terrorism, but that his terrorism was directed at the wrong people.
Remember we liberate, they terrorise??
Don't forget the West has done it's fair share of terrorising. One example, In 1898, Hawaii was annexed to the United States after Queen Liliuokalani was overthrown in 1893. This was brought about by American sugar interests who wanted to avoid the import tariffs.
Writerman
What this guy did with his country, I guess is up to him and his people. But he sponsored and supported the blowing up of a civilian aircraft. Is this any different, except in scale, to Osama Bin Laden's activities ? It is astonishing, and morally disgusting, that the West has decided to kiss and make up.
But then Gaddafi has loadsa-oil, so that makes everything OK.
Maybe if Bin Laden takes over Kuwait in 10 years time, it'll be kiss and make up, too.
"......he sponsored and supported the blowing up of a civilian aircraft."
that is right, the cia would never sponsor the blowing up of a civilian aircraft like for example the cuban olimpic team. or assasination of a foreign leader or the bombing of hundreds of thousands of civilians in the search for wmd's.
damn, i hate it when these discussions turn political.
Two wrongs don't make a right...
which two wrongs are you talking about, i think i listed three individual incidents. how 'bout hundreds of thousands of wrongs don't make a right ?
Yeah, but two wrong-doers kissing and making up is hardly a surprise, is it?
It is far from clear whether Libya was actually involved in the Lockerbie bombing. The US initially blamed Iran, but it then became more convenient to blame Libya. Libya was offered lifting of sanctions if they admitted to doing it. The evidence in this case was extremely dubious.
Many people believe it was revenge from Iran for the US shooting down an Iranian plane.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/777974.stm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternative_theories_of_the_bombing_of_Pan_...
The Gander air crash is more likely the Iranian response to shooting down their Flight 655 in 1998. Most people don't dispute Libya's involvement in Pan Am 103, if for no other reason than their shielding of the perps.
The one thing that always goes unoticed in these types of discussions is remebering which side of the line you are one. There are tons of "wrongs" on both sides, but all countries deal with their own self interests. In this case, both Libya and the US figured out it was in their self interest to kiss and make up, just like it was in their interest to antagonize each other in the 80s. From watching the Euro news, it looks like Qaddafi's son has long term plans to actually democratize the country and he is gaining his father's ear in all affairs. Slowly of course, to allow the institutions and ideas to develop otherwise it would be chaos like Russia in the 90s.
"Never appeal to a man's "better nature." He may not have one. Invoking his self-interest gives you more leverage." Robert Heinlein
Sorry, I'm not familiar with the Gander air crash - the only hit I got in Google was a crash in 1985 which the US and Canadian authorities denied was anything to do with terrorists; and it was 3 years before Flight 655 (in 1988).
Whilst most people don't dispute Libya's involvement, that doesn't necessarily mean they were involved - and many people do dispute that the perpetrators were actually Libyan, which is why I took issue with comments stating this as fact. Most people only know what they have read in the MSM.
Hinson,
That's an astute comment. Historically yesterdays 'terrorist' usually evolves into tomorrows 'statesman', and both labels are inaccurate. I remember Thatcher once called the sainted Nelson Mandela a terrorist in the House of Commons!
Two "above ground" comments on some very good work:
First, The interplay between politics and rates of discovery and production is especially informative for those who believe, as I do, that political decisions make more difference to the actual year to year shape and slope of these curves than underlying geological bell curves. Spikes, canyons and even flatlines.
In effect, the guy who made some of the worst decisions a leader can ever make, bombing civilians etc... made some good decisions for his country by husbanding oil resources. Could we not expect more of these decisions on the part of other exporters? When you think of it, some kind of natural, you might even say God-given, version of the US SPR makes sense. Hold back a portion of productive capacity (not just reserves) until it's really needed. Maximizing production of a finite resource is cornucopian thinking at its very worst. Why we're at it, why not just drain the SPR?
Drilling and infrastructure investment rates and foreign investment policies as well as production/export rates, especially domestic oil and other price subsidies are all political decisions. This is especially the case with the large amount of foreign content, including employees, Libya will require to hit the targets in Luis' article.
Second, the history of Libya brings the depth of historical grievance and related political instability into sharp relief. Whether you think it was justified or not, the tactics and rhetoric of Libya's Jamahyrah drew equally on 20th century popular movements and political and "military" actions straight out of the middle ages. Describing Qaddafi as a knight is indeed appropriate. Black or white depends on your perspective. The chequered cloak of all rulers.
Subsidies betray political weakness as well as a cornucopian taint to policy-making. Did I miss a discussion of local motor gas, diesel and power pricing? The remarkable rate growth of per capita oil consumption all the way to US levels implies pretty good consumer prices!
IMO, Luis excellent analysis falls short on politics. The "golden age" he foresees may give way to chaos and/or palliative domestic price subsidies. The rate of growth of Libya's population is extreme and food is almost all imported. But most of all, Libya has no succession or transition plan. Qaddafi's older son recently renounced a claim to his Dad's populist throne. No mention. The Colonel is a little behind Castro, but starting to fade. As an aside, I wonder if the Colonel might help persuade "el jefe" to leave a legacy that is a little more pragmatic?
If Libya is to become a "normal" country, stable and democratic, it will need to emulate countries other than its erstwhile colonial overlord, Italy! Otherwise, there may be quite a struggle post-Qaddafi. In the absence of courageous leadership, Libya's golden age may only prove to be a golden age for motoring. Exports may suffer accordingly.
That's a very interesting set of comments.
I'm more comfortable (less uncomfortable?) projecting net exports than politics. For me the main difference with Libya is that its population and population density is smaller than most other oil producers, and the growth rate is already easing down. Hence the projected consumption growth – still short of the Middle East benchmark.
Agriculture may not be fluorescent in Libya but the temperate climate is just across the Mediterranean. As long as good relations are kept with Mediterranean European states, food is guaranteed to some extent.
I agree with you that replacing the Colonel will be the hardest obstacle to overcome for XXI century Libya. That's why the post opened with the words it did – his personality has mingled with the country's identity itself. Another figure like him is unlikely to emerge soon and the alternative might only be a fast switch to representative democracy with its associated problems (especially in oil endowed countries).
Still, “el jefe” is pretty much out of the equation and Cuba has held. So far.