Thursday, November 3, 2011

New Libyan prime minister installed by NATO-backed regime

New Libyan prime minister installed by NATO-backed regime
By Peter Symonds
3 November 2011
The installation of Abdurrahim al-Keib as the new Libyan interim prime minister on Monday by the National Transitional Council (NTC) only underscored the unstable, faction-ridden character of the regime and its subservience to the US and European powers.
The “election” itself was carefully staged to give the appearance of democracy—NTC members deposited their ballots into a transparent box in a nationally-televised session. This charade could not hide the fact that the Libyan people had no say in selecting the NTC, which is dominated by ex-Gaddafi officials and the long-time assets of Western intelligence agencies.
Al-Keib’s main qualification for office was his acceptability to the NATO powers, which formally ended their predatory war on Libya at midnight on Monday. A relatively obscure figure, Al-Keib has been variously described as an academic, a wealthy businessman and “a scion” of a nationalist family from Tripoli’s old city.
Trained as an electrical engineer, Al-Keib spent nearly four decades abroad, mainly in the US and the United Arab Emirates (UAE). Significantly, he was recently a professor at the UAE’s Petroleum Institute—a private body funded by major global energy corporations, including Royal Dutch Shell, BP and Total.
In one of his first statements, Al-Keib expressed the hope that “the world will perceive us as a positive new force,” adding: “I have a lot of trust in the fact that we live in a country that has lots of resources that haven’t been tapped.” He will undoubtedly assist the scramble for control of Libya’s substantial oil and gas reserves—a major goal of the NATO’s intervention.
The fact that Al-Keib was chosen over other NTC stooges, just as willing to carry out the dictates of the Western powers, is bound up with the regime’s internal divisions. Al-Keib narrowly won the so-called election, with 26 out of 51 votes, amid bitter rivalry between the various tribal, regionally-based and Islamist factions.
The Islamists based around the Qatari-backed clerics—Ali and Ismail al-Sallabi—along with factions based in the cities of Misrata and Tripoli in the country’s west had bitterly criticised the NTC’s previous interim prime minister Mahmoud Jibril. Jibril, who headed Gaddafi's national economic development board, is from the eastern city of Benghazi, like most NTC members.
The main public criticism of Jibril was that he was constantly out of the country during the fighting to oust Gaddafi. The same, however, could be said of Al-Keib, who only returned to Libya after the fall of Tripoli in August and played no significant role in the war. Al-Keib appears to have been chosen mainly because he comes from a prominent Tripoli family. He lacks an independent base of support, making him a useful compromise figure as the factions battle for power.
Al-Keib indicated that he would form a government within two weeks. The NTC has announced a deadline of eight months for drawing up a constitution and holding elections. Given the sharp divisions inside the NTC, both deadlines are unlikely to be met. The concern of the NTC and its NATO backers has never been the democratic rights of the Libyan people, but securing control over the country and its energy resources.
US State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland praised the selection of Al-Keib, calling on him to support “human rights” and bring the country’s numerous militia groups under control. The disarming of the militias, which were exploited by the NATO powers to oust Gaddafi, is being treated as a matter of urgency by the US and its allies as they seek to strengthen the NTC’s grip over the country.
The international media, which remained virtually silent on the crimes and abuses carried out by the anti-Gaddafi “revolutionaries,” has started to proclaim the “rogue” nature of the militias, their threat to political stability and the necessity of either disarming them or integrating them into a new national army. Over the past few days, several militia clashes took place in Tripoli, including at the Central Hospital—the capital’s largest medical facility.
Prominent Tripoli militia commander Abdul Hakim Belhadj, who is closely aligned with the Islamist grouping headed by the al-Sallabi brothers, has flatly refused to integrate into a national army without guarantees. His spokesman Anis Sharif told the Washington Post on Tuesday: “Creating a new army is not going to be by an official statement or resolution. It has to come after a negotiation.”
While the militias reflect the interests of the country’s feuding factions, their refusal to disarm is also a distorted reflection of the deep distrust felt by broad layers of the population to the new rulers. Anwar Fekini, a French-Libyan lawyer and militia leader, told the New York Times: “We are the ones who are holding the power—the people with the force on the ground—and we are not going to give that up until we have a legitimate government that will emerge from free and fair elections.”
Behind the scenes, the rush by foreign governments and energy giants to restart oil and gas projects and establish their stake in new fields continues apace. Last month, Canadian foreign minister John Baird along with others, including Austrian foreign minister Michael Spindelegger and German economy minister Philipp Roesler, made the trek to Tripoli to press the case for their country’s firms.
As reported in the Globe and Mail, Baird was accompanied by executives from three major Canadian corporations—SNC Lavalin, Suncor and Pure Technologies—each of which had significant operations in Libya under the Gaddafi regime. “Obviously we’re fighting for Canadian companies to be able to begin their operations as soon as possible. That’ll be good for the Canadian economy and good for the future of Libya,” Baird baldly told the newspaper.
The Italian energy giant ENI yesterday announced that it had resumed production at its Sabratha offshore gas platform in Libya, with all 15 wells due to be reopened by the end of November. ENI is the largest foreign energy producer in the former Italian colony. Libya accounts for about 15 percent of ENI’s global production and around 11 percent of Italy’s imported gas. On the same day, Italy became the first European state to resume commercial flights to Tripoli.
Libya’s oil production is also resuming. A report on Tuesday showed it has risen to 567,000 barrels per day (bpd), compared to 1.6 million bpd prior to the war. The latest increase stemmed from the restarting of the El Sharara field by the Spanish energy corporation Repsol. The field, now producing 90,000 bpd, is being used to feed the Zawiya refinery in Libya’s west.

Monday, October 31, 2011

Occupy London protesters: “This is a global movement”

Occupy London protesters: “This is a global movement”

Occupy London protesters: “This is a global movement”


31 October 2011
The World Socialist Web Site spoke to protesters involved in the Occupy London protest outside St Paul’s Cathedral. (See, "Church and City move to evict Occupy London camp".)
RhiannonRhiannon and friend
Rhiannon said, “I’ve been here since Monday. One of the things that got me interested was the tuition fees. After that, I have looked at everything else. Most countries are experiencing the same things. We’re not equal. The 1 percent basically has all the money. The bankers get their bonuses and they were bailed out by the government. Where is all this money going? It’s not right.
“Then you’ve got the spending cuts affecting the poor and not the 1 percent. The 1 percent need to be taxed more or something. The rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer.
“If we were able to get everyone on board, we’d be more likely to change something. We’re getting more people involved, and hopefully people will realise something does need to change.”
Tom explained, “This is the third weekend I’ve been down in a row. I can’t be here all the time because I have a full-time job, but I’d like to be here more often. It’s highlighting really important issues that affect everyone: world poverty, inequality.
TomTom
“This government is just hell-bent on privatising everything in this country and is not listening to anyone. Our current prime minister was elected by only 23 percent of the electorate. That’s not democratic in anyway. The fact he’s running the country, it’s a joke.
“This is a global movement, it started at Wall Street and now it’s at the Bank of England. That’s very symbolic because the global economy is so connected, and you saw this week that Europe again was bailed out somehow by money we don’t have.
“Everyone is starting to recognise that the monetary system we live under doesn’t take place in the real world. It doesn’t appear they’ve learnt anything from 2008. They said then that this is the point that we reform things, but they didn’t do that at all. They carried on in the same way, continuing to give the banks lots of money. And now instead of the banks being in debt, we have sovereign debt where countries are in massive debt, and now we don’t have any money to pay for anything. Now that’s affecting the people. The people who these decisions affect need to be the people who make the decisions. Not the FTSE 100 people.
“I’d say 70 percent of the media in this country is right-wing. It’s not surprising because they’re owned by large corporations. They are there to represent their interests, not the interests of the people. So it’s not surprising that they find any way to attack the protests. One minute they attack us as dole scroungers, saying, "Why aren’t you at work?' Then they act surprised when we’re not here all days of the week because we have jobs to go to. It’s just anything to attack us.”
Referring to the assaults on the Occupy camps in the US, Tom said, “The police are the most violent organisation in America. It’s happening here as well. I like to think and hope that because the camp is outside this church, you won’t get the same violence from the police as you see in America.”
On the Democratic Party in the US, Tom added, “Obama was on the Late Show the other night saying we need to fix this and that, but he didn’t say that people are on the streets because Barack Obama receives more corporate sponsorship from Wall Street than any other president in America. Go back to 2008 and look at the donors to Obama and McCain, and they’re pretty much the same.
“We’ve seen it again the other week with the [Defence Secretary Liam] Fox resignation. There’s too many people in government, in parliament influencing what’s going on because they have money and represent the vested interests of their corporations.”

The “liberation” of Libya

The “liberation” of Libya

The “liberation” of Libya

22 October 2011
Libya’s NATO-backed National Transitional Council (NTC) is set to announce the supposed completion of the country’s “liberation” this weekend following the lynching of former ruler Muammar Gaddafi.
What is being celebrated with the speech to be delivered by NTC Chairman Mustafa Abdel Jalil, Gaddafi’s former justice minister, is not the liberation of the Libyan people, but rather the victory of the major imperialist powers in a war aimed at turning the clock back to the days of colonialism.
It has been achieved by means of a NATO bombing campaign that has reduced much of the country’s infrastructure to rubble and left thousands of Libyan men, women and children dead and wounded. Its final chapter, the barbaric siege of the coastal city of Sirte and the murder of Gaddafi, his son and other former members of his regime, only underscores the criminality of the entire venture.
These crimes provide the ultimate exposure of the pretense that the war in Libya was waged for “humanitarian” aims, to protect Libyan civilians from the Gaddafi regime. In Sirte, NATO provided air cover for a “rebel” army carrying out precisely the kind of bloody assault on a civilian population center that the US-NATO intervention was purportedly designed to prevent.
From its outset, the war has been one for regime-change, prosecuted by the United States and the Western European powers in pursuit of definite geo-strategic and economic interests. Their war aims included inflicting a sharp reversal on China and Russia, which had both concluded significant oil, infrastructure and arms deals with the Gaddafi regime, challenging Western hegemony in a key energy-producing country on the Mediterranean.
The NATO powers saw in the overthrow of Gaddafi the prospect of establishing far tighter control over Libya’s oil and gas reserves by major Western energy conglomerates such as BP, ConocoPhillips, Total and ENI. They also saw the installation in Tripoli of a wholly subservient client regime as a means of asserting military power in a region that has been convulsed by popular upheavals, both in Tunisia to the west and Egypt to the east.
The regime taking shape in Tripoli and Benghazi will be one dominated by gangsters, Western intelligence “assets” and bribed former Libyan officials, all offering their services in the re-colonization of the country. Only the most morally and politically corrupt elements of the so-called “left” in Europe and America can equate this filthy enterprise with “liberation” and “democracy.”
Both the New York Times and the Washington Post responded Friday to the murder of Gaddafi with editorials urging Washington to take an aggressive role in asserting US dominance in Libya. The killing, the Post wrote, “must be seen as the beginning and not the end of Libya’s transformation.” Noting that Libya’s oil wealth can “pay for a US training mission for security forces,” the editorial argued that the US should “take the lead.” It added that Libya’s “stabilization under a democratic government could help tip the broader wave of change in the Arab Middle East toward those favoring freedom.” Here the word “freedom” is used in the traditional manner of US foreign policy to signify being under American domination.
The New York Times counseled that “More than money--thanks to oil, Libya is wealthy--Libya will need sustained technical advice and full-time engagement.” No doubt, such “advice” will encompass the rewriting of the terms of Libya’s oil contracts.
Both editorials include worried passages about the existence of dozens of “rebel” militias and the dispersal of Libya’s arms stockpiles, including surface-to-air missiles, implicitly supplying the pretext for continued US-NATO military intervention.
The brutal death of Muammar Gaddafi was a state murder that was openly demanded by Washington. Barely 48 hours before NATO warplanes and a US Predator drone attacked the convoy in which Gaddafi was fleeing Sirte, leaving him to the mercy of the “rebels,” Secretary of State Hillary Clinton flew into Tripoli and called for the ousted Libyan head of state to be “captured or killed” as quickly as possible.
Inspired by Nasserism, Gaddafi led a young officers’ coup in September 1969. By the time of his death, he had long since abandoned any suggestion of revolutionary nationalism. In those early days, nationalist regimes like the one in Libya had come to power in a number of countries proclaiming a national and social agenda that was bound up with the mass anti-colonial movement.
In Libya, this included the overthrow of the corrupt monarchy of King Idris, which was completely subservient to US and British imperialism, the closure of Wheelus Air Base, the largest US military facility on the African continent, the striking of harder bargains with the foreign oil companies and the push for OPEC to use oil as a weapon, including by instituting embargoes.
It was this policy that led Henry Kissinger, then the US national security advisor, to push in 1969 for approval of covert action to kill or overthrow Gaddafi.
Like all of the radical nationalist rulers, Gaddafi sought to gain greater room for maneuver on the international arena by balancing between imperialism and the Soviet Stalinist bureaucracy, while utilizing a combination of repression and reforms to suppress social struggles within the country. The dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991 left Libya and similar regimes scrambling to reach an accommodation with the imperialist powers.
In 2003, in the wake of the US invasion of Iraq, Libya sought a normalization of relations with the West, renouncing any ambitions toward nuclear weapons and condemning terrorism, while collaborating with the CIA in the global crusade against Al Qaeda. Once he had taken this course, Gaddafi was courted by Washington and every major power in Western Europe for oil deals, arms contracts and other lucrative agreements.
Nevertheless, the imperialist powers never forgave Gaddafi for his early radicalism and never trusted him. Thus the same political figures who had fawned over him not so long ago gloated over his grisly murder.
Told of Gaddafi’s death on Thursday, Hillary Clinton--who in 2009 had welcomed the Libyan ruler’s murdered son Moatessem to the State Department--laughed and declared, “We came, we saw, he died.”
This sums up the gangsterism of the American government, headed by a president who has gone before the television cameras three times in the last six months to claim credit for a state murder, in one case that of a US citizen, the New Mexico-born Muslim cleric Anwar al-Awlaki.
In his speech Thursday, Obama claimed that the murder of Gaddafi had proven that “we are seeing the strength of American leadership in the world.”
This is nonsense. Assassination as a continuous instrument of foreign policy is a symptom not of US strength but of historic decline. It reflects the desperate and irrational belief within the ruling elite that acts of naked violence can somehow compensate for the profound crisis and decay of American capitalism.
The debacles produced by the US invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan have only laid the foundations for new and even bloodier wars. With Obama having used the assault on Libya to enunciate a preventive war doctrine that allows for US aggression anywhere that perceived American “values and interests” are at stake, such wars will not be long in coming.
The war in Libya, culminating in the murder of Gaddafi, has served to acquaint working people all over the world once again with the real character of imperialism, described by Lenin as “reaction all down the line.” Predatory wars abroad in the interest of finance capital are one component of a counterrevolutionary policy directed ultimately against the working class. They are inevitably combined with a ruthless assault on both the social and democratic rights of the working class at home.
The fight against war and the struggle against the destruction of jobs, living standards and basic rights are inseparable. They can be won only through the political mobilization and international unity of the working class in the struggle for socialism.
Bill Van Auken 

The “liberation” of Libya

The “liberation” of Libya

The “liberation” of Libya

22 October 2011

Libya’s NATO-backed National Transitional Council (NTC) is set to announce the supposed completion of the country’s “liberation” this weekend following the lynching of former ruler Muammar Gaddafi.

What is being celebrated with the speech to be delivered by NTC Chairman Mustafa Abdel Jalil, Gaddafi’s former justice minister, is not the liberation of the Libyan people, but rather the victory of the major imperialist powers in a war aimed at turning the clock back to the days of colonialism.

It has been achieved by means of a NATO bombing campaign that has reduced much of the country’s infrastructure to rubble and left thousands of Libyan men, women and children dead and wounded. Its final chapter, the barbaric siege of the coastal city of Sirte and the murder of Gaddafi, his son and other former members of his regime, only underscores the criminality of the entire venture.

These crimes provide the ultimate exposure of the pretense that the war in Libya was waged for “humanitarian” aims, to protect Libyan civilians from the Gaddafi regime. In Sirte, NATO provided air cover for a “rebel” army carrying out precisely the kind of bloody assault on a civilian population center that the US-NATO intervention was purportedly designed to prevent.

From its outset, the war has been one for regime-change, prosecuted by the United States and the Western European powers in pursuit of definite geo-strategic and economic interests. Their war aims included inflicting a sharp reversal on China and Russia, which had both concluded significant oil, infrastructure and arms deals with the Gaddafi regime, challenging Western hegemony in a key energy-producing country on the Mediterranean.

The NATO powers saw in the overthrow of Gaddafi the prospect of establishing far tighter control over Libya’s oil and gas reserves by major Western energy conglomerates such as BP, ConocoPhillips, Total and ENI. They also saw the installation in Tripoli of a wholly subservient client regime as a means of asserting military power in a region that has been convulsed by popular upheavals, both in Tunisia to the west and Egypt to the east.

The regime taking shape in Tripoli and Benghazi will be one dominated by gangsters, Western intelligence “assets” and bribed former Libyan officials, all offering their services in the re-colonization of the country. Only the most morally and politically corrupt elements of the so-called “left” in Europe and America can equate this filthy enterprise with “liberation” and “democracy.”

Both the New York Times and the Washington Post responded Friday to the murder of Gaddafi with editorials urging Washington to take an aggressive role in asserting US dominance in Libya. The killing, the Post wrote, “must be seen as the beginning and not the end of Libya’s transformation.” Noting that Libya’s oil wealth can “pay for a US training mission for security forces,” the editorial argued that the US should “take the lead.” It added that Libya’s “stabilization under a democratic government could help tip the broader wave of change in the Arab Middle East toward those favoring freedom.” Here the word “freedom” is used in the traditional manner of US foreign policy to signify being under American domination.

The New York Times counseled that “More than money--thanks to oil, Libya is wealthy--Libya will need sustained technical advice and full-time engagement.” No doubt, such “advice” will encompass the rewriting of the terms of Libya’s oil contracts.

Both editorials include worried passages about the existence of dozens of “rebel” militias and the dispersal of Libya’s arms stockpiles, including surface-to-air missiles, implicitly supplying the pretext for continued US-NATO military intervention.

The brutal death of Muammar Gaddafi was a state murder that was openly demanded by Washington. Barely 48 hours before NATO warplanes and a US Predator drone attacked the convoy in which Gaddafi was fleeing Sirte, leaving him to the mercy of the “rebels,” Secretary of State Hillary Clinton flew into Tripoli and called for the ousted Libyan head of state to be “captured or killed” as quickly as possible.

Inspired by Nasserism, Gaddafi led a young officers’ coup in September 1969. By the time of his death, he had long since abandoned any suggestion of revolutionary nationalism. In those early days, nationalist regimes like the one in Libya had come to power in a number of countries proclaiming a national and social agenda that was bound up with the mass anti-colonial movement.

In Libya, this included the overthrow of the corrupt monarchy of King Idris, which was completely subservient to US and British imperialism, the closure of Wheelus Air Base, the largest US military facility on the African continent, the striking of harder bargains with the foreign oil companies and the push for OPEC to use oil as a weapon, including by instituting embargoes.

It was this policy that led Henry Kissinger, then the US national security advisor, to push in 1969 for approval of covert action to kill or overthrow Gaddafi.

Like all of the radical nationalist rulers, Gaddafi sought to gain greater room for maneuver on the international arena by balancing between imperialism and the Soviet Stalinist bureaucracy, while utilizing a combination of repression and reforms to suppress social struggles within the country. The dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991 left Libya and similar regimes scrambling to reach an accommodation with the imperialist powers.

In 2003, in the wake of the US invasion of Iraq, Libya sought a normalization of relations with the West, renouncing any ambitions toward nuclear weapons and condemning terrorism, while collaborating with the CIA in the global crusade against Al Qaeda. Once he had taken this course, Gaddafi was courted by Washington and every major power in Western Europe for oil deals, arms contracts and other lucrative agreements.

Nevertheless, the imperialist powers never forgave Gaddafi for his early radicalism and never trusted him. Thus the same political figures who had fawned over him not so long ago gloated over his grisly murder.

Told of Gaddafi’s death on Thursday, Hillary Clinton--who in 2009 had welcomed the Libyan ruler’s murdered son Moatessem to the State Department--laughed and declared, “We came, we saw, he died.”

This sums up the gangsterism of the American government, headed by a president who has gone before the television cameras three times in the last six months to claim credit for a state murder, in one case that of a US citizen, the New Mexico-born Muslim cleric Anwar al-Awlaki.

In his speech Thursday, Obama claimed that the murder of Gaddafi had proven that “we are seeing the strength of American leadership in the world.”

This is nonsense. Assassination as a continuous instrument of foreign policy is a symptom not of US strength but of historic decline. It reflects the desperate and irrational belief within the ruling elite that acts of naked violence can somehow compensate for the profound crisis and decay of American capitalism.

The debacles produced by the US invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan have only laid the foundations for new and even bloodier wars. With Obama having used the assault on Libya to enunciate a preventive war doctrine that allows for US aggression anywhere that perceived American “values and interests” are at stake, such wars will not be long in coming.

The war in Libya, culminating in the murder of Gaddafi, has served to acquaint working people all over the world once again with the real character of imperialism, described by Lenin as “reaction all down the line.” Predatory wars abroad in the interest of finance capital are one component of a counterrevolutionary policy directed ultimately against the working class. They are inevitably combined with a ruthless assault on both the social and democratic rights of the working class at home.

The fight against war and the struggle against the destruction of jobs, living standards and basic rights are inseparable. They can be won only through the political mobilization and international unity of the working class in the struggle for socialism.

Bill Van Auken

REF:http://www.wsws.org/articles/2011/oct2011/pers-o22.shtml