Gaddafi the Guinea Pig

United Nations Security Council unanimously passed the resolution to enforce a "no-fly zone" over Libya. In spite of the impression of support by all members given by the media, five of the eleven abstained from the vote. These members included two permanent members Russia and China and three others - Germany, India and Brazil. Would Russia and China have abstained and not voted against if they knew the ferocity of Western attacks will never be known. Comments from Russian Prime Minister Putin do indicate that there is some regret there in not having done that.

I am not a supporter of Gaddafi or any other despot anywhere else. However, the fact remains that compared to the situation before him, the country prospered under him because he took the lead in early seventies in the battle to raise the price of oil. High prices produced wealth and hospitals, schools and post secondary institutions were built everywhere, infrastructure and public housing were improved as were social services. The foreign companies were forced to hire and train Libyans and Gaddafi supported emancipation of women at all levels. Unfortunately, and much to his discredit, he also supported till recently the terrorists acts against the civilians in Europe and monopolized political power in the country. But no one would say that he was more repulsive than many current and former leaders in the developing world - Mobutu Sese and White regime of Verwoerd in South Africa and current leadership in Equatorial Guinea and Zimbabwe for example. Why was he picked for removal then - first by fomenting protest movement against him and then by exercise of Western military power to bolster the protesters?

You don't have to look far for an answer. High oil prices continue to shift the wealth of Europe and the United States to oil exporters in the Middle East. To save debt ridden economies of these countries it is essential that oil prices be brought to a $50 range to reduce the drain to a manageable level. To achieve the reduction in price of this essential commodity, strong leaders of oil producing countries and their supporters have to be replaced by more malleable individuals. Mubarak had to go and be replaced by weak 'democratically elected' leadership and Gaddafi has to go and be replaced by another softy. If support of democracy without any self-interest is guiding the West, why does the West not support the protesters in Bahrain and Yemen and encourage protesters in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait? The answer is two fold. In Bahrain, the current leadership is pro West and in Yemen the protesters are worse for Western interests than the current leadership. The case of Libya has another angle too. It serves as a lesson to Iran, and to any new leaders in other 'democracies' not to start having ideas of their own and counter Western interests. They need to see the destructive impact of Western missiles and modify their independent policies lest they are punished. No terrorist attacks, no more threats to Israel, no protests in
Palestine, no hikes in oil prices or cut in production. Or else!

The Western leaders decided that it is not practical to topple the regime in Iran but it can be softened. To do this they needed a guinea pig and they found one in Gaddafi. All Arab countries, perhaps other oil producers as well, who are supporting the West against Libya have been sucked into supporting the attack without due consideration of their long term interests. I am afraid that the time to regret it, like the Russians are doing now, is not far into the future. Before long the overproduction from Iraq, new Libya, Saudi Arabia and the Emirates will drive oil prices to the bottom with no recovery in sight. When this happens, Western oil producers, Russia, Norway and Canada will suffer as much as the producers in the Middle East. Canada will suffer the most because at $50 a barrel you can kiss oil sands goodbye.

Comment:

I disagree with the support of new nuclear power stations by Doug Saunders (Globe and Mail, March 19, 2011) for two reasons. First, many nuclear plants have been and are planned in communities which are much less prepared technically and financially to cope with an accident of even a lesser magnitude and the disaster will reach far beyond the area where it takes place. Second, the emphasis, even in the developing countries, must be on more efficient use of energy, less waste and better engines, not on increasing production of potentially calamitous energy. The recent discoveries of huge reservoirs which have made natural gas abundant, new methods of coal usage which reduce emissions drastically and more efficient vehicle engines have the potential of providing needed energy without another repeat of Chernobyl or worse.

Also, the reason fewer deaths occurred in the tragic events in Japan was the smaller populated area affected by the quake and Tsunami. Can you imagine the toll if it occurred a couple of hundred miles south, whatever the preparedness level?