More Government Propaganda While Canada Once Again Stands Alone

A very strange Oped piece appeared in the Globe and Mail on the weekend, written by none other than Stephen Harper. It was a follow up to a government announcement that we would be giving the Ukrainian military another 220 million dollars, on top of the 300 million already provided, to assist in their battle with rebel forces.

It reads like a typical propaganda piece, laying all of the blame on Russia's doorstep, for the horrific downing of Malaysia Airlines Flight MH17, that killed 298 innocent civilians.

Had this appeared under a different byline, it would simply reflect the views of the author. However, when it comes from the leader of a country, it is something much more.

An official position. And that position is pretty clear. Russia is our sworn enemy.

The United Nations is investigating the incident, and most in the international community are taking a wait and see approach, before becoming judge, jury and executioner.

While there are calls to strip Russia of their right to host the The World Cup in 2018, British Prime Minister David Cameron, is calling for cooler heads to prevail, and FIFA see it as a potential "force for good". It might just be the golden ticket for a diplomatic solution to the crisis, since sanctions don't appear to be working.

Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbot, has actually called Vladimir Putin personally, to discuss the situation. This is something that is no longer an option for Canada, as our government has already burned too many bridges with the Russian leader, making us irrelevant.

Australians still don't approve of Abbot, but do believe he is leading the way in diplomacy, with a position contradictory to Harper's.

It is not inconceivable that the shooting down of the passenger flight was an accident. As the National Post points out, '-Iran Air Flight 655—shot down on July 3, 1988, not by some scruffy rebel on contested soil but by a U.S. Navy captain in command of an Aegis-class cruiser called the Vincennes.'; it's happened before.

The Reagan administration tried to cover it up, but eventually the truth came out, as it no doubt will in this latest tragedy.

Conservative MP, Peter Goldring, is joining Sarah Palin, in calling for an all out war with Russia, reminding us of Harper's Reform Party and their bumper sticker foreign policy. Simple and dangerous solutions to complex issues.

Obama may provide equipment that would help to reveal 'specific locations of surface-to-air missiles controlled by Russian-backed separatists in eastern Ukraine so the Ukrainian government could target them for destruction', but with only 17% of Americans supporting military engagement in the area, I doubt he would consider doing anything more.

Besides, the optics may not be good, given that Joe Biden's son now works for a Ukranian company that is pushing for energy independence from Moscow.

So what is Harper's endgame here? Is he trying to earn some respect, given his abysmal record on foreign policy?

In 2003, when Leader of the Opposition, he spoke out in favour of Canada joining the U.S. In Iraq, and now that country is in shambles, with 63% of Republicans believing that it was a mistake.

He escalated our involvement in Afghanistan, and now the Taliban is stronger than ever, even winning in areas they never held before the invasion.

Canada led in the regime change in Libya, and despite spending $800,000 on a "victory" celebration, Libya is in a bloody mess. Republicans blame Obama, but who should we blame?

Engaging in a war of words, with an enemy he will never have to actually fight, (despite the views of the crazy wing in his Party), is a safe way to inflate his ego. However, I think there may be another motive.

Vladimir Putin was tanking in the polls, until he took a firm stand on Western interference in the Ukraine. Now his popularity with Russian citizens is overwhelming.

Is Stephen Harper hoping that by taking a firm and very public stand with Russia, that Canadians will view him as not so bad after all, despite his horrendous policies?

Could be.

Sadly, it might just work.

Remind me Again Why we Spent $800,000 to Celebrate the Libyan Victory?

"Gadhafi's days are over.  Never again will he be in a position to support terrorism or to turn guns on his own people. The Libyan people can finally turn the page." Stephen Harper

The Harper government spent $800,000 on a celebration marking the end of the attack on Libya.  Besides being costly in an era of "austerity", the celebration it turns out was premature.  This was not a case of "mission accomplished" but back slapping accomplished.

The stronghold of Bani Walid has been reclaimed by Gadhafi loyalists and fighting there continues:

Moammar Gadhafi loyalists seized control of a Libyan mountain city in the most serious challenge to the central government since the strongman's fall, underlining the increasing weakness of Libya's Western-backed rulers as they try to unify the country under their authority. The taking of Bani Walid, one of the last Gadhafi strongholds captured by the new leadership late last year, was the first such organized operation by armed remnants of Gadhafi's regime. A simultaneous outbreak of shootings in the capital and Libya's second largest city Benghazi raised authorities' concerned that other networks of loyalists were active elsewhere.

There is also a growing concern that weapons provided to the western backed regime are falling into the hands of terrorist organizations.   Real terrorist organizations, like al Qaeda, not those who oppose Harper's pipeline.

The Western-backed overthrow of Libyan strongman Muammar Gadhafi likely provided huge stocks of heavy weapons to terrorist groups and criminal organizations operating in the Sahel region of North Africa, the United Nations confirmed January 26 in a report. Among the groups benefiting from the arms are al-Qaeda and the deadly Islamic terror organization Boko Haram, which is currently on a killing spree in Nigeria.

The UN report explained that “due to the Libyan upheaval ... governments in the region are faced with the return of millions of economic migrants, the smuggling of weapons from Libyan stockpiles, terrorist activities, youth unemployment, trafficking in drugs and human beings, and a surge in criminality,” the international body summarized in a press release on its findings.

Westpoint had warned in 2007 that the eastern region of Libya, the epicenter of the NATO-backed rebellion, provided more fighters per capita to combat US troops in Iraq than any other nation, including Saudi Arabia. The report noted that most of these Libyan fighters were members of the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG) who were involved "in an increasingly cooperative relationship with Al Qaeda."

That's coming from Westpoint, not some "left-wing hippie dippie rag".

The LIFG was also on the UK Terrorist watch list as late as November 2011.

The LIFG seeks to replace the current Libyan regime with a hard-line Islamic state. The group is also part of the wider global Islamist extremist movement, as inspired by Al Qa’ida. The group has mounted several operations inside Libya, including a 1996 attempt to assassinate Mu’ammar Qadhafi

Instead of worrying about LIFG, NATO used them to overthrow Ghadafi, and create a leader who would be more willing to work with them; Mustafa Abdel Jalil. But apparently it was all smoke and mirrors as the Foreign Policy magazine is now reporting that Jalil has declared Libya to be an Islamic state.

...interim leader Mustafa Abdel Jalil, thought to be a moderate, declared in his "liberation" address that Libya would be an Islamic state and that sharia law would be a fundamental source of legislation.

What in the hell have we done? The Green resistance movement is growing stronger and a civil war appears imminent.

So remind me again why the Harper government spent $800,000 on a photo-op, declaring their victory in Libya.  Reminds me of George Bush declaring that the war in Iraq was over in 2003.

Libya in Turmoil as Top Military Rebel Leader is Assassinated

Rebel military leader Abdul Fatah Younis has been killed, possibly by his own soldiers. Younis was called before a tribunal, after rumours circulated that he had maintained his connections with Gadhafi.

However, he was shot dead before he had a chance for a hearing.

Some are now saying that his murder was at the hands of one of the militia forces, that has ties to Al Qaeda.

After 24 hours of confusion, rebel minister Ali Tarhouni has declared that Gen Younes was killed by members of the Obaida Ibn Jarrah Brigade, a militia allied to the rebels and named after one of the companions of the Prophet Mohammad, suggesting that Islamist elements were involved.

The assassination of Gen Younes, apparently by his own side, has hurt the opposition just as it was winning broader international recognition and launching an offensive against Gaddafi forces in the west of the country.

The revelation that the militia responsible has Islamist leanings, and had been allowed to operate in the east of the country with apparent impunity, is a serious blow to the credibility of the rebel government, based in Benghazi, which Britain formally recognised last week as the legitimate leadership of Libya.

Their ties with Al Qaeda is not news.

Westpoint had made those connections several years ago.

According to the UK Telegraph:

The result of the present inquiry is that the Libyan branch of Al Qaeda represents a continuum with the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group centered in Darnah and Benghazi. The ethnic base of the Libyan Islamic fighting group is apparently to be found in the anti-Qaddafi Harabi tribe, the tribe which makes up the vast majority of the rebel council including the two dominant rebel leaders, Abdul Fatah Younis [my emphasis] and Mustafa Abdul Jalil. The evidence thus suggests that the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, the elite of the Harabi tribe, and the rebel council supported by Obama all overlap for all practical purposes.

According to journalist and peace activist, Dr. Webster Griffin Tarpley:

The specific institutional basis for the recruitment of guerrilla fighters in northeastern Libya is associated with an organization which previously called itself the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG). During the course of 2007, the LIFG declared itself an official subsidiary of al Qaeda, later assuming the name of Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM). As a result of this 2007 merger, an increased number of guerrilla fighters arrived in Iraq from Libya. According to Felter and Fishman, “The apparent surge in Libyan recruits traveling to Iraq may be linked the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group’s (LIFG) increasingly cooperative relationship with al-Qaeda, which culminated in the LIFG officially joining al-Qaeda on November 3, 2007.”8 This merger is confirmed by other sources: A 2008 statement attributed to Ayman al-Zawahiri claimed that the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group has joined al-Qaeda

MacKay and Harper are so out of their league, but unfortunately, now have permission to continue the "mission" until there is a "regime change".

It would appear that we are getting involved in another tribal war, choosing our side poorly, by supporting a branch of Al Qaeda.

What a mess.

Harper's Assault on Libya NOT Sanctioned by UN

I wondered why Harper took the extension of the so-called "mission" in Libya to Parliament. He didn't have to. As prime minister he alone can decide whether or not to go to war.

One of the arguments was that it was sanctioned by the UN. However, what got passed in Parliament was a motion to ignore the UN mandate and go right for a Bush style "regime change".

A continuation of the Bush Doctrine, now dubbed the Harper Doctrine.

These are the actions that the UN Security Council prescribed for the international community in terms of dealing with the man who wanted oil companies to pay more.

1.imposing a no-fly zone over Libya;
2.imposing an arms embargo;
3.prevention of the provision of armed mercenary personnel and
4.the freezing of financial assets, both state owned and private, held outside Libya.

And those measures came with the following specific demands:

“the immediate establishment of a cease-fire and a complete end to violence and all attacks against, and abuses of, civilians;” and “ the need to intensify efforts to find a solution to the crisis which responds to the legitimate demands of the Libyan people…with the aim of facilitating dialogue to lead to the political reforms necessary to find a peaceful and sustainable solution.”

But John Baird and Peter Mackay claimed that the Libyan "mission" cannot be achieved until the regime of Moammar Gadhafi is overthrown. I've heard similar lines before but always from American neocons.

Gadhafi should only be overthrown if that's what the majority of Libyans want, but we don't know, or obviously even care, what the majority of Libyans want. And they can't tell us because they are too busy dodging the damn bombs we're dropping on them.

The NDP used to be the party that peace activists flocked to, but every single one of them approved of this. They try to take the high road by suggesting that we can only completely destroy this country if we increase humanitarian aid.

The war profiteers were high fiving in the background because they are all too often the recipients of "humanitarian aid". The most humanitarian thing to do would be to stop dropping bombs.

The rebel forces have been unable to capitalize because there are not enough of them to move in. A ragtag group of Islamic fundamentalists, some according to West Point with ties to Al-Qaeda , and former Gadhafi forces who may or may not remain loyal to the cause.



Only Elizabeth May can claim any moral authority here. I am so proud of her.

I keep thinking of the young NDPer with the T-shirt 'I still hate George Bush'. I think she needs to put it away now.

Roland Paris, director of the Centre for International Policy Studies at the University of Ottawa, believes that we are creating another quagmire.

After stumbling into an Afghan mission based on mistaken assumptions, surely we have an obligation to scrutinize the details of any plans for international participation in Libya’s reconstruction…

For starters, is there a plan to deploy ground forces in Libya? If so, under what circumstances? Who would provide troops? How quickly could they be deployed, where would they go, what would they do?

Another priority may be restoring basic services to the population, including food, medical supplies, health care, electricity, fuel, policing and justice. How can international actors help to provide these services without engendering problems of dependency, economic distortion and local resentment that are sometimes the unintended effects of massive aid interventions?

What about the work of rebuilding Libya? The rebel council’s democratic principles offer a foundation, but a thin one. What role will the UN and other outsiders play? The notion that Libyans should “own” their political transition makes sense, but what does this mean in practice? What if Libya can’t support Western-style democracy? In the wide spectrum between Col. Gadhafi and Thomas Jefferson, what outcomes would be acceptable, and to whom?

All important questions, but ones that we may have the answers to. The rebel forces already have a bank and a national oil company, courtesy of Canada and the USA.

And they have also hired the most expensive lobbying firm on the planet. Who is paying them I wonder?

I see another decade of war. Harper already bored with Afghanistan, leaving a stronger Taliban and an insanely corrupt government behind, will probably move our troops to Libya.

Lawrence Martin told us in his book Harperland, that our current warring prime minister, does not seek peace in the world, but follows the neocon doctrine of a 'Clash of Civilizations'.

Jack Layton had better start paying attention. His job is to oppose this government, not hold their hand while they are out buying bombs.

He suggested as much to the Liberals when they were the official opposition. Now he needs to put his money where his mouth is.

We Knew it Was Just a Matter of Time. Libya Open for Business!

It didn't take long for the vultures to swoop down on Libya. News that Washington's largest lobbying group, Patton Boggs, has been hired to sell the rebel army as the new government of the oil rich country, should come as no surprise. The firm has been behind international trade deals for decades, and has obviously found a willing trade partner.

And Halliburton has already been hovering over Libya.

"We hope Iraq will be the first domino and that Libya and Iran will follow. We don't like being kept out of markets because it gives our competitors an unfair advantage," John Gibson, chief executive of Halliburton's Energy Service Group ("Halliburton Eager for Work Across the Mideast," International Oil Daily, May 7, 2003)

And now that the Harper Doctrine has replaced the Bush Doctrine, those vultures are ready to land.

Of course, they will claim that they are just doing God's work. Hallelujah!

"I am going to put an end to all that is holy and fill the world with violence, so that Neocons can extract the oil from the bowels of the earth. Thou must be clear minded and self-controlled, while thou bombeth the crap out of everything so that the profits of disciples, Halliburton and SNC Lavelin, can flow with the crude down the river of greed. So sayeth the lord of free markets" - Their god

Rape as Weapon of War is Bigger Issue

During the debate over the extension of the Libyan "mission", NDP foreign affairs critic, Paul Dewar, brought up the subject of rape as a weapon of war.

He wanted the Conservatives to promise to address the issue.

This may have been inspired by the change in the language of our foreign policy, that prevents Canadian foreign aid workers from discussing victims of sexual abuse, among other things.

However, there are several reasons why this point shouldn't be raised at this time.

First off, the International Criminal Court already prosecutes those who use rape as a weapon of war, so we don't, in this instance, need to take it any further.

Secondly, headlines of systematic rape in Libya, have a propaganda feel, so may cloud the reasons for this war. Bringing it up in Parliament, enables the Conservatives to justify their bombing.

But the most important factor, is the issue of rape itself. We have to understand Libyan culture.

According to a report by CNN, while the ICC is gathering evidence, the rebel forces are destroying proof of sexual assaults themselves.

"There was a commander here at the eastern front in Misrata named Mohamed al-Halboos; he ordered all the (rebel) fighters to give him all the rape videos they find on Gadhafi soldiers' cell phones. I heard that he used to destroy every rape video he got," al-Kabeir said.

Asked why potential evidence of war crimes being carried out by pro-Gadhafi forces would be destroyed by rebel forces, he cited the heavy stigma that Libyan culture attaches to the victims of such crimes.

"Aside from being a heinous crime, rape is perceived here in our culture as damaging not only for the girl, but also the whole family," he said. In fact, he added, rape is such a taboo here that some victims' families would rather erase potential evidence than risk living with the shame.

It's a very sensitive issue, and normally I would feel, that if it is indeed taking place, it should be brought to our attention.

But in this case, those raped could be victimized twice.

I like Paul Dewar very much and understand where he's coming from. But foreign policy can be very complicated, which is why we need a diplomatic corp, that is respected and listened to, so we don't trip up and make matters worse.

After reading Naomi Klein's Shock Doctrine, I can't help but think that this is just another self serving attack on an oil rich nation, since it comes after Gadhafi was demanding more money from the oil companies.

However, understanding the enormity of western imperialism, I know that realistically, it's not something we can put an end to tomorrow. So for the time being, we must demand that human rights are protected.

And in Libya, that means profound descretion. That doesn't mean turning our back on rape, but making sure that we don't sensationalize the issue, leaving it to the experts.

That's my two cents worth.

Jack Layton May Have Sold Out for Nothing

I mentioned yesterday being surprised that every single NDP voted in favour of bombing the hell out of Libya.

Layton performed his usual posturing, saying yes drop those 1000 bombs, but then I'm going to say enough. What an amazing blowhard he has turned out to be.

Well, Jack, you may have sold out a little too soon. Apparently Gaddafi is now negotiating with the rebels.

I know that the NDP could not stop Harper, but a "no" vote would have been symbolic. For years those on the left have been critical of the Liberals, for too often supporting American Imperialism. The NDP would never do that, or so we were led to believe.

Well, guess what? Not only would they, but they did.

And in a surprising twist, the Republicans are questioning the U.S. reason for the "mission". (bombs for oil)

Republican leaders demanded a written justification of military involvement in Libya from President Barack Obama on Wednesday as the traditionally hawkish party shows signs of losing its appetite for war.

This puts the NDP just right of the Republicans.

Poor Harper. If there is a truce, and peace is negotiated with Gaddafi's son, and a promised election on their terms, what is he going to do with all those damn bombs? $130 million worth.

What a screwed up country we've become. And just think. Another 4-5 years of a Harper majority with Jack Layton "holding the bully's coat". I'm so thrilled.

What is Really Going on in Libya?

I can't help feeling that this so called "mission" in Libya is just more blood for oil. You can't save people by bombing them, and yet we are bombing the hell out of the place.

I'm no fan of Muammar Qaddafi, but the oil companies were, and in 2008, lobbied the U.S. government on Qaddafi's behalf.

Steve Mufson writes in the Washington Post:

It struck some visitors to the Houston office of ConocoPhillips chief executive Jim Mulva as peculiar that he displayed a photograph of himself and Libyan leader Moammar Gaddafi.

They were an odd couple: a veteran of corporate politics at a U.S. oil company and the colonel who had survived four decades of confrontation with the West while maintaining repressive rule over his North African nation.

But we learn from Wikileaks, that the love affair ended when the Libyan dictator began making demands that the oil companies pay more. Big mistake.

After making some very compelling arguments against extending the "mission", I was surprised that the NDP supported the continuation of this war.

Apparently, only Elizabeth May voted for sanity.

Canada has also announced its support for the National Transitional Council, which surprisingly already boasts a bank and national oil company. Its interim leader, Mustafa Abdul Jalil , seems a decent sort, but what do we really know of this group?

In 2007, Westpoint tied several factions to Al Qaeda and according to the UK Telegraph:

The result of the present inquiry is that the Libyan branch of Al Qaeda represents a continuum with the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group centered in Darnah and Benghazi. The ethnic base of the Libyan Islamic fighting group is apparently to be found in the anti-Qaddafi Harabi tribe, the tribe which makes up the vast majority of the rebel council including the two dominant rebel leaders, Abdul Fatah Younis and Mustafa Abdul Jalil. The evidence thus suggests that the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, the elite of the Harabi tribe, and the rebel council supported by Obama all overlap for all practical purposes.

Peter MacKay now admits to not knowing much about the NTC, but shouldn't he have done a bit of research first?

Mustafa Abdul Jalil is an Islamic fundamentalist, which doesn't mean terrorist, but what kind of government would be replacing Qaddafi? And are we now going to train and arm the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group?

In the video below you'll hear a former CIA agent say that we should not get involved. He sees a repeat of the Taliban, that Ronald Reagan trained and armed.

I think we are making a huge mistake. If the oil companies want Libya's oil, they should pay for it like everyone else.

When a Dictator Becomes a Problem

Because of the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie Scotland, thought to be "blowback" (1) for Ronald Reagan's aerial raid on Libya, that killed Muammar Gaddafi's stepdaughter, the UN imposed sanctions on the country. These were renewed after several other infractions, including the development of nuclear weapons.

But the embargoes were finally lifted in 2004, and Libya was open for business, especially in the oil fields.

Paul Martin discusses his first visit to Libya in 2004, certainly newsworthy. But after a private meeting with the Libyan dictator, and expecting the usual questions from the media, he emerged from the tent to discover that there were no reporters there at all.

Apparently at the time, two camels decided to have sex, and the media were preoccupied with that (2), and not what transpired behind closed tent flaps, or what it meant for Canada. Enough said.

However, Canadian companies have fared very well in what might be considered virgin territory. In 2009, the Harper government extended Most-Favoured Nation tariff status to Libya, to reduce trade barriers.

Libya created a Privatization & Investment Board and welcomed U.S. investment, although on their terms.

Libya had survived the recent economic crisis in part due to their isolationist policies, so may not have been willing to simply hand over the keys to the kingdom. They wanted to maintain some state control.

This could explain why, when the protests first sprang up in Libya, the U.S. immediately offered to help oust Gadhafi. According to the Associated Press:
Clinton: U.S. stands ready to aid Libyan opposition

The Obama administration stands ready to offer "any type of assistance" to Libyans seeking to oust Moammar Gadhafi, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said Sunday, adding a warning to other African nations not to let mercenaries go to the aid of the longtime dictator ... Clinton spoke to reporters one day after President Barack Obama branded Gadhafi an illegitimate ruler who must leave power immediately.

"We are just at the beginning of what will follow Gadhafi. ... But we've been reaching out to many different Libyans who are attempting to organize in the east and as the revolution moves westward there as well," she said. "I think it's way too soon to tell how this is going to play out, but we're going to be ready and prepared to offer any kind of assistance that anyone wishes to have from the United States."

The U.S. was eager to take sides in a protest that had quickly turned into a civil war.

Is this just a continuation of the Shock Doctrine, Naomi Klein writes of?

Much is being made of the dictator's detention centres, and yet the Canadian firm SNC Lavalin, was in the process of building a new one.

When the Canadian Parliament voted on military engagement, there were reports that as many as 10,000 civilians had been killed. We had a moral obligation to prevent more deaths.

And yet we are now ourselves killing civilians.

Canada has dropped 240 "smart bombs", and Stephen Harper is looking to buy 1300 more.

It's so much better to be killed by a 'smart bomb' than a dumbass one.

Stephen Harper is now looking to Parliament to extend the "mission", which we all know is a war for corporate interests.

It's only symbolic, given that he has a majority, and as prime minister, can make these decisions on his own. However, it presents another test for the NDP.

Foreign Affairs critic Paul Dewar, is noncommittal, but if they reject the motion, they may be called "soft on terror". Layton is still living down his "Taliban Jack" monicker. However, if they support the war, and things go bad, they will have no legitimate right to blame it all on the Conservatives.

Should be interesting.

Sources:

1. Blowback: The Costs and Consequences of American Empire, By Chalmers Johnson, Henry Holt and Company, 2000, Pg. 8

2. Hell or High Water: My Life in and Out of Politics, By Paul Martin, McClelland & Stewart, 2008, ISBN: 978-0-7710-5692-5 5, Pg. 336-337

Venezuela's President Hugo Chávez May be the Peace Broker for Libya

Reports from Al Jazeera, are that the Venezualan president has offered to mediate for Muammar Gaddafi and the Opposition forces.

I think we may see a shift, where the Arab League will have more of a say in their own politics. After all it was the West that put most of these ruthless dictators in place.

But with so many American and Canadian corporations exploiting the natural resources in the region, I'm not sure this will be seen as good news.

Both Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi and Amr Moussa, the president of the Arab League, agreed to a peace plan proposed by Venezuela's President Hugo Chávez to end the crisis in the North African country, Reuters said on Thursday. A senior government official contacted by the London-based news agency said that he did not know what Gaddafi had said about Chávez's idea to send representatives from several countries to Libya.

However, Arab news network Al Jazeera said in a breaking news story that during a phone conversation between Gaddafi and Chávez, the North African strongman accepted the plan. Should it be implemented, the plan involves sending a commission from Latin America, Europe and the Middle East to Libya. This would imply a concrete rapprochement and "a negotiated outcome between the Libyan leader and rebel forces," Reuters reported.

These countries have seen so much death and destruction, and have little reason to trust proposals from this side of the world. "Latin America, Europe and the Middle East". They will have democracy on their terms, not ours.

The West's Interest in Libya is Liquid and Crude

The Libyan crisis has brought something else to the surface. The West's involvement in that country's oil industry.

I already mentioned Canada's involvement in the National Oil Corporation, but Thomas Walkom is questioning, as I did, just where Canada stands in this:

Why does Stephen Harper seem more engaged in Libya’s would-be revolution than he was in Egypt’s? The answer is simple. Oil. This also explains, incidentally, the curious nature of Ottawa’s economic sanctions against the Libyan regime of dictator Moammar Gadhafi. Canadian firms — most notably Montreal-based SNC-Lavalin and Calgary-based Suncor Energy — are not permitted to engage in financial transactions with the Libyan government. But they are allowed to continue operating commercially in Libya.

Given that both deal only with the oil-rich regime (Lavalin is building pipelines, a prison and an airport; Suncor has government concessions to drill for oil) it’s not at clear what these so-called sanctions mean in practice. Nor is it clear that Ontario automaker Chrysler, which is backed in part by money from the Gadhafi regime’s Libyan Investment Authority, has to do anything differently.

So much for "ethical oil".

In the United States there are also concerns over their business interests: Libya's Billions Invested In U.S. Private Equity, Big Banks

In the wake of the Bush administration's lifting of sanctions against Libya in 2004, following Gaddafi's agreement to give up weapons of mass destruction, American businesses and private equity firms also came flocking to the North African country to court government and LIA officials. As The Huffington Post reported last week, a broad coalition of U.S. oil companies, defense manufacturers and businesses lobbied the U.S. government to repair relations with the longtime international pariah and to take advantage of business opportunities in the country.

The secretive Libyan Investment Authority has reportedly invested hundreds of millions of dollars in Goldman Sachs Asset Management funds, including a loan fund designed to invest in new hedge funds set up by the Kuwait Investment Authority. Goldman Sachs already has a relationship with Libya -- in 2008, Goldman was the first U.S. bank to get a contract with the country following the removal of sanctions, when it was hired by Libya's central bank to provide
information on its behalf to credit rating agencies. A spokesperson for Goldman
Sachs did not return calls seeking comment.

And not long after, Stephen Harper also loosened the noose. Serves them right if these businesses lose their shirts, but the problem is that they will probably pass all of the losses off on the taxpayers. AGAIN!

Will Canada be on the Wrong Side of the Crisis in Libya?

As most already know, Libya has turned into a powder keg, and while I agree that something has to be done to remove the dictator who refuses to leave, we have to be careful that it doesn't become another invasion.

Maybe with so many resources tied up in Iraq and Afghanistan, the U.S. will not lead the charge.

The latest plans appear to be for a "no fly zone", though it's proving to be rather complicated, with China and Russia rejecting the notion. The British Prime Minister wanted to arm the rebels, the absolute wrong thing to do.

But where does Canada fit into all of this? We have joined the international community in freezing the assets of Moammar Gadhafi, but John Baird is suggesting that it could be business as usual.

Strict financial sanctions against Libya won't stop Canadian companies from operating in the country, government House leader John Baird says. "This doesn't eliminate commercial activities. What it does do is restrain financial transactions with the Libyan government and with the Libyan Central Bank," Baird said Monday morning.

A little premature when we have no idea who will be governing the country.

I was watching some of the live feed today and they were showing the detention centres operated by Gadhafi, and I felt warm all over knowing that a Canadian company had the contract to build more. Is that the kind of business Baird is referring to?

Or is it just the oil?

First and foremost, the citizens must be rescued, but then they must be allowed to decide for themselves who will lead their country. We don't need another Karzai.

And it will be up to them, whether or not Canada will be allowed to conduct business, but don't hold your breath for those made in Canada prisons. Sorry SNC Lavelin.

Is Canada Going to Invade Libya for the National Oil Corporation?

Here we go again. We learn that a US warship is headed to Libya and naturally Canada is right behind them, ready for another invasion.

How soon before we hear "terrorists" tossed around.

OTTAWA - The Canadian navy is preparing to send a warship to the waters off Libya, adding to the international military buildup in the region. Defence sources say the formal announcement will come later today. The Halifax-based frigate is expected to join an American carrier battle group led by the nuclear-powered USS Enterprise.

News of the short-notice deployment came on the same day as a Canadian military Hercules transport, en route to pick up stranded oil workers, was turned back from Libya.

Of course it wouldn't have anything at all to do with oil interests. From June of 2008, Petro-Canada and Libyan National Oil Corporation Sign New EPSA Contracts.

Petro-Canada announced today that it has signed six new exploration and production sharing agreements (EPSAs) with the Libyan National Oil Corporation (NOC). The commercial terms of the new agreements, including the signing bonus, match those announced when Heads of Agreement were signed in December, 2007 and were ratified as of the signing, with an effective date of January 1, 2008.

Leave them to hell alone. We know how this will end if it ever does. The U.S. will put another puppet dictator in place and nothing will change for the Libyan people. I am so ashamed.

Linda McQuaig was right. We will forever be holding the bully's coat.

Putting a Value on Human Life and Why Corporate Rule is Wrong

With the situation in Libya becoming increasingly volatile, Canadian citizens are there waiting to be rescued. But the corporate insurance company won't do it because of the cost of potential liability.

Like GM determining that an American life was worth $ 6.19, and Stephen Harper hiring a private firm to place a value on the life of an Afghan child, it has been determined that a Canadian life is not worth much at all.

Conservative MPs are on a cross country spending blitz with our credit cards, making the Canadian taxpayer fund their re-election campaign, but we have no money to cover the liability of saving human lives. And of course the corporations are exploiting this to justify raising the price of gas.

That's the trouble with corporate rule. They reduce us all to dollars and cents.

Libyan Army Officers Urging Soldiers to Stand With Protesters

As rumours abound that Libyan dictator Muammar Gaddafi has fled the country, the military officers are now encouraging their soldiers to fight with the people.

I haven't seen anything like this since the civil rights movement of the 1960's.

A change is gonna' come.

Stephen Harper is urging the Libyan government to stop attacking the demonstrators. How hypocritical. Does he forget his G-20 fiasco? He needs to just sit down and shut up.

This is a people's movement and he is not people.

We are lucky in Canada that we won't have to resort to bloodshed to oust our dictator. We will do it with an election.

The UK Guardian is wondering where Gaddafi will be exiled. With all of the peoples' movement across the globe, there will be fewer friendly nations.

This is the Wiki generation, tired of media spin and corrupt governments. Tired of being told that corporations come before citizens. The Social Welfare State against the Corporate Welfare State.

This is very exhilarating.

UPDATE: Also Libyan officials.