The race is on for Libya's oil, with Britain and France both staking a claim

[EFerrari]

The race is on for Libya's oil, with Britain and France both staking a claim

Rebel leaders dismiss suggestions that firm promises have been made, but supportive countries look set to benefit

Julian Borger and Terry Macalister
guardian.co.uk, Thursday 1 September 2011 20.55 BST


(Humanitarian French foreign minister)

The starting pistol has been fired on bids by Britain and other western powers to secure a slice of the oil prize in Libya when France said it was "fair and logical" for its companies to benefit.

Alain Juppé, the French foreign minister, planted his flag in the sand as the Guardian was told that BP was already holding private talks with members of Libya's interim government.

Libya is a vital energy producer, and BP had previously committed itself to spending more than $1bn on exploration plans under Muammar Gaddafi's government.

Shell was also becoming active before the civil war broke out, as was Total of France, but the conflict over the past few months has brought the country's existing oil production of 1.6m barrels a day – 2% of the world's total – to a halt.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/sep/01/libya-oil

[McCamy Taylor]

1. Britain? Really? I thought Libya was pissed at them.

[EFerrari]

4. I haven't heard that. Brit Special forces have been there, "training".

[malaise]

2. Now that's humanitarianism at work

It was always about oil
:puke:

[EFerrari]

3. I hope CIA has lots of work for Juan Cole

because he shot his cred with everyone else. :puke:

[PufPuf23]

8. Libya was about oil, a strong and united African Union, and the potential

for a second Russian naval base on the Mediterrarean (there is a Russian Naval base in Syria).

Quadaffi had plans to diversify oil markets with a bigger slice of the pie going to China, India, and Russia and was in negotiations for a basing agreement with Russia.

The strong African Union would have been based on their own currency and not the World Bank, IMF, etc.

[sabrina 1]

30. Exactly. People don't seem to know what why Qadaffi was really

ousted. Thank you for putting so succinctly.

[malaise]

39. Ding ding

We have a winner :hi:

[Bryn]

5. Oh, Dear

Oil is nothing, but bloody. Wish I didn't have to drive nor use electricity. We should be going for better, cleaner energy. :(

[tabasco]

6. British and French companies were already there before the rebel insurgency

Weird, huh?

Seems like the Libyan government is shopping for the best deal, but it's cool to make it sound like the evil Europeans are colonizing.

[EFerrari]

7. LOL

[tabasco]

44. Wow

You sure told me.

Typical insubstantial post from you.

[Arctic Dave]

9. Shopping for the best deal? LOL

Libyan had one of the best dollar per barrel returns on their oil in the world. I believe the only country who gets a better deal are the Venezualans.

You sound foolish with your statement, I would delete it if I were you or people will think you don't know what you are talking about.

[joshcryer]

16. Nah, Libya is tops, highest percentage of revnue of all (90%). The TNC won't renegotiate...

...the contracts because they already have brilliant revenue sharing scheme with the two top oil producers (BP and Total). Basically they'd be stupid to say "we'll renegotiate" particularly because France and Britain would try to lower the revenue sharing.

New contracts may come along but BP and Total make up the lions share of the contracts.

[tabasco]

43. What makes you think they'll get a worse deal with the new govt.

Please provide evidence for your statement or STFU.

[joshcryer]

17. No, they're denouncing the letter, and have repeatedly stated that they won't renegotiate...

...the contracts.

I know that people here are against the rebels but the rebels are keeping Gaddafi's 90% revenue sharing deal (ie, Libya gets 90% of all revenues Total and BP get 10%).

[sabrina 1]

21. If the rebels do not cooperate, they will meet the same fate

Qadaffi met. Just like the Iraqis who actually thought they would have a say in how their resources were distributed. Had Qadaffi not threatened their profits, he would still be there. He made the same mistake Saddam made. You'd think these dictators would learn, they, and that includes the 'rebels' cannot win against the Western powers.

[joshcryer]

24. When you are wrong will you admit it? Because you are dead wrong.

The Libyan revolutionaries have stated time and time again that they will not renegotiate. That they will not allow foreign bases. That makes them anti-imperialist, unlike Gaddafi as he was open to negotiation and open to new contracts and even open to Russian military bases.

[sabrina 1]

26. The Iraqis said the same thing.

If I am wrong, I will be happy to admit it. It would mean a miracle has occurred and the Western Colonialists for the first time in history, have walked away from the resources of a country they helped 'liberate' on the pretext of 'humanitarian assistance'. I love miracles, I just haven't seen one ever but if this one occurs, trust me, I will be more than happy to, not only acknowledge it, but to celebrate it. I'll have a party to celebrate it. Seriously.

[joshcryer]

28. What are you talking about? They're getting the resources of the country.

They have the largest oil contracts in Libya, which will last until 2033. Until the oil is basically gone!

The difference is that the revolutionaries have held all the bargaining chips this entire time. So OK western states spend a billion dollars to get rid of someone who is unpredictable (and that is why Gaddafi was ousted) and the off chance that they'd get oil contracts renegotiated (they could not have predicted that the revolutionaries would reject renegotiation).

Western powers were owned completely and any attempts to meddle in their affairs will be fought against. Bank on it.

[Selatius]

32. It can work if the rebels don't fracture, but the rebellion was never uniform to begin with.

I mean, there's a tense stand-off between rebel groups in the city of Misrata, and vultures would willingly take advantage of any internal divisions like that.

[joshcryer]

34. The lack of uniformity is their greatest asset, imo.

Disorganization, decentralization, conflict, these are things that are necessary if you are going to unify. It sounds counterproductive or even crazy but think about it. If you had a homogeneous collective such a collective is prone to coopting. Consider the near appointment of Albarrani Shkal to the leadership of the Tripoli brigades (mostly western mountain fighters, Berbers, and Misrata citizens, people besieged by Gaddafi for 4 months), there were http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/aug/29/misrata-rebels-defy-libya-regime">immediate protests against this act. Jabril http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/world/2011/0902/1224303347313.html">later backtracked on this matter.

The divisions are not sectarian, they're pragmatic and political, they're public and genuine, they're open. And that is what makes them an important driver for any revolution. You want this sort of political atmosphere because if you don't have it you will find yourself falling into despotism.

If all of the rebels all agreed on every decision the NTC made, then it would be trivial for an outside entity to say "Let's infiltrate the NTC and make sure that they do our bidding." But because this is not the case, and because the NTC is under overwhelming pressure to do what is right for Libya, this simply is not going to happen. That's what happens when a baker takes up an AK47 and fights against tyranny. They won't stand for more of it.

[Selatius]

35. I may have to agree with you on that.

I think it's important for any revolution to have some form of internal checks and balances built in. By that, I mean I think it's important for there to be internal dialogue between different groups or to have the free flow of information and freedom of expression, but I would say this as a matter of principle. What use is there for a revolution if the vanguard that led the revolution instantly begins stifling debate once it becomes the governing power?

It's funny because I just finished watching a video over at Al Jazeera about the Cuban Communist Party implementing partial privatization schemes in that country by issuing business licenses to people and dismissing 500,000 public workers. When Castro came to power, there was, at first, initial dialogue over what economic model the country should adopt. Castro simply felt they should adopt the Soviet centralized model where the state produces all and has no markets, while Che Guevara was wanting something else like some form of market socialism. Well, once Che died, Castro simply had his way, and any discussion beyond that came to an end. Today, with the government there trying attempts at reform, I'd say it probably is a hinderance and not an asset for the Party to stifle debate because it won't get feedback on the success or failure of its policies at reform.

[EFerrari]

41. The contrast between the Egyptian revolution and the so called Libyan one

couldn't be more stark. In Egypt, activists have extended arguments over the means, over how things should be done. They spend a lot of time networking and building their movement. Of course in Libya, there has been no net and the number of Libyans using something like Twitter has been too small to measure. As a result, we don't know who the rebels are aside from the corporate media reports whereas it has been pretty easy to find the leadership in Egypt and follow their different efforts and conversations.

But the Egyptians refused violence even when they were being mowed down except for defending Tahrir with rocks. One of the bloggers I follow has a joke about using the internet to download instructions for how to make a catapult. So far though, they have avoided glorifying violence or armed struggle.

[Booster]

10. Oh shit. Now we'll go to war with Britain and France.

[amborin]

11. light, sweet crude....F&E get it from Libya

[sabrina 1]

12. It was obscene to watch that meeting where the 'spoils of war'

iow, Libya's resources were being divvied up. Seeing all the old Colonialists, France, who got the biggest share so far, Britain et al, gathered together unable to wait to get their hands on Libya's oil and other resources. You could practically see them drooling. Surreal in a way.

It would have looked better if they could have waited a week or so, but they looked like kids on Christmas morning, all smiles and ready to stake their claims. I see where the Russians and Chinese have been told basically that they may not fare so well considering their non-involvement in the 'rebellion'.

I hope that the Chinese and the Russians who, by contrast to Western Powers who use war and invasion to accomplish their goals, have been doing things the old-fashioned way, signing contracts and paying for the resources, having lost out to the warmongers, don't decide that they too need to start invading countries now. It would be wise not to put such ideas in their heads or we could be facing WW111.

It is a sick world we live in, or at least I should say, it is controlled by the most insane among us.

[EFerrari]

13. Latuff has been all over this.

[sabrina 1]

14. Lol, that says what I was trying to say, only much more succinctly

and effectively. I am sure that is how the rest of the world sees things, especially the world outside of Europe and the US.

[joshcryer]

18. What are you talking about? Where has contract renegotiation been mentioned here?

Libya still gets 90% of the revenues. There's no controversy here. France and Britain might try, but the Libyan people aren't going to buy into Gaddafi forgeries.

[sabrina 1]

20. I remember the purple fingers in Iraq. The stories of how they

were now a 'democracy' and would be able to 'control their own destinies' and 'their oil'. The righties believe it, we on the Left never did.

Then, Kucinich released the information that hidden in one of the bills before Congress was a clause requiring that the Iraqis hand over more than 80% of their oil to Multi-national Corps. Kucinich was threatened with being sanctioned by Congress for telling the American people about that clause. That clause was the reason for the delay in handing over control to the Iraqis of their own country. Until they signed, the 'liberators' were not going to give them their country back. They signed it eventually.

But the Iraqi knew what was going on, they took to the streets to demonstrate, peacefully, against their new 'democratic government' handing over their resources. That protest was put down brutally by the puppet government.

The pretext of a 'democracy' in Iraq continues, although no one with a brain cell functioning, believes it.

Earlier this year, Iraqis joined the Egyptians and Tunisians in peacefully protesting against the presence of foreigners on their soil, against the military bases and the handing over of their resources to the 'world market'. Again, their protests were brutally put down, with 29 people murdered by the new, 'democratic' government and hundreds more jailed and tortured. Women have lost the rights they had under Saddam who, in order to appear 'secular' to the west, had given women rights even American women did not have, such as equal pay for equal work. That is all gone now.

Poor Libya.

[EFerrari]

22. If I were still studying folklore, I'd file this under "Snipe Hunt". n/t

[sabrina 1]

25. Yes, that would be a good way to file it.

I feel like we are back in 2003 when Rummy had convinced the rightwingers that it was all about democracy. I argued with them every day for nearly two years (back then I had the naive idea that rightwingers could be convinced they were wrong if they saw some evidence :eyes:). After Kucinich's revelation, I went back to ask them what they though of the Iraq War now. Airc, they came up with another excuse. As we used to say back then, Bush could murder a baby on the WH lawn and they would find a way to excuse it.

Libya so reminds me of those days. Except now it's Democrats I'm arguing with ~ :-)

[joshcryer]

27. All I get is dishonesty. The article says nothing about renegotiation...

...and indeed, no one here can provide evidence that renegotiation is being done. So, instead of saying "well gee, the NATO imperialist interests got fucked by the revolutionaries" we say "but but they'll meet the same fate!"

The fact that French interests are trying to pull a forgery to try to make some sort of case for a better oil deal proves that their bargaining position is pitiful at best.

[joshcryer]

23. Please stop comparing Libya to Iraq, they're nothing alike.

Meanwhile your "sympathy" rings false because the strong and courageous Libyan freedom fighters will not allow a renegotiation as I've been saying from the beginning and as I've been correct all along. For some reason because of propaganda they have to repeat the fact that they're not going to renegotiate every other week when someone comes out and lies about their contracts.

[sabrina 1]

29. Everyone compares them because they now owe the same people

who are in Iraq and Afghanistan. It doesn't matter what the rebels want, that's what you don't get. The rebels would all be in one of Qadaffi's prisons or dead, if NATO and Qatar, and Kuwait had not come to their rescue. They could not have defeated Qadaffi without that help. And you think they can stand up to NATO and its allies?? What do you think will happen to them if they cause problems for NATO? What happened to Saddam, Qadaffi, the Taliban, Noriega when they decided to stand up to the West?

All NATO has to do if that happens, is to do is to repeat what they did with the rebels, help the other side with their special secret forces who will be on the ground anyhow, watching every move the rebels make. The only way they can have some semblance of a 'democracy' is to fully cooperate with the Western forces regarding resources, digging for more oil and other business contracts. And if you think otherwise, you are dreaming. That is why I said I feel sorry for them. Nothing is in their hands unless what they want is what NATO wants regarding Libya's resources.

[joshcryer]

31. NATO has no bargaining power and is already saying they will not deploy troops for any reason.

The UN isn't even being allowed to deploy "peacekeeping troops." Again, the neocons are begging for this, they want to be able to deploy these troops because without them the imperialists have very little bargaining power.

As the ardently anti-interventionist Gilbert Achcar http://www.democracynow.org/2011/8/24/the_1_billion_dollar_question_who">says:

But between this and believing that NATO is now in control of Libya, there is, you know, a very far cry, because how can-I mean, even if you take countries like Iraq or Afghanistan with NATO troops on the ground, and massively in Iraq for a long while, they weren't even able to control the country. So how do you want NATO or the West to control Libya by remote control, without any troops on the ground- And that's why some people, like Richard Haass from Council on Foreign Relations, are now saying-you know, claiming-asking Washington to send boots on the ground. But this is something that has been adamantly rejected by the rebellion from day one. They asked for air cover. They asked for air protection. But they were adamant from the start at rejecting any form of intervention of troops on the ground. And they are still very much on this position. They have even made statements just recently that they would not allow NATO to establish any bases in their country. And we can see many signs, like, for instance, refusing to-saying that they would not hand over Gaddafi or his sons to the International Criminal Court, but through-I mean, to have trials in Libya itself. So, this shows the limitation, whatever they claim in Washington or London or Paris, the limitation of their real leverage over the Libyan situation. They had a leverage as long as-and they still have a more limited one- as long as Gaddafi's forces are there and as long as the war is going on. But as soon as this will vanish, then the leverage that they will have will be extremely diminished.

Nothing is more ridiculing of the Libyan people than to think that they'll just bow down to the whims of the imperialist when it is they who have been anti-imperialist all along! Nothing is more ridiculing to the Libyan revolutionaries than to think that it's remotely possible to foment a civil war ("repeat what they did with the rebels") in a peoples so unified!

An irrelevant small group of special forces who cannot even make themselves known to the rebels (they have to wear rebel uniforms to mix in) does not have the capacity or ability to effect the kind of change you're talking about. The revolution was widespread and popular, it was not some sort of whim.

[EFerrari]

33. People keep telling me, this isn't Iraq.

But they never seem to have considered that it could be any number of other places. That you even have to explain it is almost absurd.

The US and France have been partners in disaster capitalism since the first Haitian revolution. They're not going to change their m.o. now.

[inna]

37. "the strong and courageous Libyan freedom fighters"

omfg. admit it, you crack yourself up when you post (patently absurd) shit like that.

[EFerrari]

40. This is why I love ignore. n/t

[Starry Messenger]

15. The Berlin Conference, Part 2

Rebels Inc© are open for business.

[joshcryer]

19. You don't like that the Libyans are keeping 90% of the revenues?

Seems France and Britain want to renegotiate!

[inna]

36. KR - and please be sure to read this if you haven't already:

http://www.counterpunch.org/2011/08/31/the-top-ten-myths-in-the-war-against-libya/


(BTW and as a side point, oil is only a part of the reason why the evil, evil Gaddafi has been in the crosshairs for literally decades.
.... Interestingly enough, Obama outdoes Reagan... yet again. :shrug: )

[marmar]

38. Quelle surprise.

nt

[Safetykitten]

42. Quite. Such. A. Surprise.

[Romulox]

45. Remember "No blood for oil!"? Seems quaint, now... nt