Libya Tells Iran: Be Like us and Comply with IAEA
Read the article first, and then my response.
The New York Times > Reuters > International > Libya Tells Iran: Be Like us and Comply with IAEA
That's a good one.
Let's clarify a couple of significant differences in the positions of Iran and Libya, shall we?
First, Iran does not suffer from dillusions of grandeur. It IS actually a much larger country, with a larger population, more natural resources, including maybe 3X the proven petro-reserves Libya has, and an educated percentage of the population that CAN develop technologically (for peaceful or other ends). Iran's Islamic government was instated after a nation-wide revolution that overthrew a US appointed puppet that made it very clear that the common Iranians were not really his priority. Not everyone that revolted was for an Islamic government, for sure, but the fact that this government followed a popular revolution is important.
Iran is also strategically much more threatening to US interests in the region...actually regions since Iran straddles both the Middle East and Central Asia. I think it's safe to say that Iran's military is probably off than Iraq's was after a decade plus of sanctions. Geographically, Iran borders Turkey, Iraq, Afghanistan, Turkmenistan, Pakistan, and Russia. Iran has also proven that it will put it's money where its mouth is regarding the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.
On the other hand, Libya has a population of 6 million (a liberal estimate), over 90% of the country is desert (hardly a chance for guerilla warfare except in the eastern green mountain area). Libya does have substantial amounts of proven oil reserves, but let's put this in perspective: Saudi Arabia's 261.7 billion barrels of proven reserves tops the list of the top 10 countries; Iran is third with 100.1; Libya is number nine, with 30.0 billion barrels of proven oil reserves. What this means is that Libya doesn't have as much negotiating leverage as oil is its number one export AND competition is tough. In game theory speak, it is more beneficial for Libya to cooperate than to risk not cooperating...unlike Iran. Greatest Oil Reserves by Country, 2003
The 1969 Coup and the subsequent domestic (read oppressive) actions of the Free Generals did little to advance Libyan's technological opportunities; rather, a steady trend of the 'brain drain' phenomenon continued throughout the 70s and 80s as many who were educated abroad with the intent of returning to benefit their homeland remained abroad due to the political situation.
There are those who hail the 69 Coup as bloodless. Yes, in 1969, it was bloodless. Against the King Idris, it was bloodless. Against the broader population, especially those the regime declared enemies of the state (like the 'enemy combatant' status) in the decades to come, it was not bloodless. Finally, violence is not always bloody. I'll write more on that theme later though.
The top-down establishment of the current government of Libya leaves much to be answered regarding where the loyalties of Libyans lie. Its popular stability is a wild card while Islamic governance seems to me, at least, to be gaining popularity along with other calls for increasing (secular) democratic participation.
To continue, Libya is strategically significant, but not in the same way as Iran. The politics of the last few years indicate that the spotlight, at least for the US, is on Central Asia and the Middle East proper rather than Africa or North Africa. Libya has clout in Africa, a continent full of unstable governments easily bought out by western/US corporations to the detriment of their people. Yes, the same thing is occuring in Central Asia and the Middle East, but the people of those regions have proven far more resistant. Until the US turns its head to Africa, Libya's position of leadership is not of the utmost concern.
Finally, we turn to the issue of Israel. The world has heard plenty of anti-Israeli statements from Libya throughout the years, including willingness to lead a new war if only Egypt opened its borders and other Arab nations contributed militarily. Good one again, I say.
Unlike Iran's links to Hizbollah, a group credited with kicking Israel out of Lebanon, Qadaffi's actions prove either unwillingness or inability to continue supporting the Palestinians. Libya's share of a fund established by the League of Arab States to support Palestinians has not been paid for a few years now (unless my knowledge is out-dated, and I will research this a little later). 30,000 Palestinians who were expelled from Libya in the late 90s, to make some incomprehensible point to either the world or Arabs or Israel, were forced to set up a refugee camp between the Egyptian and Libyan border. In sum, Libya is no threat, politically or militarily, to Israel.
Now, I love my country and am happy that changes are underway, but I will NOT allow a complete cover-up of the past simply because the US wants to use Libya as a trophy for its bloody ambitions in the Middle East.
The New York Times > Reuters > International > Libya Tells Iran: Be Like us and Comply with IAEA
That's a good one.
Let's clarify a couple of significant differences in the positions of Iran and Libya, shall we?
First, Iran does not suffer from dillusions of grandeur. It IS actually a much larger country, with a larger population, more natural resources, including maybe 3X the proven petro-reserves Libya has, and an educated percentage of the population that CAN develop technologically (for peaceful or other ends). Iran's Islamic government was instated after a nation-wide revolution that overthrew a US appointed puppet that made it very clear that the common Iranians were not really his priority. Not everyone that revolted was for an Islamic government, for sure, but the fact that this government followed a popular revolution is important.
Iran is also strategically much more threatening to US interests in the region...actually regions since Iran straddles both the Middle East and Central Asia. I think it's safe to say that Iran's military is probably off than Iraq's was after a decade plus of sanctions. Geographically, Iran borders Turkey, Iraq, Afghanistan, Turkmenistan, Pakistan, and Russia. Iran has also proven that it will put it's money where its mouth is regarding the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.
On the other hand, Libya has a population of 6 million (a liberal estimate), over 90% of the country is desert (hardly a chance for guerilla warfare except in the eastern green mountain area). Libya does have substantial amounts of proven oil reserves, but let's put this in perspective: Saudi Arabia's 261.7 billion barrels of proven reserves tops the list of the top 10 countries; Iran is third with 100.1; Libya is number nine, with 30.0 billion barrels of proven oil reserves. What this means is that Libya doesn't have as much negotiating leverage as oil is its number one export AND competition is tough. In game theory speak, it is more beneficial for Libya to cooperate than to risk not cooperating...unlike Iran. Greatest Oil Reserves by Country, 2003
The 1969 Coup and the subsequent domestic (read oppressive) actions of the Free Generals did little to advance Libyan's technological opportunities; rather, a steady trend of the 'brain drain' phenomenon continued throughout the 70s and 80s as many who were educated abroad with the intent of returning to benefit their homeland remained abroad due to the political situation.
There are those who hail the 69 Coup as bloodless. Yes, in 1969, it was bloodless. Against the King Idris, it was bloodless. Against the broader population, especially those the regime declared enemies of the state (like the 'enemy combatant' status) in the decades to come, it was not bloodless. Finally, violence is not always bloody. I'll write more on that theme later though.
The top-down establishment of the current government of Libya leaves much to be answered regarding where the loyalties of Libyans lie. Its popular stability is a wild card while Islamic governance seems to me, at least, to be gaining popularity along with other calls for increasing (secular) democratic participation.
To continue, Libya is strategically significant, but not in the same way as Iran. The politics of the last few years indicate that the spotlight, at least for the US, is on Central Asia and the Middle East proper rather than Africa or North Africa. Libya has clout in Africa, a continent full of unstable governments easily bought out by western/US corporations to the detriment of their people. Yes, the same thing is occuring in Central Asia and the Middle East, but the people of those regions have proven far more resistant. Until the US turns its head to Africa, Libya's position of leadership is not of the utmost concern.
Finally, we turn to the issue of Israel. The world has heard plenty of anti-Israeli statements from Libya throughout the years, including willingness to lead a new war if only Egypt opened its borders and other Arab nations contributed militarily. Good one again, I say.
Unlike Iran's links to Hizbollah, a group credited with kicking Israel out of Lebanon, Qadaffi's actions prove either unwillingness or inability to continue supporting the Palestinians. Libya's share of a fund established by the League of Arab States to support Palestinians has not been paid for a few years now (unless my knowledge is out-dated, and I will research this a little later). 30,000 Palestinians who were expelled from Libya in the late 90s, to make some incomprehensible point to either the world or Arabs or Israel, were forced to set up a refugee camp between the Egyptian and Libyan border. In sum, Libya is no threat, politically or militarily, to Israel.
Now, I love my country and am happy that changes are underway, but I will NOT allow a complete cover-up of the past simply because the US wants to use Libya as a trophy for its bloody ambitions in the Middle East.
posted by smokey spice at 1:33 PM
2 Comments:
That's a mighty good analysis ! I just wanted to ad one thing though Libya has really sent a lot of funds to the Palestinians, and they were treated even better than us Libyans at school and Universities ( in fact they were given priority as I had to give up my place at uni because of them). Still the Libyan disengaged partially from more funding in the late 90's because the Arab League has not stood by the Libyans against the US and security council sanctions. Remember that we have requested many times that we pull from the Arab League, hence the turn towards Africa. Again I would like to say that I maybe naive as you are a politics graduate and may know better, but I am just telling you the feeling of the man on the street.
With regards to Libya being a threat , you are right it is no threat to anybody at all, let alone the US.
With regards to the point about throwing out those Palestinians in no man's land, I think it could have been done otherwise, but the point was that since at that time a Palestinian territoty had been granted they were not refugees anymore and should be allowed to return to live in Palestine, that was the point which was being made. However, since then the majority had been allowed back into Libya, and I know personnaly many of them. It was just a politcal statement, but the media only follows a story when it is 'bad' and forgets to print the good stuff. After all these people held good job, they were teachers, engineers, managers, oil workers, doctors etc....and had contracts to fulfill so they were not going to be left to go ....
I love your style and hope to read more from you soon. hayia fi aman ilah
marhaba wa shukran leek, ya highlander. i'm glad you liked my analysis and my style. i take it as a great compliment from you especially.
In response to your much appreciated points:
First, I'd like to say that i don't think it's necessary to have studied politics to have relevant and important political observations and points. The word on the street is often more significant than the abstractions and rants of the formally educated.
Aside from that, you yourself are obviously educated and well informed. To me, that means I can only learn from your feed-back and discussion.
On to the rest:
I have a lot to say about the League, but it's too much for a comment.
Yes, it's true that the League was not and is not supportive of Libya's needs and objectives. Just like they were not of Iraq's, but are suddenly open to the current interim government put in by the US (which may lead one to question a number of things about the goals of the organization). There's little question regarding the League's ability to do much aside from distribution of money from wealthier countries to poorer ones. However, the League does allow us to observe regional politics and that's what I would focus on.
Politically speaking, the League hasn't done much in the international theater aside from being the generic governmental voice for the region.
My question is why punish the weakest for the decisions of the strongest? The Palestinians and their cause have been exploited to no ends by leaders in the Middle East. Why? Because they can't fight back. There are few real consequences to mistreating them because they are politically and fiscally dependent. Now, do we support them because it's politically correct to do so or because we actually feel that thorn in our side? In supporting them, do we recognize their needs or are we playing with them as a chip in political games?
I understand the statement that was intended by the action, but like you, I think there probably was a better way to make the same point. Okay, Oslo wasn't working; okay, the Road Map was a joke. But do we have to pick on the refugees who have nowhere to turn to make that point?
My main concern, though, is that I don't think the government's actions reflect the popular support we feel towards the Palestinian cause. I realize that there are different dynamics on a social/personal level, but on a larger scale, I don't think anyone was happy with the Palestinians having to set up a camp between Egypt and Libya to prove any point. Maybe I'm wrong, but that's just how I see it.
Also, I don't know what the media says about this particular incident. I learned about it because I was there. My mother and I happened to be traveling to Egypt by bus at the time and the camps were already pretty elaborate. You're right in mentioning what happened to them afterwards, because I had no knowledge of that, but I think the whole incident was uneccessary.
I also did not know about the priority system you mentioned. How did you know that your place in university was being given to a Palestinian? Tell me more about how they were treated.
Post a Comment
<< Home