China Gave Go-Ahead For Neocolonial Capitalist
Destruction of Socialist Libya, Why? Part I
By Jay Janson
10 May, 2011
China, after indicating it was against military intervention, abstained instead of voting no on a UN Security Council resolution calling for war on the Libyan government with the fig lief of enforcing a no-fly zone to protect civilians - a war by white neocolonialist powers on their former African colony that had raised its living standard to be higher than nine European nations including Russia. The disappointed ask why.
We all held our breath. TV cameras were trained on the Chinese Ambassador to the United Nations. As the "Those against?" vote was called, peace loving people watched with a sinking feeling in their stomachs as the ambassador's hand remained on his desk.
In our mind's eye we saw the warplanes of yet another coalition of white colonial powers bombing Africa, U.S. ships firing canons and missiles, Libyans being killed and maimed and radioactivity from uranium tipped missiles, shells and bullets infecting genes for generations to come producing cancerous death and inhuman like deformities in the new born.
China had given the go ahead for the military might of the now neocolonial powers to blast away at their former colony which had raised its standard of living to a level higher than nine European nations including Russia.(1)
The Chinese Ambassador, with all the third world watching, doomed to brutal destruction and recolonization, a socialist country providing free health care and free higher education in a beautiful and well kept land.
CNN, New York Times and the rest of the corporatocracy media cartel made sure no mention was every made of Libya's enviable success, which placed it 53rd highest nation in the 2010 UN Human Development Index and far and away #1 in Africa.(1)
The huge sinister Pied Piper of the Global Village, the America-über-alles media cartel, was busy panning off vicious heavily armed gangs with overseas supervision as peaceful demonstrators. Bu these as "protesters' who had no living condition grievance, no complaint of hunger, poor health care or poverty because of exploitation by the rich and foreign banks, no reason to protest, apart from a nine millennium tradition of rivalry between Cyrenaica and Tripoli - a rivalry being stimulated with organized violence by nefarious international corporate interests.(2)
It is now the month of May and even before Socialist Libya has been conquered, boldly, not even bothering to stay behind the scenes, the same amoral racist businessmen types of past centuries of colonialism, power mad unscrupulous manipulators of private investment financial capital, speak of arrangements to divide up the loot and opportunities to capitalize on.(3)
The Chinese, unlike most of us following closely, were, without doubt, fully aware of the intentions of the financial rulers of the gangster imperialist nations, the speculating plunderers of the world, to again use their military to extend U.S. hegemony.
Yet even that constantly repeated pathetic media manufactured lie, "protect the civilians from their own government" being used as the pretext for war, was, in the end, repeated as well by the Chinese ambassador as China's reason for only abstaining rather than vetoing with a no vote consistent with China's principle of non-intervention in the affairs of other nations (referred to in the opening of the ambassador's explanation of it's vote). In addition, China had an opportunity to vote in accordance with the founding principle of the United Nations being disregarded and violated by those voting in favor.
Why? Why no Chinese veto? And why did the Chinese ambassador, embarrassingly, repeat a base, obvious, deceitful and almost absurd deception meant to protect the attacking rebels, not civilians.
China might have just as well voted yes, for its abstention produced the same result - a blanket attack. The wording of the resolution gave free reign to any and all military action to achieve the that "no-fly zone' the fig leaf covering an evil to be unleashed, yet again, in the name of the United Nations.
But why? China has extensive energy investments and construction investments in Libya, 50 major investment projects are in eastern Libya. Chinese companies are losing hundreds of millions of dollars from this intervention. Last year China had $6.6 billion worth of trade with Libya, most of it in oil. China is looking to Africa as a future energy source, and the Gaddafi led government had favored China in oil export. Libya's was creating gold dinars (Libya is estimated by the U.S. Treasury, to have 44 tons of gold) to use in place of dollars and euros and avoid the clipping of the central banking system in Europe, the tool of mega speculators. Was this not the kind of currency change China has expressed great interest in? Also Libya, under Gaddafi, had not joined the US Africa Command (USAC) by contributing troops as had a number of nations of Sahara/Sahel region, indicating that Libya might be a bulwark against USAC managing to gain US control over African oil exportation to exclude China.(4)
Why was China giving up so much? Had China been made an offer it couldn't refuse or was this imperialism supporting acquiescent vote, beyond comprehension and seemingly against China's own interests, in line with some long range Realpolitik that one could expect to understand in the future?
China lovers were instantly stumped into incomprehension, bewilderment, dismayed, betrayed, the rug pulled out from underneath their feet. Their confidence lost that the fifth of Mankind with wisdom gained during five thousand years of practical living would protect the rest of us from the insanely barbaric, homicidal imperialism wrought by predatory capitalism that had colonized the whole nonwhite world, including China. This confidence or hope was now destroyed with our witnessing China going along with a classic example of false flag violence fostering a civil war in the age old imperialist principle of divide and conquer. [See author's OEN and CounterCurrents published comprehensive review of all reporting on the violence in Libya from February 15 through April 26](2)
Speaking before the UN General Assembly in 2009, Gaddafi, had called the Security Council a "Terror Council" for the sixty-five wars it has failed to prevent, even approving participating in most of them. How prophetic for what would come his way so soon.
Libya is just another vulnerable nation in an automation like drive for ever faster accumulation of capital heedless of human suffering. China in the past was one such vulnerable nation and is presently seeking to prevent being so again. China and the few other nations outside the US block of satellites and allies are soberly monitoring the massive investments in a frenetically intensified manufacturing of ever larger stores of weapons of mass destruction.
Before we jump to the conclusion that the Chinese failure to protect Libya was heartless, mystifyingly unintelligent, perhaps without remorse, let us seek to understand the position that China might have felt itself to be in vis-à-vis the ever consolidating world of consummate US/NATO military power and the net of U.S. controlled international fiduciary institutions and central banking that in effect span the globe in an unchallengable grip of war preparation.
In last year's 2010 United Nation Human Development Yearly Index of all Nations,
Libya is ranked 53rd in the world, well above nine European nations, for example, Russia, which is ranked 65th.
High human development: Libya 53rd in world (#1 in Africa) Neighbors Tunisia 81st, Algeria 84th
Medium human development (developing countries) Egypt 101, Morocco 114 , Gabon 93,
Low human development (developing countries)
Yemen 133, Sudan 154
( The Human Development Index (HDI ) is a comparative measure of life expectancy, literacy, education and standards of living for countries worldwide.
Life Expectancy Index
[Mean Years of Schooling Index ] Expected Years of Schooling
Very high human development (developed countries)
Bahrain 39 having braced by Qatar 38 and Portugal 40
(Bahrain has a very unequal income and services range)
The Library of Congress Federal Research Division Libya country profile of Libya, April 2005 reads, " Basic health care is provided to all citizens. Health, training, rehabilitation, education, housing, family issues, and disability and old-age benefits are all regulated by ... the Social Care Fund . The health care system is not purely state-run but rather a mixed system of public and private care. In comparison to other states in the Middle East, the health status of the population is relatively good. Childhood immunization is almost universal. The clean water supply has increased, and sanitation has been improved. The country's major hospitals are in Tripoli and Benghazi, and private health clinics and diagnostic centers, offering newer equipment and better service, compete with the public sector. The number of medical doctors and dentists reportedly increased sevenfold between 1970 and 1985, producing a ratio of one doctor per 673 citizens. In 1985 about one-third of the doctors in the Libya were native-born, with the remainder being primarily expatriate foreigners. The number of hospital beds tripled in this same time period. Malaria has been eradicated, and significant progress has been made against trachoma and leprosy. In 1985 the infant mortality rate was 84 per 1,000; by 2004, the U.S. Agency for International Development estimated that the infant mortality rate had dropped to 25.7 per 1,000. ... estimates report an infant mortality rate of less than 20 per 1,000.
Having control of their own oil wealth has enabled Libyans, along with neighboring Algerians to provide their citizens with a relatively high income. South Africa is higher but unevenly distributed between white and nonwhite.
A 1,000 word article with 10,000 words of footnotes, published 4/22/11 by OEN and Countercurrents
Capitalism's Warplanes: CIA & al Qaeda Destroy Socialist Libya's 53rd Highest Living Standard
- in addition to the article:
Ronald Reagan's Assistant Secretary of Treasury, Paul Craig Roberts,
" First of all, notice that the protests in Libya are different from the ones in Egypt or Yemen or Bahrain or Tunisia and the difference is that this is an armed rebellion.
There are more differences: another is that these protests originated in the eastern part of Libya where the oil is - they did not originate in the capital cities. And we have heard from the beginning, credible reports that the CIA is involved in the protests and there have been a large number of press reports that the CIA has sent back to Libya its Libyan asset to head up the Libyan rebellion." [interview on PressTV , 4/16/11]
Regarding the nature of the rebel leadership: Its key members have important connections to the United States. Khalifa Heftir, a former Libyan Army colonel, has spent the last 25 years living seven miles from CIA headquarters in Langley, Virginia with no obvious means of support.* Mahmoud Jibril "earned his PhD in 1985 from the University of Pittsburgh under the late Richard Cottam, a former US intelligence official in Iran who became a renowned political scientist specializing on the Middle East." Jibril "spent years working with Gaddafi's son Saif on political and economic reforms " (b)ut after hardliners in the regime stifled the reforms, Jibril quit in frustration and left Libya about a year ago." ** Jibril has been out of Libya since the uprising began, meeting with foreign leaders.*** Then there is the rebel government's finance minister, Ali Tarhouni, who has been in exile for the last 35 years. His latest job was teaching economics at the University of Washington.
* "Professor: In Libya, a civil war, not uprising", NPR, April 2, 2011. www.npr.org/2011/04/02/135072664/professor-in-libya-a-civil-war-not-uprising.
** Farah Stockman, "Libyan reformer new face of rebellion", The Boston Globe, March 28, 2011.
***Kareem Fahim, "Rebel leadership in Libya shows strain", The New York Times, April 3, 2011.
from Stephen Gowans, Wordpress, 4/23/11
West on guard against the outbreak of peace in Libya
Former Assistant Secretary of US Treasury Paul Craig Roberts interviewed on PressTV, 4/16/11
"Libyan revolutionaries have set up a central bank and that they have started limited production of oil and they are dealing with American and other Western firms. It begs the question that we've never seen something like this happen in the middle of a revolution.
In my opinion, what is going on is comparable to what the US and Britain did to Japan in the 1930s. When they cut Japan off from oil, from rubber, from minerals like ore; that was the origin of World War II in the pacific. And now the Americans and the British are doing the same thing to China. ... The Chinese had 30,000 people there and they've had to evacuate 29,000 of them
Press TV: So these other countries would welcome having NATO troops on the ground?
Roberts: Of course. They are in the CIA's pocket. It's a CIA operation, not a legitimate protest of the Libyan people. It's an armed rebellion that has no support in the capital city. It's taking place in the east where the oil is and is directed at China. ... US-Libya trade was $2.7 billion last year, and finds companies like Halliburton, Dow Chemical, Fluor, Occidental, Hess, Marathon, Conoco Phillips, Caterpillar, Boeing, and ExxonMobil, muscling their way into the engineering, construction and energy sectors. "
Obama, Cameron and Sarkozy sent a message to the African Union in their jointly written April 14 op-ed: They'll block any attempt to negotiate peace in Libya that doesn't include Gaddafi's ouster and the opening of Libya's economy.
The second indication is provided in the three leaders' op-ed. Libya, they write, must "develop the institutions to underpin a prosperous and open society." Revealingly, the three leaders tell Libyans what institutions they should develop. But what if Libyans don't want an open society at this point in their development? What if they want what the United States, Britain and France have had through long parts of their history (and still do have): a society closed to outsiders in strategic areas?
While the institutions of an open society aren't exclusively economic, an open society is understood to be one whose doors are open to unconditional integration into the global economy. This differs from the Gaddafi government's strategic integration, based on linkages aimed at increasing real wages in Libya rather than maximizing returns to foreign investors. This isn't to say that Libya hasn't welcomed foreign investment where it makes sense for the development of the country, but it is likely that the open society Obama, Cameron and Sarkozy foresee for Libya, has little to do with what makes sense for Libya, and everything to do with what makes sense for US, British and French investors and corporations.
from Stephen Gowans, Wordpress, 4/23/11
West on guard against the outbreak of peace in Libya
The African Oil Policy Initiative Group (AOPIG) played a role in getting discussions about a US African Command started. A AOPIG report noted that AOPIG report emphasized that the U.S. National Intelligence Council has estimated that the United States will buy 25 percent of its oil from Africa by 2015. The United States Navy ?s Naval Postgraduate School noted in January 2007 that U.S. policy towards Africa, at least in the medium-term, looks to be largely defined by international terrorism, the increasing importance of African oil to American energy needs, and the dramatic expansion and improvement of Sino-African relations.
[Lawson, Letitia (January 2007). "U.S. Africa Policy Since the Cold War" . Strategic Insights and AFRICOM, Wikipedia ]
jay janson is an archival research peoples historian activist, musician and writer, who has lived and worked on all the continents and whose articles on media have been published in China, Italy, England, India and the US, and now resides in New York City. Howard Zinn lent his name to various projects of his. GlobalReserch, InformationClearingHouse, CounterCurrents, DissidentVoice, HistoryNewsNetwork, are among those who have republished his articles.
This article originally published and headlined by OpEdNews,
Jay Janson is an archival research peoples historian activist, musician and writer, who has lived and worked on all the continents and whose articles on media have been published in China, Italy, England, India and the US, and now resides in New York City. Howard Zinn lent his name to various projects of his. GlobalReserch, InformationClearingHouse, CounterCurrents, DissidentVoice, HistoryNewsNetwork, are among those who have republished his articles.
Comments are not moderated. Please be responsible and civil in your postings and stay within the topic discussed in the article too. If you find inappropriate comments, just Flag (Report) them and they will move into moderation que.