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.
By Stephen Gowans
On April 14 US president Barak Obama, British prime minister David Cameron and French president Nicolas Sarkozy wrote an op-ed titled “Libya’s pathway to peace.” Appearing in the International Herald Tribune and two other newspapers, the op-ed set out US, British and French goals for Libya. One would be peace, but the pathway was to be Gaddafi’s exit, and his replacement by the Benghazi rebels.
While not presented as such, the op-ed was in fact a rejection of an African Union proposal for a negotiated settlement.
The AU had dispatched a delegation to Tripoli to meet with Gaddafi four days earlier, on April 10. The delegation proposed an immediate cease-fire, delivery of humanitarian aid, and negotiations between the Libyan government and the Benghazi rebels. Gaddafi accepted. But when the delegation arrived in Benghazi the next day, the rebels let it be known that the only peace they were interested in was one that saw Gaddafi, “his sons and his inner circle leave immediately.” (1)
US secretary of state Hilary Clinton quickly echoed the rebels’ position. Nothing could be resolved, she said, without “the departure of Gaddafi from power, and from Libya.” (2)
Peace was impossible in Libya without Gaddafi’s exit, the leaders insisted in their op-ed, because Gaddafi was the main threat to peace. It was “impossible to imagine a future for Libya with Gaddafi in power” they wrote, and added that “so long as Gaddafi is in power, NATO must maintain its operations.” Their case was based on the fiction that the conflict in Libya isn’t a civil war between rebels in the east and loyalists in the west but between the state and the people, as was true in Tunisia and Egypt and is true in Bahrain and Yemen.
As for Gaddafi being an obstacle to peace, that was belied by his acceptance of the AU peace proposal. But the armed uprising has, from the beginning, had nothing to do with peace. It has always been about regime-change.
Gaddafi is wrongly fit by the three leaders, as well as by supporters of the Western military intervention, into the mold of Bahrain’s Khalifa regime, which has used armed force to violently suppress a popular peaceful revolt. The uprising in Libya was armed, not peaceful, and while it may be popular in the east among tribalists, royalists, and radical Islamists led by neo-liberals connected to the United States, it has little popular support elsewhere in the country.
Despite casting the Gaddafi government in the role of the Khalifa regime, the leaders make no reference to the latter, which remains largely invisible in discussions of the “Arab spring” and which provides the Pentagon with a headquarters for its Fifth Fleet and runs a low-tax, no minimum-wage, foreign investment-friendly economy. If the US, British and French leaders were truly interested in protecting civilians they would have long ago imposed a no-fly zone over Bahrain and ordered the Saudi monarchy, surely the most regressive force on the planet, to withdraw its troops from Bahrain. But what they’re really interested in achieving in Libya is what was long ago achieved in Bahrain: a neo-colonial puppet regime that opens its country to Western military bases and unconditional exploitation by foreign corporations and investors.
And so Obama, Cameron, and Sarkozy used their op-ed to declare that there must be “a genuine transition” in Libya “led by a new generation of leaders” and that “in order for that transition to succeed, Gaddafi must go and go for good.” Significantly, the transition would usher in the new Western puppet. There are two indications of this.
The first is 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. (3) 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.” (4) Jibril has been out of Libya since the uprising began, meeting with foreign leaders. (5) 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.
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.
1. Kareem Fahim, “Truce plan for Libya is rejected by rebels”, The New York Times, April 11, 2011.
2. David E. Sanger, “Possible Libya stalemate puts stress on U.S. policy”, The New York Times, April 11, 2011.
3. “Professor: In Libya, a civil war, not uprising”, NPR, April 2, 2011. http://www.npr.org/2011/04/02/135072664/professor-in-libya-a-civil-war-not-uprising
4. Farah Stockman, “Libyan reformer new face of rebellion”, The Boston Globe, March 28, 2011.
5. Kareem Fahim, “Rebel leadership in Libya shows strain”, The New York Times, April 3, 2011.
What's Left 
Well are there any European companies that should NOT be boycotted?
“an outbreak of peace”
Very insightful information.
We should boycott French Products, not only because of France’s sordid history on the Continent, but also due to the current economic arrangement with the “Francophone” African countries called the CFA (Communuate Financiere de l’Afrique). This agreement forces France’s former colonies to deposit 80% of their foreign reserves in the French Treasury. Furthermore, France has priority in acquisition of raw materials deemed “strategic” and has first right of refusal for all government contracts in these countries. Finally, the CFA allows France to have permanent military bases in its ex-colonies and they have the “legal” right to intervene in these countries.
According to New African Magazine: “If you think it is bad enough that the majority of the former French colonies in Africa fall in the “Bottom 50″ of the least developed countries in the world, spare a thought for this fact: Poor as they are, they have, for over six decades, been depositing 65% of their foreign reserves in the French Treasury in Paris – thanks to an archaic colonial arrangement linking their local currency, the CFA franc , to the French franc and now the euro.” Later on, it is learned that “another 20% of reserves [go] to cover financial liabilities.”
See:
“The Economic and Political Effects of the CFA Zone” http://saoti.over-blog.com/article-17347736.html
“SLAVERY BY ANOTHER NAME: CFA franc” http://www.thefrontiertelegraph.com/content/012908/slavery.html
“CFA The grip France won’t let go” http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa5391/is_200801/ai_n21301345/
And the article “The Colonial Pact” page 4 of the attached file “Cote D’Ivoire: The Story Behind the Story”
Another reason for a boycott is France’s interference in the internal affairs of Cote D’Ivoire and Libya. France has allowed the Ivorian Presidential candidate, Outtara, to usurp the Constitutional process for resolving disputed election results (see attachments “Decision of Constitutional Council” http://www.ivorycoastpresident.com/documents/DECISION-OF-CONSTITUTIONAL-COUNCIL-bahy.pdf and the” Letter from Sen. James Inhofe to Sec of State Hillary Clinton” http://inhofe.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=eb6a8527-b1be-4bf9-beee-97a97ff3eaaf and http://inhofe.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressRoom.JimsJournal&ContentRecord_id=3218C4E9-B19E-9F09-3866-7981E5068DBF). As to Libya, France has disregarded AU initiatives to resolve the evolving civil war peaceably.
Lastly, France has refused repay to Haiti $40 billion that it took as “reparations” for property losses during the Haitian Revolution. See:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=17077
http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/07/15/france-will-not-repay-haiti-reparations/
A boycott should remain in place until the following occur:
1. The CFA arrangement must be cancelled and the former “Francophone” African countries must be allowed to keep their foreign reserves.
2. All African foreign reserves must be returned to the rightful countries subject to an independent accounting verification.
3. France must remove all military bases (permanent and otherwise) from African countries. Furthermore, any intervention by France, overt or otherwise, into the “CFA zone” should be considered a violation of international law.
4. Allasane Outtara must be forced to step down as President of Cote D’Ivoire and new elections should be called in accordance to the Ivorian Constitution. France cannot be allowed to be an observer in any election activities as it is not an objective observer.
5. France must repay to Haiti, $40 billion that it took as “reparations” through coercive means.
The following companies should be boycotted: Total Elf Fina, Accor Novotel, Societe Generale which took over SSB bank in Ghanan, all Danone products including Dannon Yogurt and Evian Water, Compagnie Fruitière (which sells fruit under the SCB and Bouba labels), Michelin (which also owns Uniroyal and Goodrich tires), Nissan/Renault, Perrier, Nestle, Bic Products, L’Oreal and Lancome
Speaking from memory, I’d like to add something to this historic event. Whereas the State Dpt seemed to remain “loyal” to the Shah, the CIA was well aware he was doomed, and not only by his advanced leukemia. The revolution was roaring and the Tudeh and other leftist groups were growing in importance. The CIA was seeking for a replacement before Iran achieved a leftist takeover which would put it in the Soviet sphere, like Afghanistan.
Therefore when they found out that the Shah’s fall was unavoidable, they chose the “minor evil”, and provided their intelligence to the Islamists, including lists of Tudeh people who were mercilessly murdered by the Khomeinists. The Guadalupe Conference sanctioned the Western policy of accepting an Islamic Republic in Iran.
Even though their relationship has been conflicting, the US has always collaborated and supported with the Islamist groups when they might be useful as reactionary allies to advance the imperialist agenda, as it was in Afghanistan and now in Libya.
Sorry, I was writing from memory; looking again at my source (Robert Dreyfuss) I realise that it was not the overthrow of Mossadegh Cottam was involved in, but the search for possible replacements for the Shah acceptable to CIA, so this is 1978/9, not 1953. Dreyfuss says that Cottam was ‘persona non grata at the State Dept’ because of these contacts, which of course were all with people the State Dept regarded as menaces of one sort of another to the Shah.
Richard Cottam was more than just “a former US intelligence official in Iran.” It seems to me that he was actually the CIA’s no 1 man in locating and cultivating possible replacements for the Mossadegh government. In other words, his job there was identical to the function he seems to have played at Pittsburgh University 30 years later: locating and cultivating possible replacements for the leaders of targeted regimes. This is obviously quite a specialised function, and it falls inder the ‘intelligence’ umbrella, but it presumably has to be kept well away from the cruder sort of subversion, i.e. recruiting thugs and subversive militias, which in the 1953 Iran coup was apparently the responsibility of Kermit Roosevelt.
Thanks for this very enlightening post!
Are you over there? I have a query, please send true reports, I’m fed up of reading warmongering propaganda. Western journalists in Libya, whether in the east or in the west, keep sending rebel propaganda, and all they send from the west is to discredit the government (any flimsy pretext is enough, or else they invent deadly hoaxes).
It would be interesting to read or see what people do or hope without the venomous disclaimers the corporate media reporters feel obliged to stress every time. Unless it is any rebel, who is granted the benefit of the truth without further inquiry.
Thank you!