Imperialism vs. Idealism in Libya

At the end of this lengthy blog, I suggest that a key to the Libyan interference from Europe is control, not over the oil itself for consumption purposes, but over where Libya invests its oil revenues. The Libyan investment authorities have had growing amounts to invest and have selected projects not only in Europe but also in African and South American countries. This gives Gaddafi some stature politically, some independence from western powers, and some economic clout as well. He and Libya become more of a power in Africa and in the world. There is also foreign direct investment into Libya from China and Russia, which improves their positions and frustrates American hegemonic ambitions in Africa. None of this sits well with the old imperial powers in Europe that claim humanitarian ideals in prosecuting this war and aiding rebels. To them the rebellion is something to foster and control so as to keep Europe first and Africa second, and to prevent a regional hegemon from arising like Libya, and to prevent it from leveraging its oil revenues into economic projects and influence worldwide. The U.S. supports them because of its own hegemonic aims. This attempt to maintain a one-sided control is the definition of imperialism. Whether or not they succeed at this game by removing Gaddafi and installing people to run Libya that are beholden to them remains to be seen. Since I do not believe that these European states possess any notable degree or kind of humanitarian morality, as they have never shown it in the past 400 years and more and indeed repeatedly show their callous inhumanity, I think that we have nothing more here but another instance of western imperialism.


1:50 pm on April 16, 2011