• Libya has plunged unnoticed into its worst political and economic crisis since the defeat of Gaddafi
    25 replies, posted
[quote]A little under two years ago, Philip Hammond, the Defence Secretary, urged British businessmen to begin “packing their suitcases” and to fly to Libya to share in the reconstruction of the country and exploit an anticipated boom in natural resources. Yet now Libya has almost entirely stopped producing oil as the government loses control of much of the country to militia fighters. Mutinying security men have taken over oil ports on the Mediterranean and are seeking to sell crude oil on the black market. Ali Zeidan, Libya’s Prime Minister, has threatened to “bomb from the air and the sea” any oil tanker trying to pick up the illicit oil from the oil terminal guards, who are mostly former rebels who overthrew Muammar Gaddafi and have been on strike over low pay and alleged government corruption since July. [b]As world attention focused on the coup in Egypt and the poison gas attack in Syria over the past two months, Libya has plunged unnoticed into its worst political and economic crisis since the defeat of Gaddafi two years ago. Government authority is disintegrating in all parts of the country putting in doubt claims by American, British and French politicians that Nato’s military action in Libya in 2011 was an outstanding example of a successful foreign military intervention which should be repeated in Syria.[/b] In an escalating crisis little regarded hitherto outside the oil markets, output of Libya’s prized high-quality crude oil has plunged from 1.4 million barrels a day earlier this year to just 160,000 barrels a day now. Despite threats to use military force to retake the oil ports, the government in Tripoli has been unable to move effectively against striking guards and mutinous military units that are linked to secessionist forces in the east of the country. Libyans are increasingly at the mercy of militias which act outside the law. Popular protests against militiamen have been met with gunfire; 31 demonstrators were shot dead and many others wounded as they protested outside the barracks of “the Libyan Shield Brigade” in the eastern capital Benghazi in June. [b]Though the Nato intervention against Gaddafi was justified as a humanitarian response to the threat that Gaddafi’s tanks would slaughter dissidents in Benghazi, the international community has ignored the escalating violence. The foreign media, which once filled the hotels of Benghazi and Tripoli, have likewise paid little attention to the near collapse of the central government.[/b] [b]The strikers in the eastern region Cyrenaica, which contains most of Libya’s oil, are part of a broader movement seeking more autonomy and blaming the government for spending oil revenues in the west of the country. Foreigners have mostly fled Benghazi since the American ambassador, Chris Stevens, was murdered in the US consulate by jihadi militiamen last September. Violence has worsened since then with Libya’s military prosecutor Colonel Yussef Ali al-Asseifar, in charge of investigating assassinations of politicians, soldiers and journalists, himself assassinated by a bomb in his car on 29 August.[/b] Rule by local militias is also spreading anarchy around the capital. Ethnic Berbers, whose militia led the assault on Tripoli in 2011, temporarily took over the parliament building in Tripoli. The New York-based Human Rights Watch has called for an independent investigation into the violent crushing of a prison mutiny in Tripoli on 26 August in which 500 prisoners had been on hunger strike. The hunger strikers were demanding that they be taken before a prosecutor or formally charged since many had been held without charge for two years. The government called on the Supreme Security Committee, made up of former anti-Gaddafi militiamen nominally under the control of the interior ministry, to restore order. At least 19 prisoners received gunshot shrapnel wounds, with one inmate saying “they were shooting directly at us through the metal bars”. There have been several mass prison escapes this year in Libya including 1,200 escaping from a prison after a riot in Benghazi in July. The Interior Minister, Mohammed al-Sheikh, resigned last month in frustration at being unable to do his job, saying in a memo sent to Mr Zeidan that he blamed him for failing to build up the army and the police. He accused the government, which is largely dominated by the Muslim Brotherhood, of being weak and dependent on tribal support. Other critics point out that a war between two Libyan tribes, the Zawiya and the Wirrshifana, is going on just 15 miles from the Prime Minister’s office. Diplomats have come under attack in Tripoli with the EU ambassador’s convoy ambushed outside the Corinthia hotel on the waterfront. A bomb also wrecked the French embassy. [b]One of the many failings of the post-Gaddafi government is its inability to revive the moribund economy. Libya is wholly dependent on its oil and gas revenues and without these may not be able to pay its civil servants. Sliman Qajam, a member of the parliamentary energy committee, told Bloomberg that “the government is running on its reserves. If the situation doesn’t improve, it won’t be able to pay salaries by the end of the year”.[/b][/quote] [url]http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/africa/special-report-we-all-thought-libya-had-moved-on--it-has-but-into-lawlessness-and-ruin-8797041.html[/url]
Everything has its consequences. Even more sad that the people who caused them don't even acknowledge it now.
Well, that shoots the "Libya was a smashing success so we should repeat it everywhere" narrative full of holes.
Whatever happens in Libya I don't think I'll ever believe that intervention was the wrong thing to do. With our help they have been able to elect a legitimate government and gain a real chance at a brighter future. If that ultimately doesn't actually pan out, I don't feel like it's our fault or that there's much that we could/should have done differently. Regarding the current crisis, it is a serious one which could fuck everything up. [I]But[/I] this is far from the first time that Libya has been in a 'this is it we're fucked' situation since the revolution, and it's gotten out of them before. We'll just have to see how this one ends up.
I'll remind you that Libya was one of the richest countries on the entire continent and had the highest HDI before the revolution. [editline]4th September 2013[/editline] You may rate me dumb, but this is my personal belief: sometimes a despot that knows what's good for the country is better than an incompetent government that has been democratically elected.
[QUOTE=maxumym;42074843]I'll remind you that Libya was one of the richest countries on the entire continent and had the highest HDI before the revolution. [editline]4th September 2013[/editline] You may rate me dumb, but this is my personal belief: sometimes a despot that knows what's good for the country is better than an incompetent government that has been democratically elected.[/QUOTE] Sadly, what's good for the country is not always the same as what's good for the people.
[QUOTE=Sgt-NiallR;42074897]Sadly, what's good for the country is not always the same as what's good for the people.[/QUOTE] That is the case as well though. "Intervention to Libya was a good choice" is not a question that can be just answered "yes" or "no", it's a complex situation.
[QUOTE=maxumym;42074843] You may rate me dumb, but this is my personal belief: sometimes a despot that knows what's good for the country is better than an incompetent government that has been democratically elected.[/QUOTE] From what I remember, that was exactly the problem : they were extremely rich, but they weren't exactly free. Feel free to rate me dumb, if I said something completely retarded
[QUOTE=maxumym;42074843]I'll remind you that Libya was one of the richest countries on the entire continent and had the highest HDI before the revolution. [editline]4th September 2013[/editline] You may rate me dumb, but this is my personal belief: sometimes a despot that knows what's good for the country is better than an incompetent government that has been democratically elected.[/QUOTE] If you took away his controversial foreign policy and internal policy, his intentions for Libya were essentially progressive. he put funds into healthcare, compulsory education (for both sexes) and housing. I'm not going to debate the man himself, i'm just saying look at what he brought Libya from. I find it odd that the revolutionaries chose the old 1951 royalist flag, a regime much worse than Qaddafi's ever was, as a banner for a new order.
[QUOTE=Used Car Salesman;42074777]Well, that shoots the "Libya was a smashing success so we should repeat it everywhere" narrative full of holes.[/QUOTE] I know the internet judges everything in a split second with no thought to any reasoning behind an issue, but hold off on that. After every revolution there's a fair bit of upheaval, its been what, 2 years? Give it some more time to sort itself out. If, within 5 or 10 years, 10 being a more realistic goal, the economy is still bonkers, then you can start looking at it.
[QUOTE=markfu;42075005]I know the internet judges everything in a split second with no thought to any reasoning behind an issue, but hold off on that. After every revolution there's a fair bit of upheaval, its been what, 2 years? Give it some more time to sort itself out. If, within 5 or 10 years, 10 being a more realistic goal, the economy is still bonkers, then you can start looking at it.[/QUOTE] This is correct as well. Think back to when Europe was getting its first delves into democracy, it was revolution after counter revolutions for years.
Crap. Somebody over there needs to do something. Quick.
I believe dictators should be allowed to publicly execute dissidents just as long as they keep the country stable. Of course of they did something really bad like read my e-mail, then there would be no choice but to overthrow then.
[QUOTE=maxumym;42074843]I'll remind you that Libya was one of the richest countries on the entire continent and had the highest HDI before the revolution. [editline]4th September 2013[/editline] You may rate me dumb, but this is my personal belief: sometimes a despot that knows what's good for the country is better than an incompetent government that has been democratically elected.[/QUOTE] This isn´t a belief, it is a fact. Look at Yugoslavia 1939–80. Under the leadership of Josip Broz Tito ([url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josip_Broz_Tito[/url]) the country flourished due to his economic and diplomatic policies.
[QUOTE=Mabus;42074979]If you took away his controversial foreign policy and internal policy, his intentions for Libya were essentially progressive. he put funds into healthcare, compulsory education (for both sexes) and housing. I'm not going to debate the man himself, i'm just saying look at what he brought Libya from. I find it odd that the revolutionaries chose the old 1951 royalist flag, a regime much worse than Qaddafi's ever was, as a banner for a new order.[/QUOTE] qaddafi wasnt going to live very long and regimes age like milk the quicker they got rid of that awful regime the better they stand a chance of creating a new society for themselves.
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KKrkokQIx9g[/media]
Yeah, and when I was telling you guys this like a year ago or so that things are getting bad there you all called me a flaming nationalist. Their economy is going down the shitter and believe it or not they actually had an amazing economy under Gaddafi. I'll still stand by my opinion that intervention was more about removing Gaddafi as he was thorn in the west's eye than the "democracy and liberation" thing.
what do you expect when you go in, bomb out infastructure, bomb the military out of existance, then basically pack-up and leave? this is the exact reason why it is irrisponsible to simply lob a few missles at the problem and assume it's going to go away. the reason why the taliban held so much power in afghanistan? we gave them arms and assistance against the russians, then when the battles were over, we stopped doing anything.
Turns out I was right in the end, and I'm not at all happy about it. It's sad, at some point I thought Libya's going to be okay.
Nobody was expecting an immediate resolution, it's going to take decades of soul-searching for Lybia to regain its footing.
[QUOTE=Used Car Salesman;42074777]Well, that shoots the "Libya was a smashing success so we should repeat it everywhere" narrative full of holes.[/QUOTE] But it was? They went in and got out as soon as they could instead of staying around for years "stabilizing" the country, people feared that it would be another Afghanistan/Iraq situation. Portugal also went into a bad economic and political situation after the dictatorship ended, hell we still are in it, what country is fine after a major revolution? It's gonna take decades for it to stabilize just like any other country that goes through a major revolution.
[QUOTE=maxumym;42074843]You may rate me dumb, but this is my personal belief: sometimes a despot that knows what's good for the country is better than an incompetent government that has been democratically elected.[/QUOTE] This isn't true. Even if a despot knows whats best for a country, he has to pay off his cronies first. Often this involves taxing the people and crushing rebellious people. A good country under a dictator is an exception to the rule, and usually due to some weird fluke. Libya itself was shit before the revolution.
They'll stabilize, they are just taking their first steps into democracy after coming out of a civil war, economic problems were pretty much expected, it's a rough road from here on but they'll eventually come out of it. Corruption is extremely commonplace in oil countries, even more if they're just transitioning into democracy.
corruption in general is all too common in third world countries, too much money, too much poverty, and the elected officials just get too accustomed to the life and money to let go of power when their time is up
[QUOTE=SuddenImpact;42075077]This isn´t a belief, it is a fact. Look at Yugoslavia 1939–80. Under the leadership of Josip Broz Tito ([url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josip_Broz_Tito[/url]) the country flourished due to his economic and diplomatic policies.[/QUOTE] It's not all black and white. Was it worth the political arrests/death sentences, secret police, wiretapping etc. ? Like someone said, what is good for the country might not be good for the people.
still one has to wonder how bad the corruption would be if foregn companies wouldn't bribe their way through everything
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.