LIBIA: UNA BATTAGLIA IN CORSO
Libya deserves a specific discourse also popular because they have not shouldered the first forced to withdraw the local dictator, and is in a civil war on the duration and the outcome is not predictable, which has divided the country into the area controlled by the rebels and the area still under the control of Tripoli. Libya, then, affects much closer to Italy, both for oil and for the large plots economic / financial ESTABLISHED in recent decades. Let's start with them.
The tyrant who bought the West
Since always capitalists and managers of capital have replaced the heart and conscience with the portfolio and money, not surprising at all embarrassed the dismay with which the financial and economic centers of the West have welcomed the Libyan revolt (which we hope will end well). A magazine dedicated to Portuguese Muammar Gaddafi (Khadafi, in Arabic) an article entitled absolutely guessed: "The tyrant who bought the West." G20 made Eagle in July 2009 was clear how much importance the so-called "great" attributes the colonel disguised as a humble Bedouin folklore of Sirte, in fact he is filthy rich, as the assets abroad of his clan was considered by at least 50 billion dollars, and in place of liquid Gaddafi would have at home for 65 billion euro. His international clearance must be the unforgettable George W. Bush, and since then, Gaddafi has made business and money. The Libyans may also be massacred, but in Italy, Britain, Germany and Turkey fibril for the fate of the "mad dog of Tripoli", an excellent business partner and still be able to do tricks for revenge. In addition to thinking about the upcoming arrival of refugees not to help.
Italy - and not only thanks to Berlusconi, because the center- was an accomplice - is the biggest trading partner of Libya, then come Germany and the United Kingdom. But these countries were not the only ones to open their doors to those who until not long ago was considered a dangerous instigator of aggression in ' Sub-Saharan Africa and international terrorism. But it is the palm to Italy boot, with improved acceleration after the Treaty of Friendship in August 2008. Today, the Italian Government seems in line with other European governments and the UN for sanctions policy toward Qaddafi, but still once famous duplicity of our own government has done to see: Italy has not yet frozen the assets of Gaddafi and / or Libya, while the U.S. have done so for at least 25 billion. In Italy Gaddafi has made a good investment package, which justifies the phony "technical closure" of the Milan Stock Exchange on 22 February, was actually due to the fear that the power of the Colonel to be torn down.
not sure we'll make a tedious inventory to mention a few elements: Colonel Sirtica is the fifth individual investor (for turnover) on the Milan stock; his own business - the Lafico - has 2% of capital of Fiat, 7.5% of that of Juventus, the Libyan Investment Authority (Lia) had 1% of Eni, Libya has 7.5% of dell'Unicredit capital (ie the major Italian banks) to 2,500 million euro, and between 2008 and 2010 the Central Bank of Libya , the Libyan Foreign Bank and Leah have bought an additional 6.9% and while the UN Security Council is turning over un'deale daisy to determine what to do to the scheme of Tripoli, it was reported that Libya had just bought 2% of the shares of Finmeccanica, which is the eighth largest world manufacturer aoreospaziali of weapons and equipment, as well as a key supplier to the Pentagon. Not to mention a large investment in Britain, Germany and Turkey. Speaking of Turkey, it was revealed two months ago that Libya and there is an "Gaddafi Prize for Human Rights" (sic), which was awarded the turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, in the face of his country's multibillion-dollar contracts with Libya. Finally it should be noted how little sense it makes distinction between heritage and the Gaddafi family, on the one hand, Libyan and other companies, because Gaddafi in Libya is (was?) The master. The former ambassador Sergio Romano, rightly, spoke about "balance."
Italy - which is the image of the kiss of Berlusconi in an effective allegory of Gaddafi's foreign policy - always ready to change the flag, but should not do much with the spirit of the dictator "fourth shore", as if the man did the trick to give way to massive sales of its Italian investment - perhaps to raise cash and pay mercenaries, as well as out of spite - all economic observers agree that it would be an economic disaster for the stock markets and the economy as a homegrown kind. However, it does not seem that the Berlusconi government is concerned that much of it. Unconscious or who know more than many others? Furthermore, the more "circumspect" Italian financiers (and foreign) is now racked my brains on the problem, "but if it falls Khadafi, with whom we do business? What types are the successors? Unfortunately can not yet say whether these tormenting problems materialize, because Libya is the situation - at best - stalled. Gaddafi in front of the masses as best armed, and in the hands of a flood of money flowing liquid with which it could do with some speed, mercenaries and arms. This is because - even if the revolt, from 15 February until now, has taken possession of Cyrenaica and is extended to Tripoli - Gaddafi keeps control of the majority of airports and air bases, particularly with regard to that of Sabha in the Fezzan ( that is, in the south of Libya), used without problems for African mercenaries to arrive.
The standoff plays into the hands of Gadhafi
When the opponents do not appear next to the conquest of Tripoli and Gaddafi appears to be far from putting your hands on quickly to the east of country. However, he tries to fight back. He believes that it may have, including military and mercenaries, yet about 12,000 fighters. The Arab League is a bell'organismo that there is - of course, also taking into account what are the Arab governments. What is certain is that the stalemate on the battlefield affect the theoretical options available to foreign powers that have an interest in the fall of Gaddafi but in a way not yet determined. This profile is first examined in and of itself, and then based on the data in existence today. In the first perspective is to say that foreign intervention area - that of U.S. or NATO - could maybe break down physically Gaddafi, but the political costs that would be huge for the Libyan people and in perspective for the same heavy U.S., as the Arab League was opposed and Recep Tayyip Erdoğan (certainly more appreciative of Berlusconi) has got to make that NATO must not allow "even" thinking about an armed intervention. However it is not absolutely excluded. On the other hand we demand that the rebels desperately military aid, at least as the sending of arms.
The stalemate plays into the hands of Gadhafi. Beyond its repeated threats of bloodshed momentous, perhaps it is not unreasonable to suppose that he is aware of the pay (for him) of a negotiation that does not see it yet defeated. One could speak of a specific strategy: in the absence of the opportunity to regain the Cyrenaica, maintain and enhance the control of Tripolitania. Doing so may also be able to divide the Arab public, and their respective governments, through the danger of division of Libya, and a possible Balkanization of the area.
A division Gaddafi of Libya with the owner of the west would be like a time bomb. Dealing with such a character even in the field and unpredictably hostile and eager to take revenge on all its partners who have given up in times of need, gives rise to an easily imaginable scenario. And that could push influential Arab governments to broker a truce and negotiations between Gaddafi and the opposition. Move the possibility of Western intervention, but - in view of how you would certainly Gaddafi - would be a blow to the rebels. Unless some Arab state decides not to give them military aid such as to defeat the dictator.
"humanitarian" and tribalism
The stalemate could end up with Gaddafi that gathers more strength before moving to the reconquest of the eastern territories, and then an outside military aid to Benghazi and Tobruk rebels could take shape. The problem lies in "who" implementing it, because the "who" are the "price" and it would be crucial to the people and the country's future. We're so used to the crocodile tears of imperialism first of his "humanitarian" military interventions that are then classic, and believe just about to Libya, especially since in this case we are faced with a different attitude from that view to the facts Tunisians and Egyptians. At one point Gaddafi chose to do business with imperialism and make him do. That ease could not guarantee him a perpetual condition of its partners, which today are primarily concerned about the fate of the vast energy resources of Libya, the largest in Africa.
But there is something more sinister to cast a shadow on "humanitarian" operations carried out by imperialist powers: riflettiamocile a moment. The ongoing Arab riots threaten the "consolidated" belt of pro-US Arab governments, and two nodal points of it - Tunisia and Egypt - the guarantor of "stability" have fallen, those countries are in a transitional stage no doubt that the outcome could lead to a strengthening of nationalism, at least. For this reason, Libya plays an unquestionable strategic role by virtue of his own middle position between Tunisia and Egypt. Any "normalization" of the Libyan crisis of mortgage preezzo political / military imperialism would be really against the current application of Yemen, Bahrain, Oman etc..? It would promote the ideals of liberation of the Arab masses?
The positive response may only come from an inveterate naive. You must have the courage to assert that the historical-installed government in Washington, London, Paris etc.. committees are always business of their own bourgeoisie and multinational corporations, or their executors. And what is the act of these fine individuals to the Arab world (and beyond) now you should know. It is therefore not random, but significant, that the conservative British newspaper Daily Telegraph February 24 last year it was written that after the 2008 economic crisis, and after the fall of two key Arab governments strategically, you will see with the behavior of Libya's response to the crisis if the United States will accept the reduction of their status as a great power 'Gently, or you respond with violence, as empires have difficulty in the historical tendency to do. "
One way out unless there is dramatic and potentially dangerous, if someone - not necessarily West - had intelligence, culture and capabilities needed to exploit a peculiar feature of Libya, which helps to make it a different matter. We refer to the fact the company's extreme tribalization Libyan relations that belong to the individual tribes and clans that compose them, shall prevail over any other social bond, private and public, including the national one. Various tribes have already spoken against Gaddafi, but others are missing. This is a situation which could make the Colonel very vulnerable, if only you convince other tribes - with tools and materials - to move from the rebels, and then all would be resolved among Libyans. Otherwise, it will still be a disaster.
0 comments:
Post a Comment