The revolutions and social movements occurring across the Middle East can be described as a path forward leading to a global democracy. This assumption is only possible if the common people lead and control this democratic process. In contrast, the pro-democratic movements can be viewed as a domino effect created by western nations, to be specific, the U.S. and NATO. The idea of democracy and “freedom” has been instilled in the common people’s minds across the Middle East. There is no problem with this idea, the common people of the world should be free from authoritarian and repressive regimes. The problem with the formation of these various “democratic” councils are the behind the scenes deals that are being made with the intention of allowing transnational oil corporations into countries like Libya and Tunisia. It is conceivable that the U.S. and NATO are allowing the overthrow of dictators across Middle East for their own self interest or corporate interest. It is necessary for these dictators to be out of power, so that democratic processes can be made by the common people. Nevertheless, it is plausible that the dictators are being expropriated, so that the oil of these countries will be denationalized, open to foreign private “investment”, and subjugated to neoliberal protocols.
Invasion of Iraq:
Lets analyze the case of Iraq and its invasion on March 19, 2003 by the U.S. and NATO. When Saddam was in power the nation’s oil was nationalized. About 95% of the nation’s oil belonged to Iraq, well Saddam and his regime, not the Iraqi people. Iraq’s oil was fully nationalized under Saddam Hussein’s rule in the 1970‘s and was regulated by the Iraq National Oil Company. For this reason, the invasion of Iraq by the U.S. and NATO occurred. To further exemplify, Iraq has the fourth largest oil reserves in the world, currently accounting for 115 billion barrels of certified crude oil reserves and 112 trillion cubic feet of proven natural gas reserves. (9). This is most likely why Iraq was invaded and its leader toppled. The invasion of Iraq was at the hands of corporate interest. The bases and governments established by the U.S. and NATO are mere tools that protect and secure the interest of foreign oil investors. The legitimizing discourse to invade Iraq was that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. Later the legitimizing discourse revised by President Bush and his regime, as a mission to “free” the Iraqi people from the dictator Saddam. All while committing human rights violations and massacring hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians.
To date there have been 104,062-113,708 documented civilian deaths in accordance with IraqBodyCount.org(3). A mortality study conducted by John Hopkins University, Al Mustansiriya University(Baghdad, Iraq), and Massachusetts Institute of Technology analyzed the death toll of the war in Iraq from 2002-2006. The main findings of the study indicated that approximately 600,000 people have been killed as a result of the U.S. led invasion in Iraq(2). Saddam could have gained the support from his people, but just like the dictatorial regimes of: Ben Ali(Tunisia), Mubarak(Egypt), Gaddafi(Libya), Assad(Syria), and Saleh(Yemen), he ruled with an authoritarian hand, stripped the inalienable rights of the people, and kept the common people in poverty.
A common natural resource:
Lets examine the natural resource that are common in all of the major countries involved in the Arab Spring. The natural resource that is interconnected in each of the countries is petroleum, natural gas, and oil reserves. The legitimizing discourse to support countries like Libya is the argument of liberating the people from their dictators and support of a transitional “democratic” government. The term democratic is a fluid term that is used heavily in politics. In the case of Libya the term democratic conveys the idea that the transitional government will adhere to U.S. and NATO’s neoliberal economic policies. To further exemplify, the U.S. and NATO provided military support in Libya, but not Egypt Syria, Yemen, and Tunisia. Why Libya? Maybe because military assistance was negotiated with the opposition in return for “oil reserve development” and investment. In contrast, the U.S. didn’t aid the Egyptian people with the overthrow of Mubarak because the U.S. had close ties with his regime. According Wang of ProPublica, the U.S. was providing $2 billion a year since 1979 to Egypt as result of the Cap David Peace Accords(10).The downfall of Mubarak would mean loss of an ally in the Middle East.
The natural resources in Egypt, Tunisia, Libya, and Yemen are in the process or will soon be expropriated by transnational oil corporations. According to Brian O’ Cathain executive of Petroceltic International, “We’re looking at deals in Egypt, Tunisia, and elsewhere. Both farm-ins and new license applications but we’re mainly looking to get into farm-ins on development projects which people are finding it difficult to fund just now”(6). Moreover, Ashcroft states in his article, that “Dragon Oil is acquiring new exploration acreage offshore Tunisia, through a farm-in deal with Australian firm Cooper Energy”(1). It is evident that the natural resources across the Middle East are being exploited by transnational oil companies.
The Libyan Invasion and Oil Deals:
The Libyan operation was conducted by the U.S. and NATO for corporate interest not in the good intentions of liberating the Libyan people from Moammar Gaddafi’s authoritarian rule. The removal of Gaddafi was a profitable move for both the U.S. and NATO. According to Mark Tran of the Guardian, “European firms have been active in Libya for years and the U.S. companies went in after sanctions were lifted in 2003, when Gaddafi agreed to dismantle his weapons of mass destruction”(7). Nonetheless, under Moammar Gaddafi’s rule transnational oil corporations had to pay a tax of 93% on any oil produced in the country of Libya. The removal of Gaddafi was essential for the oil corporations to immensely profit, especially since the oil reserves in Libya are the ninth largest in the world.
For instance, Watt and Mason of the Telegraph, articulate in their article that in October, “...Heritage oil company was awarded a $19.5 million oil deal in Libya”(11). In September, UPI.COM, stated that, “Italy’s ENI signed an oil deal with Libya’s rebel government to take the lead in a race by international oil companies to secure access to the country’s oil and natural gas reserves and contracts worth billions of dollars”(8). Lastly, Kuwait News Agency reports, that in September the French government made covert oil deals with Libya’s National Transitional Council(4). The Franco-NTC oil liaison is reported to be an expropriation of 35% of the Libyan’s crude oil(4). Reuters exemplifies that the Libyan government told Italy’s ENI to help rebuild the country’s infrastructure and countries like Russia and China that did not support the Libyan uprising will be penalized(5).
Libya’s interim prime minister Abdurrahim al-Keib articulated that some contracts will be suspended and that “Foreign companies working in Libya should prove to the Libyans that they were partners with Libya and not with Gaddafi and his regime...Eni has to prove that (partnership with Libyan people) through playing a distinguished role in reconstruction of cities that were destroyed by Gaddafi's forces”(5). All these accounts further illustrate the conniving oil deals of the U.S., NATO, and representatives of the newly formed transitional governments(in regards to Libya). This further illustrates, the invasion of Libya for the sole purpose of corporate interest over the common people’s freedom. Military assistance by the U.S. and NATO for the removal of the Gaddafi regime lead to the further incursion of foreign oil companies, resulting in the mass expropriation of the Libyan’s natural resource.
The common people of the Middle East must not collide against each other because of opposing views and political beliefs. They should unite as brothers and sisters despite political, religious, social, and economical status. Whether Islamist, secularist, conservative, or leftist, unity should be a common goal to achieve liberation. The common people of the world must rise together and demand global justice, genuine freedom, peace, and democracy, not the illusion that we are given today.
Sources:
- Ashcroft, Jamie. "Dragon Oil to acquire new Tunisia assets with Cooper Energy farm-in deal."Proactiveinvestors Australia. Proactiveinvestors.com.au, 10/10/2011. . 8 Dec 2011. <http://www.proactiveinvestors.com/companies/news/19448/dragon-oil-to-acquire-new-tunisia-assets-with-cooper-energy-farm-in-deal-19448.html>
- Burnham, et al. “The Human Cost of the War In Iraq”. Bloomberg School of Public Health; John Hopkins University, School of Medicine; Al Mustansiriya University, Center for International Studies; Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 2006. Web 11 Dec 2011. <web.mit.edu/CIS/pdf/Human_Cost_of_War.pdf>
- Iraq Body Count. “Iraq Body Count”. Iraq Body Count.org. 2011. Web. 11, Dec 2011. <http://www.iraqbodycount.org/database/>
- Kuwait News Agency, . "France has secret oil deal with Libya''s NTC."Kuwait News Agency. KUNA, 01/09/2011. Web. 10 Dec 2011. <http://www.kuna.net.kw/NewsAgenciesPublicSite/ArticleDetails.aspx?Language=en&id=2187857>.
- Reuters Africa, . "UPDATE 2-Libya hits ENI but oil deals seem safe." Reuters Africa. Thomson Reuters, 29 12 2012. Web. 29 Dec 2011.<http://af.reuters.com/article/energyOilNews/idAFL6E7NT3GZ20111229?pageNumber=1&virtalBrandChannel=0>.
- Reuters, . "Petroceltic seeks oil, gas deals in Egypt and Tunisia." Reuters, London. Thomson Reuters, 26/05/2011. Web. 9 Dec 2011. <http://uk.reut.com/article/2011/05/26/petroceltic-idUKWLA136220110526>.
- Tran, Mark. "'Libya's oil deals need to be transparent'."The Guardian. Guardian News and Media Limited, 25/08/2011. Web. 8 Dec11. <http://www.guardian.co.uk/global-development/poverty-matters/2011/aug/25/libya-oil-deals-transparent-scrutiny>.
- United Press International, . "Energy Resources Italy’s ENI leads race for Libya oil deals Read more: ENI leads race for Libya oil deals."UPI.COM. United Press International, 09/07/2011. Web. 8 Dec 2011.<href="http://www.upi.com/Business_News/Energy-Resources/2011/09/07/Italys-ENI-leads-race-for-Libya-oil-deals/UPI-79261315414305/">http://www.upi.com/Business_News/Energy-Resources/2011/09/07/Italys-ENI-leads-race-for-Libya-oil-deals/UPI-79261315414305/>.
- U.S. Energy Information Administration. United States. U.S. Department of Energy. Iraq. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Energy. We. <http://www.eia.gov/countries/cab.cfm?fips=IZ>.
- Wang, Mariam. “F.A.Q. on U.S. Aid to Egypt: Where Does Money Go-And Who Decides How It’s Spent?”. ProPublica. Propublica Inc, 31/11/2011. Web. 11 Dec 2011. <ttp://www.propublica.org/blog/item/f.a.q.-on-u.s.-aid-to-egypt-where-does-the-money-go-who-decides-how-spent">http://www.propublica.org/blog/item/f.a.q.-on-u.s.-aid-to-egypt-where-does-the-money-go-who-decides-how-spent>
- Watt, Holly, and Rowena Mason. "Hague facing questions over Libya deal." The Telegraph. Telegraph Media Group Limited, 11/11/2011. Web. 8 Dec 2011.
Julio Hernandez - Graduated from UCSB in 2011 with a Bachelors Degree in Sociology. I research and write on global affairs and social movements.
Join the Conversation