I’ve been trying to understand the case in which Monitor Group, a Massachusetts based PR company, has been severely criticized in the press recently and admitted “(we) made serious mistakes entering into a multimillion dollar contract with the Libyan regime to portray Muammar Gaddafi to the west in a favorable light.” (1) Monitor Group promised the regime a “regular flow of high quality visitors” to Tripoli, selected for the “strength of their influence in guiding US policy” (ibid) Monitor has been quoted as saying they thought these visits would bring Gaddafi “closer to the west” (2)
Among the “high quality visitors” were Francis Fukuyama, author of The End of History, Richard Perle, Neo-con advisor to George W. Bush and high profile academics such as Robert Putnam, Benjamin Barber and Joseph Nye. Nye was forced to justify his participation by declaring “As someone who writes on international politics and leaders, I was curious to see what he was like.” And “There is no doubt Gaddafi) acts differently on the world stage today than he did in decades past. The fact that he took so much time to discuss ideas with a visiting professor suggests that he is actively seeking a new strategy.”
The London School of Economics has been similarly criticized for it’s dealings with Libya, leading to the resignation of its director Sir Howard Davies. This is for the “mistake” of concluding a £2.2 million pound deal to train hundreds of future Libyan elites. Surely, with what we know of cultural and public diplomacy, there is nothing here that should raise concerns. In a number of deals with different institutions, Libya proposed to send 400 young Libyans to London for leadership training, 90 diplomatic exchanges with the US and send 70 judges to Britain to study English and international law. We know that cultural exchange and having foreign elites train in or visit your country is one of the most effective forms of diplomacy. The British government has been dealing with Gaddafi for many years now, our oil companies are doing huge amounts of business in Libya. So why the concern now? Gaddafi has been “rehabilitated” in recent years, as shown by this Telegraph article of 29th May 2007 by David Blair,
But Mr Blair's meeting with Col Gaddafi was designed to drive home the transformation of Libya's relations with the West.
In December 2003, Col Gaddafi handed over his stocks of chemical and biological munitions and his entire nuclear weapons programme to British and American experts.
This crucial step marked the culmination of years of diplomacy, during which Col Gaddafi also stopped sponsoring terrorism and paid compensation to the families of the 270 people who died in the Lockerbie bombing.
Last year, America formally removed Libya from its list of state sponsors of terrorism and resumed diplomatic ties.
Mr Blair regards these developments as one of the key foreign policy successes of his premiership. (3)
I would contend that this is an ongoing strategy to demonize Gaddafi. The British and US governments have seen an opportunity where they may be able to rid Libya of Gaddafi’s influence, foment civil war and consequently gain control of Libya’s sweet crude oil. The propaganda machines of both countries have gone into overdrive to persuade the peoples of Britain, US and the Arab world that any military intervention would be for “humanitarian reasons”. BBC Radio 4’s 6 o’clock News (5th May) reported a “massacre” of 30 people by pro-Gaddafi troops outside of Bengazi, but the killing of 29 people by the US led puppet regime in Iraq on 26th February, (4) was apparently not a “massacre”, in fact it was very under reported in the mainstream media. The reporting of Libyan government air force jets bombing rebel populations is only based on hearsay as this extract from the 1st March, US Department of Defense news briefing, with Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and Joint Chief of Staffs Admiral Mike Mullen shows,
Q: Do you see any evidence that he actually has fired on his own people from the air? There were reports of it, but do you have independent confirmation? If so, to what extent
SEC. GATES: We’ve seen the press reports, but we have no confirmation of that.
ADM. MULLEN: That’s correct. We’ve seen no confirmation whatsoever.
Q: Mr. Secretary, could you give us your assessment of the situation on the ground? How bad is it? Can the rebels take Tripoli? Are thousands dying?
SEC. GATES: Well, the -- I think the honest answer, David, is that we don’t know in that respect, in terms of the number of casualties. In terms of the potential capabilities of the opposition, we’re in the same realm of speculation, pretty much, as everybody else. I haven’t seen anything that would give us a better read on the number of rebels that have been killed than you have. And I think it remains to be seen how effectively military leaders who have defected from Gadhafi’s forces can organize the opposition in the country. And we are watching that unfold, as you are.
Melissa.
Q: Do you have any requests from rebel leaders for air strikes from NATO -- have you heard of any of that?
SEC. GATES: No.
(5)
This seems to me to have been written before. In George Orwell’s 1984, the Big Brother government would have an ally one day then re-write history to make them into an enemy the next day.
The West’s military Industrial Complex has the smell of sweet crude in its nostrils, blood is sure to follow.
(1) http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/mar/04/the-monitor-group-gadaffi-pr?INTCMP=SRCH Guardian 4/3/11 by Ed Pilkington
(2) Guardian, pp.1 4/3/11 by Jeevan vasagar & Rajeev Syal
(3) http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1552871/Blair- meets-Gaddafi-on-African-farewell-tour.html
(4) http://stopwarcoalition.org/iraq-29-people-killed-in-day-of-rage/
(5) http://www.defense.gov/transcripts/transcript.aspx?transcriptid=4777
No comments:
Post a Comment