22 August 2011:"it's not a real country"

Russia Today: Putin: Who gave NATO right to kill Gaddafi?




(above) Hamid Dabashi: "Neo-liberalism a greater threat to Libya than tribalism or extreme Islam."via Reality Zone

CNN, "Top ten myths about the Libya war"-Juan Cole

Although I recognize that Cole is a celebrated expert on the Middle East, I am leery of his myth-busting. Putting aside his discussion of Khaddafi's domestic politics, on which I don't feel qualified to offer an informed opinion, I recognize the counterfeit quality of his argument that the Europeans aren't after their oil because some companies that have a current stake in Libya's oil fields have lost some money since the war started. That's a little like saying that because some exploratory wells don't pan out that proves oil companies aren't trying to make a profit.

see also, from the NYT:The Scramble for Access to Libya’s Oil Wealth Begins

Colonel Qaddafi proved to be a problematic partner for international oil companies, frequently raising fees and taxes and making other demands. A new government with close ties to NATO may be an easier partner for Western nations to deal with. Some experts say that given a free hand, oil companies could find considerably more oil in Libya than they were able to locate under the restrictions placed by the Qaddafi government.

A problematic partner? I wonder what they are trying to say. I get the impression Elisabetta Povoledo of the NYT said "problematic partner" because she was trying to comply with the NYT manual on style. They must have such a manual, right? 'If you're trying to convey thing or idea x, say "problematic partner."' It's probably like their crossword, full of big words.

Now, another thought, and I know this is going to sound crazy, maybe even problematic: it occurs to me that one of the purposes of the Libya campaign was as P.R. to help justify the existence of NATO in the first place. Cole doesn't address this. Maybe he sees that as a given, the modishness of austerity notwithstanding.

I do agree with Cole, however, that the frequently bandied-about assertion that various states aren't "real countries" is bogus orientalism.

(I would add racism, as in the implied, "Why, we had a civil society and laws when they were living in mud huts..." Of course this assumption itself is also wrong sometimes.)

However I think his citing Alexander Cockburn's criticism is a bit off, and based on a misreading of Cockburn's argument, whether deliberate or accidental. I think Cockburn is saying the NATO countries might try to partition Libya for their benefit by force, not that the national identity Libyan people may feel is shakier and less authentic than that of Westerners, which seems to be what Cole thinks Cockburn is saying.


(That begs the question of whether having a strong national identity in fact makes you a civilized person, but that's a discussion for another occasion. My initial point in bringing it up is that I'm with Cole on the "it's not a real country" trope. Still, I never thought I'd see the day that CNN links to an article on Counterpunch!)