Libya rebels 'promised France 35% oil'

2011-09-01 12:11

Paris - Libya's rebels in April promised France 35 per cent of the country's crude oil in exchange for supporting the National Transitional Council in its fight against Muammar Gaddafi, a French newspaper reported on Thursday.

Liberation newspaper published a copy of a letter in Arabic from the Popular Front for the Liberation of Libya, the forerunner to the rebels' council, addressed to Qatar, in which the rebels apparently refer to a deal to give 35% of Libya's crude to France in return for supporting the rebellion.

The letter, which was dated April 03, two weeks after the start of the military intervention in support of the rebels that France had championed, said the deal was struck with France "during the London summit".

An international conference on the conflict in Libya was held in London on March 29.

France's foreign ministry told Liberation it had no knowledge of the existence of the letter.

An NTC representative was not immediately available to confirm the existence of such a letter.

French oil giant Total is one of several players in the Libyan oil market. The biggest oil producer in Libya is Italy's Eni.

Eni and Total have been tipped to emerge as the biggest winners in the post-Gaddafi era, given the strong support shown by their countries for the rebels.

  • Witsie101 - 2011-09-01 12:14

    Lmao, lol

      Francois - 2011-09-01 12:32

      The rebels are giving those who want to fight for democracy in Africa a bad name. What is France? The were more Africans killed in the Battle for Britain than Frenchmen on the beaches of Normandy. Hey Rebels, you are playing right into Racist Mbeki and Mad Bob's hands.

      malusi - 2011-09-01 12:52

      francois. its funny how racists are suddenly refering to others as racists. is maybe to make them feel beter about their racist tendencies. guys you are not fooling anyone. everyone knows who the racists are. calling mbeki a racist wont make you less of a racist(thats if you are). the only way to stop people from viewing you as racist is to stop being racist. adding people to the pool of racism doesn't make any difference. the only people who agree with labelling people like tutu racist are fellow racists.

      arjenf - 2011-09-01 13:05

      I would want to say, "surprise surprise", but jeeze, I didn't think they'll be so upfront with selling the countries resources for power.

      Illuminated - 2011-09-01 15:37

      doesnt sound like a conflict of interest does it... maybe NATO will bomb the government here if we try take over and promise them resources

      john - 2011-09-01 16:02

      Illuminated, can you cite a precedent of where NATO has bombed a democracy?

      chingon - 2011-09-01 16:45

      @john - "can you cite a precedent of where NATO has bombed a democracy" - think Bosnia

      chingon - 2011-09-01 16:56

      @john a precedent you say, what about Bosnia ?

      john - 2011-09-01 18:54

      Erm, I'm not sure I'd categorise the break-up of Yugoslavia, and the various wars and misadventures that stemmed from rivalry between the various factions, as being a "democracy". But yeah, fair enough. If SA fractured into various different mini-states that declared independence from the Republic of South Africa and then fought wars against each other over control of territory, ethnic differences, etc, I guess that "democratic South Africa" might attract NATO's attention and even be bombed. Especially if one or more factions were involved in ethnic cleansing and attacked areas designated as "safe areas" by the UN. Incidentally, what resources did Bosnian Muslims offer NATO in return for protection from ethnic cleansing? Because this is what Illuminated was suggesting: that you need to dangle resources as a carrot before NATO will become involved.

      Francois - 2011-09-01 21:38

      Ai tog Malusi, you don't need to be a racist to see one, you only need to understand the definition of the word. In short it is to label people with a certain characteristic that has nothing to do with the color of their skin due to the color of their skin. Mbeki labeled whites as foreigners and not worthy to serve in government, just because they were white. Thus his actions makes him a racist. Then Bosnia was not a democracy when Nato bombed it. It declared independence from whatever remained from Yugo-Slavia and then Milosovic besieged Bosnia. The Nato air strikes was aimed to get the Serbs to lift their siege. Only after that in the Dayton agreement was the country Bosnia - Hercigovina formed. Now does that make me anti Europe - think not. The whole point is that if France believes in democracy it must let the people vote freely and fairly first and then that government can negotiate an oil contract with the French. If France did the bombing for oil, they are anti - democracy and have not learned from WWII when more South Africans died in the air over France than Frenchman died in the battle for French liberty. And yes, according to Zuma, the boere are Africa's white tribe.

      Francois - 2011-09-01 21:39

      So by the way, there is not a country with the name Bosnia today.

  • ChrisKhoza - 2011-09-01 12:31

    Not that we didn't know but now that is confirmed we can only say "We knew the war was not about serving the interests of people of Libya".

      tryanything - 2011-09-01 12:42

      Is it ever? Take A look farther south...

  • Flip De Bruyn - 2011-09-01 12:36

    And so the penny drops!

  • TheMagician - 2011-09-01 12:38

    you know i dont see a problem with this to be honest so what... in the end the libyan people were suffereing under gidaffi and had to get him.... a deal was struck where everyone wins.... the only losers here is south africa.... We should also make a deal like this to get cheap oil.... it is a win win win for all involved except the only bad thing in all of this "Gidaffi" its a resolution thats works for all....

      Majozi - 2011-09-01 12:47

      You are also as sick as your counterparts.Why dont you relocate you evil.

      RobN - 2011-09-01 12:58

      Try explain that to the 50000 Libyans who have been put in graves since the trouble started. I think you can add them to your list of "only losers"

      Wishbone - 2011-09-01 13:09

      @TheMagician. There is some logic to your comment. I don't think anyone can argue that Gaddaffi was good for Libya. Then again he was the one who cracked down on the protesters in a violent manner. The loss of life was appalling but a true leader would have stepped down to avoid bloodshed. The cost has been high so I wouldn't exactly call it win-win.

      Shaun Andrews - 2011-09-01 13:11

      Well don't you think it's sad that right next to our borders R.Mugabe committed atrocities and continues to ruin Zimbabwe and the lives of his subjects and the powers of the world don't do a damn thing. Why do you think that is...because they have no financial benefit in doing so. The only reason USA/UK/France/Russia etc ever get involved in African conflict is for their own financial benefit! It always results in countless lives being lost. They don't care about human life...only the bottom dollar! That is what is wrong with this picture

      Peg-Leg-Sven - 2011-09-01 13:28

      @Shaun, the problem with Zimbabwe and Uncle Bob is the fact that the AU told the West to stay out and for a change they did. It is the fact that the AU supports dictators and Despots, like Mugabe, because they are scared that if they interfere and orchestrate regime change, they will be next on the list. As it is impossible to find more than one leader of an African country that is uplifting their people, the exception being Botswana, who incidentally is the only African country condemning the brutal rule of Mugabe.

      TheMagician - 2011-09-01 13:33

      andrew its only fair though... do you have any idea how many billions of dollars it cost america or france to go into libya or zimbabwe and help liberate the people... if there is nothing for them to benefit then why should they go in anyway???? this is like business... you scratch my back and i'll scratch your back.... saying that though as a black man i hope Mugabe goes soon!!!

      2fly - 2011-09-01 14:55

      @ The Magician Do you know that for 40 years when Gadaffi was in power there were no beggars in Libya and 25% on the population hold degrees. Libyans also had access to top class medical facilities....

      john - 2011-09-01 15:01

      2fly, and the reason this can't continue, or even improve, under democracy is...? You know if tyranny is so attractive, then why don't we try it? Why don't we just tell the ANC that we've had a look at Libya, decided their system works better than ours so, from now on, Pres Zuma is our own Brother Leader and we don't need to have elections anymore. All those in favour, raise your hands.

  • Majozi - 2011-09-01 12:40

    I thought as much,bloody evils.Killing people for oil? God these evil ones dont deserve forgiveness,God forgive me.

      john - 2011-09-01 21:30

      Part of the process of becoming an adult is realising that the world does not work in black and white absolutes. NATO could have 50 reasons for doing something, it doesn't have to be just one reason. If I go to Sun City, it might be JUST to play golf. Or JUST to gamble. Or JUST to watch a show. Or it could be two of these, or all three. It is possible to have more than one reason for doing something. There are a number of reasons why NATO could be intervening: 1) Gaddafi funded and armed dictators who NATO doesn't like. 2) Libyan terrorists under Gaddafi have attacked Western targets. 3) Innocent people are being oppressed in Libya. 4) Removing Gaddafi sends a message to other dictators to beware. 5) Oil and energy security issues. 6) The Arab League wants Gaddafi gone, granting their wish rebuilds bridges after Iraq. And maybe more reasons we don't know about. And yet people refuse to accept that there can be more than one reason for NATO's action. I'll be kind and call it "child-like" instead of "childish". The West was already both exploiting and buying the bulk of Libya's oil. Implementing regime change so that... the West can exploit and buy the bulk of Libya's oil... doesn't make much sense. You don't invade to get something you've already got. If Gaddafi had refused to do business with Western companies and had instead only allowed, say, Russian companies to work Libya's oil, then maybe there'd be an oil motive to invade. But BP, ENI and others were there already.

  • TheGoat - 2011-09-01 12:40

    Whaaaat you mean it WASN'T all about liberating people?!?! I. AM. SHOCKED. seriously though .... at least there is a nice little piece of evidence that can be used to shut up all the happy bunny blinkered idiots that thought this was all about liberty and freedom. LOL

      Anton - 2011-09-01 13:11

      TheGoat, Let one happy bunny blinkered idiot, remind you, that it had ALL to do with liberating the Libyans. It is very hard to accept for anyone who is anti Western , to realize that it is "the people" of these Western countries, that keep their governments in power. Let me assure you, that for the majority of these people "oil" is not an issue. Why would it be ? There is no shortage of oil in Europe. But when a leader of a country, shouts and screams , that he is " going to kill all his opposition" , these European people DEMAND from their governments, to STOP THIS TYRANT !! And why would France or China, or any country , not get oil from Libya. They have to pay for it, and that is what will get the Libyan economy going again. Let me also remind you again, that it was FAR AND FAR EASIER , for the European governments and iol companies, to have dealt with the CORRUPT gaddafies, than with this new transition government. But they were not able to stop this uprising !!!!!

      Peg-Leg-Sven - 2011-09-01 13:42

      @The Goat, your comment is so ill-informed, it is scary. The West, has been buying oil from Libya for the past 40 years, the allocation of which was given to those countries that gave the biggest kick backs to the Gadaffi regime. All that has happened now, is that there will be legitimate allocations of Libya's oil for the ruling price and the profit will go to all the Libyan people and not just a corrupt regime. The allocation is not given away for free, but does make it easier for France to plan it's oil reserves. For that they helped remove a Despot and Dictator, seems a very one sided transaction as the Libyan people got far more out of the bargain than the French did.

      john - 2011-09-01 13:53

      TheGoat: heh, do you know how many Iraqi groups promised the US all of Iraq's oil contracts after the invasion? The US has received hardly any of Iraq's oil contracts, China has been a far bigger winner despite opposing the invasion. Western powers didn't get to the top of the food chain by believing what rebel groups tell them. What a rebel group says is one thing, what a legitimate government does is another. Libya's oil will be managed in the same way that Iraq's oil is. The Constitution will guarantee national ownership of the oil, and a hydrocarbon law will lay out the terms and conditions under which the government will work with foreign oil companies to exploit the resource. For both Iraq and Libya, oil revenues are crucial to their economies, they're going to be squeezing as much as they can out of it. So inevitably, it will be decided by public tender in which the bid goes to whichever IOC provides the most favourable partnership with Libya. If Total wants to get 35% of Libya's contracts, they'll have to take the same or less profit than competing IOCs. This is how democracies work. Kurdistan in Iraq has given out oil contracts. The central govt in Baghdad considers those contracts illegal. If the Iraqi govt refuses to honour agreements made by the provincial govt in Kurdistan, what chance do you think there is of them honouring a pre-invasion agreement given by some rebel group who had no mandate? There is zero chance.

      john - 2011-09-01 14:04

      Look at who has received Iraqi oil contracts and it is clear it has nothing to do with who did what during the invasion. Countries that invaded (US, UK) have received some contracts. But no more (and actually quite a bit less) than countries who opposed the invasion - Russia, China, France. And then a large chunk of contracts also went to countries who had little part in the invasion either way - Malaysia, Korea, etc. This is why they call it the oil BUSINESS. It's not about who supported you in which war or who opposed you. It's about who offers the best financial deal and thus the greatest revenue for the country. For example, Saudi Arabia now supplies more oil to China than to the US. Which "side" do the Saudis support - the West or East? The simple answer is "neither", they support the ideals of business. I will bet good money that China walks away with a ton of Libyan oil contracts, more than any Western companies. It's not about them supporting the invasion or opposing the invasion, that has nothing to do with it. It's about China being less risk-averse than most Western companies, and willing to work to lower margins. Those are the qualities that win public tenders. China has been very aggressive in pursuing energy interests in Africa. They're already working with Sudan to develop capacity there. Libya will just be an extension of that national drive. Anyhow, let's wait until Libyan oil contracts get awarded by the new govt, then we'll see who was right.

      Illuminated - 2011-09-01 15:59

      i was wondering when Anton and the like would try spread their brainwashed ideas to the rest of us.. you and John are actually ill-informed.. all your thoughts and ideas are based and will always be based on Subconscious beliefs that the west and the US are good. you will defend them no matter what evidence is put forward. thats because wherever you go you are bombarded with propaganda that America is good and selfless, only here to help others and i think for a majority of the US population that is true. they really do want to help but the US is run by only a few million people - the rest are oblivious to whats really going on. this was never about oil, it was about currency. as long as the the dollar is the reserve currency of the world they can keep printing money. but Gadaffi wanted to be paid in gold and change the reserve currency for Africa. plus Lybia was financially independant, they owed the west nothing and that makes them a threat... it will happen in Syria and probably Venezuela as Chavez wants his gold back in Venezuela.. but you cant comprehend all of this and never will.. most countries are inbedted to the west and therefore are easily controlled, those who arent indebted, well just look at lybia and find out what happens... now back to your ignorant lives and im sure Anton will regurgitate words like, Freedon, Liberty, Voting, Tyranny, 41years no elections bla bla bla to justify the illegal war against Lybia...

      john - 2011-09-01 16:44

      Illuminated, I know all about the "petrodollar" issue, so does the rest of the world. Americans have written books on it, the oil industry discusses it regularly. Yes, America does benefit from the "petrodollar". But, as with most things in business, there are pros and cons to moving away from it. The petroEuro, for all the support it generates, would have just as many problems and be subject to just as much abuse. There are no easy answers to these problems. All the information I cited above is easily checkable via google. People have spouted rubbish like "The US got 100% of Iraq oil contracts" and I have merely countered their claims. It is clear to me that not many people here (and certainly none of the conspiracy theorists) have the slightest clue of how the world works. When this issue started, we had literally hundreds of people claiming - with poker faces - that the US would "steal the oil". As if Iraqis or Libyans or anybody else would simply allow some outside agency to steal the resource that provides the bulk of their national income. Jesus wept, just how stupid do you think they are?!?

      Anton - 2011-09-01 22:23

      Illuminated, You must not assume soo much , what others think and base their ideas on, for than you start talking absolute rubbish!!!

  • soba le boya - 2011-09-01 12:41

    one day i was carrying 200liters of oil in my bakkie and i was flippen scared of being attacked...

  • Majozi - 2011-09-01 12:45

    USA got its 40% fronm Iraq and it left this to France to negotiate its deal.Thanks God there is no oil in SA.

      john - 2011-09-01 14:06

      The US got 40% of oil rights from Iraq?? Source? This I'd love to see.

  • buzz - 2011-09-01 12:46

    Guys, it costs a huge bucketload of cash to run a military campaign, and it has to be paid for somehow. Do you expect nations to help other nations, taking a huge financial toll, and get nothing back for it? Doesn't, and can't, work that way. Its business. Nothing wrong with France or any other NATO country recuperating at least some of the losses they incurred. Remember, Libya accounts for only about 2% of the world's oil (or thereabouts).

      jowza - 2011-09-01 12:49


      Majozi - 2011-09-01 12:58

      Bullbuzz suits you well idiot.

      Valis - 2011-09-01 12:59

      Hey sig, I see you're using one of your sockpuppets to make more excuses for NATO's war crimes. While it is true that Libyan oil production is only 2% of world production, the fact is THEY SUPPLY 85% OF EUROPE'S OIL! Libya's oil is also light, sweet crude, the most sought after kind. Add to that the fact they have the LARGEST PROVEN RESERVES IN AFRICA! Besides, the real reason for the attack was to protect the dollar's status as the world's reserve currency. The instant Ghaddafi demanded to be paid in gold instead of dollars for Libya's oil, that was when NATO launched their attacks. IT'S ALL ABOUT THE DOLLAR STUPID!

      Anton - 2011-09-01 13:17

      Valis, You are a bad looser !!!

      crackerr - 2011-09-01 13:19

      @ Valis Your sources for the alleged demand please. I heard a number of oil experts on radio and TV. Not one of them even mentioned the demand you now mention. The other issue. The so-called letter referred to in the article above gives no indication whatever of the gold demand playing a role. Something not right here.

      john - 2011-09-01 14:25

      Valis, don't be idiotic. If Libya provides only 2% of the world's oil, and yet provides 85% of Europe's oil, then Europe would only use about 3% of the world's oil. Does that sound accurate to you, that the most highly developed continent (on par with North America) only uses 3% of the world's oil?? What you meant to say is that 85% of Libyan production GOES to Europe. However, there is a big difference between "85% of Libyan oil is exported to Europe" and "Libya provides 85% of Europe's oil". Europe consumes 20% of the world's oil - ten times Libya's output.

  • Sam - 2011-09-01 12:47


  • vegetarian - 2011-09-01 12:50

    This is proof once and for all that the western countries are still on their centuries old thieving crusade. It is a pity that News24 deletes any comment that scritinizes the filthy behaviour of these beasts.

      Wishbone - 2011-09-01 13:30

      Well your anti-west comment wasn't deleted!

      Anton - 2011-09-01 13:42

      Vegetarian, That is total BS. News24, allows anyone to comment their thoughts on an issue. The only time they delete, is when it is "Extreme" Extreme racist, extreme hatred, extreme filthy etc. I am sure, that most of us who read and post comments on this site, have no problem with this.

      john - 2011-09-01 14:39

      vegetarian, NATO hasn't intervened in Sudan, which has proven reserves of more than 6 billion barrels of oil and is considered vastly under-explored (ie there may be much more oil there that hasn't been found yet). Who is exploiting Sudan's oil? Well, according to Wiki: "On November 3, 1997, the U.S. government imposed a trade embargo against Sudan and a total asset freeze against the Government of Sudan under Executive Order 13067. The U.S. believed the Government of Sudan gave support to international terrorism, destabilized neighboring governments, and permitted human rights violations. A consequence of the embargo is that U.S. corporations cannot invest in the Sudan oil industry, so companies in China, Malaysia and India are the major investors." So yeah, it's only the evil West that places oil profits above human rights. China, Malaysia and India, of course, would never dream of doing such a thing.

  • Lyndatjie - 2011-09-01 12:53

    And there it is... the official and undeniable reason for being involved in a domestic issue... Don't worry Zimbabwe - until they find oil - you will keep your despot Mugabe in power.

      john - 2011-09-01 14:42

      Sudan has oil. Care to hazard a guess as to why NATO hasn't intervened there? Why would NATO intervene in Zimbabwe if it hasn't in Sudan? Because some white people's farms got snatched? Do you really consider what has happened in Sudan to be of lesser consequence than what happened to white farmers in Zim? Really? Seriously?

  • thabatao - 2011-09-01 13:04

    Well, America has received 100% oil from Angola after the war. So who is the worst. America or France? America must have 100% oil from Iraq after their invasion. I am surprised the USA didn't intervene in Libya.

      QuestionMore - 2011-09-01 13:22

      And you think those A10 Warthogs, cruise missiles and UAVs came from where? SAS and French Special Forces where on the ground months ago helping the so called rebel's ragtag army from being swamped by Gaddafi's forces. The West supports human rights and interests when it suits them, not when its needed.

      john - 2011-09-01 14:08

      America has received 100% oil from Iraq after the invasion? LOL. Here's a site that might open your eyes: Scroll down to the section marked "2009 Oil services contracts". That shows you which companies have been awarded oil contracts in Iraq.

  • crackerr - 2011-09-01 13:12

    First wait a while before accepting the veracity of the article. We ALL know the cunning of some of the role players. We need a lot more information. Including the reaction of the other non-French companies and their governments. A little more patience. And once again let's praise our gods for the oil deposits. If you want your freedoms from 42 years of being deprived of a say to have a mad man removed as your so-called leader, you should be able to use your country's natural resources as a bargaining chip. But let's wait.

      john - 2011-09-01 21:09

      They are not using the country's resources as a bargaining chip because they do not have the authority to give out oil contracts. Only governments do that and the rebels aren't the government. Before Libya awards any oil contracts, they have to go through a long process of reworking the country's laws. For starters, they will need a new constitution and a new legal framework, as democracy works with different laws from autocracy. This has been the situation in Iraq. Kurdistan region/province has signed oil contracts and the central govt in Baghdad does not recognise those contracts because they were signed outside of the legal framework put in place once the new govt came to power. Only once that legal framework is in place will the Libyan govt be able to award oil contracts. So a letter from the rebels has absolutely zero legal standing. Of course, France knows this. They have been practising democracy for a long time, they're well aware of due process. When Libya is ready, the oil contracts will go out on tender and France (Total) will have to bid against other oil companies. Terms like "constitution" and "legal framework" and "due process" and "public tender" mean nothing to the average reader. They think that the world works like a kindergarten playground, where big bully Jannie can take little Frikkie's marbles and nobody can do anything because "finders keepers, losers weepers" or something. It's a no-brainer that none of these people has ever studied law.

  • crackerr - 2011-09-01 13:15

    The world's peoples must unite against tyrants. You can turn a blind eye now. Tomorrow others will turn a blind eye when it's your unfortune to be the victim of tyranny.

  • blacksiza - 2011-09-01 13:16

    Y I’m not surprise about this cause that’s what they wanted in the first place. in Ruwanda there was not for them but in Libya Oil is there.

  • thokozani.nene1 - 2011-09-01 13:21

    Thanks SA goverment and AU that you dont recognised this NTC, I'm not surprised that's how the Western do, and they(SA Govt) betrayed us by signing, they must know Western by now...

  • Comrade - 2011-09-01 13:41

    ha ha ha, NATO, I knew it. They just don't CARE Africans....they are only interested in our RESOURCES. How pathetic this is... I have spoken. JZ let them fix Libya. OIL, OIL OIL, OIL,,I can only imagine the ABF's having a good laugh in thier G8 meetings. DON'T SHOOT AT THE DEVIL, WHAT IF YOU MISS?

  • crackerr - 2011-09-01 13:51

    If there was no oil in Libya it would have been fine to intervene and assist to prevent the horrors we SAW with our own eyes developing for civilians. But because there is oil it was wrong according to the praise singers of dictatorships to intervene. Difficult to appreciate the logic behind it. Suddenly a letter appears out of the blue just as Gaddafi and ilk announce a major fight back. It will be particularly interesting to hear the US President's comments. Despite the draw card inherent in oil deposits the fight against tyrants EVERYWHERE must continue. For the sake of the WHOLE world. Oil or other attractions aside.

  • EssopMS - 2011-09-01 14:05

    @Peg-Leg Sven if you believe that all the profits will go to the Libyan people, then you are sadly mistaken. Watch this space, Libya is going down the same road as Iraq and become a ground for Western expolitation of oil resources, the majority of which is consumed by the US and Europe, not Africa! It is despicable to see how people who have such wonderful ideals and dreams for their country get sucked in by the allure of personal wealth and glory...that is shortlived.

      john - 2011-09-01 14:47

      I would sincerely hope that Libya is going down the same road as Iraq. Many Western oil firms didn't even bid for oil contracts in Iraq because the Iraqi govt has squeezed them to the max, taking as much revenue for Iraq and as little for the oil companies as possible. If Libya's new leaders can drive the same hard bargains, the country will benefit from much higher oil revenues. Plus, of course, the infrastructure investment that foreign companies bring helps to increase oil output. Iraq is currently earning $60bn per annum from oil sales. With better infrastructure, they want to increase that to $100bn shortly. Good for them. They need the money to improve the lives of their people. If they can spend it properly, rather than stealing it as developing world govts are prone to do (Angola *cough*), the Iraqi people will benefit.

      crackerr - 2011-09-01 15:39

      @ EssopMS Oil consumption is not determined by sentiment. It is demand, supply and the ability to pay for your oil. Why must the oil go to Africa instead of somewhere else. OK. Here's what should then be done. Ask the Arab nations for oil for Africa. Here there response. Come back here and post your empty propaganda again. Ironically, why pay so much more via military adventures if you can simply buy the oil outright. And so easily. No risks. Mo need to fight domestic political battles and put your political career at risk. What is it with you anti-Western propagandists? Your arguments never make sense. Never substantiated with facts.

  • 2fly - 2011-09-01 14:51

    This is what the Libyan conflict is about...the oil. Iraq is a mess because the U.S.A and Britain invaded them for their oil but they did not give France a piece of the cake, so now France is poking their dirty fingers now....It's all about the oil..

  • vis vang - 2011-09-01 15:04

    The good news is in 50 or so years, China will be bombing the EU and the U.S under the guise of whatever they deem 'appropriate' at the time.

  • Fair Deal - 2011-09-01 15:06

    Just confirms my suspicions that the whole thing is about oil and money. It realy has nothing to do with the liberation of the people.

  • crackerr - 2011-09-01 15:31

    After surveying the FACTS one's suspicion is confirmed that the letter is a fake and a lie to sow discord to support Gaddafi and smear the West and Nato. No doubt about it.

      Nom-de-guerre - 2011-09-01 17:21

      Really, how convenient. Plausible denial!

  • Nom-de-guerre - 2011-09-01 16:10

    These rebels have no authority to negotiate with any deals with other countries, where do they get their mandate from to make deals? You might not know or heard about AFRICOM. If you saw the name once, you might have dismissed it thinking AFRICOM is a new company to sell cement like Afrisam. Some might conclude that since it has a ‘com’ at the end, maybe it is something online. These are wrong conclusions. At the end of this column, you will know what AFRICOM is, its activities and why it is a security threat. AFRICOM, standing for Africa Command, was established by blood covered former US President George W. Bush and his Secretary of Defence Robert Gates. You will notice that Robert Gates, has continued with his duties under Obama who misled many of you except me. The idiots believed AFRICOM’s raison d’être terrorism in Africa. I would not expect you to know AFRICOM’s mission statement since many of you don’t read. Allow yourself an Education as I make it known that the AFRICOM mission statement is “United States Africa Command, in concert with other U.S. government agencies and international partners, conducts sustained security engagements through military-to-military programs, military-sponsored activities, and other military operations as directed to promote a stable and secure African environment in support of U.S. foreign policy.” Meaning AFRICOM is a fundamental tool of US Foreign Policy.

  • Nom-de-guerre - 2011-09-01 16:11

    We will return to it later. It’s ok that you didn’t know, even your leaders, many without education, didn’t know. AFRICOM is headquartered at Kelley Barracks, Stuttgart in Germany and is led by General William Ward. Why and how is AFRICOM a security threat to Africa? Firstly, its mission suggests so. In a 2009 journal article on Contemporary Security Policy, Laurie Nathan exposes four key fundamental principalities as regards to AFRICOM. The author correctly argues that AFRICOM, in undermining state sovereignty, will “alter the regional balance of power, and be divisive and destabilizing…It would undermine the unity and collective decision-making.” AFRICOM was to be located in Africa, General Ward probably plans to locate it in countries such as Botswana and Namibia with pro-western leadership. Locating AFRICOM in Africa is a military opportunity for America to overthrow African governments and to attack countries seen as anti-American. Since African and American interest never gels, it would mean that AFRICOM would pursue American interest, on an African soil, at the expense of African interest. Those with sharp medulla oblongata know that AFRICOM is undermining the African Union (AU) and its Peace and Security Council which deals with Peace and Security on the continent. We might as well sell the AU to Americans.

  • Luapolku - 2011-09-01 16:11

    Where is slg the west worshipping fool, gone into hiding I see

  • Nom-de-guerre - 2011-09-01 16:12

    I had mentioned American foreign policy. In this domain, Nathan (2009) sees American foreign policy in light of its “unsympathetic attitude to the liberation movements, its unwavering support for Israel despite the illegal occupation of Palestine, its exceptionalism in relation to the International Criminal Court, and its long history of unilateralism, aggression, and disdain for international law …pursues its own interests at the expense of others, and is willing to deploy force offensively to advance those interests.” So if AFRICOM is to achieve its mission statement we discussed earlier, Africa must support and embrace the above as discussed by Nathan. As your teacher, I need to share recent information made available to us by Wikileaks. The communication cable dated on Monday, 11 January 2010, at 17h30 UTC, indicates a meeting of AFRICOM Commander’s discussion with French officials on Aqim and other African Security Threats. The meeting, held in Paris, was attended by President Sarkozy’s Diplomatic Advisor Jean-David Levitte, Sarkozy’s Military Advisor, Admiral Edouard Guillaud, and others briefed U.S. AFRICOM Commander General William E. Ward. Wikileaks has also revealed to us how AFRICOM planned the assassination of legendary RG Mugabe and the fall of his government through the so-called Operation Shumba (damn bastard, may God bless Zimbabwe).

  • Nom-de-guerre - 2011-09-01 16:13

    AFRICOM Commander General Ward visited Namibia in April 2010. Reading his report was so disgusting in many ways. He referred to my country as “Southwest Africa.” Cleary Americans still use lenses of Cold War geopolitics. General Ward met with Health Minister Dr. Kamwi, they apparently discussed how AFRICOM “could help the Namibian military and U.S. country team efforts to assist in health related issues.” At a meeting with the Ministry of Safety and Security, they discussed supporting the then “upcoming Namibian police visit to Ramstein Air Base in Southwestern Germany.” The American was dignified with a fifteen minute appearance on Good Morning Namibia, with Kazembire Zemburuka, in order to brainwash, hypnotize and shower us with American propaganda. General Ward met Education Minister Abraham Iyambo to discuss the school AFRICOM will build in northern Namibia. Lastly and shockingly, he met with the then Defence Deputy Minister Lempy Lucas. He said “it was very gratifying to hear Ms. Lucas praise our bilateral relationship and her wish to see Africa Command play a greater role in military-to-military relations in the future.”(what?). A close friend said General Ward met significant others not mentioned. These cosmetic initiatives are not genuine, they devil’s initiative are never genuine. These are attempts to win the hearts and the minds of the Namibian people. There is no good devil, the good devil is the dead one

  • feppie - 2011-09-01 17:48

    US/NATO bombed Libya to pieces they put their PUPPETS in power their troops are there to keep the PUPPETS in power colonisation yet again!

  • RedRacam - 2011-09-02 02:12

    @john Public services have guaranteed Libyans free education (literacy comparable to Europe), free health-care, free water and subsidised housing. 95% of oil revenue was fed directly to the Libyan treasury coming from contracts brokered with Total, BP, Eni et al. The Libyan government closed the Wheelus US air base in 1969-70. These are the factors that have ranked Libya higher than Russia and Ukraine in terms of human development in the UN ratings list (Libya = 55) and given ordinary people security. If ordinary Libyans lose these advantages it makes guessing why Nato invaded incidental, makes whether M. Gadaffi is good or bad incidental. The inter-tribal free-for-all now in progress and the strong presence of Al-Qaeda in the NTC make even a sham democracy appear unlikely in any forseeable future. Result : ordinary Libyans lose. The oil corporations will win; better terms to their contracts. Some tribal leaders will get a bigger slice of the pie. Nato will reopen the Wheelus air-base and perhaps others. IMF will lend money to Libya for reconstruction (war has its price); the banks get richer. Whose interests have been served?

  • pages:
  • 1