ECONOMIC HIT MAN JOHN PERKINS ON LIBYA: It's not oil, it's banks

[yurbud]

Talking about bombing Libya for humanitarian reasons is only slightly less childish than the Bush administration bullshit about Saddam Hussein blackmailing the whole world with one nuke (as if he would have dare use it against our thousands or nukes or Israel's hundreds).

The intriguing angle here is what's going to happen when these bankers can't bend ''rogue states'' to their will anymore?

This could also be why we have had such extreme resistance to alternative fuels here: we are the world's top consumer of oil, and oil has replaced gold in backing up the value of our paper money. If we significantly curtail our use of oil, that black gold turns to so much dinosaur diarrhea.

I wonder if Russia and China willingly go along with their shit, or if they are playing some chess on us.

According to the IMF, Libya’s Central Bank is 100% state owned. The IMF estimates that the bank has nearly 144 tons of gold in its vaults. It is significant that in the months running up to the UN resolution that allowed the US and its allies to send troops into Libya, Muammar al-Qaddafi was openly advocating the creation of a new currency that would rival the dollar and the euro. In fact, he called upon African and Muslim nations to join an alliance that would make this new currency, the gold dinar, their primary form of money and foreign exchange. They would sell oil and other resources to the US and the rest of the world only for gold dinars.

The US, the other G-8 countries, the World Bank, IMF, BIS, and multinational corporations do not look kindly on leaders who threaten their dominance over world currency markets or who appear to be moving away from the international banking system that favors the corporatocracy. Saddam Hussein had advocated policies similar to those expressed by Qaddafi shortly before the US sent troops into Iraq.

In my talks, I often find it necessary to remind audiences of a point that seems obvious to me but is misunderstood by so many: that the World Bank is not really a world bank at all; it is, rather a U. S. bank. Ditto, its closest sibling, the IMF. In fact, if one looks at the World Bank and IMF executive boards and the votes each member of the board has, one sees that the United States controls about 16 percent of the votes in the World Bank - (Compared with Japan at about 7%, the second largest member, China at 4.5%, Germany with 4.00%, and the United Kingdom and France with about 3.8% each), nearly 17% of the IMF votes (Compared with Japan and Germany at about 6% and UK and France at nearly 5%), and the US holds veto power over all major decisions. Furthermore, the United States President appoints the World Bank President.

***

One definition of “Empire” (per my book The Secret History of the American Empire) states that an empire is a nation that dominates other nations by imposing its own currency on the lands under its control. The empire maintains a large standing military that is ready to protect the currency and the entire economic system that depends on it through extreme violence, if necessary. The ancient Romans did this. So did the Spanish and the British during their days of empire-building. Now, the US or, more to the point, the corporatocracy, is doing it and is determined to punish any individual who tries to stop them. Qaddafi is but the latest example.

[no_hypocrisy]

1. Here's the link

http://my.auburnjournal.com/detail/177164.html

[midnight]

7. "Muammar al-Qaddafi was openly advocating the creation of a new currency that would rival the dollar

and the euro. In fact, he called upon African and Muslim nations to join an alliance that would make this new currency, the gold dinar, their primary form of money and foreign exchange. They would sell oil and other resources to the US and the rest of the world only for gold dinars."


Interesting.

[tabatha]

14. Jeez, I thought the US was going to go to

war with Iran because they were going to set up a bourse.

Well guess what they set up a bourse, and were not invaded.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_oil_bourse

[plumbob]

34. From your link: they have apparently just started trading oil this month.

"October 2009: IRNA reported that "National Petrochemical Company's Managing Director Adel Nejad-Salim said in the opening ceremony that all petrochemical products will be gradually offered on the market."<31> In the first phase, only petrochemical products such as polyethylene and methanol were traded on a spot basis and in Iranian Rial. However, with the completion of the second phase, crude and by-products of oil can also be traded on the exchange in both Iranian Rial and Euro.

April 2011: Iran inaugurated the third phase of oil bourse with vast opportunities for foreign companies. All types of contracts in the oil bourse will be based upon global standards of purchase and sale and in accordance with Islamic rules.<32>

[no_hypocrisy]

18. Supposedly Sadam Hussein went on record, announcing the same intent.

Look what happened to him.

http://www.energybulletin.net/node/7707

[tabatha]

20. I thought it was because Cheney

had already divvied up the Iraq oil (maps exist of that) before 911.

It would not have mattered what Saddam said - Cheney wanted the oil before he became VP.

[tabatha]

2. I don't believe that the rebels

know anything about the banks. Fail.

[yurbud]

3. that's why they already set up their own central bank before the dust settled? LINK

http://www.cnbc.com/id/42308613/Libyan_Rebels_Form_Their_Own_Central_Bank

[tabatha]

6. The demonstrations started Feb 15th.

The bank was set up about a month and a half AFTERWARDS. Good grief.

[rfranklin]

9. And it was all put in motion in that month's time?

That's not likely.

[tabatha]

12. How long does it take to set up a bacnk account?

Six months?

[rfranklin]

22. Yeah, that 140 tons of bullion probably was an ATM deposit...

Get real. The various powers involved in lobbing Cruise missiles into Libya aren't doing it for "humanitarian purposes" any more than they did in Iraq. There are plenty of other places around the globe that deserve intervention and don't get it. Why? Because there is no profit motive.

[tabatha]

25. Sorry they are.

And there are a number of reasons why I think so, but I need to write them up.

I think all this guessing is about as bad as the guessing about Obama's birth certificate.

[yurbud]

29. it doesn't seem odd to set up a new central bank while the bulets are still flying?

[plumbob]

35. Apparently, this sort of setup so quickly is unprecendented.

Same source: “I have never before heard of a central bank being created in just a matter of weeks out of a popular uprising,” Wenzel writes.

[rfranklin]

8. They are probably the useful idiots of the CIA...

do you really think that they are running this show?

[tabatha]

11. Yes, because they would not be prepared to die

in the numbers that they have if they were not.

Did you ever listen to Mo Nabbous' shows before he was killed on March 19th?

These conjectures are as bad as the conjectures about Obama. Guessing with not one iota of proof.

[rfranklin]

23. I'm sure their motives are different from those of the USA and the...

other nations involved. The idea that the USA is involved for some noble purpose is naive.

[tabatha]

26. Did you notice how fast the US

got out of the NATO operations. And how they are not arming the rebels? If they wanted to succeed, the first thing they would have done is arm the rebels. Even before it started. Duh!

[truedelphi]

4. Thanks yurbud.

A long time admirer of Mr Perkins. Good to read about the real reason why we are there.

[rhett o rick]

5. r&k

[sasha031]

10. thank you so much for posting , I'm a big fan of Perkins

[bvar22]

13. In 2009, Qaddafi demanded and got ....

...a bigger piece of the Oil Profits ($5.4 Billion).
Last year, he said the "N" word....as in "Nationalize" Libyan Oil.
He was toast after that.

Many people choose NOT to remember that Qaddafi was welcomed by the Obama White House
as a visiting foreign dignitary a little over 1-1/2 years ago.



If you're not FOR the New WAR in Libya,
you're WITH The Communists AlQaeda The Terrorists Saddam Qaddafi!!!

Ignorance is Strength
Freedom is Slavery
We've always been at WAR with EastAsia

[tabatha]

16. Please provide more information

"Let us not forget that until recently the west were doing very good business with Gaddafi. Western oil companies have been operating in the country for some time. Gaddafi was putting in place laws that would favour the development of private enterprise and the market. The IMF recently applauded the Gaddafi regime noting that, “An ambitious program to privatize banks and develop the nascent financial sector is underway. Banks have been partially privatized, interest rates decontrolled, and competition encouraged. Ongoing efforts to restructure and modernize the CBL are underway with assistance from the Fund.” Gaddafi’s son, Saif, was in fact a key promoter of “liberalisation”.

Gaddafi was going more toward privatization than ever before, so that is bull pucky.
(Btw, I dislike privatization.)

[bvar22]

28. reported by Reuters.

http://uk.reuters.com/article/2009/01/21/businessproind-us-libya-gaddafi-oil-idUKTRE50K61F20090121

Here is a nice summation:

"“The oil-exporting countries should opt for nationalization because of the rapid fall in oil prices. We must put the issue on the table and discuss it seriously,” he declared. “Oil should be owned by the State at this time, so we could better control prices by the increase or decrease in production.”

Predictably, Gaddafi’s pronouncement set off alarm bells at Anglo-Dutch Shell, British Petroleum, ExxonMobil, Hess Corp., Marathon Oil, Occidental Petroleum and ConocoPhillips, the Spanish Repsol, Germany’s Wintershall, Austria’s OMV, Norway’s Statoil, Eni and Canada’s Petro Canada.

The year before, the Libyan state oil company, National Oil, prepared a report on the subject in which officials suggested modifying the production-sharing agreements with foreign companies in order to increase state revenues, according to a report posted on the Pravda website.

After implementing contract changes, Libya gained 5.4 billion dollars in oil revenues."

http://www.infowars.com/in-2009-gaddafi-proposed-nationalizing-libyas-oil/

[freshwest]

15. There was some serious hanky panky going on with the Federal Reserve and Libya the last few years.

I remember when Iran was under the gun for refusing to accept US$s and saying they'd only take Euros.

The banks are bigger than the oil companies, so big that no one dare buck them. They could bring the world economies to their knees faster than any resource crisis could.

Almost impossible to drag these crooks into line. And they've been blackmailing every country for years. But what is to be done?

[tabatha]

17. There was hanky panky with the Banks, period.

Btw, the Libyan bank got some of the bailout money.

And they were just about to get a large weapons deal from the US before the revolutionaries messed that up. The ink was drying.

That is why I do not believe this.

[freshwest]

21. That's what I was talking about. And then Quaddafi is reputed to have converted it to gold.

Which part is it you don't believe in, that the banks were involved or that it's about the oil?

[tabatha]

24. No, the fact that the US admin was on the cusp of signing

a weapons deal with Libya, when the revolution happened.

If the CIA had been involved in overthrowing the Libyan govt, there would never have been a weapons deal in the first place.

Btw, I read about the weapons deal in GD by someone else who posted the story and the link.

There are also other things I do not understand - but I need to write them up properly.

[Peace Patriot]

19. Wow! Thanks for this post. It greatly expands my understanding of the Libya situation.

I figured it had something to do with Libya's sovereignty--nationalization of the oil, control of the oil. Maybe the oil barons in Italy, Spain, England and the rest were tired of some of the profits going to Libyans, and so tried to segue the Egyptian and other protests into a controlled rebel group taking over Libya and privatizing the oil or at least re-writing the contracts. It struck me as a democracy protest that maybe got triggered too early and quickly descended into a civil war for control of the government and thus control of the oil. This suggests some conflicted tides within the rebel movement--probably the would-be Gaddafi's looking for their opportunity. It's a very complex tribal situation and immediately starting looking less and less like it had anything to do with democracy at all.

Anyway, that's how far I got. As dictators go, Gadaffi wasn't so bad, until the civil war started, and now it's just that--a civil war, with various tribes and people seeking ascendance, and with what has heretofore been the legitimate, recognized government of Libya fighting for its continuance, with quite a lot of loyal military support.

I have never for one moment believed anything the U.S. government or other "western" powers or their press have said about Libya. The ONLY sensible thing that has been said was Hugo Chavez calling for a ceasefire and peace talks. The U.S. and the "western" powers never did that, which I find appalling. Then they started ARMING one side of the civil war--and probably have been funding/training their own operatives all along. And now, they have fucking started a war with Libyan military loyal to Gaddafi.

This has also been a truly ominous escalation of the power of the U.S. president, to just go bomb anybody he damn pleases. I'm reminded of how Clinton set up Iraq for Bush, with the sanctions and the no-fly zone and so on. Iraq didn't even have an airforce by the time they started the "shock and awe" bombing of Baghdad. What is Obama setting up for whoever ES&S/Diebold decides to put in the White House next year? The precedent is EXTREMELY worrisome.

So, the World Bank and the IMF. Why does this not surprise me? But I had no knowledge of it before. This is new to me.

They are talking of their own currency in Latin America, the "sucre." I'm not sure how far it's gotten--but one thing is clear, Latin America is much more united and much better prepared to deal with U.S. bullshit than the African states are. They just formed an all-Latin America (no U.S., no Canada) alternative to the (U.S.-dominated) OAS. Its headquarters have been established in Caracas, Venezuela. It's called the Comunidad de Estados Latinoamericanos y Caribeños (Celac). UNASUR--the regional organization formalized in 2008, with headquarters in La Paz, Bolivia--is all-South America. But CELAC is all-Latin America, including Central America and the Caribbean. One of their express purposes is to prevent U.S. coups in their region--as we recently witnessed in Honduras--and as UNASUR helped to foil in Bolivia, in Sept 2008, shortly after UNASUR was formalized.

I didn't realized how far along CELAC had come. Its formalization recently took me by surprise. And I'm wondering about the 'sucre' plan--if that will follow the same curve--that word of it reaches the hinterlands of the U.S.A. in fits and spurts, and then, suddenly, it's happening. That happened with UNASUR, too--also with ALBA, the Venezuela/Cuba organized barter trade group for Central America/the Caribbean. I read talk of them, then, after a period of quiet (and my thinking, yeah, right, they're really going to do this?), boom, the new institution is off and running.

Venezuela is A LOT less vulnerable to a monetary-motivated, or oil-motivated, or anti-Left-motivated U.S. military strike than Libya was, for two reasons: 1. Contrary to all you may have heard, Venezuela is a strong, well-functioning democracy (with a Gallup poll this week putting Venezuela 5th in the entire world on its citizens' rating of their own well being); and 2) This strong backing of the whole region against attack upon individual democracies. Brazil has been a stalwart in backing up Venezuela. Now it's formal and now everybody is part of a regional organization for that purpose.

The 'sucre' plan, though, could go away--as just too provocative of the U.S. Latin America doesn't want trouble. They just want peace, social justice and progress--and respect (sovereignty, independence). If the U.S. gives up its bloody, arrogant meddling, maybe Latin America will give up having their own common currency.

[slipslidingaway]

27. Prior DU thread ...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=913509&mesg_id=913509

"From Counterpunch: "What's Really Going on in Libya?" by Alexander Cockburn

Here's a taste, and I heartily suggest reading it. He definitely gets points for coining "mission leap" as the offspring of the creepily pre-apologetic term of self-absolution, "mission creep"."


http://counterpunch.com/cockburn04152011.html

"...It seems that the rebels might actually be under the overall supervision of the international banking industry, rather than the oil majors. On March 19 they announced the “esignation of the Central Bank of Benghazi as a monetary authority competent in monetary policies in Libya and appointment of a Governor to the Central Bank of Libya, with a temporary headquarters in Benghazi.’”

CNBC senior editor John Carneyasked, “Is this the first time a revolutionary group has created a central bank while it is still in the midst of fighting the entrenched political power? It certainly seems to indicate how extraordinarily powerful central bankers have become in our era.”

Ellen Brown, author of the terrific Web of Debt: the Shocking Truth About Our Money System and How We Can Break Free, wrote recently about the rebels’ sophisticated financial operations in the following terms:

“According to a Russian article titled “Bombing of Lybia – Punishment for Ghaddafi for His Attempt to Refuse US Dollar,” Gadaffi made a similarly bold move: he initiated a movement to refuse the dollar and the euro, and called on Arab and African nations to use a new currency instead, the gold dinar. Gadaffi suggested establishing a united African continent, with its 200 million people using this single currency. During the past year, the idea was approved by many Arab countries and most African countries. The only opponents were the Republic of South Africa and the head of the League of Arab States. The initiative was viewed negatively by the USA and the European Union, with French president Nicolas Sarkozy calling Libya a threat to the financial security of mankind; but Gaddafi was not swayed and continued his push for the creation of a united Africa.

“And that brings us back to the puzzle of the Libyan central bank. In an article posted on the Market Oracle, Eric Encina observed: ‘One seldom mentioned fact by western politicians and media pundits: the Central Bank of Libya is 100% State Owned. . . . Currently, the Libyan government creates its own money, the Libyan Dinar, through the facilities of its own central bank. Few can argue that Libya is a sovereign nation with its own great resources, able to sustain its own economic destiny. One major problem for globalist banking cartels is that in order to do business with Libya, they must go through the Libyan Central Bank and its national currency, a place where they have absolutely zero dominion or power-broking ability. Hence, taking down the Central Bank of Libya (CBL) may not appear in the speeches of Obama, Cameron and Sarkozy but this is certainly at the top of the globalist agenda for absorbing Libya into its hive of compliant nations.’”

[yurbud]

32. it makes me wonder if the whole thaw with Bush was just a way to get some hooks into the country

that they could pull on later...later being now.

[slipslidingaway]

37. Not a bad idea to stray from what is presented to us sometimes ...

all IMHO.

:)

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/agency/dod/centcom.htm

"...On February 6, 2007, President Bush and Defense Secretary Robert Gates announced the creation of U.S. Africa Command..."

http://www.stwr.org/africa/afrioilcom-will-the-next-war-for-oil-be-in-africa.html

"AFRI(OIL)COM: Will the Next War for Oil be in Africa?
With almost 10 percent of the world's remaining oil, Africa represents the next phase of U.S. military interest - but the only lasting solution is to quit America's oil addiction, writes Antonia Juhasz..

21st June 08 - Antonia Juhasz, Foreign Policy in Focus

In recognition of "the emerging strategic importance of Africa," in February 2007 President Bush ordered the creation of AFRICOM, the U.S. Africa Command. AFRICOM, like CENTCOM (Central Command) and EUCOM (European Command), centralizes all authority for the U.S. military operating in the African region under one command structure. AFRICOM also transfers many duties that previously belonged to nonmilitary US agencies – such as building schools and digging wells – to the jurisdiction of the Department of Defense. While fighting terrorism in Africa is the primary reason given for the establishment of AFRICOM, oil appears to be the more pressing motivator. "A key mission for U.S. forces would be to insure that Nigeria’s oilfields, which in the future could account for as much as 25 percent of all U.S. oil imports, are secure," explains General Charles Wald, deputy commander of U.S. forces in Europe in an interview with Wall Street Journal writer Greg Jaffe.

To secure and maintain access to oil – if not for the nation, then most certainly for our oil companies – the Bush administration has increasingly turned toward the U.S. military. Author Kevin Phillips coined the term "petrol-imperialism" to describe the Bush administration’s policies in this regard, "the key aspect of which is the U.S. military’s transformation into a global oil protection force." Under the rubric of the Global War on Terror, the Bush administration has implemented the greatest realignment of U.S. forces since the end of the Cold War. With a map of Big Oil’s overseas operations, the world’s remaining oil reserves, and oil transport routes, one can now track the realignment and predict future deployments of the U.S. military.

Africa, with almost 10% of the world’s remaining oil, is an area of increasing activity for both Big Oil and the U.S. military. Between 2000 and 2007, U.S. imports of oil from Africa increased by 65 percent, from 1.6 to 2.7 million barrels a day, according to the U.S. Department of Energy. These imports, in turn, accounted for a growing percentage of all U.S. oil imports: increasing from 14.5% in 2000 to 20% in 2007. Both trends are expected to accelerate in the future.

Not only is the United States importing more African oil, but U.S. oil companies are also increasing their African reserves and their presence on the continent. According to SEC tax filings, in 2000, ExxonMobil operated in just three African nations – Angola, Equatorial Guinea, and Nigeria – and its production there was negligible relative to the rest of the world. Today, ExxonMobil operates in Angola, Cameroon, Chad, Equatorial Guinea, and Nigeria, and is set to begin work in Libya. Its African holdings account for nearly 17% of the company’s global oil reserves..."

[yurbud]

38. that last line about Exxon is key

[Prometheus Bound]

30. Yeah, but pretending oil has nothing to do with it is a bit naive.

[yurbud]

40. I agree. This tidbit might have been the tipping point from smart negotiations to smart bombs

[Gravel Democrat]

31. r+k

related link:

Backing up Globalization with Military Might, published in 1999

McDonald's Needs McDonnell Douglas to Flourish

"...An article by Thomas Friedman in the New York Times entitled "What the World Needs Now" tells it all. Illustrated by an American Flag on a fist it said, among other things: "For globalism to work, America can't be afraid to act like the almighty superpower that it is....The hidden hand of the market will never work without a hidden fist-McDonald's cannot flourish without McDonnell Douglas, the designer of the F-15. And the hidden fist that keeps the world safe for Silicon Valley's technologies is called the United States Army, Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps." (23)

..."The defense secretary is making the case that conflicts in faraway lands such as Bosnia, Korea and Iraq have a direct effect on the U.S. economy. The billions it costs to keep 100,000 American troops in South Korea and Japan, for example, makes Asia more stable—and thus better markets for U.S. goods. The military's success in holding Iraq in check ensures a continued flow of oil from the Persian Gulf," concluded the Associated Press dispatch reporting on Cohen's Seattle appearance.(25)

..."In today's world, TNCs, and governments running interference for them, are pushing relentlessly for an end to national sovereignty and democratic rights in order to achieve total unimpeded access to acquire investments, cheap labor and consumers in every nook and cranny of the globe. This is being accomplished particularly through mechanisms such as multilateral agreements on investment, NAFTA-type free trade agreements, and the dictates of the International Monetary Fund (IMF), World Bank and World Trade Organization (WTO)...

..."Corporations will stop at nothing To achieve maximum profits these transnationals will stop at nothing. After all, they are non-human institutions that must expand through ever-greater profits, or go out of business. In so doing they have shown willingness to violate human rights-particularly workers' rights—to throw millions out of work, eliminate unions, use sweat-shops and slave labor, destroy the environment, destabilize governments, install or bolster tyrants who oppress, repress, torture and kill with impunity...."

(much more at link)

http://www.globalissues.org/article/448/backing-up-globalization-with-military-might



SPQUSA! SPQUSA! SPQUSA!

[Marblehead]

33. It plays better onTV..

if the war is for humanitarian reasons, not so much greedy oligarchs steeling to enrich themselves.

[Hotler]

36. kicking n/t

[Keith Bee]

39. The banks? AHA!

So it was the Jews after all! (evil maniacal laughter)

[KoKo]

41. kick!