http://peoplesworld.org/africom-and-the-libya-war/

U.S. participation in the war in Libya appears to be coordinated out of a former French Foreign Legion base in Djibouti, a tiny country of a half million souls at the very tip of the Horn of Africa. This is the forward base of AFRICOM, the unified command for African action set up in 2007 by former President George W. Bush and his Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, who has continued in that post under President Barack Obama. Why the United States has set up such a special Africa operation, and what this portends, bears examination.

The original reason given for the creation of AFRICOM, with its main base not in Africa but in Stuttgart, Germany, was to coordinate anti-terrorism efforts in countries such as Somalia, where the collapse of organized government had led to a very unstable and dangerous situation. But although some African countries were happy to take military hardware from the United States, many of them, including especially South Africa, expressed qualms.

Other than the anti-terrorism motive, commentators have raised the issue of oil. Oil industry analysts predict that by the year 2015, the United States will be getting 25 percent of its imported oil from African sources. The biggest oil producers in Africa are Libya, with 47 billion barrels in proved reserves (and maybe lots more yet undiscovered), Nigeria (37.5 billion barrels), Angola (13.5 billion barrels), Algeria (13.4 billion barrels) and the Sudan (6.8 billion barrels). Smaller African countries, including Gabon and Equatorial Guinea, have large-scale oil production proportional to their size. Writing in 2008, Antonia Juhasz posits an oil politics motive for the creation of AFRICOM. "The concern is that, as it has in Iraq, a larger US military presence in Africa will strain the overburdened military while increasing internal hostilities, regional instability and anger at the United States," he said, adding, "The ultimate objective of the two efforts is the same: securing big oil's access to the region's oil."

Libya, Nigeria, Angola and Algeria are all member states of OPEC, the cartel of oil producing countries, whose joint actions in setting production quotas have a profound effect on the price of oil. Numerous U.S. oil companies are invested in the African oil-producing countries, including Libya. Even though leader Moammar Gadaffi's government nationalized a lot of foreign oil facilities when it took power from King Idris in 1969, some major foreign, including U.S., oil companies have investments in Libya, in joint operations with the Libyan state. These include Marathon, Hess, Conoco, Gulf, Occidental, BP, Repasol (Spain), Eni (Italy) and Total (France) among others.

In 2009, Gadaffi started suggesting that he might nationalize the remaining foreign oil assets in Libya (AFRICOM had already been set up by that time), and he has renewed that threat since the NATO intervention began last week. But right now sanctions imposed by the U.S. and the European Union have reduced Libya's oil exports to a trickle, resulting in a worldwide jump in fuel prices. A drastic intervention leading to the removal of Gadaffi and greater freedom of operation for these oil companies might well be part of the motive for the intervention, especially on the part of major European Union countries dependent on Libya for their energy needs.

Another reason given by some analysts for the creation of AFRICOM is as a counter to Chinese commercial advances in Africa. AFRICOM is mainly a military entity, but includes civil operations that are supposed to win the hearts and minds of Africans through development projects.

Carmel Davis, Chairman of Roger Holdings, Inc., raised this issue in a 2008 paper. To Davis, countering Chinese influence in Africa is good, because Chinese companies tend not to interfere with the existing governments of African countries in which they invest. Davis feels that this is bad; he'd rather use American commerce to bring about political changes in African countries so that they can develop in a democratic capitalist direction. Though Davis' company seems to be involved with restaurants and not petroleum, he may be onto something when he says, "The experience of China may resonate with African leaders" because of the way China has achieved massive growth without loss of power by the ruling Communist Party. Further "What China offers may also resonate: Instead of the conditionalities of aid provided by the Bretton Woods organizations [the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank] and Western governments influenced by NGOs and public opinion, China offers a market-oriented relationship with willing buyers who explicitly eschew conditionality."

In plain English, burgeoning trade with China may be seen by Africans as meeting economic needs without political interference under the pretext of "humanitarian intervention" or not. And China buys lots of African oil.

Ghadafi has refused to chicken out,that alone has made him my hero. all i expect from him now is to continue to shell the rebels till they accept the cease fire he ordered and come to the table for dialogue after which he conducts an election,influence the result such that his interest is protected.

Funny enough,Nato killed ten rebels today mistakenly and more will be killed untill they accept dialogue and invite Ghadafi to the table

Should the US really be using the military to further their policies and train African militaries when the continent is very prone to military coups, shouldn't the US be spending more resources building up Civil society through business promtion that creates jobs and leads to FDI and a middle class. As far as priacy, AlQaeda, and terrorism, none of these are high on the list as a priority in any African country. Those are US interests.

Sun of god:

Oil industry analysts predict that by the year 2015, the United States will be getting 25 percent of its imported oil from African sources.

Who are these "oil industry analysts"?

US oil imports from African sources have not risen at all in the past decade. And they're nowhere near 25%. There's no sign of any jump in imports from Africa. The article is also self defeating - even if Gadaffi nationalised, he was willing to strike all the deals he could with the West to get himself back on the map. He was throwing his oil away and handing out his people's money simply to enhance his reputation. The West didn't need to go looking to Libya for oil. They already had it.

Whoever wrote the article needs to go away and look at just where the US buys it's oil from. The majority doesn't even come from Africa or the Middle East. It comes from the Americas.

@aguiyi - i agree bro - these vultures thought that libya was going to be an easy ride, now look at it, despite the devastating air bombardment and the CIA and SAS presence on the grounds they still cant seem to get these rebels to gain the upper hand.

Gadaffi is indeed a hero for being able to hold his own in the face of such a devastating attack on his nation , the so called rebels (that we have since learnt are al qaeda operatives) are actually lynching black africans - a US investigative journalist couldnt help highlighting the irony of a black president and black UN ambassador giving support to a group of racist al qaeda operatives.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=id_vR9RswSs

Sun of god:

In 2009, Gadaffi started suggesting that he might nationalize the remaining foreign oil assets in Libya (AFRICOM had already been set up by that time), and he has renewed that threat since the NATO intervention began last week. But right now sanctions imposed by the U.S. and the European Union have reduced Libya's oil exports to a trickle, resulting in a worldwide jump in fuel prices. A drastic intervention leading to the removal of Gadaffi and greater freedom of operation for these oil companies might well be part of the motive for the intervention, especially on the part of major European Union countries dependent on Libya for their energy needs.

Another reason given by some analysts for the creation of AFRICOM is as a counter to Chinese commercial advances in Africa. AFRICOM is mainly a military entity, but includes civil operations that are supposed to win the hearts and minds of Africans through development projects.

totally agree   - alarm bells had already started going off in the US about Gadaffi's plan to nationalise the libyan oil industry - he was intent on reducing oil supplies in order to push the price up as he felt libya was not getting a good deal, this article sets out very succinctly why the west want gadaffi out by any means necessary:

In 2009, Gaddafi uttered the “N” word – nationalization. Not only for Libya’s oil, but all oil in the region. For the globalists, this made Gaddafi a dangerous mad dog renegade who needed to be replaced.

“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.

Gaddafi’s plan was reported on by Reuters and the corporate media.

In addition to calling for nationalization, the Libyan leader called for support of his proposal to dismantle the government and to distribute the oil wealth directly to Libya’s 5 million citizens.

State bureaucrats, however, rejected the idea because they feared for the loss of their cushy jobs and also feared the wrath of transnational oil corporations and the banks that own them.

Prime Minister al-Baghdadi, Ali al-Mahmoudi and Farhat Omar Bin Guida, of Libya’s Central Bank, told Gaddafi the measure would wreck the country’s economy in lead to “capital flight,” in other words the globalists pulling their money out of the country.

“The Administration has failed and the state’s economy has failed. Enough is enough. The solution is for the Libyan people to directly receive oil revenues and decide what to do with them,” Gaddafi said in a speech broadcast on state television. To this end, the Libyan leader urged a radical reform of government bureaucracy.

The government, however, voted to reject Gaddafi’s plan to turn ownership of the country’s oil over to the people. 64 ministers from a total of 468 Popular Committee members voted for the measure.

“My dream during all these years was to give the power and wealth directly to the people,” said Gaddafi in response to the rejection.

In 1953, the United States and Britain plotted to overthrow the democratically elected government of Iranian Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh, who had promised to nationalize the British-owned Anglo-Iranian Oil Company and give the profits to the Iranian people. Mosaddegh attempted to negotiate with the AIOC, but the company rejected his proposed compromise.

In order to sell a coup, Britain persuaded Secretary of State John Foster Dulles that Iran was going over to the Soviets. Then president Truman was cool to the idea, but in 1953, when Dwight D. Eisenhower became president, the UK convinced him to a joint coup d’état. The CIA was dispatched to destabilize the country, get rid of Mosaddegh, and install the brutal dictator Mohammad-Reza Shah Pahlavi and his secret police, the SAVAK.

For the mistake of suggesting oil profits be returned to the Libyan people, Muammar al-Gaddafi is now suffering a likewise fate.

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

sun of god

Sun of god:

http://peoplesworld.org/africom-and-the-libya-war/

In 2009, Gadaffi started suggesting that he might nationalize the remaining foreign oil assets in Libya (AFRICOM had already been set up by that time), and he has renewed that threat since the NATO intervention began last week. But right now sanctions imposed by the U.S. and the European Union have reduced Libya's oil exports to a trickle, resulting in a worldwide jump in fuel prices. A drastic intervention leading to the removal of Gadaffi and greater freedom of operation for these oil companies might well be part of the motive for the intervention, especially on the part of major European Union countries dependent on Libya for their energy needs.

so true, gaddafi's plan to nationalise libyan oil is what led to him becoming a  marked man by the west.  His plan was for the country's oil revenue to be much more evenly distributed among the people, however the elite in his country did not want this, this article sets in detail the reason why gadaffi went from being a favourable trading partner to public enemy no 1 in the eyes of the western oil companies and their govts :

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

a very interesting commentary by a jewish man on the zionist plan for africa:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ItUox4CQpU&NR=1

Bastage:

Who are these "oil industry analysts"?

US oil imports from African sources have not risen at all in the past decade. And they're nowhere near 25%. There's no sign of any jump in imports from Africa. The article is also self defeating - even if Gadaffi nationalised, he was willing to strike all the deals he could with the West to get himself back on the map. He was throwing his oil away and handing out his people's money simply to enhance his reputation. The West didn't need to go looking to Libya for oil. They already had it.

Whoever wrote the article needs to go away and look at just where the US buys it's oil from. The majority doesn't even come from Africa or the Middle East. It comes from the Americas.

just try to gather info before you comment. Hmmm, nobody is against the west here just against there exploitative policies.
@Cap28. You know what i hate about the west is just the way they effectively use propaganda with there exploitative policies.

cap28:

a very interesting commentary by a jewish man on the zionist plan for africa:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ItUox4CQpU&NR=1

that guy seem deluded

^^^^

why do you say that?

cdoffx:

@Cap28. You know what i hate about the west is just the way they effectively use propaganda, be intimate with there exploitative policies.

i'm sorry i made a mistake while typing on my phone i don't mean be intimate with there exploitative policies.

They said it for training blah blah blah

A Must View:

[flash=300,300]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aEy75EH1kkM&feature=BF&list=QL&index=1[/flash]

[flash=300,300]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WPzoF7butGQ&feature=BF&list=QL&index=2[/flash]

[flash=300,300]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eETzESazy10&feature=BF&list=QL&index=3[/flash]

[flash=300,300]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wClsibuPjsQ&feature=BF&list=QL&index=4[/flash]

Europe has a plan for Africa.
China has a plan for Africa.
America has a plan for Africa.

But Africans have no plan for Africa!