- Feb 24, 2009
- Reaction score
But yet, for some reason, you make the statement that for Libya, the case is different. That this time, the reason for going is alturistic.
I tell you, it is easy to use cheap (slave) labor to shift for diamonds, etc. It needs no great skill. But to get oil out of the ground is a whole other thing. Hence the ability to allow devastation to occur in African countries and still get what they want, but the need to have some measure of stability and infrastructure in order to get oil.
Hence the fact that the primary backers in the play are the one's who stand to lose the most economically, the countries of the E.U.
Lybia IS different, in a rather cynical way.
None of the big players who could veto the UN actions is raping libya or profiting hugely from the instability. So none of the big players has anything to win by keeping kadhaffi in power.
At the same time, the refugee stream is going to be a huge pain in the butt for the surrounding nations, one of which is France.
Countries like Sierra Leone otoh are sucked dry by countries like china for example.
Allowing the people of sierra leone to be free from warring overlords means they get a stable society and economical development. Next thing will be demanding actual market value for their ores and that will not do. So getting an approved military action in Africa, other than strict peace keeping, is hard because China is a permanent security council member.
Libya meanwhile is an oil producing country. Protracted civil war and unrest is not going to do the oil market any good.
So I still say there is a significant difference: the situation is libya is bad for all players.
The situation in Africa is making many corporations and countries immeasurable quantities of money. That is why kadhaffi is getting a ruthless kick in the nads while the warlords in Africa are mostly left alone.