This seems conveniently timed with the recent flare ups over the eastern oil port. The diplomats are grasping for straws to make this not seem like oil and flailing with lines like this,
"It's incredibly important for the simple reason that oil is clearly a key driver of the economy," said Hugh Robertson, a junior minister in Britain's Foreign Office. "As long as the economy remains depressed that means there are a lot of young people in Libya for whom there is no real viable future inside a new democratic state of Libya."How empty is Western political thought? Oil drives the Libyan economy, and without their economy going, young people will be fighting. As if man is only driven by economic decision making, these Libyans who have been fighting for years now will lay down their guns if the oil industry keeps the oil flowing. Not really. Oil is above $100 a barrel right now and the delicate Western economic situation needs all of the Libyan oil online to prevent it from bumping up to $110. That is a Western issue. Not a Libyan issue.
Libya's issue is that it has been in a state of bedlam since Ghadaffy's fall. On March 2nd, protestors stormed the parliament, starting fires in the process. Al-Jazeera frames it as rebel action cell upset, but the NY Times says it is Libyans expressing their frustration of the pace of democratic change with no mention of the cell being under the GNC umbrella. Just a few weeks earlier, almost 100 prisoners escaped from their prison in Zliten. On the very same day, Major General Khalifa Hifter announced a coup. The acting prime minister said that was ridiculous, and the NY Times said it was a bit of hot air. The prime minister lacks credibility on that brushoff as he was kidnapped in October. The Times wants to play this as a transition period; a nation on the democratic move.
The Times is dodging a few things, reality being the first. Libya is ruled by the militias that the West supplied weapons to in order to remove Ghadaffy. The pretty words to the oil industry, economy and young people mean nothing if the basic security situation is as dire as lighting fires in parliament and kidnapping the prime minister would suggest. If parliament and the prime minister are not "green zones", then nowhere in the nation is safe. Even more comical of the Times is to avoid mentioning the history of Maj. General Hifter when poking fun at his coup/not coup. The NY Times years ago mentioned the curious life of Hifter, including his decades in the US. Russ Baker considers him the CIA's man in Libya. Hifter lived in northern Virginia for roughly twenty years, after we could not find a home for him elsewhere. No one is quite sure what he did to support his family. In an amazing coincidence, Hifter felt a surge of courage when the fight against Ghadaffy began and returned home to lead a militia. What a patriot! The Times avoids mentioning Hifter's CIA connections now because it needs to hide our Deep State.
The flow of oil needs to continue in a safe manner. The press needs to tell us all about the wild times in Libya, now and only now, so that the State Department can figure out what horse to back in the struggle from dictatorship to democracy. When it happens, the NY Times will explain it as a natural transition from this special concern in early 2014. No one is going to ask if Libya was more stable pre-revolution, what the merits to revolution were and if Libyans are better off now or under Ghadaffy? That last question will never be answered since the media cannot bear to discuss the Congo in public with any sense of history. That question cannot even be debated because democracy might take a ding in public discourse, and we cannot have that.