Where is the Boom? OFW’s in Libya’s Choice: Die as Heroes or Die in Hunger

Populist politics tell us that they know more what is good or best for the OFWs caught in the ongoing Libyan war. So they have exhorted them to return to the homeland care of taxpayers. But apparently paternalist self-righteous politics have been rebuffed.

From today’s headlines at the Inquirer.net (bold mine)

Overseas Filipino workers (OFWs) in Libya prefer to stay in the strife-torn North African country because they have “better chances of surviving” there than in the Philippines, the Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA) said on Monday.

Only 1,700 Filipinos working in Libya have signed up for repatriation since the Philippine government ordered a mandatory evacuation of its more than 13,000 workers there last month, said Foreign Secretary Albert del Rosario.

Even more…

Despite the danger, many Filipinos in Libya have ignored the government’s order for mandatory evacuation, DFA spokesman Charles Jose told reporters on Monday.

“The usual reason we hear from them is that they would rather take the chance. They think they have greater chances of surviving the war [there] than of surviving uncertainty [without jobs] here,” Jose said.

Such are very revealing commentaries.

For OFWs to say they have “better chances of surviving” can be interpreted as it is better to die as “heroes” than to die in hunger or even as a starved forgotten voter.

I say “heroes” because the Libyan healthcare system heavily depends on OFWs

From another Inquirer headline 3 days back:

More than 3,000 health workers from the Philippines, making up 60 percent of Libya’s hospital staff, could leave along with workers from India, who account for another 20 percent.

Libyan hospitals are flooded with a wave of admissions, victims of the fighting that has shaken the capital and Benghazi...

“Hospitals could be paralyzed” in the event of the mass departure of Filipino health workers, Libyan health ministry spokesperson Ammar Mohammed said, while authorities warned of a possible “total collapse” of the healthcare system.

So one reason OFWs may have opted to stay in Libya, aside from economic reasons would be about contribution to society.

This passage gives us a clue:

Filipino nurses are especially apprehensive about leaving because employers have enticed them to stay with additional pay and they are committed to their hospital work, Del Rosario said. 

So populist politics (politicians and their media apologists) fundamentally neglected the OFWs individual interest as revealed by Maslow’s hierarchy of needs such as belonging, esteem and self actualization. So the "bring-them-back-home" solution (feel good, noble intention, vote generating) solution has only backfired.

Yet even more striking is the statement: They think they have greater chances of surviving the war [there] than of surviving uncertainty [without jobs] here” 

To repeat with emphasis: GREATER CHANCES of surviving the war than of surviving WITHOUT JOBS.

Yikes!!!  

So what happened to the supposed Philippine economic boom??? 

Why has the OFWs not partaken of the boom? Why the stunning aversion to go return, despite the 7% 'transformational' boom that has been broadcasted all over the world? 

Why has working in the battlefront become the ONLY "life or death" or survival choice for the OFWs? Or why the lack of alternative that has led to desperate choices?

Who has benefited from the supposed boom?

Well, some boom eh.

How Foreign Interventionism Has Incited West Africa’s Political Woes

Government operation to free hostages ensnared by an al-Qaeda-linked group in a natural gas plant in a remote area in Southeastern Algeria apparently ended up in a fiasco: most hostages were slain along with their captors.(Bloomberg)

Historian Eric Margolis at the LewRockwell.com sheds us  insightful historical compendium of the recent revival of the political turmoil at West Africa.

I categorized his essay into different headings

1. Not an endemic Islam Story

Western governments and media have done the public a major disservice by trumpeting warnings of an "Islamist threat" in Mali. It’s as if Osama bin Laden has popped up on the Niger River. Our newest crisis in Africa is not driven primarily by religion but by a spreading uprising against profoundly corrupt, western-backed oligarchic governments and endemic poverty.

2. The Repercussions of Libya War and the French Client States

Mali’s troubles began last year when it shaky government was overthrown. Meanwhile, heavily-armed nomadic Tuareg tribesmen, who had served Libya’s late Col. Gadaffi as mercenaries until he was overthrown by French and US intervention, poured back into their homeland in Mali’s north. A major unexpected consequence. Fierce Tuareg warriors, who battled French colonial rule for over a century, were fighting for an independent homeland, known as Azawad.

They, a small, violent jihadist group, Ansar Din, and another handful of obscure Islamists drove central government troops out of the north, which they proclaimed independent, and began marching on the fly-blown capital, Bamako.

France, the colonial ruler of most of West Africa until 1960, has overthrown and imposed client regimes there ever since. French political, financial and military advisors and intelligence services ran West Africa from behind a façade of supposedly independent governments. Disobedient regimes were quickly booted out by elite French troops and Foreign Legionnaires based in West Africa that guarded France’s mining and oil interests in what was known as "FrancAfrique."

3. Contagion and Diversion from Domestic Political-Economic Affairs.

Overthrowing African regimes was OK for France, but not for locals. When Mali’s French-backed regime was challenged, France feared its other West African clients might face similar fate, and began sending troops to back the Bamako regime. President Francois Hollande, who had vowed only weeks ago not to intervene in West Africa, said some 2,500 French troops would intervene in Mali. But only on a "temporary basis" claimed Hollande, forgetting de la Rochfoucauld’s dictum "there is nothing as permanent as the temporary!"

Other shaky western-backed West African governments took fright at events in Mali, fearing they too might face overthrow at the hands of angry Islamists calling for stern justice and an end to corruption. Nigeria, the region’s big power, vowed to send troops to Mali. Nigeria has been beset by its own revolutionary jihadist movement, Boko Haram, which claims Muslim Nigerians have been denied a fair share of the nation’s vast oil wealth, most of which has been stolen by corrupt officials.

France’s overheated claim that it faces a dire Islamic threat in obscure Mali could attract the attention of numbers of free-lance jihadists, many who are now busy tearing up Syria. Paris was better off when it claimed its troops were to protect ancient Muslim shrines in Timbuktu. Or it could have quietly sent in the Foreign Legion, as in the past.

Instead, Mali has become a crisis with the US, Britain, West African states and the UN involved in this tempest in an African teapot. A nice diversion from budget crisis.

4. Hostage taking in Algeria and the Expansion of the Theater of War by Interventionists.

Another Algerian jihadist group just attacked an important state gas installation in revenge for France’s assault on Mali. This bloody action has awoken Algeria’s hitherto quiescent Islamic resistance groups. They waged a ten year war against Algeria’s US and French backed military regime, one of the continent’s most repressive regimes, after Algeria’s armed forces crushed Islamists after they won a fair election in 1991.

Over 250,000 Algerians died in a long, bloody civil war. The Algiers government often used gangs of its soldiers disguised as rebel fighters to commit gruesome massacres to blacken the name of the opposition. Algeria may again be headed for a new bloodbath, this time with minority Berber people calling for their independent state.

US air forces and small numbers of Special Forces from its new Africa Command are now entering action in Mali and Algeria. More are sure to follow as West Africa smolders

My comments

As diversionary ploy to distract the public’s attention, wars has usually been the recourse of economically strained nations to drum up political support (via nationalism), as well as, to “suppress dissension among members of the productive class” (Salerno)

Wars has been typically used as justification for further inflationism and for expansionary government or the “opportunity to intensify economic exploitation” (Salerno)

Wars have been used to promote the financial and political interests of vested interested groups represented by military industrial complex “the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military industrial complex” (President Eisenhower), as well as, the neoconservative cabal through the ideological role of “global policeman” which formerly had been based on “global struggle against communism” (Gordon) and neocon goals of “continuing privileged hierarchical rule, and to continue to worship the nation-state and its war-making machine” (Rothbard).

Most likely today’s imperial foreign policies as evidenced by West Africa’s conflicts signify as cauldron of the factors above.

Video: Glenn Beck On Obama's Dangerous Middle East Policies and the Role of the Late Ambassador Stevens

In the following video, media personality and American conservative Glenn Beck, like putting the pieces of jigsaw puzzle together, neatly explains the story or connections behind the latest events in Middle East, which included the role of the late US Ambassador to Libya J. Christoper Stevens in funneling arms to Syrian Rebels. I posted about the arms transfer here earlier. 

Mr. Beck also shows President Obama's finger prints in these events  (hat tip Bob Wenzel)

Unintended Consequences from the Libyan Intervention

Benjamin Friedman of the Cato Institute enumerates the unintended consequences of the foreign policy of military interventions in Libya in 2011

Writes Mr. Friedman (bold emphasis added)

Advocates of both interventions underestimate coercion’s contribution to political order. Autocratic rule in these countries is partially a consequence of state weakness—the absence of strong liberal norms, government institutions, and nationalism. By helping to remove the levers of coercion in places like Libya and Syria, we risk producing anarchy—continual civil war or long-lived violent disorder. Either outcome would likely worsen suffering through widespread murder, a collapse of sanitation and health services, and stunted economic growth conducive to well-being. And the most promising paths to new of forms of unity and order in these states are illiberal: religious rule, war, or new autocrats. The humanitarian and liberal cases for these interventions are unconvincing.

Aside from Qaddafi’s fall, U.S. leaders gave three primary rationales for military intervention Libya (I repeatedly criticized them last spring). One was to show other dictators that the international community would not tolerate the violent suppression of dissenters. That reverse domino theory has obviously failed. If Qaddafi’s fate taught neighboring leaders like Bashar al-Assad anything, it is to brutally nip opposition movements in the bud before they coalesce, attract foreign arms and air support, and kill you, or, if you’re lucky, ship you off to the Hague.

The second rationale was the establishment of liberal democracy. But Libya, like Syria, lacks the traditional building blocks of liberal democracy. And history suggests that foreign military intervention impedes democratization. Whether or not it manages to hold elections, Libya seems unlikely to become a truly liberal state any time soon. As with Syria, any path to that outcome is likely to be long and bloody.

Meanwhile, Libya’s revolution has destabilized Mali. Qaddafi’s fall pushed hundreds of Tuareg tribesmen that fought on his side back to their native Mali, where they promptly reignited an old insurgency. Malian military officers, citing their government’s insufficient vigor against the rebels, mounted a coup, overthrowing democracy that had lasted over twenty years. Thus far, the military intervention in Libya has reduced the number of democracies by one.

The most widely cited rationale for helping Libya’s rebels was to save civilians from the regime. Along with many commentators, President Obama and his aides insisted that Qaddafi promised to slaughter civilians in towns that his forces were poised to retake last March. Thus, intervention saved hundreds of thousands of lives. A minor problem with this claim is that Qaddafi’s speeches actually threatened rebel fighters, not civilians, and he explicitly exempted those rebels that put down arms. More importantly, if Qaddafi intended to massacre civilians, his forces had ample opportunity to do it. They did commit war crimes, using force indiscriminately and executing and torturing prisoners. But the sort of wholesale slaughter that the Obama administration warned of did not occur—maybe because the regime’s forces lacked the organization needed for systematic slaughter.

The limited nature of the regime’s brutality does not itself invalidate humanitarian concerns. It might be worthwhile to stop even a historically mild suppression of rebellion if the cost of doing so is low enough. The trouble with the humanitarian argument for intervention in Libya is instead that the intervention and the chaos it produced may ultimately cause more suffering than the atrocities it prevented. Libya’s rebel leaders have thus far failed to resurrect central authority. Hundreds of militias police cities and occasionally battle. There are many credible reports that militias have unlawfully detained thousands of regime supporters, executed others, driven mistrusted communities from their homes, and engaged in widespread torture.

The looting of Libya’s weapons stockpiles is also likely to contribute to Libya’s misery, in part by arming the militias that obstruct central authority. The weapons depots reportedly included thousands of man-portable air-defense systems (MANPADS), some of which may still work. It is worth noting that the widely-reported claim that Libya lost 20,000 MANPADS appears exaggerated. That figure comes from Senate testimony last spring by the head of Africa Command, who did not substantiate it (my two requests to Africa’s Command PR people for information on this claim were ignored). A State Department official recently gave the same figure before essentially admitting that we have no idea what the right figure is.

As always, the politics of interventionism has been veneered with noble “humanitarian” intentions which not only fails to meet their goals but eventually backfires.

In reality, "noble intentions" has always been used as cover to promote the interests of parties who operate 'behind the curtains' through the state.

Has the UN’s intervention in Libya been about the Libyan Gold Dinar?, Mexico Central Bank Buys Gold

Remember when some people speculated that the Iraq war had been prompted by Saddam’s proposal to price her oil trades in Euro?

Well, here is another theory on why the UN has intervened in Libya’s civil war and wants Gaddafi ousted: the Libyan Gold Dinar.

Says the Daily Bell, (bold emphasis mine)

Some believe it [the NATO/US-led Libyan invasion] is about protecting civilians, others say it is about oil, but some are convinced intervention in Libya is all about Gaddafi's plan to introduce the gold dinar, a single African currency made from gold, a true sharing of the wealth.

Gaddafi did not give up. In the months leading up to the military intervention, he called on African and Muslim nations to join together to create this new currency that would rival the dollar and euro. They would sell oil and other resources around the world only for gold dinars.

It is an idea that would shift the economic balance of the world.

"If Gaddafi had an intent to try to re-price his oil or whatever else the country was selling on the global market and accept something else as a currency or maybe launch a gold dinar currency, any move such as that would certainly not be welcomed by the power elite today, who are responsible for controlling the world's central banks," says Anthony Wile, founder and Chief Editor of the Daily Bell.

"So yes, that would certainly be something that would cause his immediate dismissal and the need for other reasons to be brought forward from moving him from power."

Read the rest here.

I am not saying that I believe in this, but this info just adds up to the possible avenues on how things could be shaping up.

By the way, as the war against precious metal continues, the Mexican central bank has reportedly accumulated massive amounts of gold during the first quarter

From the Reuters,

Mexico massively ramped up its gold reserves in the first quarter of this year, buying over $4 billion of bullion as emerging economies move away from the ailing U.S. dollar, which has dipped to 2-1/2-year lows.

The third biggest one-off purchase of gold by any country over the past decade took Mexico's reserves to 100.15 tonnes -- or 3.22 million ounces -- by the end of March from just 6.84 tonnes at the end of January, according to the International Monetary Fund and Mexico's central bank.

This goes to show that either the Mexican Central Bank plays the role of the greater fool or that today’s manipulated decline will present itself as a buying opportunity. My bet is on the latter.

The Politics Behind The UN’s No Fly Zone On Libya

The Economist has a dainty interactive graph which spells out on the diversified political incentives (interests) by nations that has participated in enforcing the UN’s No Fly zone

FRANCE and Britain led the diplomatic push for military action against Libya. The Arab League's vote, on March 12th, to call on the United Nations to enforce a no-fly zone was crucial in securing international legitimacy. The Americans were initially hesitant but were eventually won around. So much is familiar to observers of the unfolding Libya story.

Press on the country and the explanation appears.

In my view, the biggest incentive is this…

Graph also from the Economist

Outside the Arab League, perhaps the strongest incentive to intervene in Libya’s internal strife has been about oil geopolitics.

The other possible reason could be due to the earlier faux pas in foreign policy by some of the major participants.

The Daily Show Explains US Foreign Policy On Libya

Hilarious but politically poignant stuff from Jon Stewart (HT Bob Murphy)

The Daily Show - Odyssey Dawn - Unconstitutional War
Tags: Daily Show Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,The Daily Show on Facebook

Gaddafi Financing Libya’s War With Gold

If there is one way to go around sanctions, then having a pile of gold could make the difference. Well, that’s how Libya’s Muammer Gaddafi has reportedly been able to finance his war.

From the Financial Times,

The international community has hit Muammer Gaddafi with a raft of sanctions and asset freezes aimed at cutting off his funding. But the embattled Libyan leader is sitting on a pot of gold.

The Libyan central bank – which is under Colonel Gaddafi’s control – holds 143.8 tonnes of gold, according to the latest data from the International Monetary Fund, although some suspect the true amount could be several tonnes higher.

Those reserves, among the top 25 in the world, are worth more than $6.5bn at current prices, enough to pay a small army of mercenaries for months or even years.

While many central banks hold their gold reserves in international vaults in London, New York or Switzerland, Libya’s bullion is in the country, said people familiar with the country’s activities in the gold market.

As I earlier pointed out, part of gold role’s in the Middle East crisis has been as “alternative ways to shelter assets”.

More from the same article,

The political turbulence in the Middle East – besides boosting the price of gold to a record $1,444 a troy ounce – has highlighted the property that has for centuries made gold so appealing to criminals, investors and dictators alike: it does not rely on a government for its value.

Following the revolution in Egypt, the country banned gold exports for four months in order to prevent officials of the former government from moving their wealth abroad.

At the same time, Iran has been quietly stocking up on gold in recent years, in an apparent attempt to shift away from the US dollar and thus protect its reserves from risk of seizure. Other significant buyers of gold include China, Russia and India.

Maverick governments are learning to see the role of Gold as an anti-establishment currency.

More signs of Gold gradually reacquiring its lost role as money.

Fearing A Slap On The Face, UN Sanctions A No-Fly Zone

Faced with the prospects of a victorious comeback by Libya’s 42 year dictatorship under Muammar Gaddafi, the UN approves a No-Fly zone over Libya.

The Marketwatch reports,

The United Nations Security Council voted 10 to 0 supporting the use of "all necessary measures" including the use of a no-fly zone to protect civilians and rebel forces in Libya from forces loyal to Col. Moammar Gadhafi. Russia and China, which held veto powers, abstained from the vote, along with three other council members. The passing of the measure is expected to lead to U.N.-backed military strikes in Libya within hours, according to media reports.

UN’s action represents a response to a potential slap on the face if Gaddafi forces wins.

Writes Lew Rockwell's Eric Margolis,

In a huge embarrassment for President Barack Obama, who has been demanding Gadaffi resign, the gutsy new US national intelligence director, Gen. James Clapper, told Congress that Gadaffi’s forces were winning. Fortunately, US Defense Secretary Robert Gates put the brakes, at least for now, on Republican hawks and the-only-good-Arab-is-a-dead-Arab neocons who were urging the US impose a no-fly zone over Libya.

There will also be many red faces in Europe. Libya is a major oil supplier. If Gadaffi survives and reconsolidates his rule, Europe will have to continue buying oil from him. Germany’s Angela Merkel and her pal Sarko will look very foolish.

That means the leaders of France, Germany, and Britain, who have been calling for the overthrow of Gadaffi, may have to make nice to him again, and even, horror of horrors, go to Tripoli and be filmed holding hands with the smirking Libyan dictator, decked out in one of his Marx Brothers military outfits. Revenge, Libyan-style, will be oh so sweet.

To save face means to intervene militarily which is what the No-fly zone is all about. Libya’s civil war will now evolve into an international war.

So the UN’s foreign policy appears designed to boost the self esteem needs of political authorities by getting their soldier’s hands bloodied and also by shifting away of resources from productive activities. In short, the self interest of politicians matter more than the public.

Also, reputational needs of political heads translates to benefits for the military industrial complex. So if it isn’t the banking elites, it is the military industrial elites that mostly benefits from government interventionism. Of course the banking elite is also tied to the military industrial complex indirectly since the banking elites has been the chief financers of government expenditures.

Map of the Libyan War

A map of the ongoing Libyan War as presented by the Economist