Lockerbie decision illustrates hypocrisy and expediency of Capitalism
uploaded 21 Aug 2003بِسْمِ اللهِ الرَّحْمنِ الرَّحِيمِِ
Lockerbie decision illustrates hypocrisy and expediency of Capitalism
Libyan Dictator Colonel Gaddafi has agreed to pay $2.7
billion of compensation to the victims of the December 1998 Lockerbie
bombing. The payout which is conditional upon UN sanctions against
Libya being lifted, will mean the families of those that perished when
Pan Am flight 103 went down in Lockerbie will each receive up to $10
million dollars.
The trigger for this change in status for Libya follows the receipt
of a letter by the UN Security Council from the Libyan government in
which they stated: "Libya as a sovereign state has facilitated the
bringing to justice of the two suspects charged with the bombing of Pan
Am 103 and accepts responsibility for the actions of its officials".
Whilst falling short of a direct admission of guilt, the letter does
sufficiently accept responsibility for the bombing and coupled with the
promise of compensation, is aimed at bringing the matter to a close. Or
so it is planned.
France in an unexpected move has threatened to veto the relaxation
of the crippling sanctions, for the simple reason that they are now
unhappy with a similar (but much smaller) level of compensation that
Libya is paying for its alleged downing of a French airplane over Niger
in 1989. The $3,000 to $33,000 per victim on offer for this incident
now is insufficient.
Several matters are worthy of comment re these incidents.
Firstly the victims of the American downing in July 1988 of an
Iranian airliner by the USS Vincennes in the Gulf of Hormuz must be
feeling pretty sick when they consider the pressure that the world is
happy to exert upon oil rich Libya to extract compensation for the
actions of their accused secret service personnel. Where is the similar
concern to exert pressure on the Americans who admitted "their mistake"
but won't go as far as compensating for the obvious actions of their
military personnel from the Vincennes? Or indeed where is the pressure
exerted upon the Russians for their downing of a Korean airliner? One
rule for them, and another for us? Or are Muslim lives not worthy of
compensation? It seems also that we've found a new use for the word
"Terrorism". A whole new industry can spring up over the blackmailing
of countries into accepting to pay enormous sums in compensation for
actions which are linked to them, no matter how weak or tenuous that
link is. We remember well that for the first two years of the Lockerbie
investigation there was no link at all made to Libya, as the
speculation focused on Syria. When the trial of the Libyan security
officers was finally held in the Netherlands, the most damning evidence
brought was the listing of a suitcase that was due to be carried on a
flight from Libya, then Air Malta, and finally via Frankfurt to Pan Am
flight 103. Conspiracy theories? The fact that the Victims of the
Lockerbie bombing are continuing their fight for an independent inquiry
into the incident despite the promise of compensation surely raises
more questions than answers. Not least is the possible motive for such
an action by Libya which is roundly and repeatedly condemned as a
"terrorist" rogue state but has little motivation to undertake such
actions. If Libya was behind the bombing, what's their motive? And how
was it done? Surely this needs clear cut answers, and not a vague
reference to responsibility for the actions of its officials.
Far clearer is the motivation of Libya in accepting these
humiliating conditions. The sanctions have cut deeply. In June 2003,
together with an announcement of Libya's intention to open up its
economy and to attract foreign investment, the "Socialist" Gaddafi
publicly stated that the country's public sector had failed and should
be abolished, and then called for the immediate privatisation of the
country's oil sector. As Africa's major oil producer and one of
Europe's biggest North African oil suppliers, Libya estimates that UN
sanctions have cost the country over 37 billion dollars in lost oil
revenue since 1992.
In the event that sanctions are permanently lifted, the future
would certainly be bright for Libya's economy. Libya provides very high
grade crude oil, it has low production costs and the oilfields are
close to the refineries and markets of Europe. Additionally, despite
almost half a century of exploration, Libya remains largely unexplored
with vast oil and gas potential. With the talk of American sanctions
being lifted, US oil firms such as ConocoPhillips, Marathon, Amerada
Hess and Occidental, all forced out of Libya by Ronald Reagan's 1986
executive order, are also eager to return. In December 1999, US oil
company executives from Oasis and Marathon travelled to Tripoli, with
US government approval, to visit their old oil facilities in the
country. In March 2002, the US state department said that it would
permit Marathon Oil to hold discussions with Libyan officials despite
the fact that sanctions remained fully in place.
One leading economic expert recently highlighted that Libya's vast
potential has long been part of the future strategy for the world's
major oil firms. He said: "For many oil companies dealing with Gaddafi
is a troublesome side-issue. If, after decades of erratic, troublesome,
and militant anti-Western behaviour, the Libyan leader wants to shake
off his pariah status, then so be it. The economic reality is the
untapped oil and gas reserves in the region are vast and Libya needs
the West's technology to get to it and export it."
This is a lesson in expediency overriding principles, something
that has become a key feature of Capitalist thought and practice.
Expediency accepts that what was held yesterday in terms of principles
and their underlying thoughts do not necessarily deserve to be rigidly
held to, and what is embraced tomorrow can re-write the thoughts and
actions of yesteryear. This is unsurprising since the basis of
Capitalism was built upon an irrational basis which sought to bridge
the gap between two contradictory standpoints upheld by two distinct
viewpoints. The first group had had enough of the dogma that
underpinned the Church and the hierarchy, whilst the second believed
that the status quo deserved to be left untouched. The former reached
such a frenzy that they eventually through the baby out with the bath
water by rejecting not only those who were considered "Men of God" but
the Creator Himself, the latter rejected this, but eventually an
accommodation was reached in the impasse. The agreement resulted in
the acceptance of secularism. This practically papered over the
question of whether a Creator indeed existed; the crux of the agreement
was that whether a person believed in God or not, this was a personal
choice, in life where it really matters, man must be the arbiter for
right and wrong. Since then compromise and expediency have become key
features of Western Capitalism, the Libyan example being only one of
many.
As Muslims we must reject the call to expediency in every guise,
including the ones wrapped in Islamic Garb. We must vigorously oppose
these Capitalistic criteria; we must embrace the Islamic criteria, one
which radically moulds our vision, to the rejection of the reality we
live in to the reality which Allah commands, that is the
re-establishment of the Khilafah.
Jamal Harwood
Khilafah.com Journal
23 Jumaad Al-Thani 1424 Hijri
21 August 2003
Click here to E-mail the author of this article with your questions and comments
