The conflict raging in Libya between pro-Gaddafi forces and rebels supported by some Western countries has led observers to believe that this is not primarily a battle for reformation of the political system leading to the installation of democracy, but simply a grab for Libya's oil resources. The question uppermost in the minds of strategists is 'who would benefit the most if Gaddafi were to depart' and 'is democracy really coming to Libya'?

According to the International Energy Agency [IEA] Libya, a member of OPEC, has the largest oil reserves in Africa with an annual production of some 1.69 mb/d of oil (crude and natural gas liquids). Of these volumes, some 1.49 mb/d were exported. Europe receives over 85% of Libya's crude exports, while about 13% heads east of Suez. An additional 150 kb/d of crude oil from Libya went to China in 2010, accounting for some 3% of the total Chinese crude imports. One very noticeable fact is that those Western powers that are most active in opposing the Gaddafi regime, namely the US, UK and France import only 0.5% and 8.5% of Libyan oil as compared to their total imports. The inescapable conclusion would be that if the turmoil in Libya were to continue even for any length of time these countries would not face any significant turbulence in their economies. The action initiated by them is for long term strategic advantages and not any short term gain. In any case Saudi Arabia has promised to make up the shortfall, if any, by increasing its own production.

Although by any standards Libya is not in the league of major oil producers such as Saudi Arabia, Iraq, UAE or for that matter Russia, yet its reserves of crude oil are about 3% of the world's total. Libyan gas reserves are even more important with large areas of the country still to be surveyed. Nevertheless Libyan crude is much in demand. Firstly, it is of very high quality with low sulphur content. Secondly, situated far away from the Gulf region, Libyan oil exports are not subject to the vicissitudes of Gulf region politics. With the threat of a confrontation looming between the West/Israel and Iran over the latter's nuclear ambitions; the control of Libyan oil assets becomes a strategic necessity. The Persian Gulf produces about 27% of the world's oil, while holding about 57% of the total world's crude oil reserves. It also holds about 45% of the total world gas reserves. Any confrontation with Iran will of necessity involve a possible disruption of oil exports through the Straits of Hormuz. It is through this area that the bulk of the West's oil imports pass.

The Western countries are conscious of the strategic utility of Libyan oil reserves. Oil is the engine for economic growth. Oil provides nearly all the energy for transportation, heating for buildings and is the essential feedstock for the plastics, paints, fertiliser and pharmaceutical industries. Oil has a 40% share in the US national energy budget. Modern warfare depends on oil. Virtually all modern weapon systems rely on oil based fuel, be it tanks, trucks and transportation systems, fighter aircraft or naval vessels. No modern nation can do a power projection abroad if it is not assured of

uninterrupted fuel supplies. It is for this reason that governments go to considerable lengths to secure oil supplies. Conversely, it becomes a strategic option if potential adversaries are either denied access to oil production centres or their supply routes are under control. China a major importer of Libyan oil thus has cause for worry.

Libya situated just across the Mediterrean Sea is ideally located to supply oil to key European markets without fear of any disruption by political upheavals. In this sense countries situated at the southern rim of Europe are huge beneficiaries. Thus Italy is a major importer of Libyan oil which accounts for 22% of total Italian imports. Similar is the position of countries such as Austria, Greece, Ireland and Spain. With assured supplies available from Libya, Southern Europe becomes less dependent on crude oil and gas supplies from Russia. Libyan gas pipelines under the Mediterranean Sea directly link up with the Southern European grid and to a large extent frees Southern European countries from the politics of oil that Russia practices with other countries, particularly those that once formed a part of the old Soviet Union.

Although the issue of Libyan support for terrorism had abated somewhat since 2003, there is of course not much to commend the Gaddafi regime as regards its human rights record. But for UN Security Council resolution that authorized the use of 'all necessary' means, the fate of the people and rebels in particular at Benghazi would have been to horrific to contemplate. Most Arab regimes are not known for showing much mercy to their political opponents. There are of course exceptions. The Gaddafi regime is one of the more odious Arab regimes whose flair for initiating terrorism and terror related acts is perhaps rather well known. The Lockerbie bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 over Scotland in 1988 and several other initiatives the Gaddafi regime undertook, including encouraging nuclear proliferation, are rather well documented. The clandestine nuclear activities of some Pakistani nuclear scientists, now in the open, revealed that they were substantial beneficiaries of the Gaddafi largesse. It was only under intense international pressure that in 2004 Libya agreed to abandon its WMD programmes and also agreed to comply with the provisions of the NPT. It has also not desisted from financing acts of terrorism, including trying to meddle in Kashmir on behalf of Pakistan, where it financed a 'study' sponsored by Chatham House to conduct so called 'surveys' of Kashmiri opinion.

Although India abstained from the UN Security resolution that authorized 'all necessary' measures to halt what would have been a massacre, it was really a Hobson's choice. It is not easy for newly emerging countries to contemplate intervention in the 'internal' affairs of a UN member state. On the other hand, the issue of human rights is very much there and cannot be brushed aside under the carpet. At the same time there were about 20,000 Indians who were living and working in Libya and who would have to be evacuated. They would lose their jobs and means of sustaining a livelihood. Many had family commitments to meet in India on the basis of their earnings in Libya. Many Indian companies had major infrastructure turn key projects on hand. All would inevitably suffer from the consequences of the conflict in Libya. Similar had been the situation of Indians in Iraq who had had to be evacuated.

Thus as the conflict heads towards a final denouement will a democratic form of government evolve, in case Gaddafi is ousted? The Arab experience has not been particularly forthcoming. Much of the Arab world is ruled by hereditary monarchies, military regimes and autocrats. A recent trend has been that even autocracies have become hereditary, as in the case of Syria. There is hardly any functioning democracy anywhere. This is particularly so in oil rich Arab countries. Even where democratic elections were held, the inconvenient winners were soon overthrown or not allowed to assume power due to significant external intervention or with the connivance of multi-national oil companies, as in the case of Algeria. In most Arab countries there is no tradition of democracy. In the case of Libya there has never been such a tradition for it is still a tribal society. It has a small population living mainly along the coastal areas that can easily fracture into warring tribal affiliations. Even if democracy were to be introduced, voting patterns will largely be along tribal groupings. Libya will need substantial outside help to foster democracy. Therefore, as elsewhere in oil rich countries, the role of the multi -nationals will be crucial.

In the past the role of multi-national oil companies has not been very helpful. Looking at the situation from their own perspectives, they have tended to favour an autocratic form of government.

Democracies can sometimes be very stubborn and inconvenient. It is much easier to deal with an autocratic ruler where laws can be enacted or changed at will and without much debate or rancour. A neat 'profit-sharing' arrangement has in most cases suited both the ruler and the multi-national oil companies. Major oil consuming nations with large economies too do not wish that any disruption is caused in the smooth flow of oil. Most countries would prefer a system that ensures that there is price stability. Any convulsions whether for political or other reasons are not contemplated with any relish. Thus while the world waits and watches; there is considerable scepticism whether Libyans will ever see democracy flourish in their country. At the moment the bets are on an exchange of one strongman for another. Incidentally, most of the leaders of the so-called Interim National Council such as Mahmoud Jibril and Ali Tarhouni [University of Washington, Seattle] are long time US residents. And Tarhouni is reported to be responsible for the Council's oil and trade policies!

Concluded

Views are those of the author

* The writer is a former Secretary, Ministry of External Affairs and a Member of the National Human Rights Commission.

Author can be contacted at rskalha@hotmail.com