As the world’s oil supplies rapidly diminish, US government officials were encouraged to install a new regime whom the United States can pull on its puppet strings, to profit oil corporations (Oasis Group, Conoco Phillips, and Marathon Oil)[1] and private security contractors,[2] conditioning Libya to be subject to ‘efficient exploitation,’ a euphemism for invasion, pillage and plunder, conquer, poverty, and open elections! Protecting Libyans was the justifying pretext for this war, not the purpose.
Secret US Embassy documents from 2007 argue [3]
“Libya requires extensive foreign investment…demonstrating the clear downsides to the government of Libya”
The NATO invasion then was not about defending democracy, but was a civilizing mission to coerce Libyans into the globalized market economy administered by the transnational elite.
JOHN SARGIS The Obama doctrine, the transnational elite and the NATO attack on Libya The International Journal of INCLUSIVE DEMOCRACY, Vol. 7, No. 1 (Winter-Spring 2011)
“The war against Libya…around the world.”
Democracy here and abroad is forsaken in the name of defending, expanding, and ruling the US empire as the par excellence of human civilization. Once the hegemony of civilization becomes the apriori condition by which democracy is allowed to be deliberated, once the sovereign has made the conditions of democracy striated and static, then people in Libya can only practice democracy as long as it is in the US’s interest.
Palumbo-Liu, David 02 (Multiculturalism Now: Civilization, National Identity, and Difference Before and After September 11th David Palumbo-Liu boundary 2 29.2 (2002) 109-127
“conditions for a participatory democracy… remain only a cipher of irrational violence.”
The maintenance of this order is premised on the civilized/uncivilized dichotomy, where those deemed civilized receive the privileges and power over democracy while the uncivilized are deemed outside our ethical responsibility and democratic intersubjectivity. The Libyans who died before the National Transition Council’s Establishment are erased from the history of ‘human progress’, as their deaths are considered “NECESSARY” for the expansion of Libya’s integration into civilization. The seemingly isolated slaughter of people in Libya and exploitation of oil resources threatens our ethical responsibility to all others and the ecosystem’s ability to sustain life.
Garcia Lucas Rose 06 Human Rights: An Earth-based Ethics Rebecca Garcia Lucas Rose 146-147 COLLOQUY text theory critique 12 (2006). © Monash University. www.colloquy.monash.edu.au/issue12/rose.pdf
“denial of human-nonhuman … from the perception of human-nonhuman hyper separation.”
Paradox: What is democracy if the US protects democracy by forswearing democracy?[1]
[1] Farred, Grant Disorderly Democracy: An Axiomatic Politics CR: The New Centennial Review Volume 8, Number 2 Fall 2008 muse.jhu.edu/journals/ncr/summary/v008/8.2.farred.html
ADVOCACY: LEE AND I AFFIRM DEMOCRACY AS A HOUSE OF MIRRORS.
In order to discuss what democracy is, there must be a starting point at which the definition of democracy itself is disassembled, becoming lighter than air, taking leave of the earth to become only half real, its definitions as free as it is insignificant. We must reinvent the fiction of democracy into the surreal, to exist within the void of its own utterance so that it can be self-interrogated. It must be nothing in order to be everywhere.
Hans Varghese Mathews 2003 The Frontline: Subaltern Man Pg 4-5
"the de-realization of democracy … unworthy of the democratic process."
De-realizing the term democracy, affirming its singularities and fragility, and prompting confusion over what democracy means, challenges the sovereign control over democracy. Otherwise, democracy that assumes a universalized imposition of cultural values justifies the logic of oppression. To claim that democracy is a house of mirrors is to abandon any rigid or static conception of what democracy is or can be, as the room of mirrors never reveals the original referent. It is to affirm the death of our authorship, an unconditional gift, so that people in Libya can conceive of their own democracy.
Sufism and Deconstruction: A Comparative Study of Derrida and Ibn ‘Arabi. By Ian Almond. . London: Routledge, 2004.
http://www.seekeraftertruth.com/sufism-and-deconstruction-the-honesty-of-the-perplexed/
“desire to ‘universalise their idiom’, …reductive image onto the Other .”
