Operation in Libya: Is the United States Covering Its Tracks?
Published in KM News
(Russia) on 10 June 2011
by Mikhail Vasil'ev (link to original)
(Russia) on 10 June 2011
by Mikhail Vasil'ev (link to original)
Translated from
by Justin Lo.
Edited by Sarah Burton
.
Western public opinion is gradually beginning to prepare for the fact that the only way to stop the war in Libya, which is already about to be pretty bothersome for all, is the physical destruction of Gadhafi. At least the representatives of NATO’s military leadership all are beginning to speak more loudly about the idea that no future U.N. resolutions should forbid the removal of a rebellious colonel but instead should immediately allow for removal.
Earlier, we recall, the whole discussion unfolded about whether Gadhafi was the “lawful object” for attack among the Western political elite. And there a senior NATO representative, on the condition of anonymity (so that the alliance would always be able to have the possibility to disown his words), announced to CNN that the U.N. Security Council resolution on Libya allowed them to strike directly at the leader of Libya. He was not able to bring forth any pieces of evidence for this assertion — not surprising.
Perhaps the anonymous senior representative had in mind that the infamous resolution stated that the world community can take “all necessary measures” for the protection of the civilian population of Libya, except for a ground invasion. It is reported that the destruction of Gadhafi is the same necessary measure. The logic of this argument, of course, is that the rebellious colonel has become the symbol of resistance against the West, and therefore according to the planning of NATO strategists, he should be destroyed as soon as possible.
However, it is likely that they incorrectly assess the situation: Gadhafi is not bin Laden, whom they have already forgotten about a week after his infamous “liquidation.” Even in the situation of his own death (which will be remembered as an act of martyrdom), the leader of Libya will nevertheless remain the symbol of resistance.
The other issue is that the killing of Gadhafi will help some people in Washington, simply put, to cover their tracks. It is not a secret that many points are unclear regarding the Libyan leader’s relationship with Western countries, a relationship that had a quite normal character until very recently. This parallels the fact that at the same time a NATO representative started to speak about an alleged mandate on the liquidation of Gadhafi, some information from the United States arrived that said that the Securities and Exchange Commission began an investigation with respect to the bank Goldman Sachs. As was reported in The Wall Street Journal, it is suspected that the bank wanted to bribe the Libyan government.
The American publication reported that in the crisis year of 2008 Goldman Sachs lost $1.3 billion, which was allocated to it by the management of the state investment fund the Libyan Investment Authority. The famous bank so “cleverly” managed the money that was entrusted to it, that by the beginning of 2009, from more than $1 billion there only remained $25 million. As part of the compensation Goldman Sachs agreed to pay the fund $50 million, which then would be given to a third party. Even the SEC was interested in this transfer— there they considered that the negotiations on the payout of the additional $50 million may turn out to be an attempt to bribe foreign officials, an action that is punishable by the laws of the United States.
The source of this “Libyan billion” is actually much more shady. Some observers reasonably ask the question: Would this whole current military campaign be an attempt to hide how “cleverly” Americans managed the finances entrusted to them?
Analysts for Kalita-Finance, Dimitry Golubovsky and Aleksey Vyazovsky, have this to say:
“Does $37 billion in Libyan foreign exchange reserves, which have allegedly been frozen for ‘human rights violations by Americans and their allies, really exist? Or is this alleged money more similar to the Libyan $1.3 billion that turned up only bogus account statements, and the money long since disappeared into the depths of the crisis? Do you think the beginning of the next “small victorious war” is worth the fact that they want to hide the $37 billion withdrawal of gold reserves? But surely in the future it would still be possible to credit the rehabilitation of Libya from the devastation of these billions with a pledge for oil supplies!”
The second question, which Golubovsky and Vyazovsky raise in their article, is already much more serious, for it no longer touches upon Libya, but upon our motherland, Russia: “How, in fact, is the sovereign fund of the Libyan Investment Authority different from the sovereign Russian Fund of the National Wealth of the Russian Federation (around 2.7 trillion rubles)? Or from the Reserve Fund? With respect to the Reserve Fund the site of the Ministry of Finance reports to us gently that ‘the account balance (in dollars) is $11,076,524,377.83.’ Are you sure that these dollars really exist? And does Goldman Sachs not manage these two funds in the ‘interests’ of the government of Russia and its people?”
Still another question has ripened among the respected financial analysts (I note that I myself would be happy to learn the answer to it): “Did it come to the attention of the representatives of the Russian authorities (more specifically, Kudrin and Ignatiev) that at one time they will take and freeze all the holdings of Russia abroad for half a trillion dollars? And will they not close the holes with them in the balances of investment banks during another round of crisis?”
However, the authors of these reasonable questions are convinced that they are purely rhetorical and the answers for them will not follow. Still in March of this year the Financial Times published a list of major investment companies with which the Russian government “...is setting up a 10bn fund to co-invest with leading international private equity firms in an effort to attract foreign capital to the country, and has asked Goldman Sachs informally to guide the project...” Well, what can you say? These faces are all familiar.
Earlier, we recall, the whole discussion unfolded about whether Gadhafi was the “lawful object” for attack among the Western political elite. And there a senior NATO representative, on the condition of anonymity (so that the alliance would always be able to have the possibility to disown his words), announced to CNN that the U.N. Security Council resolution on Libya allowed them to strike directly at the leader of Libya. He was not able to bring forth any pieces of evidence for this assertion — not surprising.
Perhaps the anonymous senior representative had in mind that the infamous resolution stated that the world community can take “all necessary measures” for the protection of the civilian population of Libya, except for a ground invasion. It is reported that the destruction of Gadhafi is the same necessary measure. The logic of this argument, of course, is that the rebellious colonel has become the symbol of resistance against the West, and therefore according to the planning of NATO strategists, he should be destroyed as soon as possible.
However, it is likely that they incorrectly assess the situation: Gadhafi is not bin Laden, whom they have already forgotten about a week after his infamous “liquidation.” Even in the situation of his own death (which will be remembered as an act of martyrdom), the leader of Libya will nevertheless remain the symbol of resistance.
The other issue is that the killing of Gadhafi will help some people in Washington, simply put, to cover their tracks. It is not a secret that many points are unclear regarding the Libyan leader’s relationship with Western countries, a relationship that had a quite normal character until very recently. This parallels the fact that at the same time a NATO representative started to speak about an alleged mandate on the liquidation of Gadhafi, some information from the United States arrived that said that the Securities and Exchange Commission began an investigation with respect to the bank Goldman Sachs. As was reported in The Wall Street Journal, it is suspected that the bank wanted to bribe the Libyan government.
The American publication reported that in the crisis year of 2008 Goldman Sachs lost $1.3 billion, which was allocated to it by the management of the state investment fund the Libyan Investment Authority. The famous bank so “cleverly” managed the money that was entrusted to it, that by the beginning of 2009, from more than $1 billion there only remained $25 million. As part of the compensation Goldman Sachs agreed to pay the fund $50 million, which then would be given to a third party. Even the SEC was interested in this transfer— there they considered that the negotiations on the payout of the additional $50 million may turn out to be an attempt to bribe foreign officials, an action that is punishable by the laws of the United States.
The source of this “Libyan billion” is actually much more shady. Some observers reasonably ask the question: Would this whole current military campaign be an attempt to hide how “cleverly” Americans managed the finances entrusted to them?
Analysts for Kalita-Finance, Dimitry Golubovsky and Aleksey Vyazovsky, have this to say:
“Does $37 billion in Libyan foreign exchange reserves, which have allegedly been frozen for ‘human rights violations by Americans and their allies, really exist? Or is this alleged money more similar to the Libyan $1.3 billion that turned up only bogus account statements, and the money long since disappeared into the depths of the crisis? Do you think the beginning of the next “small victorious war” is worth the fact that they want to hide the $37 billion withdrawal of gold reserves? But surely in the future it would still be possible to credit the rehabilitation of Libya from the devastation of these billions with a pledge for oil supplies!”
The second question, which Golubovsky and Vyazovsky raise in their article, is already much more serious, for it no longer touches upon Libya, but upon our motherland, Russia: “How, in fact, is the sovereign fund of the Libyan Investment Authority different from the sovereign Russian Fund of the National Wealth of the Russian Federation (around 2.7 trillion rubles)? Or from the Reserve Fund? With respect to the Reserve Fund the site of the Ministry of Finance reports to us gently that ‘the account balance (in dollars) is $11,076,524,377.83.’ Are you sure that these dollars really exist? And does Goldman Sachs not manage these two funds in the ‘interests’ of the government of Russia and its people?”
Still another question has ripened among the respected financial analysts (I note that I myself would be happy to learn the answer to it): “Did it come to the attention of the representatives of the Russian authorities (more specifically, Kudrin and Ignatiev) that at one time they will take and freeze all the holdings of Russia abroad for half a trillion dollars? And will they not close the holes with them in the balances of investment banks during another round of crisis?”
However, the authors of these reasonable questions are convinced that they are purely rhetorical and the answers for them will not follow. Still in March of this year the Financial Times published a list of major investment companies with which the Russian government “...is setting up a 10bn fund to co-invest with leading international private equity firms in an effort to attract foreign capital to the country, and has asked Goldman Sachs informally to guide the project...” Well, what can you say? These faces are all familiar.