Libya was having oil export relationship with many of countries as it is one of the countries which has large amount of crude oil resources. United States, France, Russia and the china, brazil, India was one of those countries who played an important role in Libya’s conflict and primary international patrons of Libya’s interim government.

The point is that are they fighting for Libya’ goodness or is this all for oil??

Politics tends to be messy, rather than exact. YET under way in the Arab world is what might be described as an uncontrolled experiment, testing what has emerged as one of defining   questioning of 21^st century international relations.

The Libyan conflict has been a war about oil if not “for “oil. Country’s economy is almost totally dependent on hydrocarbons and a key objective for transitional government will be to get the wells up and running again as soon as possible.

 The British and France, meanwhile, are worried about future energy supplies. They are already pushing and shoving over who should get what of the energy proceeds before the political dust has even settled in Tripoli.

The U.K. government has been working hand in glove with parts of the oil industry to bring about regime change in Libya. London crude trader, Vitol, held meetings with Britain’s international development minister alan Duncan played a key role in keeping the rebels well supplied with petrol  while others tried to starve muammmar qadhafi’s troops of fuel. Was it a practical operation to undermine Qadhafi’s military logistics or a potent symbol that western politics and oil are so closely intermeshed that the agendas of both are indistinguishable? Certainly the French blew the gaff on Thursday. Foreign minister alain Juppe was trying to bury a story run in liberation that suggested that Paris had tied up an agreement to be given 35 per cent of all the country’s oil in future in return for military’s help. He said it was “fair and logical” to him that Libya’s new interim government, the national transitional council would turn to France in the reconstruction of Libya.

The British have not been so public about their expectations but we know that BP has already held talks with the new opposition leaders and are preparation to re-enter the country. Clearly the role of Vitol, never mind the RAF jets, will require some recognition in new Libya that emerges-at least in the eyes of the U.K. political and oil establishment.

And the prospects look good. An executive from rebel oil company, Agoco, has already said the interests of Britain, France and Italy will all be treated favourably compared with those who equivocated, such as Russia and china.

But won’t theNTC want to recognise its oil industries differently, and perhaps do without the west completely? Qadhafi originally kicked out western oil but then invented it back in after U.N. sanctions over the Lockerbie bombing were lifted. The problem for NTC is that oil provides virtually all of the country’s income .Even if nationalisation was their preferred option, getting production back up and running as quickly as possible is the imperative. Libya used to produce 1.6 m barrels of oil a day- worth an almighty $1.3 billion a week at today’s crude prices, and money the NTC desperately needs, even if it means sharing the spoils.

STEEP terms??

Whatever deal is reached, it is unlikely to be all or nothing: nationalism or capitulation. What the new government will certainly want to do is exact much tougher terms for western oil company involvement. The idea that a third of Libya’s oil would be simply turned over to the French, as the liberation story suggested, is surely nonsense. It would be political suicide for NTC.

 What happened in Iraq is instructive. Although BP and others have been given access to reserves in Iraq, they are not on the terms they would ideally have chosen. The auctions there have resulted in the “technical service agreements”, where the likes of BP act as contractors and get $2 on each barrel of oil produced but do not “own” the reserves in the way they do in the north Sea- or did in Iraq before they were removed by saddam hussein.

Western independent oil companies have the most modern technology, easy access to capital market money and a can-do spirit, but they are also on the defensive because they are being gradually muscled out globally by State-owned national oil companies in places such as Venezuela, Brazil and Russia.

The desperate – and now failed recent attempt by BP to tie up a share-swap deal with Russian State-owned Rosneft, despite all the problems it has had in that country, was just another sign of this.

With the North Sea and other mature basins fast running out of oil and a failure to fully invest in lower carbon alternatives, western ministers are also desperately worried about future crude supplies.

It was a war around oil in Libya – but the new interim government in Tripoli could yet win that, too

The question is “Are Libya’s friends for real?”

Suspicious grow about the motives of the United Kingdom and France, the primary international patrons of Libya’s interim government, the National Transitional Council (NTC), in enabling the almost-completed overthrow of Muammar al-Qadhafi. French President Nicolas Sarkozy was not short of fine words in his March 19 statement that his country was protecting the civilian population of Libya against the “murderous madness” of a regime which, by assassinating its own people, had “lost all legitimacy.” But substantial evidence is already emerging of extensive links between major oil corporations and the British and French governments in supplying the rebels and it the reconstruction of Libya’s only large-scale industry, which is oil production. An analysis in The Guardian mentions meetings between Britain’s junior Minister for International Development, Alan Duncan, and the crude-oil trader Vitol, with whom Mr Duncan had previous business connections. Meanwhile French Foreign Minister Alain Juppe has tried strenuously to rebut allegations in a letter obtained by the daily Liberation to the effect that the NTC had promised French co9mpanies 35 per cent of future Libyan oil production. Prospective western attitudes towards the government in waiting are thrown further into question by the independent’s revelation, based on documents formerly possessed by the Libyan deflectors and former security boss moussa koussa, the british and the united states offered prisoners to Libya under the rendition programme in the so called war on terror, and that the British intelligence service, MI6, provided Mr Qadhafi with information on exiled Libyan opponents and dissidents.

Once in office, the NTC will desperately want to revive oil production as a prerequisite for further economic development, but the conditions under which it can do so will not be in its hands. It may find that terms of new contracts are imposed by foreign companies and that if it attempts to favour western firms over oil industries in Russia, china and India-all of which abstained from the united nations security council vote authorising military support for the uprising-then it might incur lasting opprobrium from those potentially important partners. Further complications for the new government in Tripoli could arise from the fact that its patrons, the U.K, France, and the U.S., were not nearly as hostile to Mr Qadhafi as they would have the rest of the world believe. IN addition, if NTC goes about nationalising the country’s oil industry as part of a programme of economic reconstruction, it could end up at the receiving end of western-induced regime change.

Russia’s real politics on Libya

The endgame in Libya has reignited a debate in Russia on its policy in the conflict that may have a bearing on the presidential election next year.

Russia backed United Nations sanctions against Qadhafi under Security Council resolution1973, which authorised the enforcement of a no fly zone over Libya to protect civilian population Moscow however strongly criticised NATO’s military intervention on the side of Libyan rebels and accused the alliance of overstepping the U.N. mandate. Russia urged a ceasefire and peace talks between the Qadhafi government and rebels. But on 1^st September Moscow suddenly recognised the national transitional council even as the forces of muammmar Qadhafi were still battling the rebels. The kremlin sent a high level envoy to the Paris conference of “friends of Libya “and invited NTC leaders to visit Moscow.

Explaining its decision to abstain in the Security Council vote on Resolution 1973 Moscow said it could not support the gauge about foreign military intervention in Libya. It did not use its veto right either because it saw the urgent need for action to prevent carnage if Qadhafi forces overran rebel-held Benghazi.

The Russian stance appears to indicate a significant shift away from opposition to foreign interference in internal affairs of a sovereign state. The only time that Moscow sanctioned military intervention was 20 years ago when Iraq occupied Kuwait. That was a time when Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev believed in “universal values” that should put the Soviet Union in the same camp with the “civilised” West. However, in Yugoslavia and Iraq Russia came out against military action, and in 2008 Russia used its veto to block U.N. resolution imposing sanctions to Mugabe’s regime in Zimbabwe over controversial presidential elections.

In Libya Russia for the first time appeared to subscribe to the concept of humanitarian intervention that it staunchly opposed in the past. President Dmitry Medvedev justified Russia’s refusal to veto Resolution 1973 by referring to the “abhorrent behaviour” of the Qadhafi regime, which “committed crimes against its own people.” Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee of the Russian State Duma parliament Konstantin Kosachyov further clarified that Russia supported foreign intervention in Libya “strictly on humanitarian grounds in order to save human lives.”

How this Libyan civil war does affect the world??

Policy challenges to Asian countries

An offer to assist Libya with its post Qadhafi reconstruction and rehabilitation coupled with India’s remaining days as president of the united nations security council and an invitation to attend this week’s friends of Libya conference in Paris enable India to turn page in its somewhat troubled relations with north Atlantic treaty organisation (nato) - backed rebels poised to form the north African country’s new government.

The opportunity arises as India alongside china, Russia, Brazil and South Africa-the five Security Council members that did not support the imposition last march of no fly zone in Libya and NATO’s bombing campaign- finds itself forced to rethink its approach towards embattled Arab autocratic leaders in the wake of the rebels ‘takeover of the Libyan capital of Tripoli.

China and Russia scrambled last week to improve their ties with the rebel transition national council (TNC) in a bid to salvage commercial ties and opportunities in position Qadhafi Libya. Libya may be their most important concern as the TNC asserts its authority in the country, but India like china, Russia and the others, is certain to debate the implications of Mr Qadhafi’s fall in its policy towards other embattled Arab leaders, first and foremost Syrian president Bashar al Assad.

Alarm bells rang out last week in the Chinese and Russian capitals after Abdeljalil Mayouf, a manager of the rebel controlled Arabian Gulf oil company (AGOCO) warned that China, Russia and Brazil, in contrast to western nations, could face political obstacles in reverting back to business as usual power. Mr Qadhafi has been removed from power. Mr Mayouf did not mention India but there is no doubt that in his view, it falls into same category as China, Russia and Brazil.

To be sure, MR Mayouf represents only one strand of thinking among the rebels, who have agreed to French president Nicolas Sarkozy inviting India along with the other four recalcitrant Security Council members to the Paris conference to discuss support for the NTC.

Foreign assistance is crucial as the TNC faces the daunting task of enforcing law and order; preventing further acts of revenge and water, electricity, food and fuel; reviving oil exports and kick starting the economy while at the same time hunting down Mr Qadhafi and gaining control of Qadhafi strongholds such as his hometown of Sirte

The exercise is likely to provide India and others In the international community a template for similar situations that are certain to arise as anti-government protests sweep the Middle east and North Africa, particularly as protesters’ resolve in Syria and in Yemen is boosted by events in Libya and opposition seek to emulate the Libyan model of forming ta a united leadership that effectively serves as a government-in- waiting.

Syria is probably next in line with protesters displaying the kind of resilience and preservance that has rendered Mr Assad’s five-month old brutal crackdown a failure. As western sanctions of particularly of Syria’s, oil sector start to kick in, the question no longer is if but when Mr Assad’s will be forced out of office. India alongside china and Russia is likely to want to ensure that it maintains some kind of construction relationship with the forces likely to succeed the Syrian leader.

Commenters have been quick to note that Asia’s commercial interests in Libya are limited and are likely to in good time asserts the same with regard to Syria. India’s interests in Libya are virtually non-existence while china relied last year on Libya for only three per cent of its crude imports but had to evacuate from Libya 36000 workers employed by 75 primarily state-owned Chinese companies earlier this year.

Yet, even if commercial ties with Libya and Syria are relatively miniscule, there is a lot more at stake for India and other Asian nations not only in the three countries whose autocratic leader were toppled this year. i.e. Egypt, Tunisia and Libya, but across the middle east and north Africa. Beyond chancing that their companies will be at a disadvantage in competing for lucrative post-revolution contracts, they risk negative perceptions in a region in which in which millions are closely monitoring events Libya and Syria and are likely to be reinvigorated by the demise of Mr. Qadhafi.

       Mr Qadhafi. Fall was preceded by peaceful mass protests that forced the presidents of Tunisia and Egypt to resign earlier this year. The grievances that have propelled the rebellion in Libya and the protests in Syria, Tunisia and Egypt are shared with the population of a swath of land that stretches from the Atlantic coast of Africa to the Gulf. Change by hook or by crook is likely to be the name of the game for the next decade in the Middle East and North Africa, a region that is strategic because of its geography, energy resources and the financial clout of its oil producers.

                           No doubt, the struggle for greater political freedom and economic opportunity is likely to be protracted and bloody and the transition towards more open societies messy at best. In a region in which the struggle to get rid of yoke of dictatorship faces the constant threat of sectarian and religious groups cohabiting in a democracy and its long-standing ties to parts of the middle east has much to offer. That is most immediately true in Libya where the TNC has to quickly move from the rebel capital of Benghazi in the east of country to Tripoli in a demonstrative gesture of its taking control of the country and a city of two million that is without political leadership or direction. With no running water in Tripoli because supply from aquifers in the desert has been disrupted by the fighting and barely any electricity , the TNC has already promised to immediately start distributing 30000 tons of gasoline as well as diesel fuel for power stations.

In a country, in which in his 42 years in power Mr Qadhafi ensured that no institutions developed that could challenge his authority, the TNC and its elected successor will need substantial support in building a more open, transparent society from scratch, Iraq, which was wracked by sectarian violence and fratricide after the 2003 fall of Saddam hussein, has served as an example of  how not to do it. Those lessons are reflected in the TNC’s blueprint for the future, which outlines a 20-month timetable for the transition as well as procedures to ensure that the process is transparent.

Like the rebels, Mr Qadhafi too appears to have drawn inspiration from Iraq’s example. He allowed his capital to fall, ensured his escape and vowed to wage an insurgency. Hussein fled to his hometown of Tikrit where he exploited his successor’s policies to fuel sectarian strife Mr Qadhafi‘s whereabouts remain a mystery and it is not clear whether he has returned to Sirte. Unlike hussein.mr Qadhafi has no powerful neighbours on whose support he will be able to rely. As a result, Mr qadhafi’s final stand could prove to be a less bloody and wrenching battle than that of hussein and his associates.

For India, china and Russia, the challenge is to develop middle rather than short term policies that enable it to capitalise on political and economic opportunities amid initial chaos and instability. Transition in Syria is likely to prove as messy as it is in Libya.

It took five months of bloodshed in Syria for India and the other Security Council holdouts to endorse condemnation of Mr Assad’s crackdown and then only in the weakest possible form because of their concern that it could lead to foreign military intervention. Syrians, unlike Libyans, oppose foreign military aid and have so far insisted that they do not want to move from peaceful to armed resistance.

This should make it easier for India, if not for Russia and china, to get on the right side of history. Doing so does not require a political U-turn but would mean a more forceful stand against the brutality of an embattled leader that does not give him an effective license to brutally crackdown on protesters by effectively blocking an international consensus. Libya offers an opportunity for countries like India to demonstrate that their heart is in the right place.