To what extent did the American intervention in the 2011 Libyan Civil War exemplify the World Systems Theory?
Elizabeth Castell
Introduction
The World Systems Ttheory is a geopolitical theory pioneered by the social scientist Immanuel Wallerstein. As a model, Giddens (1993) explains how the world systems approach attempts to understand the nature of social progression and the inevitable course that global relationships obey. A Marxist based theory; the World Systems approach examines international relations through the prism of class-based inequality, where certain states remain powerful and act in attempt to retain the power whilst other countries remain starved of it.
Primarily, an understanding of the world’s system theory requires an understanding of how Wallerstein categorises states within the global system and the power that corresponds to any category. Wallerstein’s theory categorises states within the capitalist world economy (Wallerstein, 1974) as being segmented into core countries, semi periphery countries and periphery countries. By the very nature of the capitalist system that the World System theory critiques; this relationship exists through a dimension of exploitation. As Marx himself wrote, all history is “history of a class struggle”(Marx, 2017). As Marx believes that the very nature of human society is driven by the exploitation of a powerful class over a weaker one, Wallerstein’s theory explains this same relationship of mistreatment between differing states within the global system.
Identification of a country as a core, periphery or semi periphery state is dependent on various factors if it were economy, political organisation and position within trade relations. As Wallerstein (2004) details, in its simplest terms, the core countries are defined as industrialised states who hold the most power within the capitalist world economy and therefore control the very nature and running of the world economy. By the same note, the periphery countries are those that rely on the stability of the core states in order to sustain their economy. The semi periphery countries exist both accumulating surplus value through importation from periphery countries as well as, in accordance to Lechner (2018) relying on core countries to export raw materials to. The economic power that the core country sees itself with is often a result of trade agreements. Trade agreements are a by-product of the highly globalised world of the 21st century- with globalisation effectively being the ‘interdependent nature of the social planet’ (Steger,2009). Through advancements in technology and increasing importance of global relationships, the world no longer exists as isolated states that subsist within their own microcosm. Instead, the world has become increasingly connected. The very nature of trade agreements sees economic exchange between countries through the likes of capital and resources. In terms of the World Systems theory, these trade agreements and this economic relationship sees the resources of semi periphery and periphery countries exchanged with core countries in exchange for finance. This global syndicate, in its exemplification of capitalism, sees the core countries requisitioning capital in the form of resources, which sees wealth accumulate within the core countries. This enables the possession of power by the core countries, not only through its own economic dominance as capital accumulates within the state, but similarly through the dictation it has on the import rates of the semi periphery and periphery countries. Periphery countries are by nature often politically unstable and economically volatile. These periphery countries lack the successful economic permanency of their core counterparts. It is this relationship that displays why the World Systems theorisation of the running of the capitalist world economy relies on the maintenance of the existing condition in order to retain their power. It is the underdevelopments of the periphery countries that surround them within the economy that extends the hand of power. A threat to the organization of the capitalist world economy is a threat to the global and economy superiority of their states within the globalised market.
The World System’s theory seems more relevant than ever when attempting to understand the recent geopolitical crisis of the 21st century. The heavily globalised nature of the running’s of the international system, where no country stands in isolation, means that the very existence of a simply domestic issue becomes questionable. Political, economic or social calamities in any one country now refused to exist within the parameters of a single state but instead have great ramifications for the countries that exist alongside them in the global economy. If any one case highlights the greatly interconnected nature of the global system is the American intervention within the 2011 Libyan Civil War. The World Systems theory offers an explanation as to why the world largest economy and most dominant core country within the capitalist system, the United States, concerned itself with an ex-Italian colony in North Africa that had only been an independent state for 63 years- with that country being Libya.
Initially, it is important to gage an understanding of the political paradigm that the Libyan Civil War existed within. The civil war was fought between the Libyan revolutionary, Muammar al-Gaddafi, who had ruled over Libyan from 1969 till his death in 2011, and the rebel forces that wished to overthrow Gaddafi as leader of Libya. As the war progressed, a NATO-led military intervention that started on the 19th March 2011 catalysed the downfall of Gaddafi as leader as well as marking the primary involvement of America within the Libyan Crisis. The American military intervention is referred to as the Operation Odyssey Dawn.
The extent to which Wallerstein’s World System’s theory can fully explain and highlight the nature of Operation Odyssey Dawn and the motivations of such intervention can only be addressed through in-depth analysis of the nature of the intervention, the motivation of the intervention and the products of the intervention. This analysis will aim to display whether or not the intervention is a depiction of how capitalism and profit driven nations dictate international relations within the modern world.
Libya and the United States: Classifying the Countries
When establishing foreign intervention in the Libyan Civil War within the parameters of the World Systems Theory it is vital to establish the classification of the countries involved within such a system. The role of core countries and their relationship to periphery countries is integral to the nature of the World Systems Theory. Whilst the Wworld Ssystems Ttheory recognises that the core states aim to preserve the relationship, it does not fully ignore that it can be changing in its nature; Libya and the United States exemplify the often-changing nature of economic relations.
The United States (US), historically and currently, is the world’s largest economy in terms of gross domestic product (GDP). Although new global super powers emerge, the United States western capitalism consistently triumphs in its economic domination. For example, in 2017 the United StatesUS ranked first globally in terms of GDP with 18,624,475.00 US$MM, with China second with GDP of 11,199,145.16 US$MM (GDP World Bank, 2018). Moreover, the presence of surplus value within the United States is highlighted as itthe US annually is the largest importer globally; and in 2016 imported 2,735, 805.00 US$MM. Such high import rates further depict how it is America the US that exists as the most prominent core country within the global system.
Libya, however, did not exist with the same financial dominance. In the year 1980, only 33 years after Libya was declared independent and only 11 years into Gaddafi’s reign, the North American ex colony had a GDP of only 28,901.84 US$MM. In comparison to the US GDP in the same year of 5,979,589.00 US$MM, Libya existed on the outskirts of the global economy. By definition, its relatively small economy and its reliance on exportation for economic stability presented Libya as a periphery country.
Overall, both Libya and the United StatesUS clearly fit into the parameters of a periphery and a core state. It is the relationship between the two countries and the identities they hold that illustrates how the global system of the countries reflects the relationship , between core and periphery , that is outlined within Wallerstein’s theory. Moreover, the changing nature of the Libyan economy and the threat that this poses d to the United StatesUS displays how dynamic the global system iss- and how much those who hold dominance within the system want to retain it.
Why America Intervened: The Dichotomy of the Stated Aims and the Truth
Whilst it is arguable that the reason for American interventionism was motivated by the country’s desire to retain its economic control, the United StatesUS did not publically adopt that stance.
The liberal, democratic nature of the United StatesUS means that government decisions cannot be taken without some element of dialogue from the general public. The United StatesUS government has a historical backlog of public led demonstrations against military decisions if it be it mass demonstrations in response to the Vietnam ese war or protests against American involvement in the Iraq war with demonstrations in over 150 American cities(Chan, 2003). Therefore, to gain public support from the American people, the United Sates US government adopted a humanitarian based rhetoric to justify the intervention. In Obama’s declaration following the launch of Operation Odyssey Dawn, he stated that “[Gaddafi]…denied his people freedom, exploited their wealth, murdered opponents at home and abroad, and terrorized innocent people around the world” (Obama, 2011). It is undeniable that Gaddafi’s regime so often abused the rights and liberties of the Libyan people and this repression manifested itself in several ways. For example, it is estimated that approximately 20% of the Libyan people worked for Gaddafi’s surveillance force that existed to repress any form of political opposition and in accordance to the 2009 Freedom of Press Index, Libya was noted as the most censored country within North Africa.
However, whilst the brutality of Gaddafi’s regime remains inarguable, the very idea that the United StatesUS government refuses to accept human rights abuse globally is a complete contradiction to of its own foreign policy. For instance, both the Bush and Obama administration expressed support for the leader of Equatorial Guinea, Teodoro Obiang Nguema Mbasogo, who whilst in power enabled suppression in terms of voting, freedom of expression and destruction of any political opposition (Friedman, 2011). But even more surprising when considering Obama’s condemnation of Gaddafi’s human right abuse, 42 years into his reign, is that in 2009 Hillary Clinton met the Libyan National Security Advisor, and son of Muammar al-Gaddafi and stated that the USnited States “deeply valued the relationship…with Libya”. It is the oxymoronic nature of Obama’s claims that the intervention was humanitarian driven and the clear apathy towards the human rights of the other US-allies that brings into question the integrity of the stated reasons for the intervention. America existence as a global superpower whilst simultaneously ignoring the human rights abuse of the countries it allies itself with
It is the unsubstantiated nature of Obama’s justification for the intervention that leaves the economically based motivations more realistic and the fear of the economic implications that a continuation of Gaddafi’s rule may have had for the American US economy. It is appropriate to establish the very infrastructure of the Libyan economy. Overall, 95% of Libya’s economy relies upon the petroleum sector. Effectively, with Libya having the largest oil reserve in Africa, the economic stability and growth is dependent on the very existence of oil within the country. By 2009 the Libyan economy had becoming increasingly developed through investments of companies, which were helping to increase the economic independence of the nation. Whilst this doesn’t reduce the need for oil- based economy for trade deals in order to sustain itself, it does however compromise the status of Libya as a periphery state. A periphery state, a state that exports raw materials such as oil reserves, is often technologically underdeveloped and therefore requires the industrialised nature of the core countries to use the raw materials they export to gain profit. However, with major investment from trade national corporationsoperation, such as British Petroleum within Libya, the underdeveloped status of Libya normality that saw the America US as the global superpower. Moreover, by 2006, Gaddafi had beguan to increasingly promote resource nationalism within Libya. Resource nationalism, which sees resources retained for the nation state as opposed to exported to foreign entities, directly threatens the integrity of the core state within the global system. Gaddafi stated in a speech in 2006 “Oil companies are controlled by foreigners who have made millions from them. Now, Libyans must take their place to profit from this money.” This stance by the dictator presented itself as a bone of contention amongst core states within the global system, especially the US, as they saw their import rates and therefore surplus accumulation threatened.
A graph showing economic development of Libya between 1990 and 2006
The oil intensive nature of the Libya economy presented itself as an economically beneficial opportunity for the core countries involved in the NATO intervention. In an email sent from the then president of France, Nicholas Sarkozy, to the USU.S. Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton in April 2011 stated one of the aims of French involvement as ‘“a desire to gain a greater share of Libya oil production”’. However, the interconnected nature of modern interventionism meant that these motivations did not exist in isolation for France but instead for all the states involved in the NATO backed offensive and, by proxy, United Statesthe US. The correspondence between the French and American officials, which is absent of any humanitarian based motivations within the Libyan Civil War, illustrates the economic based impetus of the intervention within the civil war.
This is not to say that the United StatesUS was threatened by the likes of Libya becoming a global superpower. However, America the US has historically seen viewed it in its own interest to see even the smallest states conquered in order to retain its power. This mentality was epitomised by the invasion of Grenada in 1983, a Caribbean island of only 91,000. It is America’s the US’s status as a core country and a global superpower that catalyses the invasion of seemingly unimportant states with the global arena as opposed to discourages it. The core country not only has the resources available for successful military action but concurrently means it has a greater stake in the longevity of the periphery’s state’s deprivation
Overall, in accordance with the World Systems theory, America the US as a core country was motivated to involve itself within the Libyan Civil War due to the economic benefits that came as an appendage to the destruction of the political system within Libya. In accordance with the theory, core systems can only exist as the economically dominant entities they are through the exploitation of the corresponding periphery countries within the system.
Gaddafi: The ideological threat of anti-Imperialism
The nature of the free market capitalist American US economy and the anti imperialist, revolutionary that was Muammar al-Gaddafi arguably were so ideologically polar that to expect a cooperative relationship was unlikely. Gaddafi, from the primary moments as a political presence was inherently opposite to the status quo of American politics. Once describing Israel, close ally of United Sates, as ‘a colonialist-imperialist phenomenon’ and Gaddafi was, by political nature, wedded to Arab socialism.
In accordance with the World Systems theory and Marxist international relations theory, the global system has entered a period of neo imperialism. Whilst the historical empires such as the British and Ottoman Empire now exist as a thing of the past – imperialism is very still much apparent within the global system. Industrialised, core states, like that of the USnited States must no longer form empires in order to retain control but instead do so through economic domination. As discussed, the economic position of the United StatesUS and the domination it has over its peripheral countries sees itself position within a neo imperialist state.
Considering this, whilst dominance over capital and trade is integral in the core countries maintenance of power it does not exist alone. The World Systems theory notes how the global system which sees such unequal distribution of power and capital, is present within a capitalist economy. The interconnected system of the global economy can only exist in the parameters where capitalism too exists. Therefore, it is within the interests of the United States US to ensure that capitalism, and therefore its own power, is retained for generations to come. Conversely, this juxtaposes the hard left, socialist, anti imperialism manifesto of Muammar al Gaddafi. The intervention that saw the fall of the Libyan dictator was required in order to protect the autonomy of the US as an economic dominant.
This suppression of ideologies that prove to be in direct conflict within their own is not anomalous within American US international relations. The very nature of the Cold war from 1947 to 1991,which saw the USAmerica attempt to reduce the spread of communism across the global system itself highlighted the desire for the global superpower to retain its power and suppress ideologies that presents itself as a threat to that power.
Revolutionary Exploitation: The Arab Spring and the Failures of Intervention
The Arab Spring was the political uprising that arguably defined the early ears of the 21st Century. Starting in December 2010, was a string of subsequent revolutionary events in the Middle East and North Africa, concerned with destroying the oppressive regimes within many countries within the geographical area. One country that arguably saw the greatest impact of the Arab spring was Libya and the Gaddafi regime. Although the revolution was modern in many of its elements, such as the use of social media to mobilise the masses and educate the western sphere of the happenings, the nature of the revolution was arguably historically stagnant in what it produced.
The Arab Spring, by default due to its revolutionary nature, was a movement headed by the people. Although the Arab Spring began as a movement led by the young within Arab nations disillusioned with the dictatorships they existed under, it soon became appropriated by Western powers, primarily United StatesUS, in order to reassert their global dominance. It is once again important to note that US intervention throughout the Arab Spring was not based on an ideological divinity. If the American US government had shared the concerns of the Arab people in regards to the dictatorships in which they lived under, it exists in complete dichotomy with the fact that the Obama-Biden administration during the Arab Spring referred to Hosni Mubarak, the Egyptian leader who had held 5000 Egyptian prisoners detained without trial in 2009 as well as there being 701 cases of torture by Egyptian police between the years 1985 to 2014, ‘not as a dictator’. This clear dismissal of the human rights abuse of the Egyptian people who were facilitating the Arab spring therefore disproves the claims that American US intervention within said revolution was in any sense altruistic.
In reality, the Arab Spring created an instability within the political systems throughout the Middle East and North Africa that America used to their own benefit and in order to further their own economic power and control. It was the protests in Benghazi on the Tuesday 15th February 2011 that sparked the civil war and therefore allowed American interventionism to reassert its economic and political dominance within the global system.
In Wallerstein’s analyse of capitalism through history ‘Historical Capitalism: With Capitalist Civilization’, he details how the very nature of revolutionary movements so often throughout history become exploited by a new form of the repression they aim to revolt against. Fundamentally, the Arab Spring intended to be a movement that saw radical change from the repression people had felt they had be subjected to for so long. However, the US involvement within the movement, motivated by their own mercenary, once again saw a people stripped of their own autonomy. Wallerstein refers to this replacement of one repressive regime to another exploitative power base as an “intra bourgeois” struggle. Effectively, in retrospect, to call the Arab Spring a revolution is inaccurate. By nature, a revolution is to be led by the people- attempting to escape and evoke change. However, the US involvement in the movement depreciated its revolutionary status and instead became an extension of American domination and inadvertently neo imperialism.
Perhaps the US intervention in the Arab Spring could be perceived in amore optimistic light if it wasn’t for the fact that not only did America the US immediately exploit the oil reserves after the downfall of the Gaddafi regime, as US American troops began to reclaim oil reserves as soon after Gaddafi was pronounced dead, but America’s own economic prioritisation has created a humanitarian crisis. Although the US government had no apprehension in its destruction of the Gaddafi regime, Obama himself noted that there was “no plan for the day after”. The western destruction of the political system within Libya and simultaneously lack of blueprints for a new one created a power vacuum. Subsequently, this vacuum has been filled by Islamist extremists such as ISIL that now control a 120 mile stretch of the Libyan town of Sirte as well as having control over areas within Benghazi. The power of ISIL within Libya has undoubtedly led to human rights abuse such as attacks by ISIL on those attempting to vote in elections.
It is this complete failure by the US to fulfil its stated aims in granting greater human rights and freedom of expression to the Libyan people that further delegitimises the likelihood of that being their motivation. Overall, the seizure of the Arab spring and the what was once revolutionary movement to make way for a further exploitative and repressive e regime further displays how, in accordance with the world theory, the core state acts in such a way that aims to retain their position as a power
Conclusion
When addressing the extent to which the American US intervention in the Libyan Civil War (2011) exemplifies Immanuel Wallerstein’s World Systems Theory one must approach their judgement from various perspectives: the context in which the intervention exists within, the motivations of said intervention and the results of the intervention.
Overall, the intervention occurred in a time where conflict became inflated between America the US and Libya. AmericaThe US, threatened by the rise of a once inconsequential state due to its oil reservoirs, arguably saw the intervention as an opportunity to supress the regime which controlled the state and thus supress any threat to its economic power. It is this desire for the core state to retain its economic control and dominance that displays the very focus of Wallerstein’s theory. The core countries exist within a position of supremacy in the global system that therefore places itself in a position to even consider interventionism within foreign affairs. By the same note, the periphery country exists in a position of political and economic vulnerability where the social infrastructure of their very society can so easily be diminished when under the constraints of the core states power. The very nature of the circumstance in which the intervention exists within depicts the prevalent themes of power and lack thereof that the World Systems theory outlines.
Moreover, the contradiction of the stated aims by the US government and the reality of the motivations further elucidate to the power imbalanced that Wallerstein details within his theory. The desire for the core state, such as the United StatesUS, to retain their economic control and actively taking effort to do so further depicts the dynamic nature of the theory. The core countries do not remain as they do simply due to circumstance or chance – instead the countries have the position in which they do due to the alternating nature of where surplus value accumulates. The fact that America the US actively pursues the custody of its status as a core state through the intervention within the Libyan Civil War reflects the ability for power to shift and change. In this way, the anxiety that the US government presents itself as having through the foreign intervention in itself lends itself to the World Systems Theory.
The arguably most complex area of analysis for the Libyan intervention is the results it has rendered. The power distribution between elected officials, UN backed leaders and ISIL extremists if anything depicts the fragility of the state. However, the US’s abandonment of the aftermath of the Libyan crisis dewspite their active involvement in its decline presents how, although globally interconnected, interdependence can not always equate to support. Effectively, although humanitarianly a crisis, Libya remains a peripheral state and America has not had its position as a core state threatened. The situation that Libya exists within can only be defined as a crisis however the status quo, and the unequal distribution of capital remains, and therefore once again acts to prove how the world system’s theory effectively describes the inequality of states within the world capitalist economy.
In response to the research question, the American US intervention in the Libyan Civil War exemplifies the World systems theory to a large extent. In terms of capital distribution, economic power and ideological suppression, the Libyan and American US relationship epitomises that of a relationship between that of a core and periphery country. Libya relies on America the US to support its economy through trade and America the US relies on Libya to be in a position of submission in order to help ensure America’s the US’s economic domination within the global system.