On Thursday 13th March 08 oil prices in New York peaked above the US$110 mark for the first time. For a nation like Libya which earns over 90% of its foreign earnings from oil-export revenues this is good news.

It is also great news from the point of view of Libya's desire to redistribute its wealth among all its citizens and get closer to the ideal aim of an equitable model society. The redistribution of wealth to all Libyan citizens has always been a central aim of the Jamahiriya and the high price of oil has made the implementation of this goal even more possible.

However, this great idea of suddenly every Libyan receiving on average between US$ 5,000 to 10,000 per month just for being a Libyan citizen worries me. I feel that there is a real and serious danger that a nation, a whole people that get into the habit of receiving a great deal of money just because of their nationality would get used to receiving in the long term and not giving - and subsequently find it difficult to adjust.

Moreover, this great idea may seem ok when there is oil, but what about later when oil runs out? By then it would be too late I fear for Libyans to change their habits and mentality. We would have already created a nation of consumers, a nation of spenders, and a nation of receivers - instead of givers. We would have created a nation of dependent people instead of a nation of independent people.

If we pause and think for a moment and ask ourselves: Do we really want that? Do we really want a nation where we sit around watching time go by, watching the calendar waiting for the month's end so that we can go and collect our share of the oil revenue? Basically we would just slowly - but surely - wither away and our brains would slowly cease to function as we fade out of existence.

The often quoted study of Libya's economy conducted by Professor Porter and the Monitor Group identified a series of policies to proactively develop our economy. These included the reduction of the role and size of the state sector, decentralization, the reduction of un-employment, the creation of employment by making company formation easier and encouraging enterprise, Start ups and SMEs. It also recommended the creation of 'clusters' and transit trade, the giving of loans and training, and encouraging domestic competition in order to create competitive sectors and competitive advantages. Surely this is the type of proactive, competitive and creative endeavor we want to be engaged in - or do we just want to eat, sleep and spend?

The famous Chinese proverb of 'give a man a fish and he will eat for a day, teach him how to fish and he will eat for a lifetime' surely applies here. Are we not more interested in gaining new and better skills, know-how, training, and ability? Surely these are more important than mind-numbing handouts. And yes what happens when that source of the hand out runs out? What happens when oil runs out or a cheaper alternative is discovered/invented or its price collapses or demand for it fades?

Moreover, is this not exactly what we have been trying to get away from recently? Is it not exactly this mentality of cap-in-hand society, a welfare state or 'nanny state', a society of what can the state do for me as opposed to a state of people who ask what can I do for my self, for my family, my nation, my society, my continent, my culture, my religion? I mean, those of us who are lucky may inhabit this earth for just less than 100 years. Is this what we want to be remembered for? Is this going to be our contribution to humanity and mankind? Surely we want to be remembered as givers, as contributors, as creators - not idle consumers?

All this after the EDB was set up - in theory anyway - to try to help SMEs, Start-ups and new university graduates and the whole message was that of independence, self-reliance, self help, self support, doing it for yourself by yourself. Yes, with a hand-up, a temporary helping hand like that given to an infant learning to walk. Government loans, start-up capital, direct and various indirect means of help and support - finite in quantity and finite in duration are fine. But in the long term, continuous handouts can only be harmful in my view.

Moreover, developing such a dependent state of mind and mindset domestically will only mean that Libya as a whole and as a nation will also become a dependant state - dependant on the so called developed states' continued demand for our oil supply. This is not the 'independence' that Libya has for decades fought and struggled so hard for.

Equality and the equitable distribution and re-distribution of wealth are honourable aims. However, the way in which these aims are implemented must ensure that it - the wealth - must not weaken our people, our society and our nation. We must ensure that this great wealth must be used productively and positively not negatively.