Date: Tue Dec 2 16:37:39 2014
Libya Then and Now: An Overview of NATO’s Handiwork
By <http://www.globalresearch.ca/author/mahdi-darius-nazemroaya> Mahdi
Darius Nazemroaya
Global Research, December 02, 2014
In 2011, as the entire world watched the Arab Spring in amazement, the US
and its allies, predominantly working under the banner of the North
Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC),
militarily overran the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya.
The peaceful civilian protesters they claimed to be intervening to protect
were not really what the US and its cohorts presented to the world. Many of
these so-called “protesters” were armed, and when this became apparent they
eventually began to portray themselves as “rebel forces.” These so-called
“rebels” in Libya were not a military force that emerged spontaneously for
the most part, but an insurgency movement cultivated and organised before
any opposition activities were even reported in Libya.
After Libya’s rapprochement with the US and the European Union, it was
unthinkable to many that Washington and any of its allies could even have
been preparing to topple the Libyan government. Business and trade ties
between Libya and the US, Britain, Italy, France, Spain, and Turkey had
bloomed since 2003 after Colonel Muammar Qadhafi opted for cooperation with
Washington. No one imagined that Saif Al-Islam Qadhafi’s “New Libya” with
its neo-liberalism could be on a collision course with NATO.
Yet, the US and its EU partners for several years made preparations for
taking over Libya. They had infiltrated the Jamahiriya’s government,
security and intelligence sectors. Longstanding imperialist objectives
existing since the Second World War, aimed at dividing Libya into three
colonial territories, were taken out of government filing cabinets in
Washington, London, Paris and Rome, and circulated at NATO Headquarters in
Brussels.
In league with these colonial plans, the US and its allies had been
cultivating ties with different members of the Libyan opposition and had
always reserved the option of using these opposition figures for regime
change in Tripoli. Putting together their colonial designs and mobilising
their agents, the US and its allies began organising the stage for
establishing the Transitional National Council (TNC) – simply called the
Transitional Council – and similar bodies to govern Libya as its new puppet
leadership. The British and French even held joint invasion exercises months
before the Libyan conflict erupted with the Arab Spring in 2011, while
various intelligence services and foreign military commandos from NATO and
GCC countries were also on the ground in Libya helping to prepare for the
destabilisation of the North African country and the toppling of the
Jamahiriya’s government and institutions.
Realities have been turned upside down and the victims were grossly
portrayed as the aggressors in the conflict. While the Transitional
Council’s forces, augmented by mercenaries and foreign fighters, were
torturing, raping, and murdering civilians and those that were standing in
their way with the aid of NATO and the GCC, Muammar Qadhafi was inflexibly
and exclusively blamed for all the violence inside Libya. Nor were the
atrocities an exclusively Libyan versus Libyan matter. During the conflict,
NATO committed serious war crimes and crimes against humanity in its effort
to overrun and control the North African country. Not only did foreign
journalists help justify and sustain the war, but they played major roles in
assisting NATO’s war effort by passing on information about Libyan targets
and checkpoint locations to the Jamahiriya’s enemies. The war, however, did
not go as planned and Libyan resistance proved far stronger than the
Pentagon and NATO initially imagined.
In the course of the confrontation and at the international level, a series
of human rights organisations and think-tanks were utilised for preparing
the stage for the conflict in Libya and the toppling of its government.
These organisations were mostly part of a network that had been working to
establish the mechanisms for justifying interventionism and creating the net
of individuals and public faces needed for creating a proxy government in
Libya in the false name of “democracy.” When the time came, these bodies
coordinated with the NATO powers and the mainstream media in the project to
isolate, castrate, and subjugate the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya. These so-called
human rights organisations and the mainstream media networks worked together
to propagate lies about African mercenaries, Libyan military jet attacks on
civilians, and civilian massacres by Muammar Qadhafi’s regime.
International news networks extensively quoted these human rights
organisations in what would amount to a self-fuelled cycle of
misinformation, while the same human rights organisations continued to make
claims on the basis of the media’s reports. In other words, each side fed
the other. It was this web of lies that was presented at the Human Rights
Council in the United Nations Office at Geneva and then handed to the United
Nations Security Council in New York City as the basis for the war in Libya.
These lies were accepted without any investigation being launched by the
United Nations or any other international bodies. Any Libyan requests for
international investigation teams were ignored. It was from this point
onward that NATO used the UN Security Council to launch its war of
aggression against Libya under the pretext of protecting civilians and
enforcing a no-fly zone over the Arab country. Although not officially
accepted by the United Nations Security Council, the “Responsibility to
Protect” (R2P) doctrine was being showcased as a new paradigm for military
intervention by NATO.
All known advocates of Pentagon militarism and global empire demanded this
war take place, including Paul Wolfowitz, John McCain, Joseph Lieberman,
Elliott Abrahams, Leon Wieseltier, John Hannah, Robert Kagan, and William
Kristol. The Project for the New American Century (PNAC) and the
neo-conservative crowd was aligned with the realist foreign policy camp in
Washington. The entire US establishment lined up to pick off Tripoli and
reduce it to a weak and divided African protectorate.
Libya and the New “Scramble” for Africa
To put NATO’s war in Libya within the framework of historic analysis, one
only needs to be reminded that the main thrust of the sudden physical
European colonisation of Africa, called the “Scramble for Africa,” started
when an economic recession originally called the “Great Depression,” but in
retrospect renamed as the “Long Depression,” hit much of Europe and North
America from roughly 1873 to 1893. In this period the entire tempo of
Western European contact with African nations transformed.
Prior to this economic recession, Western European companies and enterprises
were content dealing with African leaders and recognising their authority.
Few Western European colonies in Africa had existed aside from a few coastal
strips based on strategically-placed trading posts in Sierra Leone and Lagos
in the possession of Britain; Mozambique and Angola in the possession of
Portugal; and Senegal in the possession of France. At this time the biggest
external force in Africa was the Ottoman Empire, which was beginning its
long decline as a great power.
Even with Western European colonial incursions into Africa by Britain,
France, and Portugal, most of the African continent was still free of
external or alien control. Intensified European economic rivalries and the
recession in Western Europe, however, would change this. Britain would lose
its edge as the world’s most industrialised nation as the industrial sectors
of the USA, France and Germany all began to increasingly challenge British
manufacturers. As a result of the recession and increased business
rivalries, the corporations of Western European countries began to push
their respective governments to adopt protectionist practices and to
directly intervene in Africa to protect the commercial interests of these
corporations. The logic behind this colonial push or “scramble” was that
these Western European governments would secure large portions of Africa as
export markets and for resource imports for these corporations alone, while
these African territories would effectively be closed off to economic
rivals. Thus, a whole string of Western European conquest began in Africa to
secure ivory, fruits, copal (gum), cloves, beeswax, honey, coffee, peanuts,
cotton, precious metals, and rubber.
Although appropriating Libya’s financial and material wealth were objectives
of the NATO war in 2011, the broader objectives of the criminal war were
part of the struggle to control the African continent and its vast wealth.
The “Scramble for Africa” was repeating itself. Just like the first time,
recession and economic rivalries were tied to this new round of colonial
conquest in the African continent.
The emergence of Asia as the new global centre of gravity, at the expense of
the nations of the North Atlantic in North America and Western Europe, has
also primed the United States and its allies to start an endeavour to close
Africa off from the People’s Republic of China and the emerging centres of
power in Russia, India, Brazil, and Iran. This is why the Pentagon’s United
States Africa Command (USAFRICOM/AFRICOM) played a major role in the war.
The London Conference on Libya, where the Libya Contact Group was formed on
29 March 2011, was a modern version of the Berlin Conference of 1884, which
attempted to solidify the gains made by European colonial powers in their
first rush to control African societies and territory. The Istanbul
Conference on Libya, where the Libya Contact Group met for the fourth time
on 15 July 2011, was virtually a declaration of the intentions of the US and
these countries to appropriate Libya’s vast wealth. This is a template for
usurping the wealth of other countries in Africa and beyond. In this regard,
the Transitional Council has served as nothing more than a proxy that was
designed to help embezzle Libya’s vast wealth.
Moreover, Libya had to be neutralised in line with the intentions of this
project to reclaim Africa, because of Qadhafi’s pan-African ambitions to
unify the African continent under Libyan leadership. Libya and its
development and political projects were effectively erecting a barrier to
the re-colonisation of the African continent. In this regard, the war was
launched by “Operation Odyssey Dawn.” This name is very revealing. It
identifies the strategic intent and direction of the campaign in Libya. ‘The
Odyssey’ is an ancient Greek epic by the poet Homer that recounts the voyage
and trails of the hero Odysseus of Ithaca on his voyage home. The main theme
here is the ‘return home.’ In other words, the military assault’s codename
meant that countries like the US, Britain, France, Italy, Germany, Belgium,
and Turkey were on their own odyssey of ‘return’ into Africa.
The Crown of Africa
Libya is a lucrative prize of massive economic value. It has immense oil and
gas resources, vast amounts of underground water from the Nubian Sandstone
Aquifer System, important trade routes, substantial foreign investments, and
large amounts of liquid capital. Up until 2011, Libya was blessed with a
rare gift in regard to its national revenue in that it saved a significant
amount. In fact Libya possessed more than US$150 billion in overseas
financial assets and had one of the largest sovereign investment funds in
the world at the start of 2011.
Until the conflict in Libya ignited, there was a very large foreign work
force in the Jamahiriya. Thousands of foreign workers from every corner of
the globe went to Libya for employment. This included nationals from places
like the Philippines, Turkey, sub-Saharan Africa, China, Latin America,
Belarus, Italy, France, Bulgaria, Romania, Canada, Russia, Ukraine, Serbia,
and every corner of the Arab world. For years, these jobs inside Libya were
an important source of economic remittances in the cases of some African
economies, such as Niger. Moreover, many foreign workers from places like
the Philippines and Italy even chose to make their lives in Libya and open
their own local businesses.
Before the NATO war, Libyan society had come a long way since 1951 when it
became an independent African country. In 1975, the political scientist
Henri Habib described Libya on the dawn of its independence as a backward
country saying: “When Libya was granted its independence by the United
Nations on December 24, 1951, it was described as one of the poorest and
most backward nations of the world. The population at the time was not more
than 1.5 million, was over 90% illiterate, and had no political experience
or knowhow. There were no universities, and only a limited number of high
schools which had been established seven years before independence.”
According to Habib, the state of poverty in Libya was the result of the yoke
of Ottoman domination followed by an era of European imperialism in Libya
that started with the Italians. He explained that, “[e]very effort was made
to keep the Arab inhabitants [of Libya] in a servile position rendering them
unable to make any progress for themselves or their nation.” This colonial
yoke, however, began its decline in 1943 after Italy and Germany were
defeated in North Africa during the Second World War.
In 1959 Libya’s oil reserves were discovered. Despite political
mismanagement and corruption, since 1969 these Libyan oil reserves were used
to improve the standard of living for the country’s population. In addition
to the revenue from Libyan energy reserves, the Libyan government played an
important role in maintaining Libya’s high living standards. Although never
fully nationalised, Libya’s oil would only, in progressive steps, fall under
the control of Libyans after the 1969 coup against the Libyan monarchy by
Qadhafi and a group of young military officers. Before 1969 most of the
country’s oil wealth was actually not being used to serve the general
public. Under Qadhafi’s leadership this changed and the National Oil Company
was founded on 12 November 1970.
To a certain extent the isolation of Libya in the past as a pariah state
played a role in insulating Libya economically and maintaining its standards
of living. From an economic standpoint, most of the Arab world and Africa
have become globalised as components of an integrated network of regional
economies tied to the United States and the European Union. Libyan
integration into this global economic system was delayed because of the past
political isolation of the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya when Washington, London,
and Paris were openly at odds with Tripoli.
Despite having vast sums of money stolen and squandered by Qadhafi’s family
and their officials, social services and benefits, such as government
housing and numerous subsidies, were available to the Libyan population. It
has to be cautioned too that the apparatus of a modern welfare state does
not mean that neo-liberal restructuring and poverty were not afoot in Libya,
because they very much were. What this means is that economics was not the
driving force for the internal dimension of the fighting in Libya. For
years, up until 2011, Libya had the highest standards of living in Africa
and one of the highest in the Arab world. There is an old Libyan proverb,
“if your pocket becomes empty, your faults will be many.” In this regard,
Libya’s faults were not many in economic terms.
In 2008, Libya had protests that were reportedly caused by unemployment.
Most protests in Libya from 2003 to 2011, however, did not have any real
economic dimension dominated by breadbasket issues. This set the Jamahiriya
apart from Arab countries like Tunisia, Egypt, and Jordan where breadbasket
issues were important factors behind the protests that erupted during the
same period in 2011. This, of course, does not mean the protest movements in
the latter Arab countries were strictly the result of breadbasket issues and
economics either. Demands for personal freedoms and backlashes against
corruption were major motivating factors behind the fuelling of public anger
in all these Arab states. In Libya, if anything, the frustration tied to the
rampant corruption rooted amongst Jamahiriya authorities and officials had
created shifting tides of resentment towards the government.
As briefly mentioned, Libya also has vast amounts of underground water
stored in the ancient Nubian Sandstone Aquifer System, which is situated
under the territories of Chad, Egypt, Libya, and Sudan. Libya and Egypt hold
the largest shares of this water source. In a joint initiative, called the
Nubian Aquifer Project, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the
United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), and the financial organisation
Global Environment Facility (GEF), have all worked with the governments of
these four African countries to study this vast source of underground water
beneath the Sahara Desert. Using isotopes, the IAEA three-dimensionally
mapped the Nubian Sandstone Aquifer System.
In the Jamahiriya, the Great Man-Made River Project was initiated under the
orders of Colonel Qadhafi followed by the establishment of the Great
Man-Made River Authority in 1983 to exploit the Nubian Sandstone Aquifer
System for the benefit of Libya and the other regional countries in the
Sahara and the Sahel regions. The project was domestically funded mostly by
taxes on fuel, tobacco, and international travel, with the remainder of
funding provided directly by the Libyan state. Up until 2008 the Libyan
government had spent about US$19.6 billion dollars on the water project.
According to the Isotope Hydrology Section of the IAEA, the Nubian Sandstone
Aquifer System is the world’s largest fossil aquifer system and will be “the
biggest and in some cases the only future source of water to meet growing
demands and development” amongst Chad, Egypt, Libya, and Sudan. As fresh
water supplies become limited globally, it was forecast Libya’s water
supplies will be of greater value domestically and regionally. Huge water
multinationals in the US, France and elsewhere were salivating at the idea
of privatising Libyan fresh water and controlling the Nubian Sandstone
Aquifer System.
The Libyan Investment Authority (LIA) had shares and invested in major
international corporations such as oil giant British Petroleum (BP), the
world’s largest aluminium producer United Company RUSAL in Russia, the US
conglomerate General Electric (GE), the Italian bank and financial giant
UniCredit, the Italian oil corporation Ente Nazionale Idrocarburi (ENI), the
German engineering and electronic conglomerate Siemens, the German
electricity and gas company Rheinisch-Westfälisches Elektrizitätswerk (RWE),
British publishing giant Pearson, and British telecommunications giant
Vodafone (UK). Libya had purchased Exxon Mobil’s subsidiary in the Kingdom
of Morocco, Mobil Oil Maroc, and bought half of Kenya’s oil refinery. The
LIA bought all of Royal Dutch Shell’s service stations in Djibouti,
Ethiopia, and Sudan in 2008. Tripoli announced in the same year that it was
buying a major share of Circle Oil, an international hydrocarbon exploration
company with operations in Egypt, Morocco and Tunisia. A Libyan agreement
was also made with the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) to build a
pipeline in the western part of its territory. Large investments were made
by Libya in agricultural, industrial and service projects in Africa from
Egypt and Niger to Mali and Tunisia.
In 2008 Goldman Sachs was given US$1.3 billion dollars by the Libyan
Investment Authority. In unfathomable terms, Goldman Sachs told the Libyans
that 98% of their investment was lost overnight, which means the Libyans
lost almost all the money they gave Goldman Sachs. To Tripoli and other
observers it was clear Goldman Sachs had merely appropriated the Libyan
investment as a cash injection, because it needed the funds due to the
global financial crisis. Afterwards, Jamahiriya officials and Goldman Sachs
executives tried negotiating a settlement under which Goldman Sachs would
give Tripoli huge shares in the Wall Street financial giant. These
negotiations between Libya and Goldman Sachs for a settlement finally ended
in 2009 with both sides failing to agree on a formula to replace the Libyan
money that Goldman Sachs had effectively appropriated from Tripoli.
Goldman Sachs was not alone in filching Libyan investment funds: Société
Générale S.A., Carlyle Group, J.P. Morgan Chase, Och-Ziff Capital Management
Group, and Lehman Brothers Holdings were also all in possession of vast
Libyan investments and funds. In one way or another, NATO’s war on Libya and
the freeze of Libyan financial assets profited them all. They and their
governments were also not happy with Qadhafi’s ideas and proposal to the
United Nations that the former colonial powers owed Africa almost US$800
trillion dollars.
The fact that Libya happened to be a rich country was one of its crimes in
2011. Oil, finance, economics, and Libyan natural resources were always
tempting prizes for the United States and its allies. These things were the
spoils of war in Libya. While Libyan energy reserves and geopolitics played
major roles in launching the 2011 war, it was also waged in part to
appropriate Tripoli’s vast financial holdings and to supplement and maintain
the crumbling financial hegemony of Wall Street and other financial centres.
Wall Street could not allow Tripoli to be debt-free, to continue
accumulating international financial possessions, and to be a creditor
nation giving international loans and investing funds in other countries,
particularly in Africa. Thus, major banks in the United States and the
European Union, like the giant multinational oil conglomerates, had major
roles and interests in the NATO war on Tripoli.
An Overview of the African Geopolitics of the War on Libya
NATO’s operations in the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya have helped erode Libyan
political unity, which has had clear implications for the North African
country’s spatial unity and all the nations bordering Libya. Libya and its
region have been destabilised. The domino effect can clearly be seen at work
in Niger, Mali, and the Central African Republic where there has been
fighting as a result, at least in part, of the NATO war on Libya.
Within a strictly African context, Libya sits at an important geographic
point. The country is a geographic gateway into Africa and connects the
northeast and northwest sections of the continent. Libya’s national
territory falls within the Sahara and Sahel regions and events in Libya
directly influence Sudan, Egypt and the regions of the Maghreb, West Africa,
and Central Africa. Libya is also one of the states that provide access to
the open sea for landlocked Chad and Niger. Aside from Tunisia, all of the
countries on Libya’s borders touch and connect the bulk of Africa’s regions
with the exception of the southern region of the continent. Casting out the
Tunisian Republic, these bordering African states are Egypt, Sudan, Chad,
Niger, and Algeria. Libya’s position is very special in this regard and this
territorial embrace with these other large African states bordering multiple
countries and regions is very important and would be pivotal if the Libyan
project to connect the continent through a north to south and east to west
transportation and trade corridor were to be developed fully.
>From a socio-cultural standpoint, Libya has tribal and cultural ties to all
of the bordering countries. Ethnic differences in Libya exist too, but are
minor in degree. Libyans predominately consider themselves to be Arabs. The
largest Libyan minority are the Berbers, which can roughly be divided into
northern groups and southern groups. There was always awareness that
tribalism in Libya, if given antagonistic political connotations, could be a
very dangerous thing for Libya and the bordering countries. The tribes that
Libyans belong go beyond Libyan borders and form a chain in an overlapping
tribal network extending all the way from Niger into Burkina Faso and
Mauritania. Tribal fighting in Libya could destabilise countries like
Senegal and Mali in West Africa, Chad in Central Africa, Algeria in North
Africa, and Sudan in East Africa. It is in this context that NATO powers
began speaking about an Arab-Berber divide in North Africa in 2011. Regime
change in Tripoli has left a political vacuum where politics has fuelled
tribalism and regionalism in Libya, which is now warily watched by all of
the countries bordering Libya and affecting them.
“A New Beginning” in Cairo: Obama’s attempts to Manipulate Islam
Identity politics and faith have also wound up as factors in the competing
exchange of geopolitical currents governing the sea of events surrounding
Libya. The questions of what is a Libyan and what is an ethnic Arab have
been superimposed as factors in the war on the Jamahiriya as a means of
attacking the pan-African movement and separating Libya, and North Africa in
broader terms, from the rest of Africa. Faith and religiosity have also been
mounted as dynamics that are being sought as geopolitical tools and weapons
of influence.
President Barack Hussein Obama was elected by tapping into the hopes of the
US public and presenting himself as a “prince of peace” and “messiah of
hope.” Amongst his elegant speeches, he claimed to have a desire to reengage
with the so-called Muslim World. Since 2009 Obama has consistently tried to
utilise what he sees as both his African and Muslim credentials on the basis
of having a Kenyan father who was a Muslim, to present himself as a “Son of
Africa” and as someone sympathetic to Muslims. As part of his outreach to
Muslims, President Obama gave a highly promoted speech at Cairo University
on 4 June 2009. Obama’s presidential speech was named “A New Beginning” and
was supposedly meant to repair the damages in the relationship between the
US and the so-called Muslim World. The speech is described as such by the
White House:
“On June 4, 2009 in Cairo, Egypt, President Obama proposed a new beginning
between the United States and Muslims around the world, based upon mutual
interest and mutual respect. Specifically, the President said that the U.S.
would seek a more comprehensive engagement with Muslim-majority countries,
countries with significant Muslim populations, and their people by expanding
partnerships in areas like education, economic development, science and
technology, and health, among others, while continuing to work together to
address issues of common concern.”
Many people in predominantly Muslim states were fooled by his pledges of
peace and mutual respect. In his actions, Barack Obama proved to be no less
of a war hawk than his predecessors in the Oval Office. His Cairo speech was
significant because it actually marked the start of a new campaign by the US
to geopolitically use Muslims and their hopes and aspirations. In the same
timeframe as his speech, the US State Department began to engage with the
Muslim Brotherhood and even prior to the speech asked for members to attend
Cairo University to hear him.Almost as if foreshadowing the coming of the
so-called Arab Spring, the speech in Cairo’s fourth point was about the rise
of democracy and the instability of regimes suppressing democratic values.
Many of the organisations and figures that became involved in the Arab
Spring and supportive of the war in Libya would all hasten to Obama’s calls
for a “New Beginning.” Amongst them was Aly (Ali) Abuzaakouk, who helped
found the Transitional Council.
>From Jakarta, Indonesia, in late-2010, Obama would go on with his themes of
engagement with the Muslim World and speak about democracy, faith, and
economic development in his second speech addressing Muslims. From that
point on Al-Qaeda faded from the spotlight of US foreign policy and, well
into the upheavals of the Arab Spring, the US worked to put the ghost of
Osama bin Laden to rest by declaring in statements that were altered several
times that the Al-Qaeda leader was killed in Pakistan by a team of CIA
agents and US Navy commandos on 2 May 2010. What this all amounted to was
the preparations for the fielding of US agents amongst opposition groups in
the predominately Muslim countries of the Arab world and an attempt to
subordinate the faith of Islam as a tool of US foreign policy by using
fighters and proxy political parties that used the banner of Islam. Thus,
Washington’s alliance with deviant militant groups claiming to fight under
the banner of Islam was rekindled in 2011. This alliance manifested itself
in the fighting in Libya and later further east on the shores of the
Mediterranean in Syria and Lebanon.
Libya Now: Destitute, Divided and in Conflict
The historic project to divide Libya dates back to 1943 and 1951. It started
with failed attempts to establish a trusteeship over Libya after the defeat
of Italy and Germany in North Africa during the Second World War. The
attempts to divide Libya then eventually resulted in a strategy that forced
a monarchical federal system onto the Libyans similar to that established
over Iraq following the illegal 2003 Anglo-American invasion. If the Libyans
had not accepted federalism in their relatively homogenous society they
could have forfeited their independence in 1951.
During the Second World War the Libyans aided and allowed Britain to enter
their country to fight the Italians and the Germans. Benghazi fell to
British military control on 20 November 1942, and Tripoli on 23 January
1943. Despite its promises to allow Libya to become an independent country,
London intended to administer the two Libyan provinces of Tripolitania and
Cyrenaica separately as colonies, with Paris to be given control over the
region of Fezzan, which is roughly one-third of Libya, the area to the
southwest of the country bordering Algeria, Niger, and Chad (see map on page
60). Following the end of the Second World War, the victors and Italy
attempted to partition Libya into territories that they would govern as
trust territories. The American, British, French, and Soviet governments
referred the matter to the UN General Assembly on 15 September 1945. There,
the British and the Italians made a last-ditch proposal on 10 May 1949,
called the Bevin-Sfora Plan for Libya, to have Libyan territory divided into
an Italian-controlled Tripolitania, a British-controlled Cyrenaica, and a
French-ruled Fezzan. This failed because of the crucial single vote of
Haiti, which opposed the partition of Libya.
The British then turned to King Idris to softly balkanise Libya through the
establishment of a federal emirate. A National Assembly controlled by King
Idris and an unelected small circle of Libyan chieftains was to be imposed.
This type of federalist system was unacceptable to most Libyans as it was
intended to be a means of sidestepping the will of the Libyan people. The
elected representatives from the heavily populated region of Tripolitania
would be outweighed by the unelected chieftains from Cyrenaica and Fezzan.
This did not sit well with many Arab nationalists. Cairo was extremely
critical of what the US and its allies were trying to do and called it
diplomatic deceit. Nevertheless, even with the opposition of most Libyans,
federalism was imposed on Libya in 1951 by Idris. Libyans popularly viewed
this as Anglo-French treachery. Idris was forced to abolish the federalist
system for a unitary system on 27 April 1963.
The imperialist project to divide Libya was never abandoned; it was just
temporarily shelved by different foreign ministries in the Western bloc and
NATO capitals. In March 2011, US Director of National Intelligence James
Clapper, Jr. testified to the US Senate Armed Services Committee that at the
end of the conflict in Libya, the North African country would revert to its
previous monarchical federalist divisions and that it would have two or
three different administrations. NATO’s Supreme Commander, Admiral
Stravridis, also told the US Senate Armed Services Committee in the same
month that Libyan tribal differences would be amplified as the NATO war
carried on. There were even multilateral discussions held about dividing the
country, but the exact lines were never completely agreed upon and
negotiations kept on waxing and waning with the frontlines in the desert and
mountains.
US plans to topple the Libyan government that were put together in 1982 by
the US National Security Council under the Reagan Administration were also
revised or renovated for NATO’s war in 2011. One can clearly see how these
plans played out through the dual use of an insurgency and military attack.
According to Joseph Stanik, the US plans involved simultaneous war and
support for CIA-controlled opposition groups that would entail “a number of
visible and covert actions designed to bring significant pressure to bear on
Qadhafi.” To execute the US plan, Washington would first have to encourage a
conflict using the countries around Libya “to seek a casus belli for
military action” while they would take care of the logistical needs of
CIA-controlled opposition groups that would launch a sabotage campaign
against the economy, infrastructure, and government of Libya. The code name
for these secret plans was “Flower.” In the words of Stanik:
“The NSC restricted access to the top-secret plans to about two-dozen
officials. Flower contained two subcomponents: “Tulip” and “Rose.” Tulip was
the code name for the CIA covert operation designed to overthrow Qadhafi by
supporting anti-Qadhafi exile groups and countries, such as Egypt, that
wanted Qadhafi removed from power. Rose was the code name for a surprise
attack on Libya to be carried out by an allied country, most likely Egypt,
and supported by American air power. If Qadhafi was killed as a result of
Flower, Reagan said he would take the blame for it.”
It also just so happened that the Obama Administration’s US Secretary of
Defence Robert Gates, who was the deputy director for intelligence at the
time, endorsed Rose, the military subcomponent of Flower.
Since NATO toppled the Jamahiriya government, this is exactly what has
happened in Libya. A free for all has come about, which has spilled over
into neighbouring states such as Niger. There are multiple factions and
different administrations including the Transitional Council in the District
of Tripoli, the Misrata Military Council in the District of Misrata, several
self-styled Emirates in Cyrenaica, and Jamahiriya loyalist and tribal
governments in the Western Mountains and Fezzan. There have even been
fusions where Jamahiriya loyalists and anti-Jamahiriya militias have joined
to fight all others. The end product has been lawlessness and Somali-style
civil war. The state has basically been “failed” by the US and its allies.
Post-Jamahiriya governmental authority is only exercised by those in power
inside of their offices and a few spaces. Violent crime has proliferated.
Tripoli and other major cities are being fought for by different factions
and Libyan weapons are being smuggled into different countries. Even US
officials, which helped midwife the groups running rampant in Libya, have
not been safe from the turmoil they helped create; the murder of US
Ambassador John Christopher Stevens in Benghazi on 12 September 2012 is
testimony to this.
Oil and gas production has been stopping. National assets have been sold off
to foreign corporations and privatised. Libya is no longer a competitive
economic power in Africa anymore. Nor is Libya a growing financial power.
Tripoli virtually transformed from a debtless country to an indebted one
overnight.
There is also a great irony to all this. The warplanes of the US-supported
Libyan regime that has replaced the Jamahiriya began bombing Libyan citizens
in 2014 as battles for control of Tripoli raged. The US, European Union, and
NATO have said nothing about this whereas in 2011 they started a bombing
campaign and war on the basis of false accusations the Jamahiriya government
was doing exactly this. The deceit of these players is more than evident.
The Balkanization of Libya
(image/jpeg attachment: image001.jpg)