The international conference about
Libya in Berlin on January 19 was a success, in that the parties agreed to a
meaningful set of conclusions and
recommendations that appear to have a reasonable chance of at least limiting
conflict and halting further expansion of Islamic State in the region. One reason for tepid reaction and
lack of enthusiasm about the outcome on the part of the Western mainstream
media was that participants included Presidents Putin and Erdogan, both of whom
were influential in pursuing compromise and moderation in the path to peace in
the violence-stricken country whose Western-inspired destruction began in 2011.
Twelve
countries and four international organisations were represented in Berlin, and
it is notable that the event was hosted by Angela Merkel who, as with
Presidents Putin and Erdogan, had refused to join in the jolly U.S.-sponsored
blitzkrieg that wrecked Libya, and
even more notable that NATO’s Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg wasn’t invited
to attend. It was no doubt borne in mind that nine NATO countries conducted a
total of 5488 airstrikes on
Libya between 19 March and 31 October 2011, while cruise missiles were fired by
the U.S. (228) and the UK (18).
Nothing
was said in Berlin about the responsibility of the U.S.-NATO alliance (and
other culprits including, amazingly, Sweden) for reducing Libya to the utter
chaos in which it now exists. As observed at the meeting,
“The conflict in Libya, the instability in the country, the external
interferences, the institutional divisions, the proliferation of a vast amount
of unchecked weapons and the economy of predation continue to be a threat to
international peace and security” and attendees committed “to refraining from
interference in the armed conflict or in the internal affairs of Libya and urge
all international actors to do the same.”
It is regrettable, to put it mildly, that
NATO’s U.S., UK, France and Italy, all of which were represented in Berlin, had
not in 2011 “refrained from interference” in Libya, and the western media
refrained from making the slightest mention of their culpability with, for
example, the Washington Post recording lamely that
Libya’s President Muammar Gaddafi “was toppled and killed by rebels during the
2011 Arab Spring uprisings and NATO intervention.”
Intervention? The
word ‘intervention’ is defined in the
Cambridge Dictionary as “action taken to intentionally become involved in a
difficult situation in order to improve it or prevent it from getting worse”
and this certainly is not what the U.S.-NATO military alliance accomplished in
its seven months of bombing and rocketing all over the country. There was no
improvement whatever to the situation in Libya, and the U.S.-NATO blitz led
directly to its collapse in ruin and vicious civil war.
Although the heads of government of Germany, Russia, the UK, Turkey,
Italy and France were at the Berlin Summit, Washington’s Trump was conspicuous
by his absence which was probably just as well, because nobody knows where he
stands as regards the Libya debacle. Last April, as reported by the New
York Times, he “abruptly reversed American policy toward Libya, issuing a
statement publicly endorsing an aspiring strongman in his battle to depose the
United Nations-backed government.” Trump’s ‘strongman’ is the self-styled
“Marshal” Khalifa Haftar, a former CIA asset, who is still waging war to
overthrow the admittedly incompetent government of Prime Minister Fayez
al-Sarraj.
It was lunacy on the part of
Trump to telephone the rebel leader and tell him, as stated by the White
House, that he “recognized Field Marshal Haftar’s significant role in fighting
terrorism and securing Libya’s oil resources, and the two discussed a shared vision
for Libya’s transition to a stable, democratic political system”. This was
directly contrary to the stance of Secretary of State Pompeo (who was in Berlin
and said nothing of note) in that he had strongly criticised Haftar’s
military actions.
It all comes down to oil and
profits, of course, so far as western interest in Libya is concerned, and
it should be borne in mind that in March 2004, when UK Prime Minister Blair
paid a visit to President Gaddafi, it was reported that
“Shell today marked its return to Libya after an absence of more than a decade
by signing a $200 million gas exploration deal with the former pariah state.”
Libya has the world’s ninth largest oil reserves, and the U.S. companies
ConocoPhillips, ExxonMobil, Marathon Oil Corporation and the Hess Company were
already heavily involved in exploiting its deposits.
The country was thriving
under the despot Gaddafi, who was certainly ruthless and persecuted his enemies
most savagely — but life for most Libyans was comfortable and even the
BBC had to admit that
Gaddafi’s “particular form of socialism does provide free education, healthcare
and subsidized housing and transport,” although “wages are extremely low and the
wealth of the state and profits from foreign investments have only benefited a
narrow elite” (which doesn’t happen anywhere else, of course). The CIA World Factbook noted that Gaddafi’s Libya had a literacy
rate of 94.2%, by far the best in Africa (and better than Malaysia, Mexico and
Saudi Arabia), and the World Health Organization recorded a life expectancy of 72.3 years,
among the highest in the developing world.
But then Gaddafi made the mistake that cost him his country and his
life.
On January 21, 2011 Reuters reported that “Muammar Gaddafi said
his country and other oil exporters were looking into nationalizing foreign
firms due to low oil prices.” He suggested that “oil should be owned by the
State at this time, so we could better control prices by the increase or
decrease in production.” His fate was sealed and his country was set on the
road to chaos by a rebellion supported by NATO’s Operation Unified Protector, after which NATO
proudly announced that
“After seven months of operations at sea and in the air NATO has ended its
mission for Libya. The Alliance’s job to protect civilians from the threat of
attack is done. On his historic first visit on 31 October to the Libyan capital
of Tripoli, NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen said he was proud of
the part the Organization and its partners played in helping the country and the
region.”
Rasmussen was joined in happy
satisfaction by Ivo Daalder, U.S. Representative on the NATO Council from 2009
to 2013, and Admiral James G (‘Zorba’) Stavridis, U.S. Supreme Allied Commander
Europe (the military commander of NATO) in the same period. After their war
these two ninnies had a piece published in
the New York Times in which they made the absurd claim that “the alliance and
its partners can look back at an extraordinary job, well done. Most of all,
they can see in the gratitude of the Libyan people that the use of limited
force — precisely applied — can affect real, positive political change.”
Tell that to those who gathered at the Berlin conference to try to find
a way forward from the tragic catastrophe created by these dimwits.
The way ahead is for the UN
Security Council to endorse the Berlin ‘Follow-Up’ recommendations,
especially noting that the
conference was “one important step in a broader Libyan-led and Libyan-owned
process designed to bring a decisive end to the Libyan crisis by addressing in
a comprehensive manner the underlying drivers of the conflict.” The main thing
is to keep NATO and Trump out of it and help Libya towards stability by
pressuring Haftar and supporting moves to democratic government.
The views of individual
contributors do not necessarily represent those of the Strategic Culture
Foundation.
British and Australian armies’ veteran, former deputy head of the
UN military mission in Kashmir and Australian defense attaché in
Pakistan.
Copyright © Strategic Culture Foundation | Republishing is welcomed with reference to Strategic Culture online journal www.strategic-culture.org.
Copyright © Strategic Culture Foundation | Republishing is welcomed with reference to Strategic Culture online journal www.strategic-culture.org.