Libya now in the hands of Islamic extremists and foreign powers

"Gaddafi was killed at the request of powers outside Libya, for whom it was convenient to silence the Rais. He was the black box of the whole country. He had too many wheelings and dealings with too many leaders in the world. With him, unfortunately, a lot of information is gone." So says Mahmoud Jibril, former Prime Minister of the NTC, who in an interview with Bloomberg points out the problems and risks for the new Libya. The leader explains that the country is in the grip of Islamic extremists and foreign powers particularly interested in energy and financial resources of the former regime, rather than the welfare of the Libyan people. This is despite the democratic claims made by NATO countries shortly after the summary execution of Gaddafi on 20 October.

According to Jibril, economic interests have divided Libya. "During the fight against Gaddafi – he notes - we were all together and we were fighting for a single purpose. Now things have changed." The former Prime Minister stresses that the country is without a state apparatus, and this has given free rein to foreign powers interested only in oil. "No one is excluded from this fight - he says - this is the game. This is politics. "

Shortly after the fall of Tripoli under the NATO bombs, oil companies like the Italian Eni and France's Total sent their men to sign economic contracts with the new establishment. This thanks to the protection of the NTC, which once in power moved quickly to ensure its allies a return to normal production of oil by the end of 2011. The hunger for crude oil is coupled with the Islamist ambitions of Qatar, a major funder and promoter of the mission against the Rais. The country has also trained and sent thousands of Islamic guerrillas to Libya. Led by Abdel Hakim Belhaj, a former member of al-Qaeda and the current military governor of the capital, they were the real stars of the capture of Tripoli and then the hunt for Gaddafi and his loyalists. Another important tool is the television channel Al-Jazeera. The satellite broadcaster was the first to spread the images of clashes between rebels and the army in Benghazi, legitimizing the UN resolution 1973 and the NATO bombing.

Source: AsiaNews

Libya: “Humanitarian war” is creating a humanitarian crisis

The irony of this supposedly “humanitarian war” in Libya is that it is creating a humanitarian crisis. This is a farce which is happening with the servile complicity of the mainstream Western media. I am actually quite shocked at how our media and politicians can repeatedly lie to us about what is really happening. Do they expect us to believe that dropping hundreds of bombs will not kill any civilians? That defies logic no matter how accurate or sophisticated these NATO missiles are. Also, do they expect us to believe that Gadhafi has no support in his own country?

A sanitised version of events is clearly being presented by the Western media, as well as Qatar’s Al Jazeera, to keep this war going and justify its goals. NATO has already strayed well beyond its stated objectives of protecting the civilian population of Libya in accordance with UN resolution 1973. France recently admitted it has been secretly arming the Libyan rebels – clearly taking sides and supporting regime change when UN resolution 1973 forbids that. Stories of Gadhafi’s men using Viagra to gang rape women have been denied by Amnesty International.

What is going on is the complete plunder of Libya, a resource rich country that had higher living standards than some European countries before this conflict began. Billions of dollars of Libyan assets have already been seized illegally by the US and the European Union. NATO bombs have not only hit military targets, they have increasingly hit economic ones too like the Libyan Mint which prints dinars; and there has been collateral damage. According to the Libyan Ministry of Health, after the first 100 days of NATO bombing, 6,121 people were either killed or injured. The conflict is also creating a refugee crisis.

If NATO thought they will be seen as liberators by the Libyan people, nothing could be further from the truth. On Friday 17 June one million Libyans marched in Tripoli in support of Gadhafi. That’s a substantial number of people in a country of only 6 million people. Why wasn’t this news covered by the mainstream Western press? There is no national uprising against Gadhafi. Tripolitania - Western Libya - has rallied behind Gadhafi.

Who are the Libyan “rebels”?

So this begs the question, who are the Libyan “rebels” NATO is supporting? They are a motley crew of Al-Qaeda infested mercenaries who have long resented Gadhafi’s control over Cyrenaica (Eastern Libya). African American US congresswoman Cynthia McKinney, who recently visited Libya, was shocked to discover that these "racist" rebels were mercilessly killing and driving out black African migrants. Already gruesome videos of black Africans being lynched by the rebels are circulating on the internet, and yet there’s a silence in the mainstream media about these atrocities.

According to an Eritrean priest, Don Mussie Zerai, President of the Habeshia Agency for the Development Cooperation, 800 Africans were massacred in Misrata alone. He said black Libyans risk an ethnic cleansing action because of the determination against them by Libyans of Arab origin that sympathise with the rebels, who attack them as though they were Gaddafi's mercenaries. He decried the ongoing indifference to this carnage despite previous reports and warned that "hundreds of thousands of Darfur Sudanese," also trapped in Libya, risk "being crushed by this intolerance that is spreading in the territories occupied by the rebels."

Does the West really think the rebels can govern Libya? That would mean the subjugation of Tripolitania and a great deal of bloodshed. The best way out is a ceasefire and a demilitarisation of the conflict. That is what the African Union (AU) want. The AU has already said Gaddafi "can no longer lead Libya", but that does not mean that the AU - unlike NATO – wants regime change straight away. The BRICS prefer the AU approach of a negotiated settlement. NATO just seems to want to keep bombing.

Al Qaeda

As reported in the Telegraph in March, Al Qaeda then issued a call then to its supporters to back the Libyan rebellion. Now that NATO is supporting the Libyan rebels, the United States is allying itself with Al Qaeda linked elements despite spending over $1 trillion dollars trying to fight Al Qaeda over the last ten years – a case of our enemy’s enemy is our best friend. The danger of course is that in the long run such tactics are likely to backfire. I’m inclined to agree with Magdi Allam, a high profile Italian politician and convert to Catholicism, who says:

“The only real certainty is that the Islamists will win and that consequently, the populations of the eastern and southern shores of the Mediterranean will be increasingly submitted to shariah…an outcome exactly the opposite of the official proclamations of Sarkozy and Obama and their excessive use of catchphrases such as ‘freedom’ and ‘democracy.’”

It’s the oil, stupid

Something Colonel Gadhafi said on Tuesday seemed to be tipping point for a Western push for military action in Libya. He said: “We do not trust their firms, they have conspired against us...Our oil contracts are going to Russian, Chinese and Indian firms.” In other words, if Gadhafi was to stay in power, Libyan oil would no longer go to Europe but to BRIC (Brazil, China, Russia, India) countries instead.

Currently no less than 85% of Libya’s oil is sold to European Union (EU) countries. Libya is the largest oil economy in Africa with at least 46.5 billion barrels of proven oil reserves. That is 3.5% of global output. It has the potential to dramatically increase its daily output of oil and cost of production is very low at roughly $1.00 per barrel. All of this makes Libyan oil extremely attractive.

It’s interesting to note which countries voted in favour of the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) resolution approving “all necessary measures,” including imposition of a no-fly zone over Libya. The resolution was passed with 10 members, including the US, France, the UK and Lebanon, voting in favour and five — Russia, China (both permanent members with veto rights), Brazil, Germany and India — abstaining. Brazil and Germany had voiced their scepticism about military action; but in the case of Russia, India and China other (energy) motivations may have been at play.

It seems pretty obvious to me that oil did play a major role in the decision for Western intervention in Libya. Added to this are concerns about Libya being a major gateway for African migrants to get into Europe. Then there are those US/EU arms firms who likely to profiteer too. But the case for war has been sold as a humanitarian mission to help the beleaguered people of Libya being oppressed by Gadhafi. What about military intervention in Bahrain where the current Sunni ruling elite, along with their Saudi allies, are brutally cracking down on the local Shia population? The difference is Bahrain is ruled by a pro-western Sunni regime, which is home to the US Fifth Fleet, while in Libya everything is up for grabs.

There are major risks associated with implementing a no-fly zone, and it has every chance of backfiring. The big unknown is what Gadhafi will do. His minister of defence has already warned that all aerial and naval traffic in the Mediterranean is at risk, and every civilian and military target is fair game.

STRATFOR, a leading global intelligence company based in the US, warned that “war as a humanitarian action should be undertaken only with the clear understanding that in the end it might cause more suffering than the civil war. It should also be undertaken with the clear understanding that the inhabitants might prove less than grateful, and the rest of the world would not applaud nearly as much as might be liked — and would be faster to condemn the occupier when things went wrong. Indeed, the recently formed opposition council based out of Benghazi — the same group that is leading the calls from eastern Libya for foreign airstrikes against Gadhafi’s air force — has explicitly warned against any military intervention involving troops on the ground.”

There’s something eerily reminiscent of Iraq here. What is ostensibly sold as a humanitarian mission has the underlying signs of strategic interests being the real issue. There is the possibility that things may not go according to plan, which could lead to civilian casualities and a very unstable situation in Libya – something the West may learn to rue.