27. Libya Unit One

Libya is in a sorry state today. Hundreds  of thousands of people have fantastic weapons in their hands. They have shoulder held missiles and can shoot down any plane. They have rockets and countless AK 47s. Afghanistan is being repeated again.

Gaddhafi said the stood for African Unity and Arab Unity. He threatened  the USA, the Saudis,and above all swore to destroy Israel. But he set up crony dictators in Northern Africa and called himself  King of Kings. He recruited a large army of Black mercenaries and paid them well. These mercenaries helped him through four decades of tyranny.

He was a megalomaniac and a sexual pervert; surrounded  himself with female body guards. He fooled the people of Libya and called himself Brother (Muammar)  Ghaddafi. People could do nothing.

But he nationalized Libyas’s oil and huge profits. Other Arabs followed hi and the OPEC came intyo existence. Thanks to him the Arabs have held ghe world to ransom . Arab wealth owes much to Ghaddafi.

His cruelties made many Libyans flee to Europe and Europe found itself with loads of reugees.

He would listen to nobody and feared no body.

While the Arab Spring in Tunisia and Egypt sprang with local roots and led to democracy, a rag tag army of rebels emerged in Libya. Ghaddafi mercileslly killed his rivals.

America made use of Facebook, Twitter and other social networking sites and supported the rebels with massive arms from across te Mediterranean.  Hillary Clinton  persuaded  Russia and China not to oppose sanctions. USA sent drones from war ships and persuaded the NATO to undertake thousands of bombings.  Hundreds of thousands were killed and cities and villages were destroyed. Finally the game was over.  Gdahhafi as found hiding in a drain and he was shot dea and his body was dragged across the streets. More details  in my essay on Libya.




25 thoughts on “27. Libya Unit One

  1. Was it proper for the West to intervene in Libya? Who gave them this power, was there a Security Council Resolution? Are not Obama (USA), Cameron(UK) and Sarkozy (France) not responsible for bombing Libya and causing havoc? They dismissed it as Collateral damage?

    1. Attack by Western countries in Coalition against Afghanistan, Iraq and Libiya..is a very soild proof for their greed to get the Oil Wells for which these victim countries are known for…Another proof for the same is. Americans(USA) will be deploying its fleet in East Asia in the Shores of Phiilipines and Indonesia(Yetsreday’s news) an this move is again for Oil wells in this Area and if it is not captured then those will be definitely acquired by CHINA and we have discussed this in detail under the other topics..
      Its is proved that the Hunger and greed for Petroleum products for future requirements is making West to work this way. Of course each one of these are eyeing to be a Big Brother of the World… Having said that..I am not supporting the dictatorship that is in practice, but there are lot many ways to eliminate and mitigate this dictatorships and build a people friendly government…..

    2. 1) Intervention of the West:
      with all due respect for your opinion, i would DISAGREE with Mr. Bharadwaj. Aspects concerning to Humanitarian Intervention, UN’s very own “Responsibility to Protect” treaty, and many others which all boil down to Human Rights are the factors which are being shadowed by alleged ‘greed’ for oil among the coalition forces. Gaddafi’s end was long overdue, his 42 years of brutal regime, if for anything, should be blamed for the present state of Libya. The rebellion movement when begun in Libya was that of non-violence, but Gaddafi went ahead and turned it into a Civil War! He even had the audacity to condemn Libyan citizens as rats and stated he would make their blood flow like a river! When such form of atrocities are committed in front of the entire World, why shouldn’t the International Community react? Safety measures were definitely made mandatory, the UN Security Council introducing a ‘no-fly zone’ in order to protect the civilians, but unfortunately, there were damages, but then again, an Eagle’s eye view showcased the objective that had to be achieved, i.e., to liberate Libya, and any form of damage, as stated by the three Nation’s leaders was only Collateral.

      1. I would support Ashutosh in saying that a no-fly zone was established BUT my dear friend “you always need a face to cover your treacherous actions”.

        Security Council had taken ONLY a NAMESAKE RESOLUTION of 1973 by a vote of 10, unfortunately none opposed it. Although 5 countries – Soviet, China, India, Germany & Brazil abstained, saying that there could be more peaceful resolutions for the conflict, and that many questions had not been answered in the resolution like by whom, how, and to what extent will the measures be extended. Arab League probably supported the resolution because Libyan ruler, Muammar Gaddafi had once condemned it saying that Arab League is finished. Or maybe the nations representing Arab League in UN Security Council would have felt threat in turning against the West.

        West although had to limit the actions it had learnt its lessons from the past. It was a wise move not to station the troops in Libya – a dual game… on one hand it saved lives of the western troops, and on the other they got to showcase to rest of the world that their interest is not to step into the Arab nation.

        Here is an interesting question for you – Had the aims been constructive and worthy, why would the above mentioned five countries abstain from the resolution?

      2. I am not denying that Humnitarian approach (if any exists) in US actions.(As mentioned by Ashuthosh)… But my question here is, why that happens only with Nations whih is rich in Oil Resources?…There hardly exists any Democracy in Pakistan…At those times why US come into action and act on Pakistsn…Why Will US move to diplomacy when it comes to Terrisiom sponsred by pakistan?…….there are many instances where US has to taken a back seat and many a times it has supoorted Pakistan…Didn’t US funded Pakistan when there was a Military Rule? If there are any Justifiable answers for these then we can look into Human Values that are exhibited by US in the recent attacks on Libiya….
        Capture Gadhafi and Punish him YES….
        Devastate the Complete Nation and throw the innocents to the Dogs a Big NO….If that is done then what is the Difference between Gadhaffi and Others…….

    3. The western intervention in Libya was hailed as an attempt to stop a tyrant from killing his own people. However, it seems that the rule of international law does not apply anymore.The west has been able to circumvent the UN when it comes to military intervention and hence, the larger question here,is, whether, the UN as an international body is heading towards the league of nations road. It already shows signs of being partially defunct.Unlike rest of the arab spring, in libya it was really bloody and another one is on its way in Syria. The most ironic fact for me as an Indian was that our military leaders were briefed upon the performance of the Rafale and Eurofighter on the battlefield. Thus, the next question, was libya chosen as a test field of weapons to show case the strengths of these products to us so that they can clinch the MMRCA deal?

      Since the UN is becoming an exclusive club. On whom will India rely? Is India looking for membership in a club that technically does not exist as the west has shown in Libya.?

      1. You have hit the nail, hard in the head! UNSC(or, in fact the whole of UN?) as a *formal body* has lost credibility, yet, not its utility.

        India-US-UNSC et al is much debated. But, what I want to know is how should India act in the future days? w.r.t. Syria, Iran? It is given that we dislike US *invasions*. But, I’m reminded of Brajesh Mishra who asked in a TV debate: “Tell me, is there a single country in the world today that can be called India’s friend?”

  2. Was it really a concern to protect the poor Liyans from the four decade long tyranny of Gaddhafi? If they are so concerned for democracy, why have they not taken action against Israel who has been oppressing the Palestinians both in Gaza and West Bank? And why not in Syria? Or was it because they wanted to control Libyan oil?

    1. 2) Concern of the International Powers:
      Like I have stated before, the concern did involve Humanitarian Acts, but it would be naive if we just overlooked the security of Oil supplies coming from such regions. Of course, the West has rational national interest calculations which disposed them to intervene in Libya, but these cannot be used to condemn their actions. Peaceful negotiations are the way to proceed in today’s World, acknowledged by everybody, but there arises a time when words have no immediate effect and time is not something worth losing, especially when human lives are at stake. Israel and Palestine for example, understand the need of resorting their differences. It began as early as 1993 between late Yasser Arafat(PLO) and late Yitzhak Rabin (Israeli leader) showing their interests to end their dispute and thus led to a series of optimistic peace processes. These too were governed by the US (Oslo Accords). As for US, they have given out the maximum foreign aid to Israel ($100 mil approx/annually), and has urged other European countries to contribute as well. But look at Muammar Gaddafi (Libya), Saddam Hussein(Iraq), Mugabe and so on. They defied the basis of a human life! There exists nothing as ‘just war’, The International Community joined hands on what was inevitable i.e.,to liberate what the people of that country wanted, and which was denied in the form of oppression, thus saving lives from a ruthless individual’s rule. Thus, to conclude, the actions performed have a direct relation to end autocracy and give rise to democracy, a powerful tool for any state’s growth. These actions also serve as a reminder to many other African Nations, that any effort to emulate Gaddafi would invariably have dire results on their tenure of leadership, and understandably, their very own end.

    2. What I understand is that since the world is still in an oil based economy. The way to power lies in keeping those oil wells pumping and controlling the market prices. The west uses oil during the winter for heating. It needs to keep the price of oil at an affordable level to keep the buying going than risk inflation. Gaddafi knew this vulnerability of the west and hence was capable of giving a tough fight. Hence, an opportunity presented in the form of the revolution to bomb the regime into submission and the Libyans finished it for them. Thus another source of oil after Iraq is up for grabs

    3. Had it been a mere concern for the Libyans, I would say it was too late to make this call. Libyans have been sufferers of Gaddafi for four long decades; UN Security Council did not grow powerful overnight, did it? I really doubt if an attack would be planned on Israel or Syria as both have undeclared nuclear powers.
      As Vargese said, oil greed led them to turn against Libya. A revolt was on the move, they added fuel to the fire.

      1. A wordpress article I just read very beautifully contrasts the double standard actions of West in two Arab Nations; gives a different view of the situations.

        The question posed is – Why West approves Military intervention to topple one Arab Government and Prop Up another?

        In Libya, NATO approved for a military intervention to prevent govt from stopping the armed rebels. On the other hand, in Bahrain it supported military interventions of Gulf Cooperation Council to silent the peaceful rebels.

        Bahrain is found to have a foreign investment and import friendly regime, thus supporting the government would help maintain the existing economic interests; while Libyan are the economic policies which favour local investors over foreign. Businesses in Libya are subject to high tax rates.
        Had the govt in Libya been more like Bahrain, i.e. favourable to foreign investments, situation could have been different. The intentions of military interventions in Libya can very well be of a ‘regime change’.

  3. And what will happen to the future of Libya with a rag tag coalition ruling ghat country? What will the rebels do with all their arms? Or is another Taliban in the making?

    1. 3) Future of Libya:
      The future of Libya looks hazy for the moment. It all boils down to a Democratic form of Government . The alliance present now should understand the reason and responsibility as to its presence in Libya. The country is just out of a Dictatorship, and thus the anxiety, expectations will all be set high, including power hungry ‘parties’. After the exit of NATO from Libya, the locals of Libya have found themselves surrounded by Arms & Am-munitions, and the rebels would prove to be very dangerous. Currently headed by Qatar, backed by an ally of 13 countries led by US, it has its work cut out in gaining the momentum of the situation and fighting for its establishment, and thus, should focus upon building a new and an enriched country. Expectation of Western-style democracy is just an imagination, but focus should be made to establish a Democratic State. But nonetheless, tension is high among the Libyan Islamists and Libyan Secularists, with each condemning the anticipated action of other. After the death of Gaddafi, the Qatari backed Islamists were quick to take charge of Libya, thus making ‘Sharia’ as a basic foundation for the Draft Constitution, invariably trying to make it an Islamic State.Even though Coalition Government sounds optimistic, it would definitely be better if Libya, under the new regime would have democracy in terms of voting system so as to not be retrospective in nature. That would definitely prove to be successful for the country, in the long term. Thus, the approach to be taken should be well thought off, if not, an Organization similar to Taliban or Hezbollah is not hard to be formed, especially with all the armaments at disposal and might loom over the country for years to come.

    2. The situation in Libya is now, heading towards a greater problem . the tribal loyalties that were seen in Afghanistan are also being seen in Libya. The rag tag coalition could crumble and war lords could emerge who will fight with each and decimate the country. by then the west would have been able to secure the oil supplies

      1. As I undstnd it, Libya/N.Africa is slightly diff from Afghan situation. The Muslim Brotherhood that is active in N.Africa does not have the millenarianism professed by Taliban.

        But, comparison vis-a-vis warlordism is quite apt. Libya lies at the cusp of the interests of Arab League, African Union, UK,France and USA. Oil is tied with geopolitical stability.

        Economic progress is what is desired, but neocolonialism is what is Libya going to experience.

    3. The country is out of dictatorship of one is about to get into hands of another. The war lords have abandoned the oath to surrender their weapons. It is their wish to safeguard and influence the upcoming government. A government led by weapons would make no better than Taliban; another chance for the West to overwhelm the world with its Humanitarian concerns does not seem too far.

    1. It appears so. China is already reported to have been in talks with Transitional Council to explore/import oil, even before Gaddafi as captured!

      1. And also, there is a revival of the New Right in Europe, perhaps in the US too, to an extent. This factor would aid further expansion of neocolonialism.

    1. No they wouldn’t have attacked Libya as it may lead to another nuclear war.
      Yes it is attacking in the Pakistan best eg is Operation Neptune Spear

    1. I believe that would have repeated history, and the new Hiroshima and Nagasaki would be in the heart of the Arab League; but of course making sure that the “Dear Oil” is safe.

  4. United States has been diplomatically very active in making use of International Scenarios and driving it to its advantage; be it Arab Spring or Terrorism along Pakistan – Afghanistan border in the name of being World messiah and liberating people from clutches of trannical dictators. Other advanced nations typically NATO allies follow the game.

    It is time for third world leaders especially from ‘World Time Bomb’, i.e Middle East to be more mature in dealing with revolutionary crisis and feeling the pulse of its people so as to avoid any foreign intervention in their country as we can see in Afghanistan, Iraq and now Libya ; these countries have been victim of Civil Wars which was preceeded by a foreign power hand in changing its regimes.

    After all the real thirst of Libyan people is more important than American thirst for Libyan Oil.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.