Following the outbreak of insurgency in Libya on 17 February 2011, the UN Security Council unanimously adopted Resolution 1970 on 26 February 2011 and the stronger Resolution 1973 on 17 March, which included an arms embargo and a no-fly zone for Libya, and the UN member states authorized to take “all necessary measures” to protect civilians. Germany, China, Russia, India and Brazil abstained this time. As early as March 19, France, Britain and the United States began attacking Libya with fighter jets and firing cruise missiles at naval units. On March 31, NATO formally took over the leadership of the war against Libya under the code name “Operation Unified Protector”. On 31 October 2011, NATO operations were officially terminated.
At the beginning of the international military operation against Libya, the administration of US President Barack Obama was rather hesitant. The war serves American interests, but the White House was apparently happy with the advance of France and its President Nicolas Sarkozy and spoke of “Sarkozy’s war.” In the course of the war, however, Obama’s attitude changed. The president, and especially his Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, made war her own business. “Sarkozy’s war” became “Hillary’s War,” because although the US withdrew its forces from direct combat on April 4, they remained instrumental in his leadership. For example, eighty percent of them took over the air refueling of the fighter jets, replaced precision weapons, carried out much of the airspace surveillance and provided intelligence.
The biggest crime ever
In its verdict in the Nuremberg war crimes trial, the International Military Court speaks a truth that is also true of all those who took part in the war of aggression against Libya in 2011 in one way or another, or who approved of this war. “To start a war of aggression is not only an international crime, but it is the greatest international crime of all, because it differs from all other war crimes in that it is the evils of all others. crime in itself”
The truth of this sentence has been confirmed in an exemplary way in the case of Libya. The prominent American professor of international law, Francis A. Boyle, therefore considers the war against Libya to be a crime comparable to the wars of aggression of the Nazi regime and should also be tried before a tribunal like the one in Nuremberg – if in the world justice would prevail. The Federal Republic of Germany was therefore well advised at the time when it did not take part in the Libyan war and abstained from voting in the UN Security Council on Resolution 1973.
But the situation has changed since 2011, when the West and some of its Middle East allies are preparing to repeat in Syria what they have done in Libya. However, the political wisdom that guided Berlin in 2011 no longer seems to be a la mode. The government and opposition parties are seriously playing with the idea of a bundeswehr combat operation in Syria. Legal concerns are being wiped off the table nonchalantly. The prospect of Germany once again taking part in a war of aggression should provoke the revulsion of all historical and political thinkers in the country. Therefore, the war against Libya, its premeditated and real causes and its fatal consequences must not be forgotten. This oblivion is to be counteracted by the present treatise. The pseudo-reasons, reasons and backgrounds of the war of aggression are highlighted, which was justified to the world public as “humanitarian intervention”.
Prohibition of violence, responsibility to protect and an insurgency in Libya
On the basis of the experience of the Second World War, the Charter of the United Nations unequivocally prohibits members from using force against a sovereign Member State and leaves only self-defense in the event of an attack and a mandate. the UN Security Council as a justification. However, the Security Council can only allow the use of military means if international security cannot be preserved by other means and world peace is threatened.
The idea of “humanitarian intervention” was also discredited because of the illegal Kosovo war in 1999. In order to ensure that the UN nevertheless has a basis for authorising military intervention in other states, an international commission has adopted what appears to be a plausible doctrine of responsibility to protect. abbreviated R2P). It creates exceptions to the application of international law and is intended to pave the way for interventions to protect the population of a state from its own government. However, R2P is not a principle of international law, but a controversial recommendation.
Libya did not attack another state in 2011, nor did it threaten world peace, nor did the Libyan government carry out massacres of its own people. However, Libya’s internal affairs – the outbreak of insurgency in February 2011 and the government’s legitimate attempt to combat them – provided a “coalition of the willing” led by a Franco-British “consortium” with the help of the NATO is the pretext for a war of aggression that is illegal under international law, which also violated the US Constitution and the spirit and letter of the NATO Treaty. Nor can the R2P doctrine give any authorization to attack Libya and overthrow its government.
Tensions and rivalries, which were not overcome by the Libyan kingdom or by the 1969 revolution led by Muammar el-Qaddafi, played a major role in the outbreak of uprisings against the Libyan government in the eastern part of Libya at the beginning of 2011. between the Cyrenaica in the east of the country and Tripolitania. In the Cyrenaica, Gaddafi and his tribe gaddadfa were seen as “Bedouins” and unplanned “peasant sleds” from an insignificant part of the country, which would have illegally seized control of Libya. The rivalries were reinforced by Gaddafi’s preference for Tripolitania and the neglect of Cyrenaica.
From Benghazi to Derna, there was also a corridor where there was a high concentration of jihadists. This part of the country was also a major recruiting ground for Islamist suicide bombers in Iraq. This may be due to the high level of unemployment there, despite the concentration of oil production infrastructure in eastern Libya. The eastern Libyan insurgents therefore not only fought the Gaddafi government under the flag of the kingdom abolished in 1969, but also carried the black-and-white Islamist flag.
So, especially in the eastern part of Libya, there may have been enough potential for conflict to explain the outbreak of the insurgency. However, there is nothing to suggest that these conflicts could not have been resolved internally. Tragically, already in the first decade of the 21st century, the course was set for a course that could have led to a completely different course of events. It was precisely during the administration of US President George W. Bush that there was a rapprochement between the US and Libya, which did not shed a good light on Bush’s successor in the presidency, the Nobel Peace Prize laureate Barack Obama, and his actions on Libya.
An “interesting man” and a “wonderful friendship”
Anyone who is now an enemy of Gaddafi is also an enemy of the United States.
These astonishing words spoke a no less astonishing figure in 2005: Noman Benotman, formerly a member of the al-Qaeda-linked Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, LIFG, who turned his back on his group and became an informant. the Us on Islamist terrorism. The administration of President George W. Bush, for its part, had increasingly softened Gaddafi’s isolation after he formally announced his departure from terrorism and renounced the acquisition and construction of nuclear weapons.
On February 23, 1998, Osama bin Laden called on Muslims of all countries to jihad against Jews, “crusaders,” and Americans, whether against civilians or military personnel. However, it was not the United States that issued an international arrest warrant for Osama bin Laden, but – Libya, on 16 March 1998. The reason for the detention order was the murder of the German couple Silvan and Vera Becker on 10 March 1994, shortly after their arrival in Libya. In Germany, Silvan Becker was an employee of the Constitutional Protection with the remit “International Terrorism”. Initially, if it was assumed that the German citizens had been attacked and killed by four armed thieves, the Libyan authorities later concluded that members of the LIFG were responsible for the double murder and handed over to the German authorities their Findings. More importantly, the LIFG carried out several attacks on Muammar el-Qaddafi in 1996.
Against this background, it is understandable that Gaddafi and George W. Bush recognized a common mortal enemy in Islamist terrorism. Gaddafi helped the US fight the al Qaeda network in North Africa and delivered radical fighters to neighboring, pro-Western governments. He also gave the CIA information about Libyan citizens suspected of having links to internationally active terrorists. In return, the US handed over to the Libyan authorities Gaddafi-enemy Libyans, who had captured them in their counter-terrorism operations. Libyan agents were also allowed to hear Libyans being held there as prisoners at the Guantanamo detention center in Cuba.
Condoleezza Rice, Secretary of State of the United States of America, set the keystone of the rapprochement between the United States and Libya in a memorable official statement from the Ministry on May 15, 2006:
It is a pleasure for me to announce that the United States will resume full diplomatic relations with Libya … the United States intends to remove Libya from the list of states that promote terrorism. Libya will also no longer be mentioned in the annual report on states that do not cooperate decisively with the United States in the fight against terrorism … We are taking these measures as a sign of recognition of Libya’s long-term commitment to renounce terrorism and, because of Libya’s excellent cooperation with the United States and other members of the world community, in response to the threats facing the entire civilised world since 11 September 2001
This sounds like the “beginning of a wonderful friendship” – an astonishing change in the US relationship with Libya, given the long years of extensive political activities of the North African government – moral and economic Support for the IRA, the Palestinians and the rebels in Chad, Lockerbie. The threat posed by Islamist terrorist groups to Libya’s secular and national-minded leadership since the 1990s, however, has led to a rethink. The attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon on September 11, 2001, gave Muammar el-Qaddafi the opportunity to side with America in the “war on terror” and to actively pursue his country’s rapprochement with the West.
The announcement by then US Secretary of State Rice was the final step in the full reintegration of Libya as a full and recognised member of the international community. On 12 September 2003, the UN Security Council lifted all sanctions imposed on Libya. On 19 December 2003, the Libyan Government announced that it would no longer acquire weapons of mass destruction and would no longer cease to build them. Libya’s nuclear weapons program was already more advanced than American and British intelligence agencies had expected. It included a uranium enrichment program. Libya also had centrifuges needed to build atomic bombs. In January 2004, the United States began to collect the documentation necessary for the construction of nuclear weapons, dismantle the facilities and destroy the chemical weapons.
The “wonderful friendship” did not last long, however, because on 20 October 2011 Libya’s revolutionary leader and head of state Muammar el-Qaddafi was assassinated by rebels near Sirte after they were attacked by NATO using state-of-the-art military drone technology. Gaddafi’s trail had been led and NATO warplanes had previously bombed the convoy in which Gaddafi was trying to flee Sirte. Members of the political class who had courted him two years earlier cheered on The likes of then-Secretary of State Clinton. Shortly after she was delivered the news of her death during a television interview, she had her “historic moment”: “We came, we saw, he died,” she said to the interviewer, falling into a laugh that, as columnist Wayne Madsen writes, everyone mentally healthy person can only describe it as repulsive against this background.
Why did NATO bomb Libya in 2011? Is it because Muammar el-Qaddafi was “one of the bloodthirstiest dictators ever to live on earth,” as US Senator John McCain is said to have proclaimed in 2011? But why then did the US support Gaddafi a few years earlier? Why was the same John McCain so enthusiastic about the person he described as an “interesting man” in 2009 that he promised Libya to supply American weapons? Did the US not realize until 2011 that Gaddafi was a “bloodthirsty dictator,” or has it simply not been interested in this? And in general, was he really, or did Gaddafi possibly cross a “red line” during the administration of US President Barack Obama between 2009 and 2011, and where did it go?
The War of 2011: A Long Planned Aggression
A statement by the then retired American general Wesley Clark shows that plans for a war against Libya have been in the drawer for some time. In an interview in October 2007, Clark, who was NATO’s commander-in-chief at the time of the 1999 Kosovo war, said that a few days after the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, he met a general who was among his former associates. Belonged. This general informed Clark that the decision to go to war with Iraq had been made. Why, he doesn’t know. A link between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda has not been found. A few weeks later – the US had been waging war against Afghanistan since 7 October 2001 – Clark was informed by the same general of the Defense Department’s decision to attack seven countries in the Middle East and North Africa within the next five years, and to overthrow their governments (“to take out”): Iraq Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and, most recently, Iran. On October 3, 2007, Clark repeated his story in a speech to the Commonwealth Club of San Francisco.
Clark’s statement is supplemented by the planning of a Franco-British military maneuver called “Southern Mistral 2011”. This was to be used as an attack against a so-called “southern country” under a “dictatorship” and threatening France’s national interests. The war against “Southland” was to take place on the basis of an imaginary “Resolution 3003” of the UN Security Council. The start of the manoeuvre was scheduled for 21 March 2011. However, it did not take place, as already on 19 March 2011 the real “southern country” Libya was attacked by France, Great Britain and the USA. The real resolution 1973 of 17 March replaced the fictitious “Resolution 3003”.
The threat to France’s interests from Libya was perceived as very real by then-French President Nicolas Sarkozy, who was mockingly called the “Sarko of Arabia” in Hillary Clinton’s inner circle. This is proven by an email to Clinton made available by Wikileaks on April 2, 2011, which is based on French intelligence circles. Thus, sarkozy wanted to secure a greater share of Libya’s oil production through the war against Libya 1) France, 2) increase France’s influence in North Africa, 3) prevent Libya under Gaddafi from dominating France as the dominant power in the francophone in the long term. 4) Give France’s military an opportunity to assert itself on the world stage, 5) strengthen its own political position in France. Sarkozy was therefore the main driver of the war.
The media, politicians and intellectuals have joined forces to work together on the image of the noble “humanitarian intervention” in Libya. At the latest in 2013, when the scale of the Libyan tragedy could no longer be concealed, the praisers became quieter. In order not to forget what Libya really was about, the following section is intended to describe the pseudo-reasons for ‘humanitarian intervention’ and the following section to explain the true reasons for aggression.
Pseudo-Reasons for nato war against Libya
Resolution 1973 calls for the protection of civilians in Libya. But what are “civilians”? The international law lawyer Reinhard Merkel says:
Fighting insurgents, if they had been bakers, shoemakers and teachers hours earlier, are not civilians … every… autonomous state of the world may … Fight armed internal uprisings first
It is one of the fundamental principles of international law that a government has the right to suppress an armed rebellion, especially when the rebellion is organized, supported and equipped by foreign powers to overthrow the country’s government.
This was the case in Libya. American weapons, for example, were smuggled across the Egyptian border to the “pro-democracy rebels” even before the uprising erupted under Washington’s tacit tolerance. This practice was continued by France in violation of the arms embargo imposed by the UN.
They were therefore looking for a pretext for aggression and raised a legitimation backdrop for pseudo-reasons, behind which the true economic and geostrategic interests were hidden: 1) Libya was a state promoter of terrorism, 2) human rights in Libya is in danger, 3) civilians must be protected from “massacres” by the government. draft: false
Libya: a “state promoter of terrorism”?
As explained above, Libyan-American cooperation in the fight against terrorism worked well in the years before NATO aggression. Muammar el-Qaddafi was considered the “enemy No. 1 of Islam” in opposition Islamist circles. These circles fought Gaddafi not because he was not “democratic” but because he was “un-Islamic” in their eyes. Above all, the efforts of the Gaddafi government to liberalize the position of women in society were a thorn in the side of the Islamists. Gaddafi was therefore seen in American military and intelligence circles as a reliable ally in the fight against Islamist terrorism. This is evident, among other things, from a 2009 dispatch of the US Embassy in Tripoli to General William Ward. General Ward was commander of the United States African Command (AFRICOM) at the time. The US embassy informed him of the situation in the country before his inaugural visit to the Libyan government.
The protection of human rights?
To judge the human rights argument, we need to compare Libya with other countries in the wider region: Egypt, Algeria, Bahrain, Israel, Jordan, Qatar, Kuwait, Mauritania, Morocco, Oman, Pakistan, Tunisia, Saudi Arabia and the United Kingdom. Arab Emirates. If one studies the reports of Amnesty International for these countries from before 2011, one does not get the impression that the human rights situation in most of these countries differs significantly from that in Libya. Saudi Arabia can probably be described as one of the most repressive states in the world. In Bahrain, a Two-thirds Shiite majority of the population is harassed by a Sunni ruling house. There, at the same time as the armed rebellion in Libya, military force was used against peaceful protesters with the help of Saudi troops. However, there was no military intervention by NATO in these countries.
All of the above are among the closest allies of the US and NATO. In addition to NATO, the US controls a network of interlinked alliances in Eurasia, such as the “Mediterranean Dialogue” and the “Istanbul Cooperation Initiative”. There are U.S. military bases in Bahrain, Qatar, Kuwait, Oman and the Emirates. With the exception of Iran, the US has completely occupied the Persian Gulf countries with bases of all kinds. Bahrain is the headquarters of the Fifth U.S. Fleet. The question above, why the USA and NATO are not also waging wars against all these states for the protection of human rights, is therefore answered by itself.
Violations of human rights in Libya were irrelevant to the war. Their “protection” was a protective claim to spread sand in the eyes of the public of the Western countries.
Massacre of the civilian population?
After the Islamist opposition group National Coalition of the Libyan Opposition proclaimed February 17, 2011 a “Day of Wrath”, demonstrations against the government took place in Benghazi and other parts of eastern Libya. This was not accidental, because it was the fifth anniversary of the outbreak of violent, bloody protests against the Mohammed cartoons of the Danish newspaper “Jyllands-Posten”, which were particularly violent in Benghazi. The demonstrations turned into an insurgency that quickly spread to the eastern part of Libya. His Islamist character, however, remained hidden for the West behind the “facebook” and “Twitter” activists of the first hour, mostly young and well-educated academics. To their support, a concerted effort by non-governmental organisations, the media, think tanks and politicians used to spread the image of the “butcher Gaddafi” ordering massacres of his own people and fighter jets attacking the people. let civilians fly.
However, during a Pentagon press conference on March 1, 2011, US Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Chief of Staff Admiral Michael Mullen admitted that there was no evidence of reports of airstrikes on the protesters in Libya. Were. In the same vein, the German Government expressed itself in a reply to a small question from the party “Die Linke” in April 2011:
The Federal Government does not have detailed information on attacks by the Libyan Air Force on civilians.
As early as February 2011, the London Guardian and the NGO Human Rights Watc, who were anything but Gaddafi’s sympathizers, independently concluded that the death toll in the first week of the uprising was between 230 and 500 at most. The NGO “Amnesty International”, which in its report of September 2011 takes a hard line with the army and government of Libya, has about 170 deaths and 1,500 injuries for the period up to 21 February.
All these reports and analyses speak more to the Libyan government’s great reluctance to fight the insurgency, rather than to the narrative of the alleged “excessive violence and brutality” it is practising in trying to crush the insurgency. This impression was confirmed by Mustafa Abdul Jalil in an interview in 2014, the chairman of the “National Transitional Council”, which was formed on 27 February, and who presented himself to the world as a legitimate representation of the Libyan people and as such was already 10 March by France. According to Jalil, Gaddafi had expressly ordered that no violence be used!
The House of Commons inquiry report of September 2016 finally pulls the ground under the narrative of “the butcher Gaddafi.” It explicitly states that there was no genocide or massacre of the civilian population in Libya. Ethnic cleansing did not take place. The report is a resounding slap in the face for then-Prime Minister David Cameron, and thus implicitly for the governments of other states that had participated in the war. The action of the anti-Libya coalition was therefore based on:
accurate intelligence. In particular, the (British) government did not recognize that the threat to the civilian population was exaggerated and that a significant number of Islamists were in the ranks of the rebels. By the summer of 2011, the limited intervention to protect civilians had turned into a campaign to change the regime. This policy was not based on a strategy to influence and support Libya in the post-Qaddafi era. The result was the political and economic collapse, the war of militias and tribes against each other, humanitarian crises and the migration crisis, widespread violations of human rights, the distribution of arms of the Gaddafi government in the region and the spread of the Islamic State (ISIL) in North Africa.
The joint investigation report of the Norwegian Ministry of Defence and Foreign Affairs, published in September 2018, also comes to a similar conclusion.
The real reasons for the war
Resources Finance, Geostrategic Interests The aim of the war against Libya was not to protect the civilian population, but 1) to secure access to African resources, 2) to worry about the loss of Western control of Libyan banking through the planned introduction of the Gold Dinar, 3) the Safeguarding geostrategic interests in Africa and the Middle East. draft: false
Securing access to African resources
The political Analyst Gerald A. Perreira estimates that life processes in the so-called “developed” world would come to a standstill if the inflow of African resources were interrupted for only two weeks. The United States imported in the year 2000, sixteen percent of its oil needs from sub-Saharan Africa – almost as much as from Saudi Arabia. In 2002, the working group, “African Oil Policy Initiative Group” (AOPIG) presented a report in which of the Gulf of Guinea is referred to as an Area of vital US national security interest, because the Region has not only fossil fuels but also minerals and raw materials, which for US are of great importance: chromium, uranium, cobalt, titanium, diamonds, Gold, copper, bauxite, phosphates. In addition, Libya has the largest oil reserves on the African continent, and Libya’s oil is valued for its high quality.
The AOPIG working group emerged from the “Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies” (IASPS), the Israeli Likud party-related “think-tank” based in Israel and an office in Washington. Due to his anti-Israeli stance, Gaddafi was regarded as the enemy of Israel and the American neo-conservatives. The AOPIG report therefore states that if the United States fails to maximise its diplomatic and military command structures in the region around the Gulf of Guinea, ‘rivals’ such as China and ‘adversaries’ such as al-Qaeda and Libya could feel encouraged to strengthen their influence in Africa. The division of labour between the existing global military surveillance zones, CENTCOM (“Central Command”) and EUCOM (“European Command”) is considered to be inadequate. These considerations led on 1. October 2008 on the establishment of the “African Command” (AFRICOM) as a stand-alone U.S. regional command for the Monitoring of Africa. The AFRICOM headquarters is in Stuttgart.
After Libya’s renunciation of weapons of mass destruction, Western oil companies invested heavily in the country. Soon, however, disappointment began, because Libya with the billionaire orders expected by US companies to expand the infrastructure. Also on the Libyan side was disappointed. The government was of the opinion that Libya had not been adequately rewarded for its renunciation of nuclear weapons. Gaddafi was also dissatisfied with the price of Libyan oil and was thinking of nationalising Western oil companies. During Gaddafi’s visit to Moscow in November 2008, it was also discussed the creation of a gas cartel, which should include Russia, Libya, Iran, Algeria and Central Asian States. A Moscow-led gas cartel could, from the American point of view, become a means of pressure against Europe.
The feared loss of Western control of the financial system, Libya accounted for its financial transactions outside the monitoring of international (Western) financial agencies. The 100 percent Libyan Central Bank was able to put its own currency resources into circulation and maintain its own credit system. Libya’s independence from external sources should be facilitated not only by its fossil fuels, but also by its gold reserves. In 2010, the central bank held 143.8 tons of gold reserves, placing it in the 24th place in the Gold Reserve ranking-a place ahead of Singapore. In addition, Libya possessed a corresponding treasure of silver.
These reserves should be used to cover a pan-African currency based on the Libyan gold Dinar. In addition, all Libyan oil trade should also be conducted through the Libyan Central Bank on the basis of that currency, no longer on a Dollar Basis. This would have meant the loss of American control over the oil trade with Libya, as the US claims to have a say in all transactions conducted through the Dollar and to cite foreign business partners to an American court if necessary.
The US ‘frozen’ Libyan government funds of at least US $ 30 billion should also contribute to Libya’s financing of three core African monetary independence projects: the African Investment Bank in Sirte, the African Monetary Fund based in Yaoundé (Cameroon) and the African Central Bank in Abuja (Nigeria). The establishment of these bodies would have enabled the continent to escape the financial control of the continent by the IMF and the world Bank. An African central bank issuing its own money on the basis of Libyan Gold support would also have given the Francophone States of Africa an Alternative to the French CFA Franc. According to President Sarkozy, Libya represented a “threat to the financial security of humanity” through all these activities.
Geostrategic interests of the US in Africa: “Great Game South” the Libya war is a Station of the African variant of the new “Great Game”, the geopolitical “game” for power and influence on Eurasia, which was carried out in the 18th/19th century between Great Britain and the Tsar Empire for access to India. This battle has long been underway with new players, supplemented by the” Great Game South”: the fight for Africa. The US and its Western allies aim to neutralize the influence of China and Russia in Africa. Libya played a key role, because it was the only state in the Region that was not under the supervision of AFRICOM or NATO-partnership. draft: false
The Mediterranean sea is to be converted into a NATO internal sea, in North Africa a springboard for AFRICOM in Africa. The mission of AFRICOM is to co-ordinate American military activities in Africa in order to contribute to enhancing “security and stability”. African States should be enabled to develop the “democracy” to promote economic development, to provide for a common defense, and to serve their peoples better. In 2008, Vice Admiral Robert Moeller, then deputy African commander, said that the aim was to secure the free access of African resources to the “world market” – that is, the euro-American market. The African Union’s armed forces are to be integrated into a chain of command, headed by the American African commander.
The war against Libya was also about the establishment of an external post as a Basis for the American projection of power in the Rest of the African continent. From there, the Maghreb, the southern Mediterranean and the countries of the Sahel-Zone are to be controlled. The emergence of a new network of intra-African cooperation is to be prevented, and Africa’s Reflection on its own strength torpedoed, because this is contrary to the geostrategic and economic interests of the euro-American powers. With Gaddafi, you got rid of the sharpest adversary of the neo-colonial AFRICOM project, because he was strictly against a base for AFRICOM on African soil. draft: false
During his term as president of the African Union in 2009-2010, Gaddafi set all the levers against the Expansion of Africa in motion, so that its headquarters in Stuttgart had to remain. A U.S. embassy delegation in Tripoli informed US Secretary of State Rice before her visit to Libya in 2008 about the Libyan government’s negative attitude to a US military presence in Africa " " regarding AFRICOM, the government of Libya considers that any foreign military presence on the African continent, regardless of its mission, would constitute unacceptable Neo-colonialism and also an attractive target for al-Qaeda”.
The NATO war against Libya is only consistent if we consider this Background. General Carter F. Ham, the African commander during the Libya war, expressed satisfaction about the war in September 2011, in which no single soldier of the” coalition of the willing " had fallen in battle. It is now important to include what has been learned in the planning of future operations in other regions where no structures for airspace surveillance and Aerodrome management held by NATO are available. The US is now faced with the task of developing these skills together with African partners. As early as October 2011, the US announced to send troops to four African states-barely a month after the fall of the city of Tripoli and the same month in which Gaddafi was murdered: Uganda, the Central African Republic, the South Sudan and the Democratic Republic of the Congo. AFRICOM also announced the implementation of fourteen joint military maneuvers in African states for 2012.
The military recapture of Africa is under way. The Libyan war, the first African-led war, was the dress rehearsal for the leadership of future new colonial wars with a “humanitarian face”.
The bill for Gaddafi’s resistance is presented
In the summer of 2011, the limited intervention to protect civilians, as called for by UN Security Council Resolution 1973, had turned into an anti-international campaign for regime change in Libya. In Libya, NATO supported the very elements that the “coalition of the willing” had fought in Afghanistan and Iraq against the reliable ally in the fight against terrorism. Libya, once a prosperous state, was plunged into disaster by the NATO war. This is made clear, among other things, by the “Human Development Index”, which measures the variables of living standards, life expectancy, infant mortality, income, educational attainment, nutrition, health, leisure, infrastructure, etc. and puts them in a place number. As recently as 2010, Libya was ranked 53rd, the highest of any african continent. By comparison, Croatia was 51st in 2010, Romania 50th, Bulgaria 58th and Turkey 83rd. In 2012, Libya was ranked only 64th. In an interview in his final year in office, Barack Obama confessed that the Libyan war was his “worst mistake” – late insight.
How could war have been prevented? Through obedience and submission to Western interests, such as Libya’s accession to a NATO partnership, a place for AFRICOM headquarters on Libyan soil, unimpeded exploitation of the country’s resources by Western companies, Subjugation to the conditions of oil and gas trading on the basis of the petro-dollar. What made Gaddafi a goal of war, the journalist Glenn Greenwald, therefore thinks, was that he was not docile enough to Western interests. That is why it had to be removed from the way.
I would like to echo the verdict of the British investigative journalist Dan Glazebrook: what the war against Libya “should teach us above all else is the recognition that the United States, Great Britain, France and their allies are doing everything and not even doing anything. will shy away from the total social collapse (of a country) in order to maintain its diminishing global economic importance through military destruction. This is the reality behind all the talk of protecting civilians, humanity and promoting democracy. All Western military interventions should be seen in this way”.
The sources of the text as a link list can be found here.