The Old Imperialist Project to Divide Libya in Three has been Executed

– Part 1: "The war on Libya and the coming imperial re-division of Africa" , 27 April 2011
– Part 2: "The media misinformation campaign behind the war", 16 May 2011.
– Part 3: "The Secret NATO Ground War" , 6 June 2011.

Preface: Reality versus Fiction

Almost all of the text herein was written a few months in advance as part of a series on Libya that was slowly updated, revised, and then released in pieces. Much of it was even sat on. It is fitting to conclude it in Tripoli, Libya. To be here on the ground in Libya is to be witness to the lies and warped narratives of the mainstream media and the governments that have been used to launch and justify this unjustifiable war. The mainstream media has been a major force in this war. They have made the false claims that enabled the current criminal war against Libya.

Passing through the neighbourhood of Fashloom in Tripoli it is apparent that no jets attacked it as Al Jazerrra and the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) falsely claimed. Now the same media networks, newspapers, and wires claim on a daily basis that Tripoli is about to fall and that the Transitional Council is making new advances to various cities. Tripoli is nowhere near falling and is relatively peaceful. Foreign journalists have also all been taken to the areas that are being reported to have fallen to the Transitional Council, such as Sabha and its environs.

The media at the Rixos Hotel (now the Swiss Inn) in Tripoli have consistently made false reports and changing the focus of the news from what really matters. They report about information from “secure internet services” which essentially describes embassy and intelligence communication mediums. This is also tied to the “shadow internet” networks that the Obama Administration is promoting to topple various governments around the world from Latin America to Africa and Eurasia.

The foreign press staying in Libya have deliberately worked to paint a false picture of Libya as a country on the brink of collapse and Colonel Qaddafi as a despot with little support. The other day one was wearing a bulletproof vest for his report in a peaceful area where there was no need for it. These journalists are just as bad as the embedded journalists that follow the line of the armed forces that they are embedded with. Most the foreign press has betrayed the sacred trust of the public to report accurately and fairly.

Not only are they actively misreporting, but it seems that they are actively working against Libya. They and their editors have deliberately fashioned reports and taken pictures and footage that have been used to portray Tripoli as an empty ghost town. Le Monde for example published an article on July 7, 2011 by Jean-Philippe Rémy, which was accompanied by selected misleading photographs that presented Tripoli as a ghost city. The photographs were taken by Laurent Van der Stickt, but it is the editors in Paris who select which pictures are used for publication. Le Monde should be held responsible for the clear war propaganda it is publishing to mislead the French people.

Sky News is no better. Lisa Holland of Sky News has always used the words “claimed,” “claim,” and “unverified” for anything that Libyan officials say, but presents everything that NATO says without the same doubt-casting language as if it is an unquestionable truth. She has used every chance she has had to degrade the Libyans. When she visited the bombed home of the daughter of Mohammed Ali Gurari, where the entire family was killed by NATO, she repeatedly asked if Qaddafi was responsible for the bombing to the disgust of many except the reporters who have also helped paint distorted pictures in the mind of their audiences and readers. She has delibertly gone about behaving as if she did not understand the reality of the situation when she knew full well who had killed the civilian family.

Other disingenuous reports include those of Liseron Boudoul., Boudoul is a reporter for Télévision Française 1 (TF1), who has been in Tripoli for months. She reported on March 22, 2011 that all the reports coming out of Tripoli are reviewed and censored by Tripoli. This was laughable. If the Libyans were censoring the news they would not have allowed her to make that statement or for her and her colleagues to continue their misinformation campaign. Like all the other foreign journalists in Libya, she has seen the popular support that Colonel Qaddafi has amongst his people, but one would never know from her reports about Libya.

Much of what is being passed as news by foreign reporters on the ground is a reflection of the foreign policies of the states they come from. There is a real military-industrial-media complex at work in North America and Western Europe. Most the media claims are nonsense and contrary to the facts on the ground. They ignore the realities and hard facts that would turn their own domestic publics against their governments and mobilize their people against the war in Libya. They have helped portray the victim as the aggressor. They use every chance they have to demonize the Libyan government and to lionize NATO. Essentially many of these so-called journalists are professional propagandists.

The mainstream media has also basically worked as an intelligence branch of the Pentagon and NATO in multiple ways. The mainstream media has been party to atrocities and crimes and that point should not be lost when analyzing the war in Libya. British journalists have even been said to have given coordinates for bombings to NATO.

Libya: A Nation and its Society

Libya has been a meeting point for various peoples, because of its geographic location. The inhabitants of Libya are a mixed people of various stocks from Africa, the Mediterranean Basin, Europe, and Southwest Asia. Berbers, Egyptians, Greeks, Italic peoples, Levantine peoples, Iranians, Arabs, Turks, Vandals, Hadjanrais, Tuareg peoples (the Kel Tamajaq or Kel Tamashq), and several other groups have all contributed to the mosaic that is the present population and society of Libya.

The genesis of the concept of a Libyan nation as a loosely-knit entity started with the imperial rule of the Ottoman Empire in North Africa. For the inhabitants of Libya it resulted in a shared feeling of similarity that intensified after the Italo-Ottoman War. After this war between the Ottoman Empire and Italy, the three Ottoman provinces in Libya would fall under Italian colonial control.

From the Ottoman and Italian periods onwards up until the years after the Italian defeat the Eastern Libyans had much in common with their kindred in Egypt, while Western Libyans had much in common with their kindred in Tunisia and Algeria, and while Southern Libyans had much in common with their kindred in Niger, Chad, and Sudan. The inhabitants of Libya, however, also had much in common with each other. This included a shared history, a shared language with similar dialects of Arabic, a shared faith, and shared political goals.

Geographic proximity and a united feeling of animosity towards the Italians were also important ingredients in establishing a sense of nationhood. Under the Italian rule of Libya this feeling of similarity amongst the local inhabitants would eventually come to bud as an abstract national identity and as the Libyan resistance to Italian colonial rule. The aspirations of this indigenous resistance were local sovereignty and unity without any foreign yoke.

The Devil’s Game: Divide and Conquer

Libya has fallen deeper and deeper into a trap. The flames of internal fighting have been fuelled in Libya with the aim of replicating the same divisional scenarios that occurred in the former Yugoslavia and Iraq. These plans are also aimed at igniting chaos in North Africa and West Africa in an effort to re-colonize Africa in its entirety.

Seizing Libya to confiscate and manage its vast wealth and controlling its resources are the desired objectives of the E.U. and Washington. The White House and the E.U. countries have watched as a foreign-propelled civil war was initiated in Libya and as Colonel Qaddafi regained control of almost all Libya. They then decided to intervene when the Benghazi-based Transitional Council was lying in its deathbed and was in very desperate shape. If it had to, the Transitional Council was willing to make a deal with the “Devil” for its survival. Thus, the Transitional Council embraced its NATO enablers even closer.

It must also be asked, which Libyan tribes have publicly sided with the Transitional Council? Regardless of any animosities towards the tribal system, this is a very important question that allows one to have a sense of popular opinion. Anyone who understands Libyan society also understands the heavy political weight and representation the tribes have.

Also, how many people remain in Benghazi? The demographics of that city have changed since the start of the conflict. Many people have fled to Egypt and abroad from Benghazi. This is not due to the fighting alone, but is tied to a lack of support for the Transitional Council, the foreign fighters they have brought, and the lawlessness in Benghazi.

The Longstanding Demands to Divide Libya into Three Trusteeships

There have been longstanding designs for dividing Libya that go back to 1943 and 1951. This 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 how a federal system has been established over Iraq following the illegal 2003 Anglo-American invasion. If the Libyans did not accept federalism in their relatively homogenous society they could have forfeited their independence in 1951. [1]

Great sacrifices were made by the Libyans who fought to liberate their nation. 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 November 20, 1942, and Tripoli on January 23, 1943. [2] 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, while Paris was given control over the region of Fezzan (Fazzan), which is roughly one-third of Libya and the area to the southwest of the country bordering Algeria, Niger, and Chad. [3]

Following the end of the Second World War the victors and Italy attempted to partition Libya into territories that they would govern over as trust territories. It is because of the failure of this project that the Libyans gained independence as a united nation. The political scientist Henri Habib describes this best:

The Allies, hav[ing] introduced a division in [Libya], hoped to have enough time to achieve their own ambitions. In the meantime, the Four Big Powers – the U.S.A., the U.S.S.R., the U.K., and France – met on two occasions at Potsdam and at San Francisco to discuss among other things the future of the former Italian colonies in Africa, including Libya. They referred the matter to the Council of Foreign Ministers of the Big Four. The latter met in London in September, 1945, and later in April, 1946, but were unable to agree. The U.S. proposed a collective United Nations Trusteeship over Libya; the U.S.S.R. proposed a Soviet Trusteeship over Tripolitania; while France wanted it returned to Italy. Eventually, the Soviets adopted the French view, but insisted on a Soviet-Italian Trusteeship. The British were ambiguous on the future; Britain and the U.S. later accepted an Italian Trusteeship on the condition, Britain insisted, that Cyrenaica be excluded. On February 10, 1947, a peace treaty with Italy was signed in Paris without settling the question of the Italian colonies. The Italians renounced all rights to their former colonies. They were secretly encouraged to make this renunciation in exchange for a vague promise of a U.N. Trusteeship over some of their former colonies. The Paris Conference had established as a corollary to the 1947 Peace Treaty with Italy a special Four Power Commission of Investigation to study the conditions in the former Italian colonies. They visited Libya from March 6, to May 20, 1948. They also consulted with the Italian government. The Commission was unable to arrive at a common decision, and conflicting recommendations were made, despite a strong desire made by the Libyan people for their independence. [...] When the foreign ministers of the Big Four met on September 13, 1948, to receive the recommendations, they had little choice but to refer the whole matter to the General Assembly of the U.N. scheduled to meet on September 15, 1948. Thus the question of the Libyan and other Italian colonies was placed on the U.N. General Assembly agenda. [4]

Once the matter was handed to the U.N. General Assembly the British and the Italians made a last-ditch proposal on May 10, 1949, called the Bevin-Sfora Plan for Libya that wanted Libyan territory divided into an Italian-controlled Tripolitania, a British-controlled Cyrenaica, and a French-ruled Fezzan. [5] The motion failed by a vote of one and if it were not for the crucial vote of Haiti the U.N. would have portioned Libya into three separate countries. [6]

The defeat of the plans to divide Libya at the U.N. would not be the end of the project to divide the North African country. There was still the internal card, division from within. This is where King Idris comes into the picture.

Soft Balkanization through a Federal Emirate

Libya could have ended up like Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, and the Trucial Sheikhdoms which became the United Arab Emirates. The British, the French, and the Italians did not give up their designs for Libya even when the U.N. General Assembly voted in favour of a united and independent Libya. They continued to try to divide Libya and even establish spheres of influence with the U.S. government in Libya through Libyan federalism and through an unelected National Assembly controlled by King Idris and a small circle of Libyan chieftains. [7]

The federalist system was unacceptable to many Libyans, which saw the new undemocratic National Assembly as a means of sidestepping the Libyan people. Moreover, the elected representatives from the heavily populated region of Tripolitania would be outweighed by the unelected chieftains from Cyrenaica and Fezzan. The official U.S. position was that the so-called “indigenous political leadership” of Cyrenaica and Fezzan enter the National Assembly with the elected representatives from Tripolitania on the “basis of equal representation for all parts of Libya.” [8] This was Orwellian double-speak that was meant to sidestep the will of the Libyan people. What was being pushed for by the U.S., Britain, France, and Italy was a country similar to the Arab sheikhdoms of the Persian Gulf.

In 1951, the U.S. State Department had this to say about the unelected National Assembly and King Idris:

The Department hopes and expects that all powers previously exercised by the Administering Authorities [meaning France and Britain] will, by the date fixed by the [U.N. General Assembly] (i.e., January 1, 1952) “have been transferred to the duly constituted Libyan Government”. Proclamation of independence is expected to follow thereafter, together with the assumption by [the] Emir (Idris Al Senusi) of his position as constitutional monarch of United Libya. [9]

This did not sit well with many Arabs. Egypt was highly critical and saw through the diplomatic deceit. The Egyptian and wider Arab opposition was based on the following rationale:

(a) the National Assembly (which prepared the [Libyan] constitution) should have been an elected rather than an appointed body (Egypt has contended previously that only an elected [or democratic] National Assembly in which the three parts of Libya [...] were represented in proportion to their population could properly represent the people of Libya in the constitution-making process [...]) ; (b) the form of government should be unitary rather than federal ; and (c) the present federation plan is merely a disguised method of maintaining old imperialist control over Libya by the interested great powers. [10]

In this regard, Henri Habib states: “When Libya obtained its independence in December 1951, federalism was imposed upon the country by King Idris and the foreign powers [specifically Britain, France, the U.S., and Italy] despite opposition from the majority of Libyans.” [11] He adds further: “Libyans saw their country deliberately divided by Britain and France, and [the] seeds of division planted among them.” [12]

Federalism, however, would be defeated by the steadfast pan-Arab demands for unity by the Libyan people:

Despite the initially strong opposition of King Idris and his British mentors, the country was forced by the nature of things to adopt the unitary system in April 1963. The federal experiment was a failure and even the king had to acknowledge it. A special royal decree was issued on April 27, 1963, abolishing federalism and establishing the unitary system. [13]

If Washington, London, Paris, and Rome were successful, modern-day Libya would mostly likely not have become a republic. Instead Libya would most probably mirror the United Arab Emirates in many respects. In effect Libya would exist as an Arab petro-sheikhdom in the Mediterranean and the only Arab sheikhdom outside of the Persian Gulf littoral.

Calculated Balkanization via Civil War: Dividing Libya into Trusteeships

There was more than just fate on the side of the Libyan people who had fought for their independence. The imperialist attempt to divide Libya into three territories was defeated by the Libyan people. In the words of Henri Habib:

Despite the attempts made by a number of powers to keep Libya divided and weak after 1951 by establishing a federal system in a homogenous state, the Libyans amended their own constitution in 1963, established a unitary state and removed a major obstacle to the unity of [Libya]. This obstacle was an administrative or structural impediment to the fuller evolution of independence which the Libyans sacrificed so much to achieve. [14]

During the previous scheme to divide their country many Libyans realized that the foreign objectives where to enhance the strength of King Idris as a foreign vassal or as a local manager of foreign interests, like the Arab monarchs in Jordan and Morocco, and to weaken the Libyan nation. [15] Yet, today the objectives to divide Libya into the three territories of Tripolitania, Cyrenaica, and Fezzan are very much alive. James Clapper Jr., the U.S. Director of National Intelligence, had testified to the U.S. Senate in March 2011 that at the end of the conflict Libya would revert to its previous federalist divisions which existed under the monarchy and that the country would have two or three different administrations. [16]

Thus, effectively the three Western European countries that wanted to divide Libya amongst themselves and the U.S. have reassumed their balkanization project. Britain, France, and Italy have all publicly admitted to sending military advisors to the Transitional Council: “Italian Defen[c]e Minister Ignazio La Russa said 10 military instructors would be sent and details were being worked out. He spoke Wednesday [April 20, 2011] after meeting with his British counterpart, Liam Fox.” [17] It is most likely that hundreds of NATO and Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) military advisors and special troops are operating on the ground in Libya.

France has openly admitted funnelling weapons into the Western Mountains to forces hostile to the regime in Tripoli. [18] This is an unquestionable breach of the U.N. sanctions related to this war and to international law. The French argument that Paris is sending arms to civilians to protect themselves is a non-sequitur argument. It has no legal standing whatsoever and is an utter lie that demands an international legal response.

Weapons shipments have also been flown into Benghazi by these Western European powers and the U.S. under the disguise of humanitarian aid. Moreover there are signs that the small insurgency in the Western Mountains was coordinated by U.S. diplomats in November 2010. [19] One U.S. diplomat was asked to leave Libya in November 2010 for making unauthorized secret trips to the area, just as U.S. and French diplomats have done in Hama to stroke tensions in Syria. [20]

This war is part of a project that intends to erode the national bonds of the Libyan people. Admiral Stravridis, the U.S. commander in charge of NATO, has told the U.S. Senate Armed Services Committee in March 2011 that he believed that Qaddafi’s support base would shrink as the tribal cleavages in Libya came “into play” as the war proceeded. [21] What Stravridis indirectly spelled out is that the NATO operations in Libya will cause further internal divisions through igniting tribal tensions that will cement regional differences. This is one of the real aims of the bombing campaign. [22] The U.S. and NATO also know full well that if Colonel Qaddafi is gone that the Libyan tribes would bicker amongst themselves for power and be politically divided. This is why they have been very adamant about removing Qaddafi.

The U.S., Britain, France, Italy, and NATO have all banked on a power vacuum that would be left by Qaddafi if he leaves power or dies. This is why they want to kill him. They have calculated that there will be a mad dash to fill the power vacuum that will help divide Libya further and promote violence. They are also very well aware that any tribal conflicts in Libya will spread from North Africa into West Africa and Central Africa.

The NATO-led coalition against Libya is also working hard through intelligence work and psychological operations to create internal divisions within Tripoli. This is intended to not only weaken the regime and to make it act more desperately, but it is also intended to compound the internal divisions within Libya. Britain’s William Hague has offered sanctuary to any Libyan officials, such as Musa Al-Kusa, that wish to defect from Tripoli and has said that London will exempt them from international sanctions. [23] This British offer of “exemption” also illustrates that the international sanctions against Libya are a political weapon with very little moral or ethical meaning or drive.

Even within the Benghazi-based Transitional Council there are divisions that the Pentagon and NATO have been exploiting. The Wall Street Journal had this to report about the animosity between the so-called jihadist elements and the rest of the Transitional Council: “Some rebel leaders are wary of their [meaning the jihadists] roles. ‘Many of us were concerned about these people’s backgrounds,’ said Ashour Abu Rashed, one of Darna’s representatives on the rebel’s provisional government body, the Transitional National Council.” [24] It has also been disclosed that the Transitional Council forces are also fighting each other and using NATO against each other. [25]

Sowing the Seeds of Chaos: Al-Qaeda and Libya

U.S. officials have increasingly been talking about the expansion of Al-Qaeda in Africa and how the “Global War on Terrorism” must be expanded into the African continent by the Pentagon. This talking point has five aims. The first two are to help bolster U.S. Africa Command (AFRICOM) and a NATO-like alliance in Africa. The third is part of a plan to control the Transitional Council and any authentic revolutionary forces within Libya.

The U.S. and the E.U. will not accept a new Libyan government with an independent nature. Within the objectives to control the Transitional Council and any authentic revolutionary forces in Libya there also exists contingency plans. The contingency plans have been paved in order to allow the White House and the E.U., if they should choose to do so, to betray the Transitional Council or dispose of it like an outdated utensil. This is why the Pentagon and the mainstream media have casually started to speak about an Al-Qaeda presence in Libya.

Such betrayal should not be surprising, the U.S. and its allies have betrayed former allies time after time. Saddam Hussein is one example and another is the Taliban government in Kabul, which they nurtured, armed, and bolstered in Afghanistan. Washington and its cohorts are deliberately keeping the Al-Qaeda card in reserve to use against the Transitional Council in case it refuses to cooperate with Washington and NATO’s objectives in Libya and Africa. Regardless of a Transitional Council victory, they also want to use the Al-Qaeda card as a means to possibly justify entering Libya to fight terrorism in the future.

The fourth aim of the talks about Al-Qaeda is to create a narrative for the chaos that will be unveiled in Libya as the military operations mature. It is very likely that terrorist attacks will occur in Libya in some form like they did in Iraq following its 2003 invasion and occupation. These acts of terrorism will be directed and coordinated by Washington and the same group of countries attacking Libya right now.

The fifth aim is the normalization of cooperation by the U.S. and NATO with the mythical Al-Qaeda figures that have been drawn and engrained into the minds of their publics to justify their global militarism. In the words of Robin Cook the former foreign minister of Britain Al-Qaeda is “originally the computer file of the thousands of mujahideen who were recruited and trained with help from the CIA to defeat the Russians [sic.; Soviets].” [26] Washington and NATO are now planning to use Al-Qaeda and the militant Islamists that they themselves have moulded to fight countries opposed to their agenda, such as Syria and Libya, and to implant a new generation of subservient Islamist politicians into Arab countries, such as Egypt.

The Insidious Nature of the Objective of Dividing Libya

This war in Libya has nothing to do with saving lives. The truth has been turned on its head. Killing is saving lives, being dead is being alive, war is peace, destruction is preservation, and open lies are presented as the truth. People have been blinded by a slew of lies and utter deception.

In this conflict most the propaganda, most the lies, and most the hatred have invariably come from the people who are not fighting. Others have been used as their pawns and Libya as their battlefield. All the known advocates of Pentagon militarism and global empire demanded for this war to take place, including Paul Wolfowitz, John McCain, Joseph Lieberman, Eliott Abrahams, Leon Wieseltier, John Hannah, Robert Kagan, and William Kristol.

There has been a total infringement of international law. War crimes and crimes against humanity have been committed by NATO in Libya. The International Criminal Court (I.C.C.) and the U.N. will never investigate these crimes or hold those responsible accountable. Instead the U.N. Security Council and the I.C.C. are political weapons being used against Libya. What have they said about the depleted uranium (D.U.) being used against the Libyan people or the bombing of civilian infrastructure?

As an example that the war has nothing to do with humanitarianism, the first targets of the war were a mint for Libyan dinars and food storage facilities. A heritage building from the Italian period that hosted the offices of the Down’s Syndrome Society, a children’s centre, a pre-school, the Handicapped Women’s Foundation, the National Diabetic Research Centre, and the Crippled Children’s Foundation was bombed too. Hospitals and medical facilities have been bombed, including a complex used for medical oxygen production. The bombings have included residential areas, a hotel, restaurants, a bus filled with civilians, Nasser University (a campus of Al-Fatah University), and a conference hall with participants pushing for peace. Libyan naval forces, which were not being used to attack civilians, were amongst the first targets attacked when the war was launched. At the same time NATO even released a video of the H.M.C.S. Charlottetown, a Canadian frigate, which proved NATO was allowing offensive (and non-defensive) weapons to reach Transitional Council forces. [27]

What is happening in Libya is an insidious process, which is taking place in subtle and gradual steps that are cumulating towards the objective of dividing the Libyans. The longer the war takes the more indebted and entrenched the Transitional Council will be in the services of Washington and Brussels. This is why NATO has deliberately prolonging the war and has been reducing and increasing its help to the Transitional Council’s forces on the battlefield. This is one of the reasons, along with their few numbers, that despite the help of NATO the rebel forces have been pushed back. Even the so-called “friendly fire” incidents were NATO bombed the Transitional Council’s tank column heading towards Tripoli are suspect as being a deliberate attack to prolong the fighting. [28]

NATO has now bombed advancing Transitional Council forces several times. The Transitional Council has found it hard to explain why NATO has been bombing its forces and has even been placed in a position where it had to apologize on April 2, 2011 to NATO when its frontline volunteers were killed by NATO war planes. [29] Once again, internal political fighting amongst the Transitional Council is also a facet in these bombings.

Many reports have described the conflict as intensifying:

The pro-Qadhafi forces mounted a fierce assault on Ajdabiyah since Saturday morning [April 9, 2011]. Following classic military tactics, regime forces first resorted to the heavy artillery firing, which was followed by incursions by infantry troops inside the town. By afternoon, shells were landing at Istanbul street in the city centre, causing panic among several opposition fighters, who chose to hastily flee in their vehicles towards Benghazi. However, some among the opposition ranks stood their ground, and managed to control the north-eastern access to the town. But another artillery barrage appeared to have dislodged them from their fragile moorings. As the battle raged, NATO forces were pitching in with air strikes, which seemed unable to silence the regime’s heavy guns. On Sunday [April 10, 2011], NATO claimed that air strikes had destroyed 11 regime tanks ahead of Ajdabiyah. The government said it had shot down two opposition helicopters, signalling the high intensity of the fighting on the ground as well as in the air. [30]

In reality there is a virtual stalemate. The Transitional Council is not moving westward, but has also been entrenched in its eastward positions due to NATO support.

One objective of NATO is to control both sides. The idea is that as both sides become more desperate they will also increasingly turn to Washington and Brussels for a way out of the war and make more concessions to U.S. and E.U. demands. The Israelis are also another player that can be turned to by both sides in Libya.

Both Tripoli and Benghazi have talked with the U.S. and the E.U. through different channels, which includes using individuals in unofficial positions. Kurt Weldon, a former member of the U.S. Congress for Pennsylvania, went to meet with Libyan officials at the start of April 2011. Weldon made the trip to Tripoli in coordination with the White House. The U.S. media tried to casually gloss over Weldon’s visit running articles about how he did not meet Qaddafi.

At the onset of the fighting Tripoli accepted Venezuelan offers for mediation, which the U.S. and the E.U. undermined and the Transitional Council rejected. Tripoli even said that it accepted an initial March 2011 African Union ceasefire and reform plan, which were ignored by Washington and its allies. Tripoli even requested that the African Union, the U.N., and the E.U. investigate for themselves the claims against the Libyan government. Worldwide, most governments, from Brazil and Nigeria to Malaysia and China, voiced support for a negotiated settlement in Libya, but this has been ignored by the U.S., NATO, and the unrepresentative group of Arab dictators they call their allies.

The Qaddafi family’s subsequent requests for diplomatic negotiations were also turned down by the U.S. and the main E.U. powers. [31] Afterwards, Tripoli again accepted African Union offers for mediation spearheaded by the Republic of South Africa and a repeated African Union proposal for a ceasefire, which the U.S. and the E.U. undermined again and the Transitional Council rejected. [32] The repeated African Union proposal called for a ceasefire, the creation of humanitarian corridors, protection of foreigners, and finally dialogue between both sides in bringing democratic reform. [33] A massive people’s initiative for a reconciliation march across the war zone in Libya was even started, which received little press coverage outside of Africa and a few countries. [34]

The government in Tripoli has even put together a new constitution. [35] Tripoli even gave orders for the military to leave Misurata (Misrata/Misratah) and allow the local tribes to establish political order and security in the city and its surrounding district. [36] During talks with Greece officials from Libya even tried to use billions of frozen dollars to provide humanitarian aid to the Libyan people on both sides of the conflict, but had their plan obstructed and blocked by France. [37]

As they did during the invasion of Iraq, the political ranks have started to show breaks in London. Conservative parliamentarians in the British Parliament, such as John Baron, David Davis, and Peter Bone, are starting to criticize their leader, Prime Minister Cameron. [38] Baron told the British press that the war on Libya has changed significantly: “When it was put before the House, the emphasis was very much on humanitarian assistance. This has changed into a mission of regime change [in Libya].” [39]

The Geo-Politics of Dividing Libya are part of a Broader Global Campaign

What has to be clarified very clearly is that Washington does not want to have a visible presence in the war in North Africa. It has deliberately let its allies take the lead in the operations and painstakingly tried to distance itself from the war. It has presented itself as cautious and reluctant to go to war. [40] Washington’s allies are in reality doing its bidding within a system of empire. What is happening parallels how the alliance system led by the Romans in Peninsular Italy turned into Rome’s early republican empire. As Rome’s allies did more and more of its bidding the Roman Republic began to become more and more definitive in its character as a republican empire. NATO is also in the process of evolving in this manner in regards to the modern global empire of the United States.

This war is not exclusively about controlling energy reserves and the Libyan economy alone. The war also encompasses a strategy to entrench the control of the U.S. and the E.U. over Africa and to balkanize the region. The U.S. and the E.U. were unhappy with the Libyan project to develop and unify Africa, which conflicted with their strategy of maintaining Africa as a provider of raw unmanufactured resources. [41]

It is also no coincidence that the Director of National Intelligence told the U.S. Armed Services Committee during a session covering mostly Libya that Russia and China were also “mortal threats” to the United States. [42] The war in Libya is also meant to shore up the drive into Eurasia, which will target Russia, China, Iran, and Central Asia. There already is a visible correlation between NATO pressure and Turkey’s roles against Libya and Syria.

The Arab sister-republics of Lebanon and Syria are targets too. Syria has been destabilized and the groundwork is underway in Lebanon with the Special Tribunal for Lebanon (STL) to do the same. Control over Libya, Syria, and Lebanon would also complete the Mediterranean Union, which is a geo-political project of the E.U. and Washington to control the entire Mediterranean. [43]

Moreover, the U.S. wants to manage Libyan oil as a means to keep what it sees as its junior Western European partner states under guard and embedded within their alliances with Washington. NATO is also a means of instituting an unseen U.S. occupation over much of the European continent. Managing Libyan energy reserves is also a means for Washington to try to put a muzzle around the Chinese and even India.

NATO Africanus: An African NATO

The war against Libya will also be used to create a NATO-like military structure in Africa that will be tied to AFRICOM. While speaking to the U.S. Senate Arms Services Committee, General Ham of AFRICOM pointed out that a military partnerships with African states and support for regional organization in Africa were strategic U.S. military objectives. What General Ham was in effect saying was that the U.S. was planting the seeds of establishing a NATO-like military structure in Africa that would be subordinate to Washington. In General Ham’s own words:

Secondly, building the Coalition to address the situation in Libya was greatly facilitated through the benefits of longstanding relationships and inter-operability, in this case through NATO. This is the kind of regional approach to security that U.S. Africa Command seeks to foster on the continent [of Africa]. U.S. Africa Command’s priority efforts remain building the security capacity of our African partners. We incorporate regional cooperation and pursuit of inter-operability, in all of our programs, activities, and exercises so our African partners are postured to readily form coalitions to address African security challenges as they arise. [44]

Libya is the crown of Africa and from Libya there is a perfect opening for the U.S., NATO, and the E.U. into the African continent. U.S. and NATO bases may also be established in the eastern portion of Libya and used as a staging ground for a possible war against Sudan. These bases could be established at the request of the Transitional Council and justified as a means of providing stability to North Africa and as a means of protecting the Libyan people in Benghazi.

The Destruction of the Libyan State

Washington and the E.U. want to privatize the Libyan public sector under the control of their corporations, takeover Libyan industries, and control every aspect of the Libyan economy. On March 19, 2011 the Transitional Council declared that it had established a new Benghazi-based Libyan oil corporation and a new national bank under the auspicious of the Central Bank of Benghazi, which would be responsible for all of Libya’s monetary policies. [45] The new Benghazi-based institutions are an opening for an economic invasion and the colonization of Libya. The Central Bank of Benghazi, which is controlled by Britain’s Hong Kong and Shanghai Banking Corporation (HSBC), could also be given control of the Arab Banking Corporation, which could be used as an umbilical cord by Wall Street and Canary Wharf for infiltrating Libya.

The Benghazi-based Transitional Council is already starting the process of exporting oil with the aid of Qatar from the Libyan seaport of Tobruk (Tobruq) near the Egyptian border. [46] The countries and corporations trading with the Transitional Council are all breaching international law. This act is not only intended to weaken Libya, but it also criminal and a form of economic exploitation.

Moreover, Libyan oil will be used to finance weapons sales. The Transitional Council will use the funds from oil sales that it receives to purchase weapons to fight the Libyan military. This will also violate the Arms Trade Treaty (ATT). The Associated Press reported about this on April 1, 2011 saying:

A plan to sell rebel-held oil to buy weapons and other supplies has been reached with Qatar, a rebel official said Friday, in another sign of deepening aid for Libya’s opposition by the wealthy Gulf state after sending warplanes to help confront Moammar Gadhafi’s forces.

It was not immediately clear when the possible oil sales could begin or how the arms would reach the rebel factions, but any potential revenue stream would be a significant lifeline for the militias and military defectors battling Gadhafi’s superior forces. [47]

France, Italy, and Qatar have all recognized the Transitional Council as the government of Libya. [48] The U.S. has followed. Britain, Germany, Turkey, and their allies have also all given various forms of recognition to the Transitional Council. They are all working now to control the new institutions of the Benghazi administered areas of Libya. The European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) is also hovering over Libya under the pretext of furthering democracy amongst the Arabs. [49] They all plan on profiting off the interests from the loans that they are now giving to the Transitional Council.

Two Parallel Administrations in Libya is a Reality

The U.S. and the E.U. are trying to manipulate the Libyan people to their advantages; they are literally using the Libyan people as cannon fodder. The conflict in Libya has deliberately been manipulated. At a minimum, its goals are to end in a deadlock for the time being and to foment chaos across North Africa. Even the sniper attacks on both Libyan sides could be the work of U.S., British, French, NATO, Egyptian, and Khaliji (Gulf) Arab agent provocateurs. The objective is to manipulate the Libyans into destroying their country from the inside just as the people of the former Yugoslavia did before their Yugolsav federation was divided and occupied.

There have been discussions about portioning the country between the regimes in Tripoli and Benghazi. The government in Tripoli would keep everything from Tripoli to somewhere near Misurata, while the Transitional Council would get to administer all the territory in the east running to the Egyptian border. [50] Two parallel Libyan governments are a reality right now. Benghazi already has U.N., U.S., E.U., Qatari, British, French, German, Turkish, and Italian diplomatic missions.

As mentioned earlier, the U.S. and the E.U. waited until the Libyan military had reached the doors of Benghazi and the Transitional Council was nearly on its deathbed to take action. This was no mere coincidence. David Owen, a member of the British House of Lords is worth quoting about the timing of the military intervention: “Without it, within hours, Benghazi would have fallen, and [Colonel Qaddafi] would have won.” [51] This was made to insure the indispensability of NATO to an acquiescent Transitional Council.

Israel and Libya

The supporters of the Transitional Council accuse the Qaddafi regime of being supported by Israel, while they themselves are openly supported by NATO and the Arab petro-sheikhdoms, which oppose democracy and freedom in their own countries. Both sides in Libya have to realize that NATO and Israel, as well as Saudi Arabia and the Arab petro-sheikhdoms, are allies and work closely together against the legitimate aspirations of the Arab peoples. They are merely being played against one another.

Israel is also involved in this equation. The visit of Bernard-Henri Lévy to Benghazi should not be overruled as also serving Israeli interests. [52] Tel Aviv has sought to play both sides. Rumours about an Israeli plan to establish a military base on the Libyan eastern border with Egypt have also been circulating for months. What should also be considered is that just like the natural gas deal between Israel and Egypt, where Egyptian natural gas was sold to Israel for below market prices, Libyan water from the Great Man-Made River could be diverted to Israel from a pipeline running through Egypt. Like South Sudan, it is being said that the Transitional Council will recognize Israel. Lévy has also said that the Transitional Council has told him that they intend to recognize Israel. [53]

The Role of Banks and Currency in the War on Libya

Banks have a role to play in this war. As well as the energy sector, the U.S. and Western European financial sectors have been part of this war. Libya is blessed as a rare case in regards to its national revenue. As a state Libya does not spend most its annual national income. The vast financial holdings and sovereign funds that Libya owns have been looked at as spoils of war by a large coalition of major banks and financial companies.

In 2008, Goldman Sachs was given 1.3 billion dollars (U.S.) by the Libyan Investment Authority. [54] In unfathomable terms, Goldman Sachs told the Libyans that 98% of the investment value was lost, which means that the Libyans lost almost all their investment. [55] Goldman Sachs had merely appropriated Libya’s money, because it needed it due to the global financial crisis. The Libyan government and Goldman Sachs would then try to work something out by giving Libya huge shares in Goldman Sachs, but the negotiations would fail in 2009. Nor was Goldman Sachs alone in taking Libyan money; the Société Générale SA, the Carlyle Group, J.P. Morgan Chase, Och-Ziff Capital Management Group and Lehman Brothers Holdings were all also holding vast amounts of Libyan funds. [56]

The fact that Libya is rich is one of its crimes. Any attempts to save the U.S. dollar or to establish a new global currency or to manipulate global currency rates in favour of the U.S. would greatly be supplemented through control of the vast financial assets of Libya. In order for the U.S. and its allies to impose any new currency relationship in the world they would have to insure that countries like Libya are stripped of their financial assets and savings. Under this perspective no country can be allowed to be debt-free or accumulate any type of monetary savings.

Libyans Must Stand United

History has been warped, there is an attempt to monopolize the media information about Libya, and the victims have become demonized as the aggressors by an unholy coalition of corrupt governments, media networks, and major corporations led by Washington. The NATO attacks on Libya are not a humanitarian effort. It should be noted that according to Britain’s Channel Four the first confirmed casualties were civilians killed by the U.S. military, which was immediately denied by Washington and its allies. [57]

At the same time, the war against Libya is one that could never have happened if Libyans did not fight one another.

There is an analogy that is worth mentioning regardless of one’s beliefs: the Devil cannot hurt people, he gets people to hurt one another. This is what has happened in the case of the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya. The downfall of Libya has been through Libyans fighting one another. This is how Washington and its cohorts invited themselves into bombarding Libya. There is no question about it; Libyans must stop fighting one another if they want to save their country. They must also address the issue of internal corruption.

Signs of Hope: Libya’s Promise of Tomorrow and a New Strategic Axis?

The Libyans have realized that they need to continue on a pan-African path and to follow a model of self-sufficiency. Many in Tripoli have also started thinking about the future. Old disputes and animosities may also be put aside with other global players that are opposed to U.S. hegemony and opposed to NATO.

A strategic axis between Libya, Algeria, Syria, and Iran that will later include Lebanon may blossom as the Libyans begin to explore their strategic options on the political and security levels. Libya has realized that it has made mistakes and now knows that it must find a place in some sort of a global counter-alliance against the U.S. and its allies. Tripoli will eventually try to find a strategic equilibrium for itself in a geo-strategic concept that will balance Russia, China, and Iran.

A new strategic concept for the Libyans will also include Venezuela and the Bolivarian Bloc in Latin America. Caracas, along with Syria, has been Libya’s staunchest supporter during the NATO war. Both the diplomatic missions of Venezuela and Syria have been very active in showing their support in Tripoli.

Eventually, Lebanon and Libya will also mend fences. The dossier of Musa Al-Sadr only remains between Lebanon and Libya on the insistence of Nabih Berri. The upper echelons within Hezbollah, including Secretary-General Hassan Nasrallah, have tried not to antagonize Berri and the leadership of the Amal Movement on the issue of Musa Al-Sadr as part of an effort to prevent divisions in the Shiite Muslim community of Lebanon, but if a strategic axis begins to form between Algeria, Libya, Syria, and Iran the issue of Al-Sadr will have to be resolved in Lebanon.

In France and Western Europe tensions are also rising internally and against Washington. Gaullism may become reinvigorated in a declining France. The people of Africa have also become even more aware of the exploitation of their continent and the importance of Libya to the rest of Africa.

Most importantly, the NATO bombings have helped bring much of Libya together too and have given the nation a new sense of mission. The Libyan people have been reinvigorated with this sense of mission. They have been energized and a revolutionary spirit has been stirred and awakened in the youth. When the dust settles, the people of Libya will begin to clean house and weed out corruption and the political practices that prevented action in Libya. The worst enemy of all for the Libyans has been the enemy within. As a promise, soon enough the Libyans will challenge those that see themselves as the masters of the world.

This war has chiefly been against the Libyan people. It has not been the Libyan military that has kept the country standing, but the Libyan people themselves and their resistance. NATO has become tired and faces many internal and external pressures. Italy has now been forced to withdraw from the war. [58] Norway will also withdraw in August 2011. [59] France has even accepted what Paris and NATO refused to accept from the start of the conflict, namely to end the war and to stop bombing Libya if both sides in Tripoli and Benghazi start political talks. [60] In reality, Tripoli has been calling for political dialogue with an entire international chorus for months, but it has been the U.S. and the E.U. that have refused to listen. This also exposes the guilt of the U.S. and the E.U. in waging a war of aggression against Libya.

It should also be noted that Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi has also said that he was told that the war would end when the population of Tripoli revolted against Colonel Qaddafi. [61] This is a significant statement by the Italian Prime Minister. An analysis of cause and effect is very important here. It means that the war did not start as a result of any revolts, but was intended to instigate revolts against the Libyan government. This would explain why NATO has deliberately been targeting and punishing the civilian population. The aim has been to instigate them against Colonel Qaddafi.

The Transitional Council forces and NATO are offensively coordinating in the conflict. This was noticed in battles near the oil city of Brega and is part of a mad dash to gain as much territory and oil fields as possible before Libya has divided. [62] It is in this context that Washington also now recognized the Transitional Council as the government of Libya. [63]

The security of the familiar is gone. The issue of succession to Colonel Qaddafi was something that the Libyans thought little about or largely ignored prior to the conflict in Libya, but it is now something that has been addressed. If the war never happened, it is likely that there would have been a civil war in Libya once Qaddafi left. Now this is something that has been prepared for. Many of the corrupt people in Libya have also been exposed and have shown their true colours too. Libyans are no longer ignoring these problems as they did before.

Libya is not perfect and many of the Libyan people will be amongst the first to admit it. Now many of them are prepared to fix their problems at home for the sake of saving their country, their society, and their families. They face an uphill battle, but they are willing to fight and to make all the sacrifices needed for a better tomorrow. This inner recognition and will to change is the start of authentic change. These people will not give up even if NATO were to launch an invasion or increased its bombings to devastating levels. Although the conflict is far from over, in the end history will judge the NATO war against Libya as a huge mistake and as the beginning of the end for NATO.