[Peace-discuss] The catastrophe in Libya no one wants to talk about

[David Johnson]

Mr Cameron has not been back to Benghazi, nor is he likely to do so as
warring militias reduce Libya to primal anarchy in which nobody is safe. The
majority of Libyans are demonstrably worse off today than they were under
Gaddafi, notwithstanding his personality cult and authoritarian rule. The
slaughter is getting worse by the month and is engulfing the entire country.

The catastrophe in Libya no one wants to talk about, least of all David
Cameron

Patrick Cockburn 02 November 2014. Posted in  <http://stopwar.org.uk/news>
News 

David Cameron is silent about the Libya he 'liberated' in 2011 as warring
militias reduce it to primal anarchy in which nobody is safe.

 
<http://stopwar.org.uk/news/the-catastrophe-in-libya-no-one-wants-to-talk-ab
out-least-of-all-david-cameron> 53 

Description: David Cameron in Libya

David Cameron speaking in Benghazi in 2011, making pledges he now wants to
forget.

  _____  

REMEMBER the time when Libya was being held up by the American, British,
French and Qatari governments as a striking example of benign and successful
foreign intervention? 

It is worth looking again at film of
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7_OFaE19myg> David Cameron grandstanding as
liberator in Benghazi in September 2011 as he applauds the overthrow of
Muammar Gaddafi and tells the crowd that "your city was an example to the
world as you threw off a dictator and chose freedom".

Mr Cameron has not been back to Benghazi, nor is he likely to do so as
warring militias reduce Libya to primal anarchy in which nobody is safe. The
majority of Libyans are demonstrably worse off today than they were under
Gaddafi, notwithstanding his personality cult and authoritarian rule. The
slaughter is getting worse by the month and is engulfing the entire country.

"Your friends in Britain and France will stand with you as you build your
democracy," pledged Mr Cameron to the people of Benghazi. Three years later,
they are words he evidently wants to forget, since there was almost no
reference to Libya, the one military intervention he had previously ordered,
when he spoke in the House of Commons justifying British airstrikes against
Islamic State (Isis) in Iraq.

The foreign media has largely ceased to cover Libya because it rightly
believes it is too dangerous for journalists to go there. Yet I remember a
moment in the early summer of 2011 in the frontline south of Benghazi when
there were more reporters and camera crews present than there were rebel
militiamen. Cameramen used to ask fellow foreign journalists to move aside
when they were filming so that this did not become too apparent. In reality,
Gaddafi's overthrow was very much Nato's doing, with Libyan militiamen
mopping up.

Human rights organisations have had a much better record in Libya than the
media since the start of the uprising in 2011. They discovered that there
was no evidence for several highly publicised atrocities supposedly carried
out by Gaddafi's forces that were used to fuel popular support for the air
war in the US, Britain, France and elsewhere. 

These included the story of the mass rape of women by Gaddafi's troops that
Amnesty International exposed as being without foundation. The uniformed
bodies of government soldiers were described by rebel spokesmen as being men
shot because they were about to defect to the opposition. Video film showed
the soldiers still alive as rebel prisoners so it must have been the rebels
who had executed them and put the blame on the government. 

Foreign governments and media alike have good reason to forget what they
said and did in Libya in 2011, because the aftermath of the overthrow of
Gaddafi has been so appalling. The extent of the calamity is made clear by
two reports on the present state of the country, one by Amnesty
International called "Libya: Rule of the gun - abductions, torture and other
militia abuses in western Libya" and a second by Human Rights Watch,
focusing on the east of the country, called "Libya: Assassinations May Be
Crimes Against Humanity".

The latter is a gruesome but fascinating account of what people in Benghazi
call "Black Friday," which occurred on 19 September this year, the most
deadly day in a three-day assassination spree in the city, in which "the
dead included two young activists, members of the security services, an
outspoken cleric and five other civilians". The activists were Tawfiq
Bensaud and Sami Elkawafi, two men aged 18 and 19, who had campaigned and
demonstrated against militia violence. Among others who died was a prominent
cleric, Seikh Nabil Sati, who was murdered, as well as a young man,
Abdulrahman al-Mogherbi, who was kidnapped at the cleric's funeral and later
found dead.

Their murders brought to 250 the number of victims of politically motivated
killings this year in Benghazi and Derna, the major cities in eastern Libya.
This is not counting the far larger number who have died in military
operations between the different militias or the battles that have raged in
and around Tripoli.

Without the rest of the world paying much attention, a civil war has been
raging in western Libya since 13 July between the Libya Dawn coalition of
militias, originally based in Misrata, and another militia group centred on
Zintan. A largely separate civil war between the forces of retired General
Khalifa Haftar and the Shura Council of Benghazi Revolutionaries is being
fought out in the city. Government has collapsed. Amnesty says that torture
has become commonplace with victims being "beaten with plastic tubes,
sticks, metal bars or cables, given electric shocks, suspended in stress
positions for hours, kept blindfolded and shackled for days."

It is easy enough to deride the neo-imperial posturing of David Cameron and
Nicolas Sarkozy, or to describe the abyss into which Libya has fallen since
2011. The people whom that intervention propelled into power have reduced a
country that had been peaceful for more than half a century to a level of
violence that is beginning to approach that of Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan. 

Whatever Western intentions, the result has been a disaster. In Libya, as in
Syria today, Western intervention was supposedly in support of democracy,
but was conducted in alliance with the Sunni absolute monarchies of the Gulf
who had no such aims.

The temptation is to say that foreign intervention invariably brings
catastrophe to the country intervened in. But this is not quite true: US air
strikes in defence of the Syrian Kurds at Kobani and the Iraqi Kurds in
their capital Erbil are justifiable and prevent massacres by Isis. But the
drawback is that foreign intervention is always in the interests of the
country intervening. These may, for a time, coincide with the real interests
of the country where the foreign intervention is taking place, but this
seldom lasts very long.

This is the lesson of recent foreign interventions in Afghanistan, Iraq,
Libya and Syria. Most Afghans wanted the Taliban out in 2001 but they did
not want the warlords back, something the Americans found acceptable. The US
would fight the Taliban, but not confront the movement's sponsors in
Pakistan, thereby dooming Afghanistan to endless war. In Iraq in 2003, many
Iraqis welcomed the US-led invasion because they wanted the end of Saddam
Hussein's rule, but they did not want a foreign occupation. The Americans
did not want the fall of Saddam to benefit Iran, so they needed to occupy
the country and install their own nominees in power.

In all three cases cited above, the West intervened in somebody else's civil
war and tried to dictate who won. There was a pretence that the Taliban,
Saddam, Gaddafi or Assad were demonically evil and without any true
supporters. 

This foreign support may give victory to one party in a civil war, as in
Libya, which they could not win by relying on their own strength. In Iraq,
the beleaguered Sunni could not fight a US-backed Shia government so it
needed to bring in al-Qaeda. Thus the conditions were created that
eventually produced Isis. 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.chambana.net/pipermail/peace-discuss/attachments/20150217/bcb31f6e/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 18341 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.chambana.net/pipermail/peace-discuss/attachments/20150217/bcb31f6e/attachment-0001.jpg>