“Responsibility to protect”, libya and neo-colonialism

Fayiz as-Saraj, the "internationally recognized" Prime Minister and Head of State of Libya can hardly control the capital Tripoli and is an adversary of Chalifa Haftar. Picture: pm.gov.ly

How Libya, after massive lies allegedly about "human rights" in a "Democracy" The country was supposed to be bombed, then disintegrated in chaos and colonial powers are fighting bitterly for the country’s place in the world

The fact that in 2011, after massive lies and war propaganda, NATO not only launched a bombing war under the pretext of a "No-fly zone" The fact that the wars of aggression that led to the destruction of the state with jihadists and special forces, presumably the disappearance of gold2 and the surrender of chaos to terrorists and militias, are the result of the lies that have been used again and again, most recently in Syria, to wage wars of aggression by terrorists and militias "Responsibility to protect", in English: Responsability to Protect – or abbreviated "R2P" -, to be justified.

But even in 2018, it is not foreseeable that Libya could finally be pacified, let alone democratized. Instead, former colonial states fought bitter feuds for supremacy in the country.

On 5. September, after heavy fighting and many deaths in Tripoli, the UN reached a preliminary ceasefire. But NATO countries Italy and France are still engaged in a bitter feud for supremacy in the chaos-plagued country. These two EU countries, along with the Arab dictators who fought their own petty wars in the country, have taken the lead in the "Pacification" of the country taken over.

Italy had signed a historic deal with Muammar al-Gaddafi in 2008. It was agreed that Italy would compensate Libya for the exploitation and crimes of the colonial period, while Gaddafi undertook to stop the flow of migrants entering Italy illegally.

France, on the other hand, was one of the driving forces behind NATO’s war of aggression, already sharply criticized by Italy at the time. As we know today, but could not read in our media at the time, rightly so. Since the fall of Gaddafi, what bloggers and Italian politicians had warned about, has come to pass "Friends of the dictator" and enemies of democracy had been slandered.

Libya disintegrated into chaos with tribes and sects fighting each other. The result was a civil war that enabled human trafficking on a scale not seen since the end of the importation of slaves into Europe. Hundreds of thousands of migrants streamed into Europe with the help of criminal networks or ended up on slave markets. Gaddafi’s historic warning that Europe was "became black", should destroy the existing Libyan state, began to realize.

Increasing hostility between France and Italy

And so today, as in 2011, Italy and France stand on different positions on Libya policy. While Italy and the USA have "internationally recognized government" France has allied itself with the government of General Khalifa Haftar, which has been established in the east of the country and now controls most of the country in the form of a military dictatorship.

Italy, on the other hand, recently concluded an agreement with the government in Tripoli and financed the fight against illegal migration to Europe, respectively. Italy. Unfortunately, however, the "internationally recognized government" in Tripoli did not even control the capital, let alone the whole country. In fact, their power consists only in bribing militias with the money of EU countries to do the dirty work for them.

Meanwhile, Haftar has established a functioning military administration and eliminated a gross part of the illegal migration networks in his area. Even if it is reported differently from interested circles.

In order to overcome the lack of legitimacy of the "internationally recognized government" demonstrate in Tripoli and persuade the puppet masters of world power to accept him as the legitimate ruler, love Haftar attack Tripoli through allied militias. Thereby even the Italian embassy was threatened. Which led to bitter accusations by the new government in Italy against France that it had authorized, if not ordered, these attacks.

The background of the increasing enmity between France and Italy could be the migration policy. While France advocated the German system of business-friendly (illegal) migration, the new government in Italy is pursuing a strict policy of ending illegal migration.

Tensions between Italy and France reached their peak when, at a meeting between Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban and his Italian partner Matteo Salvini, Macron defined himself as their main opponent and called the enemy of the "populist" Anti-migration policy. Salvini then declared:

My fear is that someone, for economic motives and self-interested national interests, is endangering the security of North Africa and, as a result, that of Europe as a whole. (…) I think of someone who waged a war that should not have been waged, someone who sets election dates without talking to his allies, the UN or the people of Libya.


In Libya, the proxy war is intensifying

But the interests of the region’s dictatorships also play a rough role, and their influence is growing. They use Libya not only as a battlefield for their feuds, but also as a proxy for their power claims in the whole region. Libya is one of the countries that, after the "Arab Spring" Libya is one of the countries that fell into anarchy when the Western-backed insurgents overthrew the nationalist and socialist Ba’athist regimes in the Middle East and North Africa to eliminate the last vestige of Soviet-era influence.

While in the Middle East the weapon of religious differences was cleverly used for the divide-and-rule policy of the major powers, the situation in Libya was different. Here there was no such enmity. Therefore, the way of bombing under the cover of a Security Council decision in favor of a no-fly zone and covert warfare on the ground had to be chosen. Since Russia and China had learned from this abuse of the Security Council, this path has so far been blocked for Syria.

In Libya, the proxy war, which is financed and waged by Qatar on the one hand and Saudi Arabia on the other, is intensifying. But both have very similar extremist jihadists "under contract", the Wahhabi religion is represented in its medieval form.

Qatar supports the Muslim Brotherhood, respectively. the militias allied with it in Libya, which are there simply to fight against Haftar "Islamists" are called. On the other hand, the representatives of Haftar’s military government are seen as "Anti-Islamists" . While Haftar fights against the Brotherhood militias, he is supported by Saudi Arabia.

However, his army includes a number of Salafists, including those already wanted for war crimes by the International Criminal Court in The Hague. In addition, his military government imposed a travel ban on women that had been endorsed by a Wahhabi imam. And so you can see that the term "Islamist" not religious, but a group supported by Qatar and fighting against Haftar.

The former colonial powers, including the U.S., which, contrary to historical fact, claim never to have been a colonial power, have invaded Libya under the pretext of "human rights" and are now fighting like vultures for resources.

Something similar would probably have happened in Syria, had the sacularly ruled country not had powerful friends like Russia and Iran and loyal allies like Lebanon’s coarse party, Hezbollah. When on 18. September 2018, when a French warship pushes unprovoked missiles on Syria, thereby supporting the terrorists, when NATO countries Turkey, France and the U.S. occupy rough parts of the country and bomb the legitimate government of the country when it fights terrorists, when four Israeli bombers take a Russian airplane as cover and bomb the vicinity of the Damascus airport just as an international fair for the reconstruction of the country is taking place, one realizes that Libya is by no means an "mistake" was or "badly run" is.

Rather, Libya was part of the policy of destroying unpopular countries in order to later build on the ruins a rule obedient to the powerful of this world. A policy that a U.S. secretary of state has "Sacrificial destruction"1 was called. And if the German government today declares that in the Syrian crisis "all options open" were, thus also a participation in the war of aggression against Syria, although the scientific service of the German Bundestag classified already repeatedly the actions of the USA as volkerrechtswidrig, and thus a support of these activities by Germany also against the Basic Law verstoben, and not only against article 26 (preparation of a war of aggression) but also against article 25 (Volkerrecht), one recognizes like gladly also Germany the Faustrecht of the Middle Ages use became.

If spending on ruthlessness is to be doubled in the next few years, it certainly won’t be in order to protect ourselves against some "Enemies" to defend. Obviously, the voters do not realize the difference between their wish and the policy of the parties forming a German government – CDU/CSU, SPD, Grune and FDP.

Because while the poll results are against war and rebellion, the election results show the opposite. This once again shows the power of the media, which supports the policy of preparing for war. Just as they agitated against the FDP in 2011, because at that time the FDP was still opposed to participating in the war of aggression against Libya under the bogus legitimation of the "No-fly zone" had pronounced.

Leave a Reply

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