Home Contact Advertise
Roza Cafe
Thursday, 17 April, 2014, 6:49 ( 4:49 GMT )
Press Releases
Technology
Science
Book Reviews
Editorial/OP-ED



About Us

Radio Zone
Place your advert on The Tripoli Post - A3 space
Libya’s Next Fight: Overcoming Western Designs - By Ramzy Baroud
31/08/2011 12:46:00
At a press conference in Tripoli on August 26, a statement read aloud by top Libyan rebel commander Abdel Hakim Belhadj was reassuring. Just a few months ago, disorganised and leaderless rebel fighters seemed to have little chance at ousting Libyan dictator Muammar Al Qathafi and his unruly sons.

But despite vague references to ‘pockets of resistance’ throughout Tripoli, and stiffer battles elsewhere, Libya’s National Transitional Council (NTC) is moving forward to extend its rule as the caretaker of Libyan affairs. In his conference, Belhadj declared full control over Tripoli, and the unification of all rebel fighter groups under the command of the military council.

Listening to upbeat statements by rebel military commanders, and optimistic assessments of NTC members, one gets the impression that the future of Libya is being entirely formulated by the new Libyan leadership.

Arab media, led by Aljazeera, seemed at times to entirely neglect that there was a third and most powerful party involved in the battle between freedom-seeking Libyans and the obstinate dictator.

It is NATO, whose decisive and financially costly military intervention was not charitable, nor was it a moral act. It was a politically and strategically calculated endeavour, with multifaceted objectives that simply cannot be scrutinised in one article.

However, one needs to follow the intense discussion underway in Western media (mainstream or otherwise) to realise the nature of NATO’s true intentions, their expectations and the bleak possibilities awaiting Libya if the new leadership doesn’t quickly remove itself from this most dangerous NATO alliance.

While Libyans fought against brutality, guided by a once distant hope of freedom, democracy and liberation from the grip of a clownish and delusional dictator, NATO calculations, expectedly, had nothing but a self-serving agenda in mind.

In his brilliant and newly released book, Postmodern Imperialism: Geopolitics and the Great Game, Eric Walberg astutely charts NATO’s role following the end of the Cold War.

NATO “has become the centrepiece of the (US) empire’s military presence around the world, moving quickly to respond to US needs to intervene where the UN won’t as in Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Iraq and now Libya.”

The massive NATO expansion in the last two decades, to include new members, to enter into new “Partnerships for Peace”, and to carry out various “Dialogue” with entities outside its immediate geographic sphere required the constant reinvention of NATO and the redefinition of its role around the globe.

‘NATO’s victory’ in Libya - a ‘regime change from the air’ as described by some - is certain to ignite the imagination of the relatively dormant neoconservative ideas of regime change at any cost.

Indeed, it might not be long before NATO’s intervention in Libya becomes a political-military doctrine in its own right. US President Barack Obama, and other Western leaders are already offering clues regarding the nature of that doctrine.

In a statement issued August 22 from Martha’s Vineyard, where Obama was vacationing, the US President said: "NATO has once more proven that it is the most capable alliance in the world and that its strength comes from both its firepower and the power of our democratic ideals."

It’s difficult to underline with any certainty how this gung-ho mentality coupled with democracy rhetoric is any different from George W. Bush’s justification of his country’s invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq.

Many commentators in the US and other NATO countries are already treating Libya as another military conquest, similar to that of Afghanistan and Iraq, a claim that Libyans would find most objectionable.

Such ideas are not forged haphazardly, however, since the language used by NATO leaders and their treatment of post-Al Qathafi Libya seem largely consistent with their attitude towards other invaded Muslim countries.

In a written statement cited widely in the media, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton began laying down the rules, by which the ‘new Libya’ will be judged before the international community (meaning the US, NATO and their allies.)

"We will look to them to ensure that Libya fulfils its treaty responsibilities, that it ensures that its weapons stockpiles do not threaten its neighbours or fall into the wrong hands, and that it takes a firm stand against violent extremism."

Worse, the al-Qaeda card had already been placed into NATO’s new game. The centrality of that card will be determined based on the political attitude of the new Libyan leadership.

The insinuation of al-Qaeda’s involvement in the Libyan uprising is not new of course; it dates back to March, when “top NATO commander and US Admiral James Stavridis said he had seen ‘flickers’ of an al-Qaeda presence among the rebels,” reported the British Telegraph (August 26).

Now, Algeria, a US-ally in the so-called ‘war on terror’ is waving that very card to justify its refusal to recognise the NTC.

Injecting ‘fighting extremism’ as a precondition for further US and NATO support, and the possible withholding of tens of billions of dollars of Libyan funds in Western bank accounts, could prove the biggest challenge to the new Libyan leadership, one that is greater than Al Qathafi’s audio rants or any other.

NATO understands well that a ‘failure’ in its new Libya project could spoil a whole array of interests in the Arab region, and could hinder future use of Obama’s blend of firepower and democracy ideals. Mainstream intellectuals are busy drawing parallels between Libya and other NATO adventures.

John F. Burns, writing in the New York Times (August 22), discussed some of the seemingly eerie similarities between post-Al Qathafi Libya and post-Saddam Iraq.

In an article entitled: “Parallels Between Qaddafi and Hussein Raise Anxiety for Western Leaders”, Burns wrote: “The list (of parallels between both experiences) sounded like a rule book built on the mistakes critics have identified as central to the American experience in Iraq.”

Burn’s line of logic is consistent with a whole new media discourse that is building momentum by the day.

Tuning back to Arabic media however, one is confronted with almost an entirely different discourse, one that refers to NATO as ‘friends’, to whom the Libyan people are ‘grateful’ and ‘indebted.’

Some pan-Arab TV channels have been more instrumental than others in introducing that faulty line of logic, that could ultimately bode terrible consequences for Syria, and eventually turn the Arab Spring into an infinite winter.

The Libya that inspired the world is capable of overcoming NATO’s stratagems, but that depends on the level of awareness of NATO’s true intentions in Libya and the desperate attempt at thwarting or hijacking Arab revolts.

Ramzy Baroud www.ramzybaroud.net is an internationally-syndicated columnist and the editor of PalestineChronicle.com. His latest book is My Father Was a Freedom Fighter: Gaza's Untold Story (Pluto Press, London), available on Amazon.com
Comment:
Very well said! Very well said! The elements of western designs are already being planted subconsciously via the media. Western oil companies are already jockeying to position themselves to plunder Libyas oil wealth. NATO has been Americas instrument of invisible militarism and is the direct juxtaposition of the industrial military complex Eisenhower spoke about in 1965. There is always an alterior motive, it's a shame that the colonisation of the Arab world has taken this turn.
Very well said!
Comment:
I wonder when the libyan rebels will wake up to the fact that they have now become pawns of the west and that their future will be led by nato and the west. Take the self-proclaimed council that says it is speaking on behalf of the libyan people. Its members are all americans who have left libya at one time and another and are now returning after perhaps more than 40 years away from libya to now rule libya. It is no different than Iraq and Afghanistan where puppet governments have been imposed on the people and are forcing them to do their bidding. Wake up libyan rebels are kick out the council.
Comment:
Some people are so quick to act like ungrateful trash with a litany of denigrating allegations... What a joke.
Comment:
You present a synical case, just like a son of a palistinian freedom fighter. I think a more accurate explanation is simpler. Al Qathafi was an absess on the world and NATO wanted to accomplish several things: Make friends in the arab world, keep from getting criticized for letting atrocities occur, set up some new business opportunities(yes self interest) try out some live fire exercises, and for once look like the good guy. Though we all know the arabs are so stubborn to realize the US did something good. Look at Kosovo, no political capital from that. Maybe WE shouldn't have intervened. Where would the Albanians be now. You have to stop looking at the west with the same glasses as you look at other muslims.
Comment:
The Author is a Western hating slimbag. with no merit.
But some of what he says is virtuely true of the past.
And now I hope it is not true,
And BUT Again.
I hope not, European keep buying the oil but not anymore then before Gadhafi.
Just don't need it
and I hope they find a middle ground.
I would hate to think all the work done BY verey extra special individual was not worthless,
You should thank harrison ford.
If not for his power, nothing would have happened.
He went out on a limb to bring real change, don't loose it.
There is no good on earth that can bring change like this, but I did. Thank god, but not the god your thinking of.
Make me regret, I can make you regret. Power is beyond your ability, but I can use if you don't use it wisely, this is not just a warning.
Comment:
Political struggle forces people to be practical. For the Libyan revolution the big question is not why there was an intervention of NATO forces (there was a combination of reasons, both humanitarian and imperialist), but what should Libyans do now to become really independent. Ironically, once the fight is over, there is very little the West can do to control events in Libya. Much will depend on Libyans themselves. Which forces will be dominant in the post-revolutionary society? And what will be their agenda?
 

Equasitrian News
More Featured Articles
Opinion: Libyan convicted of Pan Am Flight 103 bombing was innocent – by Gwynne Dyer
Somebody had to be punished or the intelligence services would look incompetent'. They lied, they’re still lying and they’ll go on lying until Libya calms down enough to allow a thorough search of its archives. That’s what intelligence agencies do, and being angry with them for lying is like being angry at a scorpion for stinging.

Opinion: Burma’s Next President - by Gwynne Dyer
Aung San Suu Kyi, Nobel Peace Prize winner and champion of Burmese democracy, declared last June that she would run for President in the 2015 election. If she ran, she would surely win: she is to Burma what Nelson Mandela was to South Africa.

Arafat: The Last Visit
Ariel Sharon wanted to expel Arafat from Palestine, but it was decided to isolate him rather than to exile him. The idea of Arafat free to travel, and to attempt to gather international support for the Palestinian cause was considered unwise. Israel relented from their destructive siege, and pulled the tanks and soldiers back under intense American pressure. The US wanted to win Arab and support for the war on Iraq.

Place your advert here
 

© 2014 - The Tripoli Post