(CNN)A report released on Tuesday by a United Nations monitoring group examining terrorist groups in Libya warns ISIS has built up a significant presence in Libya and could further expand the territory it controls through local alliances, but will likely face a number of challenges and constraints in the months ahead.
Outside Syria and Iraq, Libya has proved to the most promising ground for ISIS expansion with the group entrenching its control of the former Gadhafi stronghold of Sirte in recent months and over a hundred miles of coastline bordering the city. The group also retains a presence in eastern Libya where it is in a pitched contest with al Qaeda affiliated groups......
Topic: Western nutjobs destroyed Libya - another of their wrecks. Here are the results - page 4. (Read 9694 times)
December 02, 2015, 04:29:45 AM
December 01, 2015, 01:12:31 AM
Well, it doesn´t look like western nutjobs are managing to drive those off who are actually trying to wipe out ISIS - the Russians - so now it´s focusing its efforts on the ruins of Lybia that were prepared for it. It was always eminently predictable.
Hmm.... just coincidentally.... I noticed that there are a lot of similarities between both Syria and Libya. Before the NATO intervention, both these nations were economically well doing and staunchly secular. The NATO tried to overthrow both the regimes, and replace them with hardcore Islamist theocracies. They succeeded in Libya, but failed in Syria.
One more thing. I believe that there is a sinister plot to turn the European continent to Eurabia. The ongoing civil wars in Syria and Libya might be a part of that tactic. Merkel wants to increase the German Muslim population to 20 million in 2020, from the current figure of 4 million.
December 01, 2015, 12:35:30 AM
HOW THE WEST DESTROYED LIBYA
Western leaders should be “judged at the Hague, for atrocities against humanity.”
The full impact of Western intervention in Libya was recently highlighted during a televised interview of Worlds Apart with guest Hanne Nabintu Herland, a Norwegian author and historian who was born and raised in Africa for 20 years.
At one point while talking about Libya, Herland firmly asserted that:
In a just world, the political leaders in the West, that have done such atrocities towards other nations and other cultures, should have been sent to the Hague [International Criminal Court], and judged at the Hague, for atrocities against humanity.
Before that, the African-born, Norwegian author said:
Libya is the worst example of Western countries’ assault in modern history; it’s a horrible thing to be a European intellectual and to watch your own political leaders go ahead and engage in something like this. In Norway, for example, when it comes to something like the Libyan war … [political leaders] sent MSM messages to the other people in parliament; it was never a discussion in parliament, it was an MSM saying “Let’s bomb because someone called from America.” We [Norway] bombed 588 bombs over roads, and water, and cities in Libya at that time. And we had a large documentary in Norway, after that, where the fighters, the pilots that flew over Libya and dropped these bombs, they actually said in the documentary that “We were sent up and we weren’t even told what to bomb—just bomb something that looks valuable."
Herland also pointed out that, according to UN figures, Gaddafi’s Libya was once the most prosperous nation in Africa. While Oksana Boyko, the host, sometimes disagreed with Herland, she agreed about the West’s counterproductive role, pointing out that Gaddafi “was very active in trying to advance women’s rights, he brought a lot of women into universities and the labor force [a thing few people in the West know, as usual, thanks to the “MSM”] and now what people and women in Libya are facing is Sharia [Islamic law], with the possibility of some of them being sold to ISIS fighters as virgin brides.”
Indeed, that the jihadis and other “ISIS” type militants gained the most from Western intervention in Libya cannot be denied. Simply looking at the treatment of Christian minorities—the litmus test of the radicalization of any Muslim society—proves this.
Western leaders should be “judged at the Hague, for atrocities against humanity.”
The full impact of Western intervention in Libya was recently highlighted during a televised interview of Worlds Apart with guest Hanne Nabintu Herland, a Norwegian author and historian who was born and raised in Africa for 20 years.
At one point while talking about Libya, Herland firmly asserted that:
In a just world, the political leaders in the West, that have done such atrocities towards other nations and other cultures, should have been sent to the Hague [International Criminal Court], and judged at the Hague, for atrocities against humanity.
Before that, the African-born, Norwegian author said:
Libya is the worst example of Western countries’ assault in modern history; it’s a horrible thing to be a European intellectual and to watch your own political leaders go ahead and engage in something like this. In Norway, for example, when it comes to something like the Libyan war … [political leaders] sent MSM messages to the other people in parliament; it was never a discussion in parliament, it was an MSM saying “Let’s bomb because someone called from America.” We [Norway] bombed 588 bombs over roads, and water, and cities in Libya at that time. And we had a large documentary in Norway, after that, where the fighters, the pilots that flew over Libya and dropped these bombs, they actually said in the documentary that “We were sent up and we weren’t even told what to bomb—just bomb something that looks valuable."
Herland also pointed out that, according to UN figures, Gaddafi’s Libya was once the most prosperous nation in Africa. While Oksana Boyko, the host, sometimes disagreed with Herland, she agreed about the West’s counterproductive role, pointing out that Gaddafi “was very active in trying to advance women’s rights, he brought a lot of women into universities and the labor force [a thing few people in the West know, as usual, thanks to the “MSM”] and now what people and women in Libya are facing is Sharia [Islamic law], with the possibility of some of them being sold to ISIS fighters as virgin brides.”
Indeed, that the jihadis and other “ISIS” type militants gained the most from Western intervention in Libya cannot be denied. Simply looking at the treatment of Christian minorities—the litmus test of the radicalization of any Muslim society—proves this.
November 30, 2015, 10:28:03 PM
^^^^ So the ISIS nuts have conceded that Syria is lost. 
It is just a matter of time before they lose the cities of Raqqa and Mosul. The only question is who will be conquering these cities. For Raqqa, the competition will be between the Syrian Army and the YPG. Mosul will be contested between the Kurds and the Iraqi Army (backed up by the Iranian and local Shiite paramilitaries).
It is just a matter of time before they lose the cities of Raqqa and Mosul. The only question is who will be conquering these cities. For Raqqa, the competition will be between the Syrian Army and the YPG. Mosul will be contested between the Kurds and the Iraqi Army (backed up by the Iranian and local Shiite paramilitaries).
Well, it doesn´t look like western nutjobs are managing to drive those off who are actually trying to wipe out ISIS - the Russians - so now it´s focusing its efforts on the ruins of Lybia that were prepared for it. It was always eminently predictable.
November 30, 2015, 10:06:15 PM
^^^^ So the ISIS nuts have conceded that Syria is lost.
It is just a matter of time before they lose the cities of Raqqa and Mosul. The only question is who will be conquering these cities. For Raqqa, the competition will be between the Syrian Army and the YPG. Mosul will be contested between the Kurds and the Iraqi Army (backed up by the Iranian and local Shiite paramilitaries).
It is just a matter of time before they lose the cities of Raqqa and Mosul. The only question is who will be conquering these cities. For Raqqa, the competition will be between the Syrian Army and the YPG. Mosul will be contested between the Kurds and the Iraqi Army (backed up by the Iranian and local Shiite paramilitaries).
November 30, 2015, 09:19:55 PM
ISIS is preparing a 'backup' capital in case its major center in Syria falls
As western countries ramp up strikes against ISIS's de-facto capital of Raqqa, Syria, the terrorist group is looking to Libya as a potential back-up option at which to base its operations, according to The New York Times.
While ISIS (also known as the Islamic State) has other affiliates throughout Africa and the Middle East that have pledged their allegiance to its leader, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the group's branch in Sirte is the only one that ISIS central leadership directly controls.
The Wall Street Journal reports that ISIS leaders in Libya have reportedly adopted a slogan that reflects Sirte's heightened profile within the jihadist organization: "Sirte will be no less than Raqqa."
The Sirte affiliate is also much closer to western Europe than ISIS's territory in Syria and Iraq:
ISIS's influence in Sirte has been growing over the past year, as it has evolved into what The Times describes as an "actively managed colony" of the central group.
The growth has been swift — the Libya affiliate has gone from 200 fighters to about 5,000 since ISIS announced its branch there, The Journal reports. (The Times reports that Western put that estimate at 2,000 fighters.)
And Libya might be an ideal location for ISIS' fallback capital. The country lacks a functioning government and is rich in oil resources, which ISIS uses to finance its operations in Syria and Iraq, where it holds most of its territory.
Fathi Ali Bashaagha, a politician from Misrata, Libya, told The Journal: "We don’t have a real state. We have a fragmented government. Every day we delay on a political deal, it is a golden opportunity for Islamic State to grow."
Rival governments in Libya agreed to a draft peace accord in October, but so far it has not been implemented, according to The Journal.
As ISIS has accomplished in Syria and Iraq, the group is successfully exploiting "deep divisions" in Libya, according to The Journal. ISIS has encouraged sectarian hatred in Syria and Iraq to further divide the population and convince Sunni Muslims that they need ISIS to protect them from Shiites.
Also as it did when it started seizing territory in Iraq and Syria, ISIS might also have its sights set on expansion in Libya. Local and Western officials told The Times that recent attacks suggest that Ajdabiya, a city further to the east, could be the next area ISIS looks to seize. It would give the group control of nearby oil fields, according to The Times.
Another sign of ISIS' intentions in Libya comes with the people starting to suddenly appear in the North African country. Senior Iraqi leaders from ISIS are reportedly arriving from across the Mediterranean, which mimics how ISIS set up its base in Raqqa. The leaders of ISIS-controlled cities in Syria are predominantly Iraqi.
Sirte is also being governed like other ISIS-controlled cities in the Middle East. The group has reportedly set up propaganda "media points" in the city and started imposing its strict laws, like requiring women to wear Islamic veils in public and permitting public executions.
ISIS might already be using Sirte as a base for its operations in North Africa. Neighboring Tunisia has been hit with attacks from terrorists who trained in Libya, and Tunisia is now building a wall along its border to prevent extremists from easily crossing between the two countries, according to The Journal.
The group has also backed off of insisting that Muslims travel to Syria to join its Islamic "caliphate" and is now suggesting that recruits go to Libya instead, according to both The Times and The Journal.
But there are problems with ISIS' franchise in Sirte. While the group has tried to build up the city to mirror Raqqa — with bureaucratic buildings, a "police" force, and courts — ISIS is having a hard time meeting the basic needs of the population, according to The Journal. Gas stations and hospitals aren't functioning, and checkpoints make travel difficult.
As a civil engineer who recently fled told The Journal: "Sirte has gone dark."
http://uk.businessinsider.com/isis-sirte-libya-2015-11?r=US&IR=T
As western countries ramp up strikes against ISIS's de-facto capital of Raqqa, Syria, the terrorist group is looking to Libya as a potential back-up option at which to base its operations, according to The New York Times.
While ISIS (also known as the Islamic State) has other affiliates throughout Africa and the Middle East that have pledged their allegiance to its leader, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the group's branch in Sirte is the only one that ISIS central leadership directly controls.
The Wall Street Journal reports that ISIS leaders in Libya have reportedly adopted a slogan that reflects Sirte's heightened profile within the jihadist organization: "Sirte will be no less than Raqqa."
The Sirte affiliate is also much closer to western Europe than ISIS's territory in Syria and Iraq:
ISIS's influence in Sirte has been growing over the past year, as it has evolved into what The Times describes as an "actively managed colony" of the central group.
The growth has been swift — the Libya affiliate has gone from 200 fighters to about 5,000 since ISIS announced its branch there, The Journal reports. (The Times reports that Western put that estimate at 2,000 fighters.)
And Libya might be an ideal location for ISIS' fallback capital. The country lacks a functioning government and is rich in oil resources, which ISIS uses to finance its operations in Syria and Iraq, where it holds most of its territory.
Fathi Ali Bashaagha, a politician from Misrata, Libya, told The Journal: "We don’t have a real state. We have a fragmented government. Every day we delay on a political deal, it is a golden opportunity for Islamic State to grow."
Rival governments in Libya agreed to a draft peace accord in October, but so far it has not been implemented, according to The Journal.
As ISIS has accomplished in Syria and Iraq, the group is successfully exploiting "deep divisions" in Libya, according to The Journal. ISIS has encouraged sectarian hatred in Syria and Iraq to further divide the population and convince Sunni Muslims that they need ISIS to protect them from Shiites.
Also as it did when it started seizing territory in Iraq and Syria, ISIS might also have its sights set on expansion in Libya. Local and Western officials told The Times that recent attacks suggest that Ajdabiya, a city further to the east, could be the next area ISIS looks to seize. It would give the group control of nearby oil fields, according to The Times.
Another sign of ISIS' intentions in Libya comes with the people starting to suddenly appear in the North African country. Senior Iraqi leaders from ISIS are reportedly arriving from across the Mediterranean, which mimics how ISIS set up its base in Raqqa. The leaders of ISIS-controlled cities in Syria are predominantly Iraqi.
Sirte is also being governed like other ISIS-controlled cities in the Middle East. The group has reportedly set up propaganda "media points" in the city and started imposing its strict laws, like requiring women to wear Islamic veils in public and permitting public executions.
ISIS might already be using Sirte as a base for its operations in North Africa. Neighboring Tunisia has been hit with attacks from terrorists who trained in Libya, and Tunisia is now building a wall along its border to prevent extremists from easily crossing between the two countries, according to The Journal.
The group has also backed off of insisting that Muslims travel to Syria to join its Islamic "caliphate" and is now suggesting that recruits go to Libya instead, according to both The Times and The Journal.
But there are problems with ISIS' franchise in Sirte. While the group has tried to build up the city to mirror Raqqa — with bureaucratic buildings, a "police" force, and courts — ISIS is having a hard time meeting the basic needs of the population, according to The Journal. Gas stations and hospitals aren't functioning, and checkpoints make travel difficult.
As a civil engineer who recently fled told The Journal: "Sirte has gone dark."
http://uk.businessinsider.com/isis-sirte-libya-2015-11?r=US&IR=T
November 30, 2015, 04:22:04 AM
Well, destroying Lybia is turning out to be yet another success for those who are interested in creating fertile ground for terrorism to thrive in. In this case, primarily France, Britain and Italy but even dwarves like Norway and Denmark got to join in probably because political refuse from there was dumped into the usual NATO dumpster. I guess E.U. and U.N. dumpsters for politicians past their expiration date were full at the time.
I don´t think the U.S. military played a very meaningful part in the destruction of Lybia, it seemed to be more the usual CIA terrorism, drones and such. But of course the U.S. had a totally certifiable lunatic as a Secretary of State at the time and other fruitcakes of the same ilk working the United Nations, which was a big help in selling the whole scam to begin with. So it was more a marketing role for the U.S. part of NATO in this case.
I don´t think the U.S. military played a very meaningful part in the destruction of Lybia, it seemed to be more the usual CIA terrorism, drones and such. But of course the U.S. had a totally certifiable lunatic as a Secretary of State at the time and other fruitcakes of the same ilk working the United Nations, which was a big help in selling the whole scam to begin with. So it was more a marketing role for the U.S. part of NATO in this case.
November 29, 2015, 11:51:53 PM
Islamic State Tightens Grip on Libyan Stronghold of Sirte
City across the Mediterranean from Europe is first outside Syria or Iraq to come under the group’s control
MISRATA, Libya—Even as foreign powers step up pressure against Islamic State in Syria and Iraq, the militant group has expanded in Libya and established a new base close to Europe where it can generate oil revenue and plot terror attacks.
Since announcing its presence in February in Sirte, the city on Libya’s Mediterranean coast has become the first that the militant group governs outside of Syria and Iraq. Its presence there has grown over the past year from 200 eager fighters to a roughly 5,000-strong contingent which includes administrators and financiers, according to estimates by Libyan intelligence officials, residents and activists in the area.
The group has exploited the deep divisions in Libya, which has two rival governments, to create this new stronghold of violent religious extremism just across the Mediterranean Sea from Italy. Along the way, they scored a string of victories—defeating one of the strongest fighting forces in the country and swiftly crushing a local popular revolt.
Libya’s neighbors have become increasingly alarmed.
Tunisia closed its border with Libya for 15 days on Wednesday, the day after Islamic State claimed responsibility for a suicide bombing on a bus in the capital Tunis that killed 12 presidential guards.
Tunisia is also building a security wall along a third of that border to stem the flow of extremists between the countries. Two previous attacks in Tunisia this year that killed dozens of tourists were carried out by gunmen the government said were trained by Islamic State in Libya, which has recruited hundreds of Tunisians to its ranks.
This burgeoning operation in Libya shows how Islamic State is able to grow and adapt even as it is targeted by Russian, French and U.S.-led airstrikes in Syria as well as Kurdish and Iraqi ground assaults in Iraq.
On Thursday, nearly two weeks after Islamic State’s attacks on Paris, French President François Hollande and Italian Prime Minister Matteo Renzi met in the French capital where both said Europe must turn its attention to the militants’ rise in Libya. Mr. Renzi said Libya risks becoming the “next emergency” if it is not given priority.
In Libya, Islamic State has fended off challenges from government-aligned militias and called for recruits who have the technical know-how to put nearby oil facilities into operation. Libyan officials said they are worried it is only a matter of time before the radical fighters attempt to take over more oil fields and refineries near Sirte to boost their revenues—money that could fund attacks in the Middle East and Europe.
Sirte is a gateway to several major oil fields and refineries farther east on the same coast and Islamic State has targeted those installations in the past year.
“They have made their intentions clear,” said Ismail Shoukry, head of military intelligence for the region that includes Sirte. “They want to take their fight to Rome.”
Islamic State is benefiting from a conflict that has further weakened government control in Libya. For nearly a year, the U.S. and European powers have pointed to the Islamic State threat to press the rival governments to come to a power-sharing agreement. Despite a United Nations-brokered draft agreement for peace announced in October, neither side has taken steps to implement it.
An image taken from Aamaq News Agency, a YouTube channel that posts videos from areas under the Islamic State control, and provided courtesy of SITE Intelligence Group on June 9 allegedly shows a flag of the group flying on top of what they say is a power plant in the southern Libyan city of Sirte. ENLARGE
An image taken from Aamaq News Agency, a YouTube channel that posts videos from areas under the Islamic State control, and provided courtesy of SITE Intelligence Group on June 9 allegedly shows a flag of the group flying on top of what they say is a power plant in the southern Libyan city of Sirte.
A new U.N. envoy, Martin Kobler, was appointed this month to break the stalemate, part of efforts to find a political solution to counter the extremists’ expansion.
“We don’t have a real state. We have a fragmented government,” said Fathi Ali Bashaagha, a politician from the city of Misrata who participated in the U.N.-led negotiations. “Every day we delay on a political deal, it is a golden opportunity for Islamic State to grow.” ...
http://www.wsj.com/articles/islamic-state-entrenches-in-sirte-libya-1448798153
City across the Mediterranean from Europe is first outside Syria or Iraq to come under the group’s control
MISRATA, Libya—Even as foreign powers step up pressure against Islamic State in Syria and Iraq, the militant group has expanded in Libya and established a new base close to Europe where it can generate oil revenue and plot terror attacks.
Since announcing its presence in February in Sirte, the city on Libya’s Mediterranean coast has become the first that the militant group governs outside of Syria and Iraq. Its presence there has grown over the past year from 200 eager fighters to a roughly 5,000-strong contingent which includes administrators and financiers, according to estimates by Libyan intelligence officials, residents and activists in the area.
The group has exploited the deep divisions in Libya, which has two rival governments, to create this new stronghold of violent religious extremism just across the Mediterranean Sea from Italy. Along the way, they scored a string of victories—defeating one of the strongest fighting forces in the country and swiftly crushing a local popular revolt.
Libya’s neighbors have become increasingly alarmed.
Tunisia closed its border with Libya for 15 days on Wednesday, the day after Islamic State claimed responsibility for a suicide bombing on a bus in the capital Tunis that killed 12 presidential guards.
Tunisia is also building a security wall along a third of that border to stem the flow of extremists between the countries. Two previous attacks in Tunisia this year that killed dozens of tourists were carried out by gunmen the government said were trained by Islamic State in Libya, which has recruited hundreds of Tunisians to its ranks.
This burgeoning operation in Libya shows how Islamic State is able to grow and adapt even as it is targeted by Russian, French and U.S.-led airstrikes in Syria as well as Kurdish and Iraqi ground assaults in Iraq.
On Thursday, nearly two weeks after Islamic State’s attacks on Paris, French President François Hollande and Italian Prime Minister Matteo Renzi met in the French capital where both said Europe must turn its attention to the militants’ rise in Libya. Mr. Renzi said Libya risks becoming the “next emergency” if it is not given priority.
In Libya, Islamic State has fended off challenges from government-aligned militias and called for recruits who have the technical know-how to put nearby oil facilities into operation. Libyan officials said they are worried it is only a matter of time before the radical fighters attempt to take over more oil fields and refineries near Sirte to boost their revenues—money that could fund attacks in the Middle East and Europe.
Sirte is a gateway to several major oil fields and refineries farther east on the same coast and Islamic State has targeted those installations in the past year.
“They have made their intentions clear,” said Ismail Shoukry, head of military intelligence for the region that includes Sirte. “They want to take their fight to Rome.”
Islamic State is benefiting from a conflict that has further weakened government control in Libya. For nearly a year, the U.S. and European powers have pointed to the Islamic State threat to press the rival governments to come to a power-sharing agreement. Despite a United Nations-brokered draft agreement for peace announced in October, neither side has taken steps to implement it.
An image taken from Aamaq News Agency, a YouTube channel that posts videos from areas under the Islamic State control, and provided courtesy of SITE Intelligence Group on June 9 allegedly shows a flag of the group flying on top of what they say is a power plant in the southern Libyan city of Sirte. ENLARGE
An image taken from Aamaq News Agency, a YouTube channel that posts videos from areas under the Islamic State control, and provided courtesy of SITE Intelligence Group on June 9 allegedly shows a flag of the group flying on top of what they say is a power plant in the southern Libyan city of Sirte.
A new U.N. envoy, Martin Kobler, was appointed this month to break the stalemate, part of efforts to find a political solution to counter the extremists’ expansion.
“We don’t have a real state. We have a fragmented government,” said Fathi Ali Bashaagha, a politician from the city of Misrata who participated in the U.N.-led negotiations. “Every day we delay on a political deal, it is a golden opportunity for Islamic State to grow.” ...
http://www.wsj.com/articles/islamic-state-entrenches-in-sirte-libya-1448798153
November 24, 2015, 11:22:18 PM
“We stand alongside Turkey in its efforts in protecting its national security and fighting against terrorism. France and Turkey are on the same side within the framework of the international coalition against the terrorist group ISIS.” --Statement by French Foreign Ministry, July 2015
November 24, 2015, 07:17:20 PM
When the UK Government sent troops to Libya to oust Gaddafi it was never put to a vote in the Commons. No - the Government went ahead using the antiquated anachronism known as the "Royal Prerogative".
Well... we have to remember the fact that the United Kingdom is no longer a sovereign nation. Just like other nations such as Germany and Japan, the UK is just another one of the US vassal states. The order to attack Gaddafi came from their masters in the Washington DC, and the British parliamentarians just followed it.
Agreed.
The UK Govt. put it to Parliament a couple of years ago (in the light of the US's attempts at the same) to send troops into Syria to counteract Assad (and, yawn, his chemical weapons arsenal). It was defeated - and the US thought twice.
Its sad to see that the latest attack in Paris is being used as the legitimation the UK sought to get a succesful vote through Parliament to enter Syria. This time they are saying its to counter ISIL - but I think we can safely say the reason might more rightly be stated as weakening President Assad.
Exact same thing Bush did post 9/11 re.Iraq.
What a bunch of cynical bastards they truly are.
November 24, 2015, 04:07:46 PM
When the UK Government sent troops to Libya to oust Gaddafi it was never put to a vote in the Commons. No - the Government went ahead using the antiquated anachronism known as the "Royal Prerogative".
Well... we have to remember the fact that the United Kingdom is no longer a sovereign nation. Just like other nations such as Germany and Japan, the UK is just another one of the US vassal states. The order to attack Gaddafi came from their masters in the Washington DC, and the British parliamentarians just followed it.
November 23, 2015, 06:57:54 PM
West should learn from Iraq and Libya, says Russian envoy Vladimir Morozov
November 23, 2015 - 8:08PM
Russia's ambassador in Canberra has attacked the West's track record in toppling Middle Eastern dictators as he insisted there must be no "political strings attached" to Syria peace talks.
Ambassador Vladimir Morozov, writing on Monday in an opinion article for Fairfax Media, raised the twin spectres of Iraq and Libya as examples of where the United States, Australia and Europeans countries had erred by forcing out their autocratic rulers.
"We can remember Iraqi President Saddam Hussein and Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi. In both cases, it was said that if you remove the dictator, the country will prosper. The result as we can see is quite different," he said.
His remarks came as former defence minister Kevin Andrews used a column in the Australian Financial Review to call on the US and its allies to work with Russia and leave Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad in place until a viable alternative emerges.
In remarks echoing those of Moscow's envoy, Mr Andrews said that "we should have learnt by now that removing a dictator without having an achievable plan for a viable alternative leaves a vacuum that enemies like [the Islamic State] will fill".
Russia is an ally of Assad's and has intervened in the country's civil war to prop up the dictator. Moscow is also involved in talks in Vienna with the US and other key nations about finding a political solution to Syria's entrenched violence, which is regarded as a key plank in the campaign against the Islamic State terror group.
Foreign Minister Julie Bishop, who has long called for a pragmatic political solution in Syria that could mean leaving Assad temporarily in place, told Fairfax Media on Friday that "realpolitik" meant both Russia and Iran needed to be at the table for negotiations.
She said it had been "controversial" in June when she first raised the involvement of Iran but time had shown that "no option should be taken off the table".
Referring to the aim of the Vienna talks to hold elections in Syria as soon as 2017, Ms Bishop said that "we should aim for elections to be held as soon as conceivably possible".
Mr Morozov's comments follow Fairfax Media reports that the ambassador had told other international diplomats in Canberra that Moscow would be prepared to see Assad go as part of a compromise over Syria.
But in his Monday article, Mr Morozov said that Assad was a necessary part of negotiations over the future shape of Syria.
"All the forecasts that the people would rise up and oust him never came true. This means one thing: Assad represents the interests of a significant part of Syrian society. So no peaceful solution can be found without his participation."
He added: "I can't agree with the thinking that … [Assad] is behind all misfortune. The terrorist attack in Paris and the Islamic State claiming responsibility for it showed that regardless of whether you are for or against Bashar al-Assad, you are the enemy of the Islamic State. So let's fight IS together."
Debate meanwhile heated up in Canberra on Monday over Australia's military options in the fight against the Islamic State after Mr Andrews used his AFR column to argue that "more is required" including greater use of coalition special forces soldiers.
He said that "a concerted campaign by coalition special forces and related personnel is required to defeat IS".
Justice Minister Michael Keenan said it was good to have a debate about "whoever wants to make a contribution should be welcome to do so".
But he repeated what is now a well-worn line for government ministers that Australia is already "making a very significant contribution" as the second-largest player among the US-led coalition.
"Obviously if other countries would like to step up their contribution to that coalition, then Australia would certainly welcome that," he said.
http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/west-should-learn-from-iraq-and-libya-says-russian-envoy-vladimir-morozov-20151123-gl5gb8.html
November 23, 2015 - 8:08PM
Russia's ambassador in Canberra has attacked the West's track record in toppling Middle Eastern dictators as he insisted there must be no "political strings attached" to Syria peace talks.
Ambassador Vladimir Morozov, writing on Monday in an opinion article for Fairfax Media, raised the twin spectres of Iraq and Libya as examples of where the United States, Australia and Europeans countries had erred by forcing out their autocratic rulers.
"We can remember Iraqi President Saddam Hussein and Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi. In both cases, it was said that if you remove the dictator, the country will prosper. The result as we can see is quite different," he said.
His remarks came as former defence minister Kevin Andrews used a column in the Australian Financial Review to call on the US and its allies to work with Russia and leave Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad in place until a viable alternative emerges.
In remarks echoing those of Moscow's envoy, Mr Andrews said that "we should have learnt by now that removing a dictator without having an achievable plan for a viable alternative leaves a vacuum that enemies like [the Islamic State] will fill".
Russia is an ally of Assad's and has intervened in the country's civil war to prop up the dictator. Moscow is also involved in talks in Vienna with the US and other key nations about finding a political solution to Syria's entrenched violence, which is regarded as a key plank in the campaign against the Islamic State terror group.
Foreign Minister Julie Bishop, who has long called for a pragmatic political solution in Syria that could mean leaving Assad temporarily in place, told Fairfax Media on Friday that "realpolitik" meant both Russia and Iran needed to be at the table for negotiations.
She said it had been "controversial" in June when she first raised the involvement of Iran but time had shown that "no option should be taken off the table".
Referring to the aim of the Vienna talks to hold elections in Syria as soon as 2017, Ms Bishop said that "we should aim for elections to be held as soon as conceivably possible".
Mr Morozov's comments follow Fairfax Media reports that the ambassador had told other international diplomats in Canberra that Moscow would be prepared to see Assad go as part of a compromise over Syria.
But in his Monday article, Mr Morozov said that Assad was a necessary part of negotiations over the future shape of Syria.
"All the forecasts that the people would rise up and oust him never came true. This means one thing: Assad represents the interests of a significant part of Syrian society. So no peaceful solution can be found without his participation."
He added: "I can't agree with the thinking that … [Assad] is behind all misfortune. The terrorist attack in Paris and the Islamic State claiming responsibility for it showed that regardless of whether you are for or against Bashar al-Assad, you are the enemy of the Islamic State. So let's fight IS together."
Debate meanwhile heated up in Canberra on Monday over Australia's military options in the fight against the Islamic State after Mr Andrews used his AFR column to argue that "more is required" including greater use of coalition special forces soldiers.
He said that "a concerted campaign by coalition special forces and related personnel is required to defeat IS".
Justice Minister Michael Keenan said it was good to have a debate about "whoever wants to make a contribution should be welcome to do so".
But he repeated what is now a well-worn line for government ministers that Australia is already "making a very significant contribution" as the second-largest player among the US-led coalition.
"Obviously if other countries would like to step up their contribution to that coalition, then Australia would certainly welcome that," he said.
http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/west-should-learn-from-iraq-and-libya-says-russian-envoy-vladimir-morozov-20151123-gl5gb8.html
November 22, 2015, 07:37:08 PM
How the world is still even in one piece with poisonous corrupt treasonous psychopathic u.s. government inflicting it's poison.
Because there are also the poisonous, corrupt, treasonous and psychopathic poisionous existences of 200 other nations? November 22, 2015, 06:36:43 PM
When the UK Government sent troops to Libya to oust Gaddafi it was never put to a vote in the Commons. No - the Government went ahead using the antiquated anachronism known as the "Royal Prerogative".
If Assad did this they'd be calling for his head on a platter.
So much for democratic accountability in the UK.
If Assad did this they'd be calling for his head on a platter.
So much for democratic accountability in the UK.
Royal Prerogative, hahahahahaha. It´s like something out of the Dark Ages. Small wonder that these screwballs are so tight with the medieval princes in charge of Saudi Arabia. It´s the same mentality. Of course being a weirdo from Eton also helps.
November 22, 2015, 06:25:51 PM
When the UK Government sent troops to Libya to oust Gaddafi it was never put to a vote in the Commons. No - the Government went ahead using the antiquated anachronism known as the "Royal Prerogative".
If Assad did this they'd be calling for his head on a platter.
So much for democratic accountability in the UK.
If Assad did this they'd be calling for his head on a platter.
So much for democratic accountability in the UK.
November 22, 2015, 04:54:31 PM
How the world is still even in one piece with poisonous corrupt treasonous psychopathic u.s. government inflicting it's poison.
November 22, 2015, 04:43:53 PM
Can´t we all agree? Isn´t oil and armaments humanitarian?
Humanitarian interest in Libya 2011. Color-coded humanitarian interest in the lowermost image.
Does not matter. Reroute the tankers, others will take their place, since oil is a fungible commodity. No reasonable or logical conclusion can be made from "Where a country's oil comes from."Humanitarian interest in Libya 2011. Color-coded humanitarian interest in the lowermost image.
Illogical and false conclusions can be made, of course.
November 22, 2015, 01:52:11 PM
Pétrole : l’accord secret entre le CNT et la France
Par Vittorio De Filippis — 1 septembre 2011 à 00:00 (mis à jour à 13:16
Dans une lettre que s’est procurée «Libération», les rebelles promettent d’accorder 35% du brut libyen aux Français.
La morale politique n’a rien à faire avec les affaires. C’est, en substance, ce que répète le gouvernement français depuis le 19 mars, jour du lancement de l’opération militaire contre les troupes du colonel Kadhafi. Paris n’a qu’un seul objectif : «Venir en aide à un peuple en danger de mort […] au nom de la conscience universelle qui ne peut tolérer de tels crimes, déclare Nicolas Sarkozy lors d’un discours à l’Elysée, le 19 mars. Nous le faisons pour protéger la population civile de la folie meurtrière d’un régime qui, en assassinant son propre peuple, a perdu toute légitimité.» N’empêche, les entreprises pétrolières françaises pourraient largement profiter de cette campagne militaire. C’est en tout cas ce qui est écrit noir sur blanc dans un document que Libération s’est procuré. Texte signé par le Conseil national de transition (CNT), autorité de transition créée par les rebelles libyens. .....
http://www.liberation.fr/planete/2011/09/01/petrole-l-accord-secret-entre-le-cnt-et-la-france_758320
Par Vittorio De Filippis — 1 septembre 2011 à 00:00 (mis à jour à 13:16
Dans une lettre que s’est procurée «Libération», les rebelles promettent d’accorder 35% du brut libyen aux Français.
La morale politique n’a rien à faire avec les affaires. C’est, en substance, ce que répète le gouvernement français depuis le 19 mars, jour du lancement de l’opération militaire contre les troupes du colonel Kadhafi. Paris n’a qu’un seul objectif : «Venir en aide à un peuple en danger de mort […] au nom de la conscience universelle qui ne peut tolérer de tels crimes, déclare Nicolas Sarkozy lors d’un discours à l’Elysée, le 19 mars. Nous le faisons pour protéger la population civile de la folie meurtrière d’un régime qui, en assassinant son propre peuple, a perdu toute légitimité.» N’empêche, les entreprises pétrolières françaises pourraient largement profiter de cette campagne militaire. C’est en tout cas ce qui est écrit noir sur blanc dans un document que Libération s’est procuré. Texte signé par le Conseil national de transition (CNT), autorité de transition créée par les rebelles libyens. .....
http://www.liberation.fr/planete/2011/09/01/petrole-l-accord-secret-entre-le-cnt-et-la-france_758320
November 22, 2015, 01:31:18 PM
Can´t we all agree? Isn´t oil and armaments humanitarian?
Humanitarian interest in Libya 2011. Color-coded humanitarian interest in the lowermost image.
Humanitarian interest in Libya 2011. Color-coded humanitarian interest in the lowermost image.
November 22, 2015, 01:20:34 PM
MAR 29, 2011 @ 02:01 PM
France, U.K. Have Differing Motives For Intervening In Libya
This is the second installment in a multi-part series examining the motives and mindset behind current European intervention in Libya. To access the entire series, click here.
France and the United Kingdom have led the charge on the intervention in Libya. For a month, both pushed the international community toward an intervention, ultimately penning U.N. Security Council Resolution 1973 authorizing the no-fly zone on March 17.
Paris’ and London’s interests in waging war on Libya are not the same, and Libya carries different weight with each. For the United Kingdom, Libya offers a promise of energy exploitation. It is not a country with which London has a strong client-patron relationship at the moment, but one could develop if Moammar Gadhafi were removed from power. For France, Tripoli already is a significant energy exporter and arms customer. Paris’ interest in intervening is also about intra-European politics.
France
Paris has been the most vociferous supporter of the Libya intervention. French President Nicolas Sarkozy made it his mission to gather an international coalition to wage war on Libya, and France has been at the vanguard of recognizing the legitimacy of the Benghazi-based rebels.
French interests in the Libya intervention fall into two categories: domestic politics and intra-European relations.
The domestic political story is fairly straightforward. At the onset of the unrest in the Middle East, Paris stalled on recognizing the protesters as legitimate. In fact, then-French Foreign Minister Michele Alliot-Marie offered the Tunisian government official help in dealing with the protesters. Three days later, longtime Tunisian President Zine El Abidine Ben Ali was forced to flee the country. It was revealed later that Alliot-Marie spent her Christmas vacation in Tunisia; during the trip, she used the private jet of a businessman close to the Ben Ali regime, and her parents were negotiating a business deal with the same businessman. Needless to say, the whole episode was highly embarrassing for Paris both internationally and domestically, and Sarkozy was essentially forced to fire Alliot-Marie and replace her with the veteran Alain Juppe. Additionally, Paris has its own Muslim population to consider, including a sizable Tunisian minority — though nowhere near as large as its Algerian minority — of around 600,000 people. This audience had a particularly negative reaction to Paris’ handling of the revolution in Tunisia.
The French intervention is more than just overcompensation for an initially disastrous handling of what Europe now perceives as a groundswell of agitation for democracy in the Arab world. Rather, Sarkozy has a history of using aggressive foreign relation moves to gain or maintain popularity at home. In August 2008, for example, he attempted and succeeded in negotiating a Russo-Georgian cease-fire without being invited to be a peacemaker. After the September 2008 financial crash, he called for a new “Bretton Woods.” While to the rest of the world “Super Sarko” seems impulsive and perhaps even arrogant, at home these moves boost his popularity, at least among his existing supporters. Sarkozy could use such a boost, as the French presidential election is barely more than a year away and he is trailing not just the likely Socialist candidate, but also far-right candidate Marine Le Pen. His supporters are beginning to gravitate toward Le Pen, who has worked hard to smooth over her father’s hard-right image. This could prompt Sarkozy’s party to choose a different candidate before it is too late, particularly as his own prime minister, Francois Fillon, gains ground.
There is more at play for France than just domestic politics, however. France also is reasserting its role as the most militarily capable European power. This has become particularly important because of developments in the European Union over the past 12 months. Ever since the eurozone sovereign debt crisis began in December 2009 with the Greek economic imbroglio, Germany has sought to use the power of its purse to reshape EU institutions to its own liking. These are the same institutions France painstakingly designed throughout and immediately after the Cold War. They were intended to magnify French political power in Europe and later offer Berlin incentives that would lock united Germany into Europe in a way that also benefited Paris.
Germany has worked to keep France appraised of the reforms every step of the way, with German Chancellor Angela Merkel huddling with Sarkozy before every major decision. However, this has not concealed the reality that Paris has had to take a backseat and accept most of Germany’s decisions as a fait accompli, from the need to pursue severe austerity measures, which caused widespread rioting in France in October 2010, to largely giving Berlin control over the new bailout mechanisms being designed to support lagging eurozone member states. This shift has not gone unnoticed by the French public, and criticism has been leveled against Sarkozy of having been reduced to Merkel’s yes-man.
The intervention in Libya therefore is a way to reassert to Europe, but particularly to Germany, that France still leads the Continent on foreign and military affairs. It is a message that says if Europe intends to be taken seriously as a global power, it will need French military power. France’s close coordination with the United Kingdom also is an attempt to further develop the military alliance between London and Paris formalized on Nov. 2, 2010, as a counter to Germany’s overwhelming economic and political power in the European Union.
In asserting its strength, Paris may cause Berlin to become more assertive in its own right. With the very act of opposing the Franco-British consensus on Libya, Berlin already has shown a level of assertiveness and foreign policy independence not seen in some time. In a sense, France and the United Kingdom are replaying their 19th century roles of colonial European powers looking to project power and protect interests outside the European continent, while Berlin remains landlocked behind the Skagerrak and concentrates on building a Mitteleuropa.
As for interests in Libya, France has plenty, but its situation could be improved. French energy major Total SA is involved in Libya but not to the same extent as Italian ENI or even German Wintershall. Considering Libya’s plentiful and largely unexplored energy reserves, French energy companies could stand to profit from helping rebels take power in Tripoli. But it is really military sales that Paris has benefited from thus far. Between 2004 — when the European Union lifted its arms embargo against Libya — and 2011, Tripoli has purchased approximately half a billion dollars worth of arms from France, more than from any other country in Europe. However, the Italian government was in negotiation for more than a billion dollars worth of more deals in 2010, and it seemed that the Rome-Tripoli relationship was overtaking Paris’ efforts in Libya prior to the intervention.
United Kingdom
London has not been as aggressive about pushing for the Libya intervention as France, but it still has been at the forefront of the coalition. For the United Kingdom, the domestic political component is not as strong as its energy interests.
British Prime Minister David Cameron’s government initially came under strong criticism for being slow to evacuate British nationals from Libya. Nick Clegg, the deputy prime minister and leader of the coalition Liberal Democratic Party, was on a ski vacation in Switzerland when the crisis in Libya began and later told a reporter he “forgot” he was running the country while Cameron was on a trip to the Persian Gulf states. Later, the rebels seized a Special Air Service diplomatic security team, dispatched on a diplomatic mission to establish contact with anti-Gadhafi forces in eastern Libya, because they did not announce their presence in the country.
Therefore, the United Kingdom is motivated to recover leadership of the intervention after an otherwise-bungled first few weeks of the unrest. There is also, as with most of the Western countries, a sense that decades of tolerating and profiting from Arab dictators has come to an end and that the people in the United Kingdom will no longer accept such actions.
London has another significant interest, namely, energy. British energy major BP has no production in Libya, although it agreed with Tripoli to drill onshore and offshore wells under a $1 billion deal signed in 2007. The negotiations on these concessions were drawn out but were finalized after the Scottish government decided to release convicted Lockerbie bomber Abdel Baset al-Megrahi on humanitarian grounds in August 2009. He was expected to die of prostate cancer within months of his release but presumably is still alive in Tripoli. The Labour government in power at the time came under heavy criticism for al-Megrahi’s release. British media speculated, not entirely unfairly, that the decision represented an effort to kick-start BP’s production in Libya and smooth relations between London and Tripoli. BP announced in 2009 that it planned to invest $20 billion in Libyan oil production over the next 20 years.
The May 2010 Macondo well disaster in the Gulf of Mexico has made BP’s — and London’s — Libya strategy even more urgent. The United States accounted for a quarter of BP’s total hydrocarbon production in 2010. The disaster cost BP $17.7 billion worth of losses in 2010, and the company also has had to set up a $20 billion compensation fund. Estimates of potential further spill-related costs range between $38 billion and $60 billion, making BP’s future in the United States uncertain. The disaster also allowed BP’s competitors to complain about its potential future offshore operations, something Italian Foreign Minister Franco Frattini stressed, arguing that until the investigation into the Macondo well disaster is completed, BP should refrain from drilling off Libya’s shore in the Mediterranean Sea. The complaint was more than likely an attempt by ENI to complicate BP’s Libya operations by questioning its environmental record in North America.
Ultimately, London could gain the most by the removal of Gadhafi or winning the allegiance of a rebel-controlled government in some kind of semi-independent state in eastern Libya. With no oil production in Libya and arms sales that lag those of France and Italy by a considerable margin, the United Kingdom could substantially benefit from new leadership in Tripoli or even just Benghazi.
Exit Strategies
In sum, the United Kingdom and France have two main points to consider in terms of what would be an appropriate strategy to the current intervention. First, how palatable will it be for their publics if Gadhafi remained in power after the considerable vilification that justified the intervention in the first place? It is true that both Paris and London have in recent days stepped back from arguing that the military intervention is supposed to oust Gadhafi, but that tempered rhetoric may have been forced on them by criticism from within the coalition that they have overstepped the U.N. mandate. British Defense Secretary Liam Fox said March 21 that the direct targeting of Gadhafi by coalition forces was a possibility.
Second, will France and the United Kingdom be satisfied with a solution in which Gadhafi withdraws to the west and rebels take control of the east? The United Kingdom and France could live with that solution because they would still benefit from their patronage of the eastern rebels in both new arms deals and energy deals in the oil-rich east. For Italy, the situation is more complex, as it would be left to deal with an indignant Gadhafi across the Mediterranean.
*This report is reprinted with permission of STRATFOR. It may not be reprinted by any other party without express permission of STRATFOR.
STRATFOR is one of the world’s leading private intelligence companies. Our intelligence professionals provide a global audience of individuals and organizations with unique insights into political, economic, and military developments around the world. STRATFOR’s independent and in-depth geopolitical and security analysis enables users to better understand international events and risks.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/energysource/2011/03/29/france-u-k-have-differing-motives-for-intervening-in-libya/
France, U.K. Have Differing Motives For Intervening In Libya
This is the second installment in a multi-part series examining the motives and mindset behind current European intervention in Libya. To access the entire series, click here.
France and the United Kingdom have led the charge on the intervention in Libya. For a month, both pushed the international community toward an intervention, ultimately penning U.N. Security Council Resolution 1973 authorizing the no-fly zone on March 17.
Paris’ and London’s interests in waging war on Libya are not the same, and Libya carries different weight with each. For the United Kingdom, Libya offers a promise of energy exploitation. It is not a country with which London has a strong client-patron relationship at the moment, but one could develop if Moammar Gadhafi were removed from power. For France, Tripoli already is a significant energy exporter and arms customer. Paris’ interest in intervening is also about intra-European politics.
France
Paris has been the most vociferous supporter of the Libya intervention. French President Nicolas Sarkozy made it his mission to gather an international coalition to wage war on Libya, and France has been at the vanguard of recognizing the legitimacy of the Benghazi-based rebels.
French interests in the Libya intervention fall into two categories: domestic politics and intra-European relations.
The domestic political story is fairly straightforward. At the onset of the unrest in the Middle East, Paris stalled on recognizing the protesters as legitimate. In fact, then-French Foreign Minister Michele Alliot-Marie offered the Tunisian government official help in dealing with the protesters. Three days later, longtime Tunisian President Zine El Abidine Ben Ali was forced to flee the country. It was revealed later that Alliot-Marie spent her Christmas vacation in Tunisia; during the trip, she used the private jet of a businessman close to the Ben Ali regime, and her parents were negotiating a business deal with the same businessman. Needless to say, the whole episode was highly embarrassing for Paris both internationally and domestically, and Sarkozy was essentially forced to fire Alliot-Marie and replace her with the veteran Alain Juppe. Additionally, Paris has its own Muslim population to consider, including a sizable Tunisian minority — though nowhere near as large as its Algerian minority — of around 600,000 people. This audience had a particularly negative reaction to Paris’ handling of the revolution in Tunisia.
The French intervention is more than just overcompensation for an initially disastrous handling of what Europe now perceives as a groundswell of agitation for democracy in the Arab world. Rather, Sarkozy has a history of using aggressive foreign relation moves to gain or maintain popularity at home. In August 2008, for example, he attempted and succeeded in negotiating a Russo-Georgian cease-fire without being invited to be a peacemaker. After the September 2008 financial crash, he called for a new “Bretton Woods.” While to the rest of the world “Super Sarko” seems impulsive and perhaps even arrogant, at home these moves boost his popularity, at least among his existing supporters. Sarkozy could use such a boost, as the French presidential election is barely more than a year away and he is trailing not just the likely Socialist candidate, but also far-right candidate Marine Le Pen. His supporters are beginning to gravitate toward Le Pen, who has worked hard to smooth over her father’s hard-right image. This could prompt Sarkozy’s party to choose a different candidate before it is too late, particularly as his own prime minister, Francois Fillon, gains ground.
There is more at play for France than just domestic politics, however. France also is reasserting its role as the most militarily capable European power. This has become particularly important because of developments in the European Union over the past 12 months. Ever since the eurozone sovereign debt crisis began in December 2009 with the Greek economic imbroglio, Germany has sought to use the power of its purse to reshape EU institutions to its own liking. These are the same institutions France painstakingly designed throughout and immediately after the Cold War. They were intended to magnify French political power in Europe and later offer Berlin incentives that would lock united Germany into Europe in a way that also benefited Paris.
Germany has worked to keep France appraised of the reforms every step of the way, with German Chancellor Angela Merkel huddling with Sarkozy before every major decision. However, this has not concealed the reality that Paris has had to take a backseat and accept most of Germany’s decisions as a fait accompli, from the need to pursue severe austerity measures, which caused widespread rioting in France in October 2010, to largely giving Berlin control over the new bailout mechanisms being designed to support lagging eurozone member states. This shift has not gone unnoticed by the French public, and criticism has been leveled against Sarkozy of having been reduced to Merkel’s yes-man.
The intervention in Libya therefore is a way to reassert to Europe, but particularly to Germany, that France still leads the Continent on foreign and military affairs. It is a message that says if Europe intends to be taken seriously as a global power, it will need French military power. France’s close coordination with the United Kingdom also is an attempt to further develop the military alliance between London and Paris formalized on Nov. 2, 2010, as a counter to Germany’s overwhelming economic and political power in the European Union.
In asserting its strength, Paris may cause Berlin to become more assertive in its own right. With the very act of opposing the Franco-British consensus on Libya, Berlin already has shown a level of assertiveness and foreign policy independence not seen in some time. In a sense, France and the United Kingdom are replaying their 19th century roles of colonial European powers looking to project power and protect interests outside the European continent, while Berlin remains landlocked behind the Skagerrak and concentrates on building a Mitteleuropa.
As for interests in Libya, France has plenty, but its situation could be improved. French energy major Total SA is involved in Libya but not to the same extent as Italian ENI or even German Wintershall. Considering Libya’s plentiful and largely unexplored energy reserves, French energy companies could stand to profit from helping rebels take power in Tripoli. But it is really military sales that Paris has benefited from thus far. Between 2004 — when the European Union lifted its arms embargo against Libya — and 2011, Tripoli has purchased approximately half a billion dollars worth of arms from France, more than from any other country in Europe. However, the Italian government was in negotiation for more than a billion dollars worth of more deals in 2010, and it seemed that the Rome-Tripoli relationship was overtaking Paris’ efforts in Libya prior to the intervention.
United Kingdom
London has not been as aggressive about pushing for the Libya intervention as France, but it still has been at the forefront of the coalition. For the United Kingdom, the domestic political component is not as strong as its energy interests.
British Prime Minister David Cameron’s government initially came under strong criticism for being slow to evacuate British nationals from Libya. Nick Clegg, the deputy prime minister and leader of the coalition Liberal Democratic Party, was on a ski vacation in Switzerland when the crisis in Libya began and later told a reporter he “forgot” he was running the country while Cameron was on a trip to the Persian Gulf states. Later, the rebels seized a Special Air Service diplomatic security team, dispatched on a diplomatic mission to establish contact with anti-Gadhafi forces in eastern Libya, because they did not announce their presence in the country.
Therefore, the United Kingdom is motivated to recover leadership of the intervention after an otherwise-bungled first few weeks of the unrest. There is also, as with most of the Western countries, a sense that decades of tolerating and profiting from Arab dictators has come to an end and that the people in the United Kingdom will no longer accept such actions.
London has another significant interest, namely, energy. British energy major BP has no production in Libya, although it agreed with Tripoli to drill onshore and offshore wells under a $1 billion deal signed in 2007. The negotiations on these concessions were drawn out but were finalized after the Scottish government decided to release convicted Lockerbie bomber Abdel Baset al-Megrahi on humanitarian grounds in August 2009. He was expected to die of prostate cancer within months of his release but presumably is still alive in Tripoli. The Labour government in power at the time came under heavy criticism for al-Megrahi’s release. British media speculated, not entirely unfairly, that the decision represented an effort to kick-start BP’s production in Libya and smooth relations between London and Tripoli. BP announced in 2009 that it planned to invest $20 billion in Libyan oil production over the next 20 years.
The May 2010 Macondo well disaster in the Gulf of Mexico has made BP’s — and London’s — Libya strategy even more urgent. The United States accounted for a quarter of BP’s total hydrocarbon production in 2010. The disaster cost BP $17.7 billion worth of losses in 2010, and the company also has had to set up a $20 billion compensation fund. Estimates of potential further spill-related costs range between $38 billion and $60 billion, making BP’s future in the United States uncertain. The disaster also allowed BP’s competitors to complain about its potential future offshore operations, something Italian Foreign Minister Franco Frattini stressed, arguing that until the investigation into the Macondo well disaster is completed, BP should refrain from drilling off Libya’s shore in the Mediterranean Sea. The complaint was more than likely an attempt by ENI to complicate BP’s Libya operations by questioning its environmental record in North America.
Ultimately, London could gain the most by the removal of Gadhafi or winning the allegiance of a rebel-controlled government in some kind of semi-independent state in eastern Libya. With no oil production in Libya and arms sales that lag those of France and Italy by a considerable margin, the United Kingdom could substantially benefit from new leadership in Tripoli or even just Benghazi.
Exit Strategies
In sum, the United Kingdom and France have two main points to consider in terms of what would be an appropriate strategy to the current intervention. First, how palatable will it be for their publics if Gadhafi remained in power after the considerable vilification that justified the intervention in the first place? It is true that both Paris and London have in recent days stepped back from arguing that the military intervention is supposed to oust Gadhafi, but that tempered rhetoric may have been forced on them by criticism from within the coalition that they have overstepped the U.N. mandate. British Defense Secretary Liam Fox said March 21 that the direct targeting of Gadhafi by coalition forces was a possibility.
Second, will France and the United Kingdom be satisfied with a solution in which Gadhafi withdraws to the west and rebels take control of the east? The United Kingdom and France could live with that solution because they would still benefit from their patronage of the eastern rebels in both new arms deals and energy deals in the oil-rich east. For Italy, the situation is more complex, as it would be left to deal with an indignant Gadhafi across the Mediterranean.
*This report is reprinted with permission of STRATFOR. It may not be reprinted by any other party without express permission of STRATFOR.
STRATFOR is one of the world’s leading private intelligence companies. Our intelligence professionals provide a global audience of individuals and organizations with unique insights into political, economic, and military developments around the world. STRATFOR’s independent and in-depth geopolitical and security analysis enables users to better understand international events and risks.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/energysource/2011/03/29/france-u-k-have-differing-motives-for-intervening-in-libya/
Jump to: