Why Western Countries Conspired Against Colonel Gaddafi?

By Tiller Maringa

“Our duty and mandate under UN Security Council Resolution 1973 is to protect the civilians, and we are doing that. It is not to remove Gaddafi by force. But it is impossible to imagine a future for Libya with Gaddafi in power…… It is unthinkable that someone who has tried to massacre his own people can play a part in their future government…

“And because he has lost the consent of his people, any deal that leaves him in power would lead to further chaos and lawlessness… A genuine transition from dictatorship to an inclusive constitutional process can really begin with a new generation of leaders. For that to succeed, Colonel Gaddafi must go, and go for good.”

This is a part of the Joint Letter that was published by Sarkozy, Cameron and Obama on April 11, 2011 in three newspapers which are The Times of London, International Herald Tribune and French Le Figaro.
The Joint Letter was meant to justify the legality of the invasion of Libya adhering to the Resolution of 1973, but there is more to tell regarding the invasion.

According to the Democratic Peace Theory, democracies promote peace due to the fact that they do not declare war against other democracies but, they offer vicious attacks to those who are non-democratic.
This was the case between Gaddafi and the Western countries which was the main reason why they conspired against him.

These ideological differences triggered the western countries to conspire against Colonel Muammar Gaddafi in Libya. United Kingdom (UK) and its allies always sing songs against crimes against humanity, human rights abuses and violation of democratic principles.

It is done to achieve popular acclaim throughout the globe as liberators of mankind to whom humanity owes a debt of immense gratitude.
Eventually, a wave of mass demonstrations started in Tunisia in 2010 resulted in Zin El-Abidine Ben Ali ousted from power in January 2011 and later spread its wings to Egypt, ousted Hosni Mubarak in February 2011.
The same month Mubarak ousted, the mass demonstrations started in Benghazi, Libya and developed into an armed uprising. Libyan government launched its counter-offensive against this in March which gives the Western countries an entry point to poke their noses into issues of Libya.

On March 12, League of Arab States (LAS) called on United Nations Security Council to impose a “no-fly zone” over Libya and calling member states to use “all necessary measures” to protect civilians that were claimed to face massacre by armed forces of the Libyan government.

After the adoption of Resolution 1973, Western countries led by France, UK and United States (US) started bombing Libya claiming to protect the civilians against ruthless army of Gaddafi.

France was very instrumental in the military campaign against Gaddafi, but the French President Nicolas Sarkozy was perceived as a friend of Gaddafi but a hyena in sheep’s clothes and he even welcomed him at Elysee Palace in Paris, France.

Sarkozy stabbed Colonel Gaddafi in the back, which shows that there are no permanent friends or enemies in politics but what really matters is national interest and personal gains.

The National Transitional Council (NTC) emerged as an authoritative alternative to the government of Libya and was also recognised by the UN.

Gaddafi assassinated after being captured by NATO and LAS on October 20, 2011. This marked the end of Colonel Gaddafi’s reign and political career.

In support of the Resolution 1973 mentioned earlier, these countries claimed that they are carrying out a noble gesture of Right to Protect (R2P) innocent civilians.

There is a report that was published on September 14, 2016 titled “Libya: Examination of Intervention and Collapse and the UK’s Future Policy Options” prepared by the House of Commons Foreign Affairs Select Committee (HCFASC). It was chaired by Conservative MP, Crispin Blunt.
House of Commons’ report unveils the fabrication of evidence to justify the legality of the military campaign against Libya.

Long before the HCFASC began its work in Libya in 2015, there were others who commented on the matter. For instance, “Report on Libya” published on June 6, 2011, the well-known International Crisis Group (ICG) highlighted that much of Western media coverage were one-sided in favour of the military campaign against Libyan government. They took advantage of their sophisticated media equipment.

Professor Alan K. Kuperman wrote an article in the Boston Globe titled “False Pretence for War in Libya” where he articulated that President Barack Obama grossly exaggerated the humanitarian threat to justify military action in Libya.

He claimed that intervention was necessary to prevent bloodbath in Benghazi which was a rebel stronghold.

According to HCFASC report, the adoption of Resolution 1973 and the subsequent NATO and LAS aggression against Libya had no foundation to build any structural argument from.

It also stressed out the notion that despite rhetoric, the proposition that Gaddafi would have ordered massacre of civilians in Benghazi was not supported by any available evidence.

Gaddafi’s regime had reclaimed towns from rebels without attacking civilians in early February 2011. One of them was Ajdabiya.

Alison Pargeter who is an academic expert who assisted the HCFASC concluded that there was no real evidence at that time that Gaddafi was preparing to launch a massacre against his own civilians.

There are also false claims found concerning the matter. The report went on to debunk that Amnesty International investigation of June 2011 could not corroborate allegations of mass human rights abuses by Gaddafi regime troops.

The UK government did not make proper analysis of the Libyan rebellion.
On March 21, 2011, the UK House of Commons had overwhelmingly approved the involvement of UK in the military campaign against Libya with 557 votes in favour and 13 against.

One of those who voted against was Jeremy Corbyn who later became the leader of the Labour Party.

He was quoted saying:
“I do not know the politics, the aims, the ambitions, or anything else of the people of Benghazi….I think we should be slightly cautious about going to war on behalf of a group of people whom we don’t know, understand, or their aims. Many of them were ministers in the government of Gaddafi three weeks ago.”

However, UK Prime Minister David Cameron managed to garner many votes in support of going to war against Libya due to his bag of shenanigans.

As highlighted earlier, France was instrumental in the military campaign against Libya. Sarkozy had hidden agendas on the campaign.
On April 2, 2011, Sydney Blumenthal, advisor and unofficial intelligence analyst to the then US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton reported his conversation with French intelligence to the secretary of the state.

This conversation revealed that Sarkozy’s zeal to conduct a military campaign against Libya was driven by the following:
-a desire to gain a greater share of Libya’s oil production
-increase French influence in North Africa
-improve his internal political situation in France
-provide the French military with an opportunity to reassert its position in the world
-address the concern of his advisors over Gaddafi’s long-term plans to supplant France as the dominant power in Francophone Africa.

The last was President Sarkozy’s political interest which is meant for his personal aggrandisement.

Moreover, the West believed that Gaddafi’s Libya constituted a shared threat to Western countries as it was setting a bad example in terms of putting agenda the possibility of Africa truly exercising its right to self-determination.

Gaddafi’s Libya fought in its way for the genuine independence of Africa, determined to the use of relatively considerable resources it had accumulated as an important oil producer with a small population.
This was a complete challenge against Western hegemony.

Earlier on, UNSC and LAS adopted Resolution 1973 claiming R2P which has its key provisions such as non-interest, compassion, improving situation and reconciliation.

However, France did what was contrary to R2P and had interests in Libya and if we take a closer look at Libyan socio-political life, there is no improvement, reconciliation and there is tension and nostalgia about what happened during the period of mass demonstration in North Africa.
This clearly shows us that, all the justifications of going to war against Libya were all fabrications.

Similarly, UK falsified the reasons of declaring war against Iraq accusing Saddam Hussein of possessing Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD).
This false claim was revealed by Sir John Chilcot in his report in 2016 in which he blamed Tony Blair for taking Britain to war in Iraq on a lie.