In this Saturday, Feb. 21, 2015 photo, Libyan soldiers try to fix a weapon that jammed during clashes with militants on the frontline in Al Ajaylat, 120 kilometers (75 miles) west of Tripoli, Libya. Army forces in Libya have been fighting Islamic and tribal militias since last September.
RABAT, Malta — The absence of proper governance and security in Libya is contributing to the strengthening of militias due to an uncontrollable supply of arms, according to a February report delivered to the U.N. Security Council on Resolution 1973, which authorized NATO intervention in Libya in March 2011.
The report was compiled by a panel of experts and submitted to the Security Council Committee on Feb. 23. As the report makes clear, the scenario in Libya is one reminiscent of other countries plagued by Western forces intervening under the banner of democracy while also arming so-called “moderate rebels.”
Following the mass beheading of 21 Egyptian Coptic Christians by the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) in Libya last month, the Libyan government appealed to the U.N. Security Council to lift the arms embargo. However, as Iran’s PressTV reported on Monday, “most permanent members of [the Security Council] argue that they would rather see a unified government in Libya before acting to remove the ban.”
Libya’s arms embargo was first authorized under Resolution 1970, adopted on Feb. 26, 2011, upon allegations that former Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi was using excessive force against Libyan civilians during the Arab Spring movement. Article 9 of the resolution states that U.N. member states “shall immediately take the necessary measures to prevent the direct or indirect supply, sale or transfer to the LIbyan Arab Jamahiriya, from or through their territories or by their nationals, or using their flag vessels or aircraft, of arms and related materiel of all types.”
“If we wanted to get weapons into Libya, we probably could”
Resolution 1970 allowed only for the provision of non-lethal military equipment. Yet NATO-aligned Libyan rebels were receiving their supplies of weapons from countries within the coalition, such as France and the United States.
In March 2011, Reuters reported that President Barack Obama had stated, with regard to supplying rebels with “military hardware,” “It’s fair to say that if we wanted to get weapons into Libya, we probably could.”
France was the first country within the NATO coalition to admit to its role in arming the Libyan rebels. In June 2011, France admitted to dropping “light armaments, including guns and rocket propelled grenades, in the Nafusa Mountains in western Libya,” according to the Washington Post.
According to former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, the U.N.’s passage of Resolution 1973 provided a waiving of the arms embargo. Quoted in the Guardian in March 2011, Clinton declared, “It is our interpretation that [resolution] 1973 amended or overrode the absolute prohibition of arms to anyone in Libya so that there could be legitimate transfer of arms if a country were to choose to do that.”
The same article also quotes Mahmoud Shammam, the Libyan Transitional Council’s head of media, as stating, “We don’t have arms at all, otherwise we finish Gadhafi in a few days. But we don’t have arms. We ask for the political support more than we are asking for arms. But if we get both that would be great.”
Ultimately, as the agenda of regime change embraced by both NATO and the U.S. became apparent, arms supplies to the rebels was not only widely known, but also endorsed by the international community as the world waited for Gadhafi’s forced downfall.
George W. Bush’s Iraq War — another regime change agenda — was harshly criticized and condemned by various human rights organizations. Yet NATO intervention in Libya was hailed as necessary. Thus, arming the rebels, despite the consequences, wasn’t a factor influencing either public sentiment or the majority of activist groups usually clamoring against imperialist intervention. Libya became the exception, as did its aftermath.
U.S. interest in Libya’s vast oil reserves can be seen in a memorandum by Henry Kissinger dated March 20, 1970. The memorandum states the primary U.S. objective as being “1. To maintain normal diplomatic and commercial relations with Libya. (Including U.S. oil interests).”
Oil is clearly a pivotal factor in the turmoil created by Western interventionism. The BBC reported Thursday that militias have captured two oil fields in central Libya. The Libya Dawn coalition, the rival to the internationally-recognized government in Tobruk, reportedly fired rockets on oil storage tanks in Al-Sidra in December. Indeed, in Syria and Iraq, ISIS derives much of its power from taking control of oil fields in the region, according to investigative journalist Nafeez Ahmed, who highlights American and European support for militias in return for favorable oil purchases.
Perpetual instability
On Aug. 27, 2014, the Security Council adopted Resolution 2174, which calls for an immediate cease-fire in Libya, inclusive political dialogue and prior notice for weapons transfers. In keeping with its belated reactions to unfolding events, the resolution called for accountability and expressed “deep concern at the threat posed by unsecured arms and ammunition in Libya and their proliferation, which poses a risk to stability in Libya and the region, including through transfer to terrorist and violent extremist groups and underlining the importance of coordinated international support to Libya and the region to address these issues.”
Pushing forward the freedom and democracy rhetoric common to the U.S., the resolution also acknowledged the presence of “al-Qaida linked terrorist groups” — a fact which Gadhafi had asserted long before the U.N. would acknowledge it.
Article 8 of Resolution 2174 also provides a loophole for the supply, sale and transfer of arms in Libya. This stipulates that the country is eligible to apply for weapons but must await approval from the Security Council.
Last month’s report to the Security Council acknowledges “illicit trafficking of arms and ammunition from Libya,” which is contributing to the strengthening of various militias operating in Libya and controlling swathes of territory. Alliances with regard to arms trafficking have enabled a support network to emerge, notably from Gulf and African countries. This, in turn, has given rise to support for rival groups and increasing the power vacuum in the country.
Libya’s internationally-recognized Prime Minister Abdullah al-Thinni, now ensconced in Tobruk, has criticized Western powers for abandoning his government as it seeks to fight the General National Congress in Tripoli, which has the backing of the Libya Dawn militia, who are mainly from Misrata and played a major role in the war against Gadhafi. Al-Thinni’s government is aligned with General Khalifa Haftar, a former general and later CIA asset, who returned to Libya in 2011 during the NATO intervention.
Haftar and his forces, who are fighting Islamist militias including Ansar al-Sharia, have managed to procure military aid from Egypt. However, as ISIS in Libya obscures the underlying reality created by NATO intervention, it is unlikely that the West, through its creation of yet another terrorist entity in order to ensure perpetual instability, will heed any pleas coming from Libya.