As many following Lord of Columbia now know, Trilogy II in the series focuses on an allegory of the United States and its modern foreign policy throughout the world since 1898. For those who’ve just now stumbled across my blog, welcome to Part VI of a seven-part series that debunks everything that your public schools and mainstream media led you to believe. Today, I’m going to talk about the Libya intervention and the real truth behind the debacle.
As I’ve stated in previous articles, I do not in any way condone the leaders of the Middle Eastern nations that I’m writing about; instead my goal is to provide a counter to the mainstream story, which often shows that us residing in the West are just as much an aggressor as the media and schools claim those we’re fighting against are.
Let’s talk about Libya.
As you might remember from the Iraq War article, the WMD myth blew up in the faces of neoconservatives all over Washington. However, they were successful in their quest to reshape the Middle East in the name of national interests and new terms such as ‘human rights’ and ‘protecting the innocent’ are far more effective in selling intervention to the public than simply stating the offending nation was a direct threat.
I’d like to point out that strong Western allies in the Middle East such as Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and Qatar have equally unjust human rights, but since Saudi Arabia is our number one customer in weapons purchases, I guess they get a free pass.
So all NATO had to do was to play the ‘human rights’ card and turned to the UN’s Human Rights Chief of Council.
Actions by the UN Human Rights Council
On February 21st, 2011 a joint letter was issued from a coalition of seventy non-governmental organizations (NGOs) pleading with the to UN suspend Libya from the Human Rights Council and to invoke the ‘responsibility to protect’ principle to protect the Libyan people.
The letter claimed the Libyan government was:
1. Sniping peaceful protestors
2. Using gunships of artillery and helicopters against demonstrators
3. Crushing bystanders with tanks
4. Indiscriminately shooting from helicopters and rooftops
The letter, which is linked above, is enough to sell anyone justification for immediate intervention. But again, definitely keep Saudi Arabia in mind, as its human rights situation is every bit as bleak as Libya’s was claimed to be.
Four days later on February 25th, the UN Human Rights Council held a special session adopting a resolution confirming the NGOs plea without a vote.
The Council later passed Resolutions 1970 and 1973 which authorized a ‘no-fly zone’ on Libyan military aviation. This ‘no-fly zone’ was established to deliver humanitarian assistance as well as for the protection of civilians.
Humanitarian assistance has been a key term used in more modern times, since the Libyan crisis, to justify further Middle East interventions such as Syria and perhaps in time Lebanon and Iran. If one remembers, the term was thrown around in Venezuela as well.
Days later, the US, UK, and France began bombing the nation. This claim is rarely spoken of, as I received a word from my main source, but had a tough time backing the claim. All the mainstream outlets make no mention of the bombings, nor does Hillary Clinton’s memoir ‘Hard Choices.’ Instead, Clinton leaves out the events that occurred between April and August 2011, instead skipping from March to September.
The first raid occurred on March 20th, when Tomahawk cruise missiles launched from a British submarine in the Mediterranean Sea struck a building in Qaddafi’s Bab al-Azizia Compound, less than fifty yards away from Qaddafi’s residence.
Despite the bombing of the compound, US Vice Admiral William Gortney stated, “At this particular point, I can guarantee that he’s (Qaddafi) not on the targeting list.” Gortney added that “We’re not targeting his residence. We’re there to set the conditions to enforce the UN Security Council Resolution.”
Also in March 2011, Barack Obama stated, “Broadening our military mission to include regime change would be a mistake.”
UN Resolution 1970
Resolution 1970 was intended to impose an arms embargo and targeted sanctions (assets freeze and travel ban) and the establishment of a sanctions committee. Basically, the resolution was intended to prohibit arms transfers to either side of the budding war.
However, it was found that not only did Western intervention not limit its mission to the UN resolution, it decided not to enforce it at all.
It was found that Egypt and Qatar had been shipping weapons to rebel groups, despite claims from US officials that they had “no information about arms being moved across borders.”
In fact, the Obama administration allowed and knew about the weapons transfers the whole time, while also allowing the West to provide battleground intel, logistics, and training.
The largest piece of evidence came when NATO itself made a public relations video documenting the embargo enforcement when the narrator from a Canadian warship, the HMCS Charlottetown, found small arms and “a lot of explosives” on a tugboat owned by Libyan rebels. However, NATO ordered the Charlottetown to not stop the tugboat, leading the video narrator to conclude “NATO decides not to impede the rebels and to let the tugboat proceed.”
Truth About the Intervention
It was always about regime change, just like in Iraq and later on, in Syria.
The threat from the Libyan military forces to civilians was taken out within the first ten days of the intervention. NATO later provided air support to rebels to advance on retreating troops and on October 20th, 2011 a US Drone and French Fighter Jet attacked a Libyan convoy in Sirte, injuring Qaddafi which later led to his capture and subsequent murder.
Fast forward to the Benghazi hearing in October 2015, when Hillary Clinton was questioned about a video clip stating, “We came, we saw, he died.”
Clinton stated, “It was an expression of relief that the military intervention undertaken by NATO and our partners had achieved its end.”
However, go back to the early stages in 2011, when Obama stated that “regime change would be a mistake.”
In truth, the Obama administration was untruthful with the public from the beginning, in a very same manner of the Nobel Peace Prize winning President’s campaign was, one built on the notion that America does not need to be the policemen of the world.
From the beginning, the argument can be made that the humanitarian crisis in Libya was unproven. The Article, entitled Libya: Human Rights Imposters Used states that the basis of the claim in Libya was referred to the UN Security Council at UN Headquarters in New York City and kicked out of the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva.
Further, such claims were vaguely explained, other than what I shared in the earlier sections of the article.
Finally, a 77-page document released by the International Criminal Court’s Chief Prosecutor, Luis Moreno-Ocampo, which profiled the human rights abuses in Libya, has been heavily redacted to 23 pages of information. Moreno-Ocampo heavily endorsed the report and urged the public to read it.
While I’m by no means claiming the attacks on civilians didn’t happen, I am saying that, much in the case of Syria which I’ll talk about in a later article, such claims were sold by the media, but upon further research, had been unproven.
What is going on in Libya today, over seven years after NATO’s supposed victory and humanitarian liberation of the country? Open-Air Slave Markets have been set up and are currently running in the country that those playing the humanitarian card cared so much about.
The Human Rights Council OHCHR states Libyans and migrants are “still being detained in appalling conditions and sold in ‘open-slave markets.'”
Also, the country has been in an open state of civil war since 2014.
Relation to Lord of Columbia
The Libyan crisis teaches us that there is an ulterior motive to all national interventions. In Raven’s Flock, one will definitely see early on in the work that the news media and political leaders are in agreement that the Western coalition in the World of Gaia must intervene in the East due to the perpetual humanitarian crisis facing the Eastern Nations, which I outlined in my previous article.
The reader will find that the justification of such intervention is based on humanitarianism, however as Raven Spade and the other main characters come to find, it’s nothing more than a front to hide the real reasons behind such interventions. But as stated before, simply using the term ‘national security threat’ isn’t enough in modern times. Today, it’s all about brutal dictatorships who fire upon their own people, as has been the same card played in both Syria and Venezuela.