Washingtonian attempt to stage a monarchist counter revolution in Libya

Flagge von Libyen
Flag of Libya

In Tunisia and in Egypt, the objectives of the largely peaceful revolutions were clear: in addition to improving the economic situation by the disempowerment of the ruling kleptocrats there was overwhelming demand to introduce a fair system of democracy, enforce the rule of law and have human rights respected. The leading faces of the revolution articulated these demands and virtually all the protesters were united behind these demands as they were united in the demand that the way to achieve these political goals was to be by peaceful means. In the case of the uprising in the Great Socialist Libyan-Arab People’s Republic, as the full name of the State of Libya is, things are different.

First it is remarkable in the uprising in Libya that it is not known what political goals – apart from Gaddafi’s disempowerment – should be enforced with the insurgency, if there are any political objectives associated with the insurgency at all. Gabriele Riedle, reporter for the glossy German magazine Geo, which is specialized on nature and indigenous people around the world, was in Libya for a long planned report and stayed there until the #Feb17-riots started. It’s a lucky case, because Geo as a nature magazine is rather apolitical and so it’s journalists are not trained to lie according to the political agenda. After Gabriele Riedle returned she gave an interview on what she saw in Libya regarding the protests to one of Germany’s leading daily papers, the Frankfurter Rundschau. She told the paper, she had in Libya „not met a single person speaking about democracy“. Furthermore, she explained the political objectives of the uprising as following:

It’s about power distribution, to old bills and get revenge. … The protests develop its own momentum. This has nothing to do with political aims. One shots, then there are angry griefs, then they shoot more, so this escalates.

Even more remarkable is that it is neither clear who has initiated the uprising in Libya or who leads it. The notorious CIA-sponsored NSFL keeps a very low profile. Gabriele Riedle describes the initial spark for the uprising in the above mentioned interview this way:

Five years ago, on 17 Februar 2006, there were protests in Benghazi against cartoons of Mohammed. Originally the government supported these demonstrations, but it got out of hand, something went wrong and there occured about ten deaths. And 15 years ago, there had been a prison riot in Tripoli with about 1,200 deaths from police violence. The human rights lawyer representing the relatives of the dead of that time was recently jailed. That and the protest movements in the neighborhood countries came together and led to the protests which at the beginning turned out in the east. At the same time people in Libya watch the whole day just Facebook because there is nothing else going on in Libya, There also appeared the call for a „day of anger“ on February 17. February. Nobody knows, who created that facebook page.

So there could be anyone behind this Facebook page and the insurgency. It could be the British MI6, which supported plots to murder Gaddafi already years ago, it could be the American gang of murderers named CIA, which has never been shy staging bloody coups when it fits, or the terrorist service Mossad of the apartheid state of Israel, whose chief liar and warmonger Shimon Peres already dreamed of a „Libya without Gaddafi“. Nothing is clear. Neither the political objectives nor the person driving the insurgency can be publicly identified.

What is clear is that the focus of the insurgency is in the east, especially in the towns of Al Baida and Benghazi. Gabriele Riedle describes it using these words:

I can only say that it has their origin in the east, home to the warlike tribes who find Gaddafi stupid, simply because they find everyone stupid, who has power over them.

This is not a clear picture of the Libyan events‘ background, but those are nevertheless clear words.

Tagesschau Screenshot of 22.02.2011
„Libyan“ flag hoisted by insugents
Screenshot Tagesschau 22.02.2011

The staterun German news broadcast „Tagesschau“ reported regional differences in the uprising against revolutionary leader Muamar Al-Gaddafi, too. Yesterday it reported under the title „East under new control“ that the insurgency is going on mainly in the east of Libya. But the Tagesschau like most international media failed to report under whose control the east of Libya is now. The Tageschau just reported that „the military“ had taken over control in eastern Libya. While at least part of the Libyan military seems to be loyal to Muamar Al-Gaddafi this is most likely a reference to some defected structures of the Libyan military.

To get a clearer picture, it’s worth to have a closer look to the Facebook page, which called for the #Feb17 insurgency. The Facebook page in question seems to be the page of an anonymous „Libyan Youth Movement“, which describes it’s goal as nothing other than to return Libya, God willing, „to prosperity“.

A godly business revolt for prosperity, wealth and economic growth sounds already very strange in itself. In Libya, it is completely absurd. Libya is due to it’s oil and gas not only with the most prosperous country in North Africa, but as admitted by the really not Libyan friendly German business paper Frankfurter Allgemeine two years ago and as opposed to potentially similar rich countries such as neighboring Algeria it’s oil bilions are – due to it’s popular committees – spent to a large part to serve it’s people. In addition to this there is a lot of foreign investment, an ambitious programm promoted by Gaddafi to spread internet among the Libyan population and a state-driven building boom like no other. Gabriele Riedle describes the social benefits in Libya as follows:

These new homes belong to this, they can be bought extremely cheap with interest-free loans that may not even need to be repaid, the basic foods are subsidized, the fuel, and the unemployed are paid for jobs that do not exist.

shabab lybia facebook screenshot
Facebook Screenshot
„Shabab Lybia“

To revolt against socialist achievements giving the people participation in the richness of the country smells already a bit like a banana revolution driven by mendacious propaganda of a „Western value system“ of the humanity of ruthless capitalism.

The aim of the protesters is apparently not a matter of universal human rights neither. It is true, that in the face of violent tribal traditions a quicker Libyan progress in the field of human rights is very desirable. But that’s not the common goal of the protesters. China Radio International reported last Saturday that insurgents in the eastern Libyan city of Al Baida hanged two policemen and insurgents in the the eastern city of Benghazi trotured the Executive Director of the Al-Galaa Hospital to death. Swiss TV reported today, a policeman from Al Baida told them that Anti-Gaddafi-protesters in Al Baida killed 200 Gaddafi supporters, who were quickly described as mercenaries. Peaceful demonstrations to enforce human rights look different. What we see in Libya are not peaceful protestors but heavily armed anti-government militias without any other political demands then power driving the country into civil war.

The uprising of masses is catalyzed by plenty of false mass media reports presented as „unconfirmed“ news like the alleged bombing of protesters from the air by Gaddafi, the alleged cut of the internet or the alleged escape of Gaddafi to Venezuela – a deliberate hoax spread by the British Foreign Secretary William Hague to fuel the uprising.

Tasked in wholesale with the generation of unconfirmed primary „information“ for the mass media campaign are once again social media activists from the cirlces around the American Islamic Congress, a right-wing Zionist-American front organization of the Washington establishment with a thin Islamic painting. It worked already the same way on regime change by Facebook campaigns in Tunisia and Egypt. That Libya and Syria are among the targets of the regime change via mass media enhanced Facebook campaigns designed by American Islamic Congress was already clear before the announcement of the #Feb17 start date on Facebook.

When there are – besides outing Gaddafi – no visible political aims in the uprising in Libya and besides Washington driven social media activists no political leaders are visible, the question arises, whether there exists a unifying element in the uprising. There is actually something, something that is often overlooked. Across the uprising one symbol is seen again and again: the flag of the monarchy, that is the flag of the Kingdom of Libya, which was created when British imperialists made out of the „Knight of the Order of the British Empire“ Sidi Muhammad Idris al-Mahdi al-Senussi King Idris of Libya and which was abolished 1969, when Colonel Gaddafi and about 200 comrades overthrew the dictator and converted the kingdom into a republic.

Flag of the Kingdom Libya
Flag of the Kingdom of Libya

The flag hoisted by insurgents in the east of Libya is not the „Libyan flag“ as German state news Tagesschau called it, but it is the flag Libyan flag of the monarchy, the same flag which was used by the Facebook page calling for the rebellion. It is worthwhile to follow the trail of the monarchy. In the east of Libya, namely in the Cyrenaica, which in Arabic is Barqah, was the focus of the empire of King Idris of Libya, who was head of the Sufi Islamic Senussi order and called himself „Emir of Barqah“ before he was king.

Of course, King Idris I is long dead, as well as his chosen heir to the throne Hasan, but the title to the throne was further inherited to his grand nephew Muhammad Al-Senussi, who emigrated to Britain in 1988. From London he praised the Libyan insurgents in an e-mail to the American business service Bloomberg as „heroes“.

But that’s not all of the royal family of the perished dictatorship. The also exiled current head of the Senussi order, His Royal Highness Prince Idris al-Senussi, as he calls himself, was a couple of years ago commander of a brigade of mercinaries fighting against Gaddafi which were – according to the New York Times – trained by American intelligence and more recently he was a director of the company „Washington Investment Partners“ which is very close to the U.S. American financial establishment that lost lot’s of money when Gaddafi nationalized Libyas petroleum industry. As soon as the #Feb17-insurgency began in Libya he announced that he was „ready to return to Libya“. Conveniently, right after the start of the uprising so called „Islamic fighters“ have captured army weapons in the east of the country and proclaimed a new Islamic „Emirate of Barqa“ in Al Baida. Thus for the de facto restauration of the monarchy in Libya, only the return of the Washingtonian Emir is still lacking.

Washington, London and Tel-Aviv will love it, and many US-empowered gulf dictators in their „islamic“ kingdoms and emirates like Al Jazeera’s host country Qatar will like it, too. But too sorry. Muamar Gaddafi and his supporters don’t like seeing Libya to become a colony of Washington camouflaged as an islamic kingdom and vowed to fight this Washingtonian attempt to stage a monarchist counter revolution in Libya – and rightly so. It’s time to give Libya back some of the solidarity it has shown with Palestine and so many socialist and anti-imperialist movements in the world and to show solidarity with the arab islamic socialist people’s republic of Libya and it’s revolution leader Muamar Gaddafi against the Washington driven monarchist counter revolution.

6 Gedanken zu “Washingtonian attempt to stage a monarchist counter revolution in Libya

  1. Solidarity with Palestine?

    Didn’t Gaddafi kick out 30.000 (!) Palestinians in the 90’s for a policy they had nothing to do with (PLO’s peace process with Israel).

    Surely there has been resistance to Gaddafi’s regime throughout the years from solid people as well (non-CIA sponsored) including some of the original revolutionaries.

    And you can’t argue against Gaddafi’s human rights abuses – even though some part of his politics and support of freedom fighters can be considered nice. Human rights violations against your own people is just that.

  2. @Randver
    As always, things are not that simple. The Gaddafi rule has seen lot’s of anti-imperialist moves throughout the arab world and Africa. And it has seen a lot of collaboration.

    But so have the #feb17-insurgents. While there may well be many anti-imperialists between them – maybe even the majority – the leadership calls on the U.S. to bomb their path to reign in Libya. So it’s clear collaboration. Who does colaborate more is hard to say, but consider this: when 3 imperialist Dutch soldiers entered Libya in an attack helicopter, Gaddafi arrested them and holds them. When insurgents captured 8 imperialist British SAS terrorists, they let them go – for the sake of good relations with the imperium.

    Rgarding human rights, there exist many reports of the Gaddafi regime violating them, but, as is said, it became better recently. Now let’s have a look to the relation of the insurgents. Here an example from Wikipedia:

    „50 African mercenaries were executed by the protesters in al-Baida. Some died when protestors burned down the police station in which they locked them up and 15 were lynched in front of the courthouse in al-Baida. The bodies of some of them were put on display and caught on video.“

    So far so ugly, But it’s even worse. Here is one example of the relation to human rights shown by the Anti-Gaddafi-insurgents, taken from Somaliland press:

    „In east Libya, African hunt began as towns and cities began fall under the control of Libyan rebels, mobs and gangs. They started to detain, insult, rape and even executing black immigrants, students and refugees. In the past two weeks, more than 100 Africans from various Sub-Sahara states are believed to have been killed by Libyan rebels and their supporters. According to Somali refugees in Libya, at least five Somalis from Somaliland and Somalia were executed in Tripoli and Benghazi by anti-Gaddafi mobs. Dozens of refugees and immigrants workers from Ethiopia, Eritrea, Ghana, Nigeria, Chad, Mali and Niger have been killed, some of them were led into the desert and stabbed to death. Black Libyan men receiving medical care in hospitals in Benghazi were reportedly abducted by armed rebels. They are part of more than 200 African immigrants held in secret locations by the rebels.“

    That is not an improvement regarding human rights.

    So what’s the outcome: anti-colonial african pro-Gaddafi forces and anti-imperialist islamic anti-Gaddafi forces kill each other. America wil celebrate it and keep the killing running for as long as they can. They will support always the weaker side, but never definite, so they can be sure never no one wins. If rebels are too weak, they give them support to fight dicatator Gaddafi. If Gaddafi is too weak, they give him support to fight Al Qaeda.

    That scheme can go on for many years. In the Iraq-Iran war that scheme went on for eight years. As an Israeli politician put it, the goal was: let these bastards kill each other as many as possible. And that scheme is applied to Libya now.

    Rebels don’t want talk, but war. On the same time, they say, they are too weak to win, so they call for US airstrikes on Libya. So the US got the leverage to make this bloodshed endless.

    Gaddafi agreed to Chavez proposal for talks for peace – but rebells declined and vow war. So, as long as rebells vow war and attack, Gaddafi has only one chance to stop the endless bloodshed: crush the uprising. And if nobody negotiates peace, that will happen now – a very bloody crush.

    What’s urgently needed to break though the scheme of war is stopping the bloodshed immediately, talking for a peaceful interim solution for both sides and implementing it.

Die Kommentarfunktion ist geschlossen.