Very few people in the United States trust the mainstream corporate media. This is confirmed by a July survey from the major polling firm Gallup, which found that just 11% of North Americans trust television news, and a mere 16% have confidence in newspapers. It’s quite easy to understand why. The US media apparatus has repeatedly shown itself over decades to be completely unreliable and highly politicized. The corporate media’s treachery has been especially clear in the demonstrably false stories it disseminated to try to justify the US wars on Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, and Syria. This disgraceful legacy continues today, in the proxy war that Washington is waging on Russia via Ukraine. Fake news echoed by the press has served as a powerful form of US information warfare.
The United Nations Special Advisor on Libya said on Monday, June 20, that the Libyan parties participating in the recent round of talks in Egyptian capital Cairo have failed to reach a consensus over a legal process to hold national elections in the war-torn country. The failed talks have led to fresh apprehensions about the future of the peace process in Libya. The third round of talks between the representatives of the Tripoli-based High Council of State (HCS) and the Tobruk-based Libyan parliament were held between June 12 to 20. The first two rounds of talks were held in Cairo last month. The talks to resolve the differences over the overall election process and the governing criteria for candidature in the presidential elections are being hosted by the UN.
Anxiety about the expansion of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) toward the Russian border is one of the causes of the current war in Ukraine. But this is not the only attempt at expansion by NATO, a treaty organization created in 1949 by the United States to project its military and political power over Europe. In 2001, NATO conducted an “out of area” military operation in Afghanistan, which lasted 20 years, and in 2011, NATO—at the urging of France—bombed Libya and overthrew its government. NATO military operations in Afghanistan and Libya were the prelude to discussions of a “Global NATO,” a project to use the NATO military alliance beyond its own charter obligations from the South China Sea to the Caribbean Sea.
The recent increased frequency of coups in West Africa or what some have called ‘coup contagion ’ are mere symptoms of deeper problems that are rooted in a combination of factors. Together they have dialectically combined to produce a general climate of increased instability, insecurity, violence and suffering of the masses of people just trying to make a living. Several of the coups have been regarded as ‘popular’ by some because they represent (at least so far) a welcomed change from incompetent corrupt governments. Some populations in Mali and Burkina Faso are desperate for a government and force that can mitigate terrorist criminal violence perpetrated by non-state actors which at the same time can be trusted to provide for their needs, even if those coup leaders may not necessarily be altruistic, but to some extent self-interested.
Muammar Gaddafi led his nation to become the wealthiest in all of Africa. A decade after his demise, it is riven by tribalism, terrorism and slavery, all because the West could not allow an Arab leader to succeed. There was never really an ‘Arab Spring’ in Libya the way there was in Egypt or Tunisia. Protests were much smaller, and as time went on to show, the biggest players turned out to be extremist groups and foreign actors, each trying to get a slice of the country. NATO’s bombing of Libya and support for rebels seeking to overthrow Gaddafi had little to do with wanting the country to prosper. Under the guise of ‘human rights’ and ‘democracy’, the Western military alliance helped murder one of the Arab world’s most prominent leaders in order to steal Libya’s resources and protect Western hegemony.
Question: why do both conservative and liberal governments in the U.S. install right-wing governments abroad if ‘the U.S.’ opposes right-wing political violence? While right and left politics may seem to have limited descriptive value in many current conflicts, the interests of capital, broadly considered, represent an unwavering motive for them. Why then would military conflict in the interests of capital not be considered a left / right concern within the American political frame? Part of the answer is the Cold War conceptual shift away from conflicts between nations to a battle of ideologies. Another is the way that these conflicts are sold. To be clear, there are plenty of American nationalists who support militarism outside of their direct economic interests.
“Unless we take the oil from Libya, I have no interest in Libya,” Donald Trump declared in an April 2011 interview on CNN’s “Newsroom.” The U.S. government was considering military intervention in the oil-rich North African nation at the time. Trump said he would only participate if Washington exploited Libya’s natural resources in return. “Libya is only good as far I’m concerned for one thing — this country takes the oil. If we’re not taking the oil, no interest,” he added. NATO claimed its U.S.-backed bombing campaign was meant to protect Libyans who were protesting the regime of longtime dictator Muammar Qadhafi.
Humanitarian organizations are being penalized for fulfilling responsibilities abandoned by European governments at the world’s deadliest border, activists have warned after an eventful weekend in the Mediterranean. Late on Friday, the Louise Michel rescue ship was alerted by a charity reconnaissance plane Moonbird to a boat carrying 130 refugees in distress inside Malta’s search-and-rescue zone. The ship, funded by street artist Banksy and run by a seasoned team of rescuers, had already picked up 89 people in previous operations and so, unable to bring everyone on board, the crew waited for hours into Saturday for Malta or Italy to assist. “A crew of 10 is now onboard a 30m ship with 219 survivors,” Lousie Michel tweeted on Saturday afternoon. “[Thirty-three] are still on a life raft and one deceased person in a body bag.”
On July 8, United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres made a statement that could have been delivered at any point over the last decade. “Time is not on our side in Libya,” he announced. He laid out a range of problems facing the country, including the military conflict, the political stalemate between the GNA and the HOR, the numbers of internally-displaced people (400,000 out of 7 million), the continued attempts of migrants to cross the Mediterranean Sea, the threat from COVID-19, and the “unprecedented levels” of “foreign interference.” The UN Human Rights Council passed a resolution to send a Fact-Finding Mission to Libya to investigate human rights violations in this war, including the mass graves found in Tarhouna. The credibility of the Council is in doubt. An earlier Commission of Inquiry on Libya set up in 2012 to study war crimes in 2011-2012 was shut down largely because the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) refused to cooperate with the investigation.
‘The Only Way Out Of Libya Is By Sea’ — How Migrant Rescuers Are Making History In The Mediterranean
When I set out to produce “City of Refuge” — a podcast series about a little-known French community that saved 5,000 refugees during World War II — I did it with the aim of showing how ordinary people can effectively resist the evil we see in our world. But lest anyone think this sort of thing only happened in isolated cases throughout history, I want to highlight the kind of rescue work taking place today, on the frontlines of the European migrant crisis.
Last year, it became clear that the already chaotic Libya would slip into disaster. The UN-backed Government of National Accord (GNA) lost control of the eastern half of the country, which had been seized by the Libyan National Army (LNA) of Khalifa Haftar. Backed by Turkey and Qatar, the GNA held on by a hair, while the LNA—backed by Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and Egypt—swept through the south of the country and threatened the capital of Tripoli. Salamé came to the United Nations on May 21, 2019, to beg for the UN to sanction countries that continued to deliver arms into Libya.
TRIPOLI, LIBYA — Libyan strongman Khalifa Haftar, a 40-year veteran of Libyan politics and longtime CIA asset, on Thursday ordered his self-styled Libyan National Army (NLA) to advance on the densely populated capital, Tripoli, where the United Nations-backed government is seated. In the aftermath of the “humanitarian intervention” led by NATO in support of jihadists seeking to oust longtime leader Muammar Gaddafi in 2011, various factions have vied for power in the war-torn nation, once the wealthiest in Africa.
You can well imagine the tension when Libya’s beleaguered Prime Minister Fayez al-Serraj met with the UN envoy Ghassan Salamé in his office in Tripoli on Monday morning. Not far away, in the south of Libya’s capital, the troops of the Libyan National Army led by General Khalifa Haftar had made rapid advances. They had taken the shell of Tripoli International Airport and had made a dash toward the road that links Libya to Tunisia. Haftar’s troops, well-armed and well-disciplined, had moved northward toward the Ain-Zara neighborhood. On Monday, Haftar’s air force bombed the only working airport in Tripoli – at Mitiga.
Once again it turns out it is one thing to topple and destroy a nation's government, and another thing entirely to impose your will on that nation In March 2011 Western powers backed by Arab Gulf monarchies launched a regime-change war on behalf of Islamist and tribal militias to topple Libya’s Gaddafi. Six months later he was gone. What followed wasn’t a pro-Western liberal regime (with hardcore Islamists forming the rebel vanguard how could it be?), but national disintegration as the country split up between so many militia turfs.