ANALYSIS: After killing Gaddafi, what is there for the UN in Libya? – By Dr Michael J.K. Bokor

The writer, Dr Michael J.K. Bokor
The United Nations Security Council has decided by a unanimous vote to end international military operations in Libya by Monday, October 31, 2011. Feeling complacent that its mission to “protect civilians” has been accomplished, the Council thinks that the Libyan situation should now be in the hands of the Libyan people, led by the National Transitional Council.

Asia 728x90

The Council’s decision, however, seems not to meet the expectation of the Libyan authorities who have pleaded for an extension of the military mission in view of the current security situation or until such time that the Gaddafi menace would have been completely neutralized. The NTC has already declared Libya as “liberated” but seems to be apprehensive of something; hence, its plea for the UN/NATO to stay on in Libya. That plea has fallen on the deaf ears of the UN. Will it be so for NATO too?

This move by the Security Council raises intriguing issues, especially coming a few days after the dreaded Gaddafi had been murdered and tucked away in an unmarked grave in the Libyan desert—an indication that the UN and its allies in this Libyan military campaign had achieved their overarching objective of “Gaddafi must go.”

But it seems Gaddafi’s “going” doesn’t mean an end to the trouble that the NTC leadership fear; hence, their plea for their outside backers not to leave them in the lurch at this time.

Just as the UN’s entry into the Libyan conflict through the backdoor (of NATO and the Arab League) stoked fires, so also does its all-too-soon exit seem to be doing. What makes the Security Council so cocksure of stability being restored to Libya at this time to warrant this hasty exit? Will NATO fold up and leave the Mediterranean region too? Or will the UN look on for NATO to extend its campaign despite the expiration of the Security Council’s mandate that authorized its intrusion into the Libyan conflict to fight the war on behalf of the rebels?

Yet, another aspect of the UN’s credibility problem hangs around. It has to do with Sudan’s al-Bashir’s role in the Libyan crisis, which al-Bashir himself has just revealed, but which the UN can’t claim not to have been privy to until now that it has come from the horse’s own mouth. According to him, the fighting force that entered Tripoli to overthrow Gaddafi was made up of Sudanese soldiers—and they used armaments provided by the Sudanese government!

The UN knew that al-Bashir (the man its International Criminal Court is after) was deeply involved in the Libyan crisis but turned a blind eye to him because he was acting in conformity with the UN’s own agenda against Gaddafi. As al-Bashir himself has disclosed, his decision to support the Libyan rebels was a means to pay back Gaddafi for his role in anti-Sudan activities by the dissident JEM. So, it’s clear that when it came to concerted action to deal with a common enemy, both the UN and Sudan’s al-Bashir had no problem putting their resources together. Yet, everyone knows that al-Bashir isn’t a saint nor is he less guilty than Gaddafi in the atrocities for which the UN used NATO to undermine Gaddafi and hunt him to death.

The crocodile tears being shed by the leadership of the UN and its analogous institutions over the extra-judicial killing of Gaddafi won’t absolve them of blame or complicity in that dastardly act. After all, eliminating Gaddafi was the main agenda behind which the UN, NATO, the Arab League, and the Benghazi based rebels and their leaders hid to launch the fratricidal war in Libya under the banner of a “revolution” to liberate Libya from Gaddafi’s 42 years of dictatorship. Now that the UN and its allies have succeeded in killing him, why should they turn round to cry for him as if he was not slated to be either killed or captured alive to face the kind of justice that the ICC had lined up for him?

We shouldn’t be surprised at the turn of events. After all, the main mission has been accomplished and these people have no other allurement to remain on Libyan soil. They will hurriedly depart, leaving behind them tales of horrendous crimes and a country ruined beyond repair in the immediate future.

Meantime, the vampire system of the West will not leave Libya alone. Its economic and military institutions and organs will quickly flood Libya with one common objective—to dig deep into that country’s oil resources as the inevitable outcome of the war against Gaddafi. Libya’s oil is too precious for them to neglect and they will benefit from it as the most prized of the spoils of that war.

But the grand masters of the NATO military campaign will not stand aloof from the looting. Operating from afar and pulling strings, we should expect the countries that participated in the removal of Gaddafi to turn on all the throttles to milk Libya dry. Already, there is the feeling that they will demand that the new Libyan administration pay for all the expenses made on NATO’s military campaign against Gaddafi. Speculation is rife that Libyan funds in the custody of these countries (especially the United States, France, Italy, and Britain) will be used to pay off the war expenditures. Should that happen, we won’t be surprised at all because that’s how the West operates. Nothing goes for nothing!

Then, they will turn round to twist arms and get the new Libyan leadership to enter into long-lasting agreements for the supply of military armaments to replace what has been destroyed in the war. Certainly, the military-industrial complex stands to gain a lot from this Libyan situation. That’s how the West oils its economy.

As the UN closes its sordid chapter on the Libyan case, it will go down in history as complicit in all that has happened to turn Libya into a theatre for savagery. It is not as if its authorization of the military campaign against Libya didn’t cause more deaths of civilians than those alleged to have been murdered by Gaddafi. By all accounts, more savagery has occurred in this Libyan campaign than we have been told so far. When the dust settles after all, the truth will emerge.

Then again, it is not as if the UN is ending its mission in Libya after solving problems. To all intents and purposes, the real problems for Libya are yet to emerge; but the UN won’t wait to be blamed for anything of the sort. Hence, its decision to step out of the situation at this time. It’s a strategy that comes in handy, especially for those manipulating it who think that their physical presence in the country will not allow them to move to the next level of their machinations.

As the dust gradually begins to settle, we will see the reality of the Libyan case; but it may be too late to undo the harm that has already been done. It shouldn’t have taken all that massive destruction of Libya only to get rid of Gaddafi. The UN may be rushing to end its international military operations in Libya but it is leaving behind many unanswered questions.

The opinions expressed are the author’s and do not necessarily reflect the views or have the endorsement of the Editorial Board of

Print Friendly, PDF & Email