Sharp splits emerging among Libya's new leaders

Πηγή: AP
By RYAN LUCAS

12 Sep. 2011

TRIPOLI, Libya (AP) — Sharp splits are already emerging in the ranks of Libya's new rulers between Islamic conservatives and more secular figures competing for power even as the leadership begins to settle in Tripoli and start creating a post-Moammar Gadhafi government.

The rising tensions, which have become increasingly public, could jeopardize efforts to rebuild the country and form a cohesive state after six months of civil war.

Each side accuses the other of trying to monopolize a new government. On one side stand more secular technocrats, some of whom have long lived abroad or once had ties with Gadhafi's regime. On the other are conservatives, including the Muslim Brotherhood, who opposed Gadhafi for years on the ground in Libya and suffered during his rule.

"There are fears that these tensions could hamper reconstruction or just cause it all to unravel," said a Western official in Tripoli who deals with members of the leadership of all stripes. He spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitive nature of the issue.

The two sides are wrestling over a fundamental question facing Libya's new leaders since the uprising began in mid-February — how to divvy up the powers of the nation after six months of civil war brought the downfall of Gadhafi's 42-year rule.

Caught in the middle is Mustafa Abdul-Jalil, the head of the National Transitional Council, the closest thing the former rebels have to a functioning government. Abdul-Jalil is the sole figure in the leadership who enjoys almost universal support, earning the deep respect of many Libyans for criticizing Gadhafi's regime even while serving as its justice minister.

"Abdul-Jalil is trying to keep the peace, and it's a struggle between both sides, between the two powerful camps," said one official close to the NTC on condition of anonymity in order to speak freely. "He's trying to maintain a balance between the two camps, and keep the international community happy. It's very difficult."

The disputes for now appear to be primarily over personnel, and not deeply rooted in ideology, although the dividing line is increasingly stark.

The more secular camp is headed by Mahmoud Jibril, the U.S.-educated acting prime minister who has found favor among the revolution's Western backers. But Jibril, like a handful of others falling on this side of the fault line, also served briefly in the Gadhafi regime, and spent much his time during the civil war abroad, trying to drum up international support.

One of the most prominent Islamist figures at the moment is Abdel-Hakim Belhaj, a former fighter in the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group — a militant organization that long opposed Gadhafi — and now the commander of the Tripoli military council.

The Islamists, who control the main military force in the capital, the Tripoli Brigade, have tried to ramp up the pressure on Jibril, calling for his resignation.

"We think that Mahmoud Jibril has lost the confidence of people on the ground in Tripoli, in eastern Libya, in Misrata, and in the majority of the western mountains," said Anes Sharif, a spokesman for the Tripoli military council.

"He has been living for the last six months outside the country," Sharif said. "He is appointing people depending on their loyalty to him, not depending on their worth and their activities in the revolution. We think he's a project for a new dictator."

On Friday, Jibril arrived in Tripoli — nearly three weeks after the capital's fall — and in his first public comments took a swipe at groups who he said have already started "the political game" before the rules have been set.

He did not elaborate or name names, but Naji Barakat, the health minister in the Cabinet and a former exile, said the comments were directed chiefly at the Muslim Brotherhood.

"They've started doing dirty politics because they want to take the lead," Barakat told The Associated Press. "I think they've been trying for a long time to be seen and heard. I think they're getting support from countries as well. They think this is fertile ground."

The Brotherhood and the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group were both heavily oppressed by Gadhafi's regime. They played a key role in the revolution's security apparatus, including as front-line fighting forces. The LIFG once had links to al-Qaida but has renounced its jihadist past, and both it and the Brotherhood have pledged allegiance to democratic principles. The Brotherhood was repeatedly targeted by Gadhafi's security services and was never able to establish a firm organizational structure inside the country.

George Joffe, a Libyan expert at Cambridge University, said the Brotherhood remains a potent force in this conservative Muslim country despite its past struggles.

"Don't underestimate its importance," Joffe said. "It has a long-standing tradition in Libya. ... There is a profound sentiment in favor of the Brotherhood, and it is quickly being re-established with a structure."

Barakat criticized the Islamists for playing politics while the fighting continues. Revolutionary forces are still battling Gadhafi loyalists in the former regime strongholds of Bani Walid, Sirte and Sabha, and Gadhafi himself remains in hiding.

"We're saying now is not the time for this. Now, they (the Brotherhood) are trying to weaken the NTC and to jump in," he said. "With Tripoli liberated, they think now is the time."

Libya's new leaders have only just arrived in Tripoli, and are taking halting steps toward setting up a new government. Workers are busy readying the offices of the Gadhafi-era government for officials arriving in the capital to work in the various ministries.

Jibril said Sunday that efforts are being made to pay government salaries on time, and bonuses added to August salaries. He also said that oil production had resumed at one unspecified oil field in Libya's east.

But the NTC is struggling to bring all the various armed brigades spanning the country under its authority.

Other fault lines have also emerged since revolutionary forces swept into Tripoli on Aug. 21, driving Gadhafi from the capital and effectively bringing an end to the dictator's rule.

The Libyan uprising began in the city of Benghazi in mid-February, and the rebels managed to wrest free much of the eastern half of the country from Gadhafi's forces. The revolutionaries set up the NTC in Benghazi, and the body has been dominated by figures from the east — and Benghazi in particular.

Tripoli, which was under the thumb of the regime even after the eastern half of the country was liberated of his rule, is now trying to reclaim its pre-eminent political position, pushing back against a revolutionary leadership dominated by figures from Benghazi.

"The rift between Tripoli and Benghazi is pretty big," the Western official said. "It's worrying."

Tripoli has long been the base of power in Libya, a country of only 6 million people, 2 million of whom live in the capital. The capital's powerful political players are flexing their muscles, telling the NTC that they cannot dictate Libya's future.

"The Tripoli people also know that they actually created their own revolution on Aug. 20, and they want full recognition for that," said Joffe of Cambridge University. "And they're not sure they want to see the council in its present form, coming in and telling them what to do."

Libya's new PM Mahmoud Jibril faces growing unrest

Mahmoud Jibril, the interim Libyan prime minister, speaks to the media after arriving in Tripoli from Benghazi. Photograph: Ismail Zitouni/Reuters

Πηγή: Guardian
By David Smith and Martin Chulov in Tripoli

Thursday 8 September 2011

Libya's interim prime minister arrived in Tripoli on Thursday for his first public appearance in the capital since Muammar Gaddafi was overthrown more than two weeks ago, to face criticism that the country is experiencing a power vacuum.

Mahmoud Jibril's debut press conference coincided with a meeting of revolutionary activists from across Libya who called on the National Transitional Council to show leadership or face potential revolt.

Saoud Elhafi, co-founder of the February 17 Coalition – a reference to the date of the first uprising – told the Guardian that there had been frustration over Jibril's long diplomatic missions abroad.

"There is definitely a vacuum," he said. "He needs to fill this vacuum as soon as possible. He was assigned to form a new government but we are yet to see it. Part of stability is to provide services to the people – otherwise, they will revolt."

Elhafi added: "In the next few weeks you will see change with Mr Jibril. There's a lot of pressure on him now. The honeymoon period for him now is gone. People are coming together to say enough is enough."

He said of Jibril, head of the NTC's executive office: "We notice he is not available. He is mostly outside Libya; you can count on your hands the days he is here. It is not acceptable. He needs to be in touch with the people."

Elhafi, a businessman who spent four months working with fighters and refugees in neighbouring Tunisia, added: "We are not happy about the performance of the executive committee, especially the appointment of ministers without consulting us or other organisations.

"From what I see, they are a bunch of business people. Some of the decisions, we disagree with. The main issue is that we need to consult each other. We need to find the right people."

Jibril admitted that the NTC had got off to a slow start. "I agree there hasn't been a good contact and connection because of what's going on in the liberation of Libya," he said. "We promise after next week we hope to start a national dialogue through the territories of Libya."

But he also rounded on critics for being impatient and playing politics. "There has been an intense campaign against individuals in the NTC. Libyans must answer why this is happening."

He noted that the liberation battle was not yet over, with regime forces still holding out in a handful of towns and Gaddafi himself still at large. "Some of our colleagues have forgotten this. Some felt the old regime has collapsed completely and all of Libya is liberated. Some have made attempts to start the political games before reaching a common consensus on the rules."

Jibril said: "I call on all Libyans, especially the youths, to see this is a stage where we have to unify and be together and have national honour, not to attack each other because the battle is not yet finished. Once the battle is over and the constitution is finished and there is an interim government, the political games can start."

Jibril said he hoped the entire NTC would complete its move from Benghazi to Tripoli by the end of next week. He repeated his pledge not to seek office and refused to comment on whether he knew Gaddafi's whereabouts.

Earlier, about 200 delegates from across the country – a third of them women – attended the February 17 Coalition meeting at a conference centre next to Tripoli's Rixos hotel. The dissenters pointed to cracks in a rebel movement that has been striking in its unity around a common flag and the common goal of toppling Gaddafi.

Abdulrazag Elaraoi, an NTC member from Tripoli, said: "Now comes the real test. Leaders need to lead. If they are not there when the crisis is breaking, they cannot deal with it wirelessly. People want a change. Can Mahmoud Jibril do it? People have to decide."

Abdul Rahman Sweehly, a representative from Misrata, said: "This is a warning shot to Mr Jibril and Mr [Mustafa Abdul] Jalil [NTC chairman]. They are deliberately delaying the formation of a transitional government with excuses and excuses. We have to be steadfast in protecting our revolution and stopping people trying to hijack it or turn it around."

Concerns were raised that too many officials from the old order were still wielding influence. Sweehly said: "Look at America or Britain. When a new government comes in, people depart and others take over. Why shouldn't we do the same? For example, when Barack Obama replaced George Bush, there were 4,000 vacant positions."

Another speaker from Misrata called for "a new Libya with new faces, not old ones". He went on: "We shouldn't forgive hands stained with blood or people who stole money from Libya."

He insisted: "We are prepared for another revolution if we have to."

A member of the Tripoli brigade also said: "In the absence of security, the revolution can be hijacked. We go to a meeting and they say, 'We're going to do, we're going to do, we're going to do.' The next day, nothing happens."

A speaker from Benghazi expressed frustration at how the justice ministry and others had not yet been formed. "There are still no courts."

The killing of rebel commander General Abdel Fattah Younes in July raised the spectre of divisions in the anti-Gaddafi movement. Libya's new leaders face a daunting task of establishing security, restoring public services and balancing regional and tribal interests in an inclusive government.

A timetable, lasting about 20 months, for the drafting of a constitution and holding of elections should start once the NTC declares Libya's "liberation".

Also in Tripoli on Thursday, the capital's military commander, Abdul Hakim Belhaj, demanded an apology from a senior British official for the first time since learning that MI6 had allegedly played a role in his rendition to Libya seven years ago.

Belhaj, whom the CIA sent to the Gaddafi regime seven years ago after seizing him at Bangkok airport, met Britain's special representative in Libya, Dominic Asquith. Belhaj's spokesman described the meeting as "civilised", but said Asquith had declined to apologise, citing the Gibson inquiry which is investigating the MI6 claims. The allegations emerged from an archive of correspondence between Libyan spies and MI6 found in a ransacked spy headquarters in Tripoli.

A diplomatic source in Tripoli said: "The special representative said that we take these claims very seriously and explained that last year the PM set up the Gibson inquiry to examine whether the security services were involved in the improper treatment of detainees overseas, including rendition.

Overnight, Gaddafi resurfaced on the airwaves to berate his enemies as "rats" and "stray dogs" and insist he was still in Libya to fight on.

In what Syrian broadcaster Arrai said was a telephone call from Libya early on Thursday, the 69-year-old Gaddafi rallied supporters and said surrender was out of the question.

"Our resolute Libyan people, the Libyan land is your own," Gaddafi said. "Those who try to take it from you now, they are intruders, they are mercenaries, they are stray dogs. They are trying to seize our ancestral land from you but this is impossible.

"We will not leave our ancestral land. The youths are now ready to escalate the resistance against the rats in Tripoli and to finish off the mercenaries."

A Libyan military convoy that entered neighbouring Niger across the desert this week has stirred speculation that he might be about to flee.

But, in remarks which clearly indicated he was speaking after those reports were published, Gaddafi said: "This is not the first time that convoys drive in and out of Niger."

Meanwhile, rebel fighters tightened a siege on the town of Bani Walid, where two of Gaddafi's sons may be sheltering. Gaddafi loyalists in the town launched rockets during exchanges of fire.

Islamist Neocons? The West's latest tactic in the war on terrorism

Πηγή: Antiwar

By Justin Raimondo

September 07, 2011

The effort to paint the Libyan rebels as freedom-loving democrats is visibly faltering, especially in view of the rise of Abdelhakim Belhaj, alias Abu Abdullah al-Sadiq, as the top military commander in Tripoli.

Belhaj’s biography is interesting, to say the least: the founder of the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG), he traveled to Afghanistan in the 1980s, where he met Osama bin Laden and fought against the Soviet-backed regime. After the war, he eventually returned to Libya, where he founded the LIFG and took the nom-de-guerre Abu Abdullah al-Sadiq. An Islamist revolt in Eastern Libya, led by the LIFG, was defeated by Gadhafi in 1996, and Belhaj fled the country for his old stomping grounds in Afghanistan.

He was welcomed by the Taliban and al Qaeda, where he was especially close to Mullah Omar. LIFG set up two training camps in Afghanistan, one of which was headed up by Abu Yahya, now Al Qaeda’s top ideologue, also a Libyan national. After the 9/11 terrorist attacks, the LIFG was listed as an Official Terrorist Group and Belhaj was targeted by the US.

The CIA traced him to Malaysia, in 2004, and he was arrested at Kuala Lumpur airport. They shipped him to Bangkok, where he was held in a secret CIA prison, “renditioned” back to Libya, and jailed by the Gadhafi regime, where he says he was tortured. Freed after a seven-year stint in the hoosegow – due to the efforts of Gadhafi’s son, Saif – Belhaj underwent a “deradicalization” conversion – I’m sure the torture helped – and renounced “extremism.” As the Guardian reports:

“The British government encouraged and helped publicize the Libyan ‘deradicalisation’ effort, modelled on what was being done with former jihadis in Egypt. In a program overseen by Gaddafi’s son Saif al-Islam, the LIFG produced a 400-page theological document entitled Corrective Studies explaining its renunciation of violence. Ironically, in an al-Jazeera film in March, Belhaj praised the mediation of Saif al-Islam for his release. Gaddafi’s son said that the men who had been freed ‘were no longer a danger to society.’”

The British investment in “deradicalization” paid off when Belhaj and his associates in the ex-LIFG formed their “Islamic Movement for Change” and called for NATO to intervene on the rebels’ behalf. Soon after the assassination by Islamists of the rebels’ top military commander, Abdul Fatah Younes – a former Interior Minister in Gadhafi’s government who defected to the rebel camp amidst much ballyhoo – Belhaj was made chief of the Tripoli Military Council, the Libyan rebels’ equivalent of the Pentagon, and given the official imprimatur of Western elites. As the Guardian notes, citing jihadi “expert” Noman Benotman:

“The experiences of the LIFG leaders in armed conflicts in Afghanistan, Libya and Algeria have forced them to mature politically, recalculate strategically, moderate behaviorally, modify their ideological beliefs.”

Modified them to allow for NATO intervention on behalf of an emerging Islamist emirate, lorded over by “Emir” Belhaj?

Benotman, himself a former LIFG fighter, now works for the Quilliam Foundation, which is described by the Guardian as “a UK government-funded counter-radicalization think tank in London.” The Quilliamites are the institutional expression of the West’s latest grand strategy in the endless “war on terrorism,” a campaign of ideological warfare aiming to split the Islamist movement into pro- and-anti Western factions. The Libyan intervention is the culmination of this co-optation strategy.

The Foundation is named after William “Abdullah” Quilliam, a British solicitor of radical political opinions who converted to Islam, in 1882, on a trip to North Africa, and returned to London to found a uniquely British variant of his adopted religion. With a small group of British converts around him, he founded a mosque, a Muslim college, and wrote several books, claiming Queen Victoria (who ordered five copies ofThe Faith of Islam) among his readers. The Victorian equivalent of the EDL, however, apparently made life difficult for Quilliam and his group, and “Abdullah,” as he was now known, made off for Turkey, where he was designated the “Sheikh of Britain.”

This is where the trail gets murky, but it seems Quilliam returned to Britain in 1914, under an assumed name, “Prof. Henri Marcel Leon,” where he continued his activities on behalf of Islam. An alternate story is that he stayed abroad until just before his death in 1932.

The same murky dodginess permeates the activities of the Foundation that bears his name. Funded by the British government, and now simply called “Quilliam,” the organization deploys its “experts” – ex-jihadis of one sort or another – whenever some event requires a pro-government “spin.” It is a replication of the CIA’s orientation during the cold war, when a cadre of ex-radicals was recruited to do Washington’s bidding in the fight against Communism. By aligning with anti-Communist socialists, particularly ex-Trotskyists whose “Stalinophobia” had become an obsession, the CIA funded and helped organize the Congress for Cultural Freedom, which included such luminaries as Irving Kristol, Stephen Spender, and James Burnham. By mobilizing socialists in their anti-Communist crusade, the geniuses over at the CIA hoped to split the left-wing movement internationally and undermine Soviet support. This tactic was deemed especially crucial in Europe, where pro-Moscow Communist parties controlled the labor movement and had gained new prestige as leaders of the anti-Nazi Resistance. There the CIA deployed followers of Jay Lovestone, the former American Communist party leader, who had formed his own ostensibly communist party in the US and later developed extensive ties with US government agencies on the trail of the Reds.

The Quilliamites are, in short, the Islamist equivalent of neoconservatives – those migrants into the conservative movement from the left who later went on to become the loudest and most bloodthirsty advocates of an all-out war against the Soviet Union.

That the Quilliamite strategy has its uses as an instrument of Western foreign policy is underscored by the “success” of the Libyan operation, which funneled money, arms, and most importantly militarily experienced Islamist cadre into Libya to commandeer the rebel movement. The assassination of the former rebel commander-in-chief, and, in effect, an Islamist coup d’etat inside the rebel camp, was the logical outcome of this policy.

If you’ve been baffled by the installation of an Islamist regime in Libya by force of NATO arms – well, now you know. We’re aiding one wing of the Islamist movement in order to fight the “extremist’ wing, on the theory that we can domesticate these tigers and turn them into tabby cats.

If ever a policy was destined to provoke blowback of the worst and deadliest sort, then this is certainly it. The unintended consequences of building up an Islamist movement, not only in Libya but throughout the Middle East, are too obvious to require much explanation. Suffice to say here that the citizens of the newly-minted Libyan “emirate” – forced to live and suffer under a regime of imposed Sharia law – will pay the price of our “strategic” cleverness. So much for the myth that the West is “exporting democracy” throughout the world. What is being exported here is a cadre of Western proxies, whose role as servitors of Washington, London, and Paris is clothed in the religious robes of Quilliamite Islam.

One fully expects a repetition of this ploy in Egypt, and throughout the Muslim world. As the anniversary of the 9/11 attacks approaches, one thing is clear: we in the West have learned nothing about how to avoid the unintended consequences of our interventionist policies.

NOTES IN THE MARGIN

I want to thank everyone who contributed to the success of our summer fundraising drive – including the Federal Bureau of Investigation, whose ridiculous “investigation”of Antiwar.com, myself, and webmaster Eric Garris was exposed during the drive and contributed greatly to its success.

Every fundraiser provokes waves of anxiety in me, which only get stronger as the days and weeks progress: but this time, with the economy tanking so dramatically, I was especially petrified at the prospect of having to ask my already impoverished readers for money. Miraculously, however, I was rescued from the Vale of Depression when a blogger published a secret internal FBI memo online, released through the Freedom of Information Act, that deemed us “a threat to National Security” and in all likelihood “agents of a foreign power” The outcry was immediate and our readers and supporters rallied ‘round Antiwar.com: a trickle of donations became a torrent.

As one wag put it: “Who says government intervention is always a bad thing?” Well, I’d rather not be the subject of an FBI witch-hunt investigation, but then again sometimes good things come out of the worst travails.

We are pursuing this matter further, and I’ll let you know when there are new developments. Although the FOIA documents are highly redacted, the rationale for and extent of the FBI’s inquiry is highly ominous, and I look forward to learning more about the criminal activities of professional sneaks and provocateurs as they tried (and, no doubt, continue to try) to bring down the best foreign-policy oriented web site on the Internet.