The rift continues to deepen between Turkey and Libya and the
story is further complicated by frankly dishonest Western reporting regarding
the status of Khalifa Haftar and his backers.
The United States ostensibly supports the internationally
recognised Tripoli government which Ankara also supports. Recently a
controversy has developed over Erdogan's maritime trade deal with Libya which
has angered fellow NATO member Greece and led to a spat with the EU.
While this has been developing, Haftar, the commander of the
eastern based Libyan National Army (LNA) is once more poised to begin a massive
assault on Tripoli. Euractiv and other outlets have made much of Haftar's
relationship with Moscow (villainising him as 'Russian backed') but in reality
he is a creature of the US Deep State. The status of that thirty year relationship
may in fact be strained but nevertheless the US government and in particular
the White House have given every indication that they support him... and yet in
terms of public policy, the US has not yet broken with the Tripoli government
which is at war with Haftar's LNA and the Tobruk faction.
Why does Washington support Haftar? That's a complicated
question but clearly his ties with the United States run deep, he even holds
dual US-Libyan citizenship. My guess is that Washington prefers a Libyan
Settlement under a Washington-friendly strongman, knowing full well that
Libya's only chance of cohesion and pacification is with an authoritarian
government. To support a settlement based on the models of the Tripoli
government will mean the country is continuing to pursue the fiction of an
internationally oriented liberal democracy. For the US that means competition,
weak government and a lessened ability by Washington to directly affect the
politics and economics of the geopolitically crucial country. This is part of
the new Scramble for Africa. The US must openly support democratic institutions
and liberalism but we know that all too often, it rejects these things in
favour of practicalities and is happy to embrace authoritarian rule, as long as
it's friendly to Washington and Wall Street.
Additionally a weak Tripoli government will facilitate
further civil war and proxy wars within the state which continue to bleed over
into the rest of North Africa. Now if Haftar were to take over I don't doubt
that Libya would become a base for US military operations in the region. While
Washington would certainly catch some flak for supporting Haftar and might even
initially oppose him in diplomatic circles, such opposition would be theatre.
He's the guy they want and the EU knows this and thus their outlets are playing
up the Russian bogeyman element to the story.
Turkey for its part and for a host of complicated reasons
does not support Haftar or the Tobruk government and Erdogan has indicated a
willingness to intervene. This raises the possibility of Turkish troops coming
into contact with Haftar's forces... forces clandestinely backed by Washington
and some of its allies such as Egypt and possibly Israel. Turkey, utterly
rejected by the EU and on the outs with NATO is looking for ways to increase
its autonomy and revive the Neo-Ottomanism that dominated Erdogan's vision in
the early 2000's. Ankara is trying to break the NATO's Mare Nostrum, its dominance of the Mediterranean and assert its own
economic power. This is also to counter Washington's continued and punishing
stranglehold on the Turkish economy.
Egypt on behalf of its own interests and at the behest of
Washington has continued to oppose Ankara and has even engaged in a bit of
sabre rattling, suggesting support for the Tobruk government and Haftar. Let's
just say an escalation of the conflict in Libya raises some interesting if
disturbing possibilities for the region.
Israel of course is watching the tensions which have also
bled over to Cyprus. I chuckled while reading about the 'research vessel' that
was escorted away from the Cypriot coast. Whether it was engaged in scientific
research or not, I'm sure it was collecting data for the Mossad. The tensions
between Greece and Turkey are once more playing out in Cyprus and if further
conflict erupts in Libya or Turkey begins to intervene there will most likely
be an immediate echo-effect in Cyprus as the EU is clearly opposed to Erdogan's
actions. Israel's relationship in these questions is complicated. A onetime
close ally of Ankara, Tel-Aviv's relationship has been very poor with Erdogan
and yet Israel has never really gotten along with the EU either. While Greece
wouldn't be a natural ally for Israel, the Zionist state is working in concert
with Egypt's al-Sisi and appears to support Haftar and the Tobruk faction... on
all fronts opposed to Erdogan.
Not wishing to endorse Erdogan's actions it must be said that
all Western reporting operates under the premise that NATO has the right and
obligation to intervene wherever it wants and this cannot be questioned on any
grounds. Other nations who intervene and seek their own interests are often
castigated and villainised. Erdogan is being painted as an aggressor and
meddler and in some sense he certainly is. But from his standpoint he has been
repeatedly betrayed by his Western 'allies' and he's not going sit idly by and
let them pick apart and dismantle his country and manipulate its politics and
its future. He's acting, trying to carve out a sphere of Turkish influence but
at the same time he's caught in an ever-complicated, ever-growing global
conflict. Just as the first Cold War was riddled by hot proxy wars on its
peripheries, so it is with the new Cold War which is coming to dominate our
era. And yet the general instability of this epoch makes it hard to believe the
conflicts will be limited to small regional conflagrations.
Libya is key to controlling North Africa. This is a story
about resources, oil, trade, migration and the ability to project power
throughout the Sahel. This is also about blocking China and its OBOR project.
Even the EU is with Washington in not wanting to see OBOR gain a foothold in
the Mediterranean, an example of interests that both overlap and are in
conflict.
The 2011 NATO invasion and overthrow of Gaddafi was a
disaster for the country and the larger region, leading to multiple spin-off
wars. Erdogan is painted as the troublemaker but it is NATO that ripped apart
the delicate fabric of the region, that destroyed and continues to destroy
societies that generated this catastrophe. Men have grown rich and evil
plotters have used this conflict to feed other conflicts, even as far away as
Syria. There are no 'good guys' in this fight.
2019 saw a significant increase in terrorist attacks. ISIS,
al Qaeda, Boko Haram and nebulous groups like the Fulani militias are stepping
up the attack. These strikes are being used to further propagandise the Western
public and utilised as a means to increase military intervention. But don't be
fooled, the fight isn't about ISIS nor are Western governments involved because
they care about the civilian populations caught in the middle of the chaos.
These are but means to serve a larger end and if they can be leveraged to pull
in public support, you can be sure the media will play its part.
See also:
https://www.politico.eu/article/donald-trump-snubs-greece-kyriakos-mitsotakis-diplomatic-overtures/
ReplyDeleteTrump's learning to dance. Washington has postured itself against Turkey but Trump doesn't want to put his pro-Haftar cards on the table just now. The situation with Turkey is bad enough. He doesn't want to exacerbate it especially for lowly Greece.
Interestingly Greece having been pushed to the right is starting to line up more and more with the V4/EU Dissident bloc. Since the financial crisis they've been on the trajectory but after the whole Syriza deception/debacle the course is becoming more open now.