Translated by Ollie Richardson & Angelina Siard

23:03:37
16/09/2016

RIA.ru

Vladimir Kornilov, MIA “Russia Today”

“Intervention in Libya was based on false assumptions. David Cameron is ultimately responsible,” it is said in a public report published on Wednesday by British lawmakers. Some people will say: “It is nothing new! It was obvious from the very beginning!”

Nevertheless, for the British, who for many years have heard about “fraternal help”, which London provided to the Libyan “Democrats”, which overthrew “the regime of hated dictator Gaddafi”, it became an unexpected sensation.

It is especially this conclusion that became the main one of the 49-page report submitted by the Foreign Affairs Committee of the UK Parliament.

I summarize the main points of this report:

• Britain acted in Libya without the needed intelligence.

• No one understood the role of Islamic extremists in the “rebel movement.”

• The government made erroneous conclusion that Gaddafi wanted to exterminate thousands of civilians in Benghazi (and it is said exactly in this way: “The real threat from the Gaddafi regime was not confirmed”).

• The alternatives to the violent removal of the Gaddafi regime were discarded.

• The West did not ensure the safety of Libyan arms depots, which fell into the hands of Islamists.

• The West focused its attention on the bombing of Libya rather than its post-war reconstruction that led to the anarchy there.

As a result, according to the report, the results of the intervention were “political and economic collapse, clashes between militants and tribes, humanitarian and immigration crisis, widespread human rights violations, the sprawl of weapons of the Gaddafi regime all over the region, and the growth of the Islamic state (is prohibited in Russia) in North Africa”.

As was mentioned above, former Prime Minister of Britain David Cameron was named as the main culprit, who pushed Western countries towards the Libyan adventure, even without developing any strategy in the event of the overthrow of Gaddafi.

Well, it’s hard to disagree: Cameron and Western leaders, of course, carry direct responsibility. But is it only them?

Let us remember the fictional horror stories about the “atrocities of the Gaddafi regime” disseminated by the Western media. As of this day, I can’t forget how CNN joyfully grabbed at some sort of narrative, where amid the crowd of “peaceful rebels”, someone’s gun flashed: look, at last, we have proof of “the bloody crimes of the regime against the civilian population”! And now it turns out that there wasn’t any threat to this population from the Gaddafi regime.

So, isn’t it true that Western media, who were weaving an atmosphere of hatred and substituting facts with emotions, carry responsibility for this adventure? After all, the lion’s share of Western (and especially British) Newspapers and TV channels supported it.

The report omitted another conclusion, which could become the main one: that Russia was right. Again. Just two months ago the long-awaited Chilcot report was published about the Western adventure in Iraqi. He fully confirmed the correctness of all Moscow’s arguments, who opposed the intervention in Iraq.

And please: the new report on Libya repeats word for word all that was asserted by the top Russian leaders and the media, but that was dismissed as “Kremlin propaganda”. Let’s recall how strongly this adventure was condemned by the then Prime Minister of Russia Vladimir Putin, who called the UN Security Council resolution to bomb Libya “defective and flawed”. “It allows everyone to undertake any actions… It looks like a medieval call for a crusade,” said Putin at the time.

So who, seven years ago, was right – the West or Russia? This question doesn’t enter the mind of the British rapporteurs neither in Libya nor in Iraq. Why?

It’s simple, because further uncomfortable questions will follow: so maybe Russia, which appeared to be right at this time, is also right today? In particular on Syria and Ukraine. But such an assumption, as you know, Western politicians and media cannot allow. It can be done later, years after the conflict, but not at the time when it needs to be supported and developed.

Here is a bright example. In the same issue of the newspaper Daily Telegraph, which published the conclusions of the Commission on Libya, also published the article “the United States was forced to agree to leave Assad in power”. It would seem, why did the author not revisit his own articles 5 years old calling to bomb Libya, not to compare with the conclusions of the Parliamentary Commission and apply these conclusions to his own current assumptions on Syria?

But this newspaper still today strongly insists that a big mistake was made three years ago, when the West refused the bombing of the positions of Syrian government forces, and the immediate overthrow of Assad.

Well, you already have the telling example of Libya. You already know what follows the overthrow of a legitimate politician that doesn’t satisfy you, and who is announced in the Western media as a “dictator”. You already know: after the overthrow of Assad would follow everything that you have already seen (or rather, have done) in Iraq and Libya – anarchy, civil war, strengthening of ISIS and other Islamists, the sprawl of weapons around the world, the rise of terrorism, and an even greater influx of migrants from the Middle East. So why do you, have recognised the fallacy of this policy seven years ago, still do not refuse such approaches that proved to be ineffective?

Any analysis of past historical and political events is important not only in the search and punishment of those responsible, but also in order to avoid the same errors in the future. However, another British report on an unleashed-by-the-West armed conflict was again re-directed to the past. No conclusions for the future are made. And it means that London still didn’t learn its main lesson.

Copyright © 2022. All Rights Reserved.