23.06.2016 Author: Alexander Orlov
Libya: between the USA, Qatar and Saudi Arabia
Column: Politics
Region: Middle East
Country: Libya
In June of this year, the US President Barack Obama repeated what he
said in an interview to the American media in March. He still believes that his
greatest foreign policy mistake was the military intervention by the US in the
Libyan conflict as a part of the “international coalition”.
At the moment, the British Prime Minister, David Cameron, and France
were the primary targets of his criticism.
This time, speaking in the State of Indiana, he recognized that “chaos
is now the order of the day” in this Arab country, reminding the audience that
NATO states had supported the rebels who were fighting against M. Gaddafi’s
regime, but had failed to provide stability and assistance in forming a new
government for the country. This clearly is a disguised recognition of the fact
that right now the USA sees no way out of the current situation in Libya, the
progress of which is increasingly reminiscent of the “Somalian scenario”. The
attempt to rely on the government of the “National Consent” chaired by the
technocrat, Fayez al-Sarraj has virtually failed, while a part of that
government has managed to move from Tunis to a navy base in Tripoli with the
financial assistance of Saudi Arabia and military support of the local field
commanders. But it cannot rule the whole country. However, it joined another
two available governments in Tripoli and Tobruk, and it was “internationally
acknowledged.” The fact that this government is legally incapable was discussed
behind closed doors in Brussels at the last stage of consultations on the
intra-Libya dialogue in Skhirat, Morocco. Apparently, Moscow is inclined to
recognize F. al-Sarraj’s government de facto. In particular, according to
media, the Russian Ambassador to Libya, I. Molotkov, recently had a meeting
with the latter.
What is obvious is that even the April 2016 concealed intervention of
the NATO states under the aegis of the fight with the growing expansion of the
“Islamic State” by directing special task forces to Libya (comprised of
soldiers from the USA, France, Italy and Great Britain) also failed. It is
evident that it did not concern ISIS. From a military perspective, it would not
take extra efforts to free a part of Sirte and its suburbs from the ISIS
supporters by special task forces backed by airpower. Even by exaggerated
estimates the number of ISIS militants in Libya hardly exceeds three thousand
people.
However, NATO states were engaged in other activities there. The French
actively participated in the assistance and combat operations in favour of
Tobruk’s ‘commander-in-chief of the armed forces’, General Khalifa Haftar, who
stormed Benghazi. No ISIS supporters have ever been located in this city, but the
city has oil terminals. Plus, the House of Representatives in Tobruk is
reluctant to recognize the government of F. al-Sarraj. The Americans and the
British supported militia groups from Misrata and tried to agree on the
dispatch of the Libyan fighters to help the new armed opposition in Syria.
These facts are likely to indicate a lack of trust in NATO of the government of
F. al-Sarraj, which was established with the participation of the UNO.
The activities now carried out by the USA and its allies in Libya give
evidence of the transition to the final separation into its historical parts –
Tripolitania, Cyrenaica and Fezzan.
As regards the words of B. Obama about the US mistaken participation in
the Libyan “adventure”, his attack was, in fact, not against Britain and
France, but H. Clinton, who was the then Secretary of State and made a lot of
mistakes, especially in Libya. This fact is rather interesting, considering the
forthcoming presidential elections this November. Moreover, in 2011 Obama gave
in to the pressure of the ‘old democrats’, represented by H. Clinton, and
supported the initiative by Paris and Doha despite cautionary advice of the
Pentagon chief and a Republican R. Gates not to interfere in Libya. Washington
could have stopped France and Qatar by officially refusing to enter the
Euro-Arabian coalition.
The question is why B. Obama chose this time to give away H. Clinton,
recalling her 2011 failure in Libya, which works in favor of Donald Trump right
now. The Republican candidate immediately jumped on the new “confession” of B.
Obama. And there is no answer to this question so far. However, the link
between H. Clinton and Doha has emerged again, although some have forgotten
about it.
In fact, after the words of the US
President, the question of the subversive role of Qatar once again emerges.
Qatar gets everyone for money, both in the Arab world and in the West. That
time, the Qataris just bought the French President, Nicolas Sarkozy. Now, Doha
has placed its stake on Hillary Clinton’s victory, which, according to Qatar’s
estimates, should dramatically strengthen the US aggression in the Middle East,
especially in Syria and Iraq to strike on the interests of Russia and Iran –
the main gas competitors of the emirate.
It is no mere coincidence that Qatari visitors are now
actively flirting with Moscow, hoping to buy time for its multi-billion
promises to wait for Hillary Clinton in the White House, and then go on the
attack on Moscow gas positions in the EU and Turkey through the overthrow of
the legitimate government in Damascus. After all, without removing B.
al-Assad, the Qataris cannot seriously oust Gazprom in Europe. Qatar needs a
gas pipeline through Syria and Turkey to the EU for this purpose. Otherwise,
the gas bubble will burst with the expansion of LNG. At the same time, spot
deliveries of Qatari LNG using dumping to Poland, and to the disadvantage of
Qatar, will not solve the problem.
While Doha is waiting, a question about the fate of the ISIS, which came
to Libya with the help of the Qataris, has arisen. Now, ISIS forces are
operating from two centers: Derna in the east and Sirte in the west. They
perform their tasks independently according to the situation on the ground. As
for Derna, this is an alliance with Benghazi tribes to combat armed forces of
the government (House of Representatives) in Tobruk headed by the General
Khalifa Haftar. The group from Derna primarily consists of representatives of
the local tribes, and it tends to support the Al-Qaeda’s ideology. Many of its
militants participated in war in Afghanistan against the Soviet Union and
American forces, and almost all of them are natives of this city. Recently,
this group’s influence has been reduced by military efforts of the local
militia, who consider it to be their competitor.
The group in Sirte has only one major goal – to establish control over
the major oil port terminals in the west of Libya. It appeared about two years
ago, and its supporters are representatives of different tribes, which are
driven mainly by financial interest. It incorporates previous supporters of M.
Gaddafi and natives of Misrata. Qatar participated in its creation, when the
initial support points of Doha in Libya represented by Tripoli, Misrata and
Benghazi tribes started to dissolve. Due to Libya’s complex tribal structure
and its single religious denomination, Doha failed to keep any common basis to
support its interests. Militants of different groups started to migrate from
one camp to another. The major force – Misrata militants, whom Qatar tried to
rely on, started to come apart. Qatar’s major ally from Tripoli, A. Belhadj,
was bribed, and he is now among the allies of the Prime Minister of the
National Consent government, F. al-Sarraj.
In this situation Doha could not propose anything else to its allies
other than financing. Qatar is unable to “feed” all of them. Doha tried to
employ the ISIS experience in Iraq and Syria by creating a supra-tribal unit
that would be transferred to self-financing in some time, as Iraq planned,
using an approved way – establishment of the control over several oil terminals
on the coast.
However, Libya is neither Syria nor Iraq, where there are Shias and the
Alawites, whose fight against the Sunnis is the “cementing agent.” Libya has
the abundance of tribal groups and kindreds, which excludes the Sunnis factor
as a cementing link. There are only certain mercantile interests of each
kindred. Moreover, the control over the port infrastructure does not provide
prosperity under the current conditions in Libya, as all the major oil fields
are located hinterland and are under the control of local tribes. The Libyan
ISIS is unable to make a war with them. This extremist group will fall apart
without financing. Thus, it is almost ousted by the local tribes from Sirte.
The number of the ISIS supporters is decreasing, and it is unable to organize
large-scale offensive operations. It means that the Qatar’s presence in Libya
is diminishing.
General Khalifa Haftar’s positions are weakening, although just two
months ago, it seemed that he was on the brink of invading Benghazi, and was
planning to further move onto Tripoli and Sirte. He is losing the support of
the once loyal warlords and foreign sponsors at a catastrophic rate. The main
external support that he was receiving from the President of the Arab Republic
of Egypt, Abdel Fattah el-Sisi, can no longer be availed to him “at any costs”,
especially after the recent recognition of the F. al-Sarraj government by the
Arab League on May 31. After all, Saudi Arabia, Egypt’s main donor, has finally
decided on its priorities. Riyadh is in this regard putting pressure on its
allies in the Arab Republic of Egypt and the UAE. It is not without reason that
a month ago, the UAE authorities released four Libyans – Kamal Ahmed Darra, his
son, Muhammad, Sami al-Arabi and Issa al-Manna, who had been detained without
any formal charges. They are high-ranking Libyan emissaries of the Muslim
Brotherhood. Thus, their support from Saudi Arabia means only one thing: Riyadh
is trying to deprive Doha of the main support forces in Libya and thereby be
able to crush it. In this way, it will be easier to outbid it. Thus, Qatar is
waiting impatiently for the moment when Clinton moves into the White House and
“restores order” in the Middle East.
Alexander Orlov, Political Scientist and Expert
Orientalist, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”
No comments:
Post a Comment