Answer to a Question
The European-American Conflict in North Africa
The Question:
My question is regarding North Africa, and I apologize for it being multi-faceted, but I see them as interconnected:
1- Matters have become confused for me regarding North Africa, especially Libya; Leon had set September 20, 2015, as a final deadline for a solution between the negotiating parties in Skhirat, Morocco. However, shortly before that, on September 19, 2015, Haftar carried out a military operation in Benghazi, leading the UN envoy Leon to criticize this act as if it were intended to provoke and obstruct the reaching of a solution, which is what happened, and another deadline was set for October 20, 2015! It is known that Haftar is supported by America, and the Tobruk government is also supported by America and is negotiating, while Haftar obstructs the negotiations. What is the explanation for this contradiction?
2- On September 7, 2015, the Spanish Senate officially gave the green light for the establishment of a US military base in the south of the country (AFRICOM), which America had long tried to establish in North Africa but found no acceptance... It was announced that the main mission of this new force, under the new amendment in the Senate, is "to intervene by sea, land, and air in various crises on the African continent..." Does this mean that America has decided on a conflict with Europe, specifically Britain and France, who have colonial roots in North Africa? And what is the extent of its success in that?
3- This was preceded and accompanied by intensive visits by Americans to North Africa, especially Tunisia. Do these intensive visits to North Africa confirm what I mentioned in the second point about the conflict with Europe? Is it possible to explain this conflict in North Africa—"Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, and Libya"—even in broad strokes, as questions about it are relevant, especially in the current circumstances? Thank you, and apologies once again for the length of the question.
The Answer:
Your apology is accepted; may Allah forgive us and you, for He is the Most Merciful. I will answer you, Allah willing, following the sequence of events:
First: Regarding America's interest in North Africa and the establishment of the AFRICOM base:
1- America has been interested in North Africa since the 1950s, not just today. When its ambassadors met in Istanbul in November 1950 and held their first conference under the chairmanship of George McGhee, the Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern, South Asian, and African Affairs, since that date, America has been struggling with Europe to displace it and take its place in its colonies. This conflict intensifies at times and eases at others according to international and regional circumstances. The conference lasted five days, during which they reviewed the most prominent political, strategic, and economic conditions of this region. Since then, the conflict of the new American colonialism against the old European colonialism began... America succeeded in introducing its influence into many areas of the Middle East and the Nile Basin at the expense of European influence ("Britain and France"), but its influence did not stabilize in North Africa because America's priority was the Middle East and the Nile Basin...
2- America realizes that the "political medium" (al-wasat al-siyasi) in North Africa belongs to Europe. Therefore, it resorted to means other than the usual political actions with the political medium to penetrate the region. The most prominent of these are two things: First, the issue of terrorism and exploiting it for military agreements and penetrating through the army, training, military aid, and then military bases. Second, economic aid and affiliated international institutions. America was moving these two matters constantly except for periods that fall under the category of a "warrior's rest"! One of the attempts to establish bases was the decision taken by George W. Bush to establish a US military command in Africa (AFRICOM): ("On February 6, 2007, President Bush and Secretary of Defense Robert Gates announced the creation of the United States Africa Command") AFRICOM Facebook page... Although this command was originally created to dominate Africa, loot its resources, and colonize its people, America, in the habit of colonizers, tried to portray it as if it were for the protection of Africa, so it invited a number of African presidents to attend the celebration of that command! ("The Africa Command officially began its activity on October 1, 2008, through a ceremony at the Department of Defense, considering that the US Military Command in Africa USAFRICOM is a unit composed of unified combat forces under the management of the US Department of Defense. It was attended by representatives of African countries in Washington, D.C.") From Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia.
3- America tried hard to establish this base in North Africa to dominate it so its influence would replace European influence, but it could not because Europe's agents were on the lookout out of loyalty to European influence, and the AFRICOM project remained stagnant. When America despaired of implementing it as planned in North Africa, it headed to the north of North Africa and settled in Spain on September 7, 2015 ("The Spanish Senate officially gave the green light to establish a US military base for Marine forces in the south of the country within the framework of what is known as the AFRICOM command") Bawabat Al-Shorouk, September 7, 2015. This base is not far from North Africa but on its borders, enabling them to carry out their malicious plans in the region. The AFRICOM project was marketed under the pretext of the global war on "terrorism," but this project carries within it many goals that all serve to consolidate American hegemony over the world. It is not to protect Africa from the dangers of "terrorism," but rather within the framework of the global American strategy to control oil sources and resources and monitor all sea passages in the world on one hand, and to displace the old colonial influence to be replaced by the new colonialism; that is, it is a struggle over sucking blood and looting wealth on the other hand.
Despite all this, the fact that America was unable to build the AFRICOM base somewhere in North Africa means that it does not have a firm foothold in this region. It tried to establish it in Algeria but met great rejection... Similarly, it was unable in Morocco, Libya, and Tunisia... It is currently focusing on Libya, exploiting the disturbances there, and also on Tunisia, exploiting the fragility of the rule there due to the return of the previous political class against whom the people originally revolted and who are hated by the people... Nevertheless, it is not easy to move the AFRICOM base to North Africa because the barrier of fear has been broken among the people, and it is unlikely they will remain silent about the installation of evil bases in their country... This does not mean that the work of the AFRICOM base, while in Spain, will be far from influencing the political situation in North Africa, but rather it is only less effective. Meaning that America will repeat the attempt time and again until it finds a gap to enter through, especially in Tunisia and Libya.
Second: Regarding the intensification of visits and the European-American conflict in Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, and Libya:
The intensification of visits is nothing but a continuation of American and European plans in competing for the region's wealth and strategic location. America and Europe, as we said earlier, did not start their ambitions in North Africa today, but before AFRICOM, during it, and after it... We review some of these actions and plans that America and Europe are tossing back and forth on the stage of the Muslim lands in North Africa "Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, and Libya":
• Morocco:
A- America supported the movements of (liberation) from France in Morocco in order to replace it. Thus, it was able to introduce its influence upon independence in Morocco during the era of Mohammed V. But this did not last long; Britain's influence became strongly present after the death of Mohammed V with the coming of Hassan II in 1961. The road to Morocco became closed to America until it found an opportunity in the Polisario movement for the independence of the Sahara after Spain left it on February 26, 1976, after (91) years of colonialism. The United Nations, under American influence, had previously formed a fact-finding mission and sent it to Western Sahara, and this mission submitted its report to the General Assembly on June 9, 1975, recommending the independence of the Sahara from Spain and that the Polisario organization is the dominant movement in the territory and has significant influence there. Thus, America highlighted the Polisario and supported it as the representative of the Sahrawi people. The purpose was that the Sahara should not return to Morocco after Spain's exit, to remain a hotspot of tension demanding independence that America exploits for its interests in North Africa.
However, Hassan II confronted the American plan with British support during his reign from 1961-1999. He was known for his shrewdness and political cunning since his youth, so he was able to lead Morocco strongly and achieve stability that neighboring countries have been unable to achieve until now. He gained some popularity after the Green March to liberate the Moroccan Sahara from Spanish colonialism in 1975.
https://ar.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975
B- Spain withdrew from the Sahara on February 26, 1976, and the Sahrawi National Council announced the following day the establishment of the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic... America began actual intervention immediately after that through its influence in issuing UN resolutions related to the Sahara. But Hassan, with his cunning and the British behind him, whenever America tried to provoke him with a resolution, he would circumvent it! Thus, Hassan absorbed American pressures without anything changing in the reality of the Sahara. When Hassan II died, his son Mohammed VI succeeded him on July 23, 1999. He was like his father in his loyalty to Britain, but he was not a man of politics and cunning like his father. Thus, America became active to win him over, and consequently, Britain feared for him falling into the corridors of American plans...
C- Britain feared for Mohammed VI in the face of American pressures and plans, as the King is less cunning and experienced than his father in navigating the depths of political life. Therefore, Britain advised him (or ordered him), as is its custom in preserving its minor agents, not to continue in the same rigid path towards America as his father did. For this reason, he showed an understanding of what America says about freedom, democracy, and human rights, and dealt with America with extra flexibility. America became Morocco's fourth commercial customer and the first partner outside the European Union (1.5 billion dollars in trade exchange volume)... When America proposed during the NATO summit in Istanbul in June 2004 to grant Morocco the status of a Major Non-NATO Ally as the first Arab country from North Africa to enter the NATO club, Britain made him agree to that with caution, because it realized that America's proposal was to influence the political situation in Morocco... Similarly, his position towards American decisions became not as rigid as his father's, but rather he would agree and procrastinate in implementation. Thus, he agreed to Baker's proposal regarding the compromise solution named "the third solution," which would be in stages starting with autonomy for the Sahara, and then after five years, a referendum on self-determination. This proposal was approved by the Security Council in its resolution No. 1359 on June 29, 2001. He agreed to it but in the English way—meaning after seven years of back-and-forth in 2007, and also by calling it a "Moroccan initiative"! America's plans towards Morocco did not stop except for a few years due to its preoccupation with other priorities such as its economic crisis that escalated in 2008 and beyond, as well as external political and military crises... until the spring of 2013 when America began moving the crisis strongly again to take the Sahara crisis as a pretext to intervene in North Africa and the adjacent African countries... It prepared a draft project to expand the mission of the UN mission (MINURSO) in the Moroccan Sahara to include monitoring human rights in the Sahara, so it would be a pretext for it to monitor every small and large detail in the Sahara under the guise of human rights! Although the project was postponed for another year by Security Council Resolution No. 2099 issued on April 25, 2013... America, the Secretary-General, and his envoy Ross became active during the extension year in preparing the atmosphere again to discuss the referendum and human rights... The American diplomat Christopher Ross, in his capacity as the Personal Envoy of the Secretary-General for Western Sahara, visited the region in October 2013 and then on January 28, 2014, and Ross was interested in his visits in the subject of the referendum and human rights...
D- Nevertheless, Morocco's position was similar to Jordan's position of not confronting openly. Morocco later began to outdo America in the "war on terror" by confronting it with what is called "moderate religious discourse," since Morocco constitutes an Islamic religious reference, especially for the Maliki school and the Tijaniyya order spread in the Sahel and Sahara countries: Mali, Senegal, and Niger. Dozens of preachers, orators, and religious men have indeed been deployed in Senegal, Ivory Coast, Mali, and Benin, in addition to receiving 500 students for religious studies in Moroccan institutes and universities! America was forced to praise Morocco's role. ("Bisa Williams, Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs, said in a statement to the Maghreb Arab Press, on the sidelines of an international conference hosted by Nouakchott on the 19th and 20th of this month: 'We highly appreciate the Moroccan experience in Africa as a whole, and particularly in the Sahel region, because Morocco has spared no effort to benefit other countries from its experience in the field of combating violent extremism.'") Hespress: August 21, 2015.
Thus, America has not succeeded in exploiting the Sahara issue or the subject of the referendum and human rights; it has not succeeded in all of that so far in displacing British influence in Morocco. We say "so far" because the struggle between America and Europe continues in Africa.
• As for Algeria:
It is a significant state that resisted America's plans more strongly than its neighbor. Since Boumédiène's coup against Ben Bella, who was walking in America's line with Abdel Nasser, and since that date, British influence has been entrenched in Algeria with some French outgrowths that intensified at times, especially during the era of some weak presidents. Boumédiène continued in power from June 19, 1965, until his death on December 27, 1978. After Boumédiène's period in Algeria, weak presidents took office, and power became in the hands of the army. Those influential in it were of French loyalty, culture, and training. They moved with their coup in 1992 to prevent the Islamic Salvation Front (FIS) from reaching power after it succeeded in the elections... They committed several massacres against the Salvation Front in particular and against many Muslims in general. They could not manage the country; rather, the people hated and loathed them... During the years of their influence from 1992 to 1999, four presidents passed without effectiveness, as the army was the controlling power. However, the army men loyal to France at that time could not deal with the consequences of their coup and calm the situation in the country after they committed horrific massacres against the Muslim people of Algeria...
In that atmosphere, Britain brought Bouteflika from Switzerland and returned him to Algeria. It created a political atmosphere for him as a savior, exploiting the failure of the army leaders in administration. Because of the people's hatred for them due to their massacres, the army men agreed with Abdelaziz Bouteflika in 1999 to be the president on the condition that they would not be touched by any accountability for their crimes and their destruction of the country, and that he would work to heal the wounds by calling for harmony, peace, and reconciliation... meaning they sought refuge in him to save them!... Bouteflika has been the president since 1999 until today, and Bouteflika still maintains a close relationship with Britain. He crowned that with a visit to Britain in 2006, which was the first visit of an Algerian president to Britain. Although the French group in the Algerian army, who are influential to some extent, realize Bouteflika's relationship with Britain, and also realize that Bouteflika was not in harmony with French policy—he rejected the Mediterranean Union project brought by France during Sarkozy's era... nevertheless, those loyal to France in the army have not been able to stop his presidency until today! Although Britain did not fear France for its influence in Algeria as much as it feared America, it saw fit to end those French outgrowths as it would strengthen its influence. But it proceeded in this matter gradually because it is not in a conflict with France; rather, the conflict is with America. Therefore, those changes of officers loyal to France passed without heating up the atmosphere as if it were a conflict! For example: ("Lamari, the Chief of Staff, resigned for health reasons 'or was dismissed' on August 3, 2004. Forty-eight hours after the resignation, Bouteflika dismissed on August 5, 2004, Major General Ibrahim Sharif, commander of the first military region... At the beginning of 2014, General Hassan was dismissed from his duties as commander of the counter-terrorism division in the intelligence, then Bouteflika carried out other dismissals... But those dismissals were carried out without a hot clash affecting the structure of the regime. This is confirmed by the fact that when General Hassan was arrested on August 27, 2015, and brought to trial, Ahmed Ouyahia, Director of the Office of the President of the Republic, was asked if this meant a conflict at the pyramid of power in Algeria, and he denied it, stressing that what is rumored is 'salon talk'") Al Jazeera, September 12, 2015... Even when Bouteflika relieved on September 13, 2015, a senior officer with French inclinations, the Director of General Intelligence Mohamed Lamine Mediene, known as General Toufik, of his duties, it was done without any heat or effect on the structure of the regime! It can be said that Bouteflika succeeded to some extent in these dismissals with British support, although there is still a place for France in the army, as the culture and training of the army are mostly from France... But as we said, Bouteflika's "conflict" with the army was soft and calm, closer to athletic competition, and did not affect the basic issues of the regime. This differs from the real conflict with America and its plans in Algeria to seize political control of Algeria and replace Britain there. For example:
A- After Spain's exit from the Sahara in 1976 after 91 years of colonialism, America found an opportunity in the Polisario movement for the independence of the Sahara and took it as a pretext to intervene in North Africa, especially Algeria... But the ruling power in Algeria (Britain) was attentive to the issue, so it confined the Polisario to a strip at the border and surrounded it with its eyes because it realized that America had penetrations in it... Even today, despite America's dominance over the UN missions and its delegates regarding the Sahara, it has not been able to seize influence in Algeria through it.
B- America tried to find a base in Algeria for the forces it created under the pretext of fighting terrorism, the forces named "AFRICOM," but Algeria refused because it, and Britain behind it, realized that this American base is for intervening in Algeria's affairs. Therefore, the Algerian Foreign Ministry stated on March 3, 2007: ("Algeria is not concerned with hosting the headquarters of the US special forces for Africa 'AFRICOM'").
C- It tried again to raise the issue of fighting terrorism by exploiting the events in Mali on March 22, 2012. Visits took place between it and Algeria to involve Algeria in cooperation with America in combating terrorism under the pretext that it might reach Algeria. Nevertheless, Algeria (and Britain behind it) refused America's plan. The most prominent of these visits was the visit of Hillary Clinton, US Secretary of State, and her meeting with Abdelaziz Bouteflika on October 29, 2012...
D- After Essebsi visited America on May 21, 2015, and concluded some agreements with America, and they granted Tunisia the status of a Major Non-NATO Ally as they did with Morocco, Jordan, and Bahrain, Algeria escalated a strong campaign against these agreements. The Tunisian president tried to soften the political atmosphere between them, so he sent his special envoy Khemaies Jhinaoui with a message to his Algerian counterpart on June 24, 2015.
Algeria's annoyance was not because of Essebsi's visit to America, because everything that happened was within an English political plan followed by Algeria and Tunisia. Rather, it was intended for two things: to give Tunisia a pretext to be able to refuse some American demands that are considered a threat to European (British) influence under the guise of not clashing with neighbors, and the other matter was to send a strong message to America that Algeria does not accept a substitute for Britain, and that it will not accept American influence, especially the establishment of bases... This was clear from the fact that the annoyance was not a serious objection to Essebsi's visit, evidenced by the fact that Algeria, after Essebsi's envoy met Bouteflika, sent its Foreign Minister Ramtane Lamamra to Tunisia on July 13, 2015, on an official visit according to the Algerian Foreign Ministry statement, and the annoyance ended!
• As for Tunisia:
It was under French colonialism, and after that, it fell under British influence during the rule of Habib Bourguiba over Tunisia from 1956-1987. By 1987, Bourguiba had reached 84 years and was unable to implement what was required of him. Then Zine El Abidine Ben Ali came to power, who was from Bourguiba's inner circle, so he followed his footsteps in remaining loyal to Britain. America tried on many occasions to introduce its influence in place of British influence but could not due to the British political medium standing in its way... But when the Arab Spring events broke out in 2011 and Ben Ali was ousted, the United States considered it a new opportunity to intervene in North Africa. However, both France and Britain arranged Zine El Abidine Ben Ali's departure. Since Europe controls the political medium, it was able to ensure that the basic system in the country remained unchanged, even with the emergence of the Ennahda party in the country! The political medium in Tunisia is still strongly within British control through the European Union agreements that bind Tunisia to Europe. Europe was able, within four years, to return the ruling class that was with the Bourguiba and Ben Ali regime, not by changing faces as their associates do, but exceeding them in lack of shame, by returning their senior figures with the same faces in their corruption and corrupting! So, the head of the English client-cunning, Essebsi, became the president of Tunisia!! This return was a provocation to the people who revolted against the tyranny, corruption, and agency of the previous regime. The people thought they had gotten rid of their evil, and suddenly they appeared to them again. So, the people revolted in their faces, and the tyrants met them with repression and emergency laws as their associates used to do before... But the barrier of fear has been broken, and the tyrants are no longer able to silence the mouths as they used to. So the regime resorted to the pretext of terrorism to frighten the people with a bombing here and a bombing there placed by the regime's henchmen, NATO's agents, and the spies of the conflicting embassies on the land of Tunisia, the land of heroism and Jihad in the depths of history. The regime would attribute this to unknown terrorists! America became active in this atmosphere and is not far from creating or contributing to it. Its embassies became dens for buying Tunisian politicians who support Europe, and it also became active in infiltrating the army. Britain feared for the regime that it might fall before America, so it whispered to it, in its way of protecting its small and weak agents, to bow before America but without touching Britain's basic interests! It trusts Essebsi's loyalty as he is one of the masters of British agents... and this is what happened:
A- Essebsi visited America and met with its President Obama on May 21, 2015. Obama discussed with Essebsi the situation in Libya and the region, saying: "The United States will provide assistance soon to allow Tunisia to complete economic reforms." Russia Today website, May 21, 2015. Because America considers NATO a strong bond to tie its agents to it so they do not escape, as it did with Egypt, making it a major ally outside NATO, America also considers the alliance "bait" to attract new agents from Britain. Therefore, the US Department of State announced on July 10, 2015, the completion of procedures to grant Tunisia the status of a Major Non-NATO Ally to become the sixteenth ally of America after Morocco, Jordan, Bahrain, and Kuwait from Britain's agents...! This is how the colonialist kuffar struggle in our lands to attract traitorous rulers... this one tries to stabilize its agents and that one tries to catch them! Had it not been for the betrayal that nests and hatches in the hearts of those rulers, they would not have responded and the colonialist kuffar would not have found a foothold in our lands. May Allah destroy them; how they are deluded...
B- In order for Britain to give Tunisia a way back and a justification for not submitting to American pressures, it agreed with Bouteflika to escalate the annoyance because of Essebsi's visit to America and the agreements that were made. This was to achieve two goals: to give Tunisia a pretext to be able to refuse some American demands that are considered a threat to European (British) influence, and for this reason, Algeria escalated the protest and even magnified it so it was a storm of a violent wind... and the other matter was to send a strong message to America that Algeria does not accept a substitute for Britain and that it will not accept American influence, especially the establishment of bases... This was clear from the fact that the annoyance was not a serious objection to Essebsi's visit, evidenced by the fact that Algeria, after Essebsi's envoys met Bouteflika, sent its Foreign Minister Ramtane Lamamra to Tunisia on July 13, 2015, on an official visit according to the Algerian Foreign Ministry statement, and the storm scattered and its temperature began to cool gradually!
C- Then American contacts with officials in Tunisia continued:
"The Tunisian Minister of Interior, 'Najem Gharsalli,' stated in press remarks today, Friday, after meeting the US Deputy Assistant Secretary of State, 'Dass Arvizi,' in Tunisia, expressing his gratitude and appreciation for the US support for democracy in Tunisia. The Tunisian minister added that 'cooperation between his country and the United States will continue, because the common enemy is one, which is fighting terrorism'." Misr Al-Arabia, August 28, 2015.
"The US Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs, 'Anne Patterson,' stated after her meeting Tuesday morning in the Kasbah with Prime Minister Habib Essid that 'the existing bilateral cooperation regarding close intelligence exchange and continuous information coordination between the two countries on the terrorism file in order to ensure the effective response to this scourge' was discussed." Arabesque, September 1, 2015.
"The US Assistant Secretary of State for Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor Tom Malinowski visited Tunisia on September 2, 2015, accompanied by Anne Patterson, Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs, and he stated: 'The United States remains committed to helping Tunisia strengthen its security capabilities in the field of intelligence, equipment, and training. Tunisia also needs support in the economic field and achieving development, especially in the southern and interior regions'." (Saudi Press Agency, September 2, 2015).
America carried out "the appointment of a new Ambassador Extraordinary last July, Daniel Rubinstein. He has held political positions, including director of the Office of Israel and Palestinian Affairs in the US Department of State, and he is fluent in Arabic and Hebrew and will also be responsible for the work of the embassy in Libya. This means that America gives Tunisia importance to carry out political work inside it and as a starting point in the North Africa region..." Wikipedia - Free Encyclopedia.
"Christine Lagarde began a working visit to Tunisia since yesterday, Tuesday, to evaluate the package of reforms taken by Tunisia days before the sixth review of the Stand-By Arrangement, valued at about 1.7 billion dollars... Lagarde called during her meeting with a number of representatives of civil society, parties, and economic institutions to strengthen the immunity of the banking sector, establish tax reforms, and reduce the bureaucracy hampering investment." Al-Ayam website Issue 9649 Wednesday, September 9, 2015, corresponding to 25 Dhul-Qi'dah 1436 AH.
D- But this pandering to America, the intensive visits, and its status as an ally from outside NATO did not make Tunisia implement basic matters for America due to the loyalty of its "old-new" rulers to Britain. The United States pressed Tunisia to enable it to establish a military base in the country under the guise of terrorism, but Tunisia's leaders always refused that by order from Britain. Both the previous and current governments refused to "host" the headquarters of the US Africa Command "AFRICOM" in Tunisia. Until now, America has not succeeded in establishing the base in Tunisia because of the loyalty of both eras to Britain! We say "until now" because America continues its policy of the carrot and the stick with Tunisia, exploiting the fragility of the regime, its corruption, and its provocation of the people by returning the masters of English politics in the regime that the people revolted against... so if America finds a gap through which to spread its influence in Tunisia instead of English influence or to share it, it will do so...!
• Libya:
A- America tried for many decades to gain influence in Libya but did not succeed, because Gaddafi was loyal to Britain and keen on the continuation of its influence in Libya. Britain recognized him when he was a student at Sandhurst, then nurtured and protected him for several decades, and he continued to preserve its interests... Thus, until the uprising occurred in Libya in 2011, the United States did not have any influence in Libya... The United States (known for pragmatism and the policy of the art of the possible) saw the developments witnessed by the North Africa region, or what was known as the Arab Spring, starting from Tunisia then Egypt then Libya, as an opportunity for American intervention and finding influence for it to compete with the European one. Consequently, it tried to exploit the disturbances that occurred during the Arab Spring revolutions and worked hard, it and its agents, to divert them from their course by various dirty means. The United States joined the military intervention in order to gain influence in Libya...
B- America realizes that the political medium in Libya is a British creation. Therefore, it exerted effort to prevent the stabilization of the political situation in Libya until it could create a political class to contest the European political class, to displace it if it could or participate effectively in power... So it thought of mixing the cards militarily. The first step was to task a military man to move in something like a coup against the existing situation dominated by the National Congress, where the majority are Europe's men... Thus Haftar moved, and his life story speaks of his loyalty to America... Haftar spent about twenty years in the US state of Virginia, where he was "trained" by the Central Intelligence Agency, and he did not return to Libya until after the February 17, 2011 revolution, in which he played a role especially in the city of Benghazi, shrinking and growing... Then Haftar moved on May 16, 2014, and launched an attack on armed groups he described as terrorist in Benghazi under the name of a military operation he called "Dignity of Libya," and continued his skirmishes according to American policy... Then Haftar continued to obstruct any stable political situation in Libya unless it were for him, i.e., for America, to have a significant share. Thus, the other side sought to have for it, i.e., for Britain, the largest share... So there became two governments and two parliaments in the country! The Libyan parliament in Tobruk and the General Congress in Tripoli, and each of them has military power! Haftar was able to force the Tobruk parliament to adopt him as the General Commander of the Libyan army with the rank of Lieutenant General, then he was officially sworn in on March 9, 2015. By this, the Tobruk government is dominated by America... As for the General Congress and the Tripoli government, the influencers in it walk with Europe, especially the English and some of France. Along with these, there are Muslim men in the Congress distant from the English, but they lack sufficient political awareness, which makes it easy for Europe's men to take them to the side they want!
C- America and Europe were tossing solutions back and forth in Libya according to their interests... As for America, it lacks the political medium in Libya as we mentioned; most of it is almost of English agents and those who revolve around them or walk under their umbrella from some Islamic movements that do not realize the political games and their dire consequences... Therefore, America's reliance is on military actions, so there was Haftar and then his support from Egypt. Indeed, Obama's request from Congress to authorize him to carry out military actions in certain cases, it is not excluded that the subject of Libya is among its items. Reuters reported on February 23, 2015, that Obama sent a letter to Congress saying: "The situation in Libya still represents an extraordinary and exceptional threat to the security and foreign policy of the United States." It is understood from Obama's letter that America's situation in Libya is critical or in danger; therefore, military intervention serves America's interests and saves its agents... Europe had forestalled that by standing strongly against military intervention in the crisis. British Foreign Secretary Philip Hammond stated in a press conference in Algeria: "We do not believe that military action can lead to a settlement of the problem in Libya" (Russia Today, February 19, 2015).
Thus, Britain was at the head of the opponents in the Security Council to military intervention or to arming the Tobruk government and Haftar's army. Ibrahim Dabbashi, Libya's delegate to the United Nations, told Asharq Al-Awsat: ("Some members of the UN Security Council led by Britain asked the expert team to send a letter to justify their opposition to approving the deal to lift the arms embargo on the Libyan army, explaining that this is an attempt to remove embarrassment from them," and said, "Britain does not want the Libyan army to settle the matter with the terrorists and the militias controlling the capital Tripoli... This is an exposed game") (Asharq Al-Awsat, March 7, 2015).
D- After turning away from military intervention by a Security Council resolution, America and Europe agreed to the decision to work on a negotiated solution to find a political solution to the crisis, each in its own way! As for Europe, it wants the negotiations to produce a political solution as quickly as possible because the political medium is mostly with it; any solution managed by the political medium will be in its favor. As for America, it agreed to the negotiations because it could not find an entry for military intervention and because it lacks the political medium in Libya. For this reason, it will work on inventing methods for obstruction. If the negotiations approach reaching a solution, it spoils them with military actions like air raids or using economic harassment, such as what happened when the Tobruk government asked the National Oil Corporation not to transfer oil revenues to the Central Bank (Misr Al-Arabia - from The New York Times, April 6, 2015). All these matters negatively affect the continuation of negotiations productively, and thus provide a deadline for Haftar to find an influential foothold for him that enables him to form an effective political medium... Thus, negotiations move from Skhirat to Geneva, and vice versa without a resolution, because the dialogue is not between the people of Libya, but its reality is between old colonialism and new colonialism according to their own interests without regard for the interests of the people of the country!
Third: The subject of Haftar and his military campaign in Benghazi on September 19, 2015:
What Haftar carried out in terms of a military campaign in Benghazi under the name "Operation Al-Hatf" (Fate) is within the policy drawn up Americanly, which is pressure and obstruction until he achieves significant footholds on the ground and then finds a new political medium... Meaning it is not a contradiction nor is it a coincidence that Haftar chose Saturday, September 19, 2015—that is, shortly before the deadline of September 20, 2015, which was previously set. ("United Nations envoy to Libya, Bernardino Leon, announced September 20 as a fixed date to reach a final agreement between the parties of the Libyan conflict on a national unity government to exit the crisis. He added in a talk to journalists in Skhirat where the talks are held that the date is fixed and non-postponable.") Sky News Arabia, September 10, 2015. Haftar will continue in such acts until America orders him to stop when it sees that it has achieved its interests... Britain and Europe with it realize that, and therefore exerted effort in nominating Leon and then choosing him as a UN envoy for the Libya issue, and it succeeded in that. This is one of the few times that the UN representative is not pro-American! Leon is closer to being Europe's envoy than the UN envoy; therefore, Leon was exerting effort in not enabling Haftar and America behind him from obstruction. Whenever they raised an issue, he tried to frustrate it or show flexibility towards it. Indeed, he tried to attract the tribes to the negotiations to find a push factor for them in the face of obstruction, and that was on advice from Britain but he failed in that. ("Hussein al-Habouni, one of the notables of the eastern region, stated that the international envoy summoned the sheikhs and wise men when he realized that the dialogue of the factions failed and was going in a vicious circle, so Leon resorted to holding a meeting with the tribal notables... Leaks from Cairo revealed that the former British Ambassador to Libya, Michael Aaron, was the one who asked the international envoy to meet with the tribal sheikhs, pointing out that they are a basic component and it is not possible for the UN mission to ignore that component.") Le Maghreb - an independent Tunisian daily newspaper - September 11, 2015.
Despite Leon's prudence in showing that he is neutral and hiding that he is pro-European, he was sometimes exposed, and the Tobruk parliament accused him of bias. ("Leon's recent steps provoked the anger of Libyan parliamentarians, as they accused him that his only concern is responding to all the demands of the outgoing General National Congress. The drop that overflowed the glass was his meeting with a group of Fajr Libya and radical Islamists in Turkey, then involving Abdelrahman al-Suwayhili, one of those accused of war crimes by the Security Council...") Libya 24 news page on September 11, 2015. Leon does not care about this accusation; rather, he strongly criticized that military campaign of Haftar in Benghazi. ("A statement by the UN mission to Libya said it 'strongly condemns the military escalation in Benghazi, Saturday, September 19, 2015, where the timing of the air strikes clearly aims to undermine the ongoing efforts to end the conflict and obstruct them at the time when negotiations have reached a final and critical stage...'") Al-Mesryoon newspaper, September 21, 2015... Naturally, Britain realizes the subject of obstruction from Haftar driven by America and that it holds his reins and that the solution passes through it... Consequently, the Congress negotiators realize that, and some news reported that there is a tendency from parties in the Congress to meet some American officials to try to reach an understanding with them. ("The Salvation Government in Tripoli emerging from the Congress forestalled the Skhirat meeting, and its head Khalifa al-Ghwell received an American official in a striking development. Tripoli government sources told Al-Hayat that al-Ghwell signed a series of agreements on Sunday-Monday night with William Bellmore, Vice President of an American logistics services management corporation, including memorandums of understanding to 'open new horizons for cooperation in the fields of defense, health, and investment.' Sources in the Tripoli government described these agreements as an 'important step' in the relationship with America.") Al-Hayat: Tuesday, September 22, 2015.
In light of all that, it seems that the two sides are like two racing horses; neither has been able to settle the matter in its favor. Rather, they need subsequent malicious maneuvers in which they compete over sucking the blood of the people of Libya and their wealth, helped by local agents who do not fear Allah, His Messenger, and the believers... Thus, the two sides were in need of a warrior's rest! Extending to October 20, 2015, as Leon said, or more as expected: ("The Personal Representative of the UN Secretary-General Bernardino Leon in Libya said during a press conference to review the updates of the Libyan political dialogue in Skhirat organized yesterday evening, Monday: 'We have a final text and our task is finished, and the matter now returns to the participants to respond to this text, and the response will not be with more negotiation and amendment, but by saying yes or no to the agreement'... The UN envoy stressed the necessity of starting to implement the agreement before the twentieth of next October...") Maghreb Today, Tuesday, September 22, 2015.
The conclusion is that Leon wants to find a political solution as quickly as possible because Europe wants that, provided that the actual gains through this solution are in its favor because it considers itself the owner of Libya for decades. America considers that Europe was and then died, and it is its sole heir, or if not the sole, it and Europe are partners in the inheritance... But for Europe to return alone in Libya is a red line! These two demands are difficult to meet, at least in the foreseeable future. Therefore, it is difficult, if not impossible, for Leon to find a real, stable solution. Rather, he can find a solution on paper, an agreement signed today then broken tomorrow, and this is what is currently happening... unless one of the two parties overpowers the other and imposes the solution it wants, or the people of the country take the reins of their issue into their own hands, fear Allah their Lord, implement His Sharia, and trample upon the old and new colonialism along with them, or before them, the agents, followers, and associates. It is worth noting that when the provinces of Tunisia, Tripoli (Libya), and Algeria were part of the Khilafah State, they used to impose taxes and conditions on America so its ships could pass through the waters of these provinces. So where was it in the shade of the Khilafah... and where has it reached now in the absence of the Khilafah...
إِنَّ فِي ذَلِكَ لَعِبْرَةً لِأُولِي الْأَبْصَارِ
"Indeed in that is a lesson for those of vision." (QS. Ali 'Imran [3]: 13)