By Dr. Ali Al-Sabaie
Dr. Ali (picture) is an elected member of the House of Representatives, but he boycotted Tobruk meetings
Fathi Bashagha says, as he answers the following question:
Is it true that the signing of the political agreement in Libya would make Bernardino Leon the governor of Libya?
“Leon did not come to Libya with a huge army as that of Paul Bremer when he headed the invaded Iraq. Is Leon the governor of Libya? Leon is just a representative of the United Nations, which took the role of sponsoring a Libyan dialogue that could bring the conflict parties to agreement because, in fact, there is no honesty and trust among Libyans to one another. In addition, some are calling for a Libyan-Libyan dialogue! Why is it not there? Because there is no trust between any two Libyans and no one can bring two Libyans to one table, which would make it mandatory for the UN to intervene and play the sponsor and supervisor role in bringing all the Libyan parties to one table. When the UN came to us in August 2014 and consulted us if we want to approve on making it the mediator of Libya’s crisis solution, we as a city agreed and Tripoli as well as other cities agreed, so I think that Leon will leave Libya and the UN for good once his job is done in Libya.” End.
To respond to Bashagha’s comments, I say:
First, I find it so strange that he said such things because as someone who is supposed to call the shots for his country, he should have said things much deeper, knowing that he represents a city full of political figures and thinkers. However, in order not to act on the spur of the moment, let us break down the whole thing into the following points:
1: It’s well-known that the UN has come into being after the victory of the allies’ forces over the axis because the ones who founded the UN are the victorious countries in WWII. Thus, the UN is just there to grant them their wishes via the right to “VETO” for if the whole world wanted something and the one of the VETO five countries (the U.S.A., Russia, France, China, and the UK) rejected it, it will never happen. So, the UN is merely a ghastly disguised way of enslaving peoples in the name of civilization and delicacy to suit the era of globalization.
2: All of the above was just a theoretical and factual review of the UN, which lies far from hollow speeches of those who think they are the elite of Arabs and Muslims, knowing that the theoretical outlining is surprisingly believed by the practical one in the same organization (UN). Better yet, the UN (or its representatives) has always wrecked and corrupted the countries they meddle in and humiliated the elite of their locals, such as in Bosnia, Rwanda, Lebanon, Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia, Yemen, Egypt, and son on and so forth.
3: The UN and the west at large have their own variant methods to achieve their goals and agendas in the weak countries.
- Sometimes, the western armies come with state-of-the-art weapons and fully prepared to invade a country then appoint a western governor as they did in Iraq when they appointed Paul Bremer. This is quite clear for the public, but the elite should be more conscious and cautious in order to be familiar with all of the practices made by the west. Yet, some other times, those western invaders fake deserting the occupied countries while they make one of the locals the leader as happened in Afghanistan when Hamid Karzai was appointed a puppet president whom the west drives in whichever direction they want.
Further still, the west may as well dominate an occupied country by a constitution, a draft, or a unity government as it did in Somalia when it put Sharif Sheikh Ahmed in power of the country, knowing that he was the Head of Islamic Courts before he was appointed “Somalia’s Karzai”. However, westerners know well the figures capable of following their script without any improvisation, be he a fighter as in Afghanistan, or a head of an Islamic party as in Somalia, or even a “February star” or a hawk from the “Dawn”. Consequently, the narrowing down of the trusteeship ideology by the UN to the fact that the armies would come just to occupy the country (Libya) is downright superficial.
4: Given the above argument, I prefer Leon to be the President of the awaited-for Libyan national unity government to a “Libyan Karzai”. Because when the hidden powers that are made to shape our future come out in the shape of Bernardino Leon, it would be easy to convince people that they are under the trusteeship of the great world powers. However, if the president were a local “Karzai” directed anonymously by the great world powers, it would be difficult to convince the simple public or the elite that Libya is truly under trusteeship.
5: Moreover, Libya is still under the UN Chapter 7, so the UN forces do not need permission if they wanted to carry out strikes or send ground troops to Libya. All in all, Libya is still, until today, under the international trusteeship, so the whole issue here is just a matter of maneuverers because since the fall of Gaddafi regime, the UN and the west have been trying to disguise in the costume of a local “Karzai” and assume power in Libya. However, if their maneuverers failed, they would absolutely use power instead to take over Libya, so I say that this point is just a common sense and it is a shame that the ones who assumed responsibility for Libya’s destiny have constantly slipped notice of it.
Second, Bashagha says, “The UN consulted us and then consulted other parties about whether or not to be a mediator that can unite all Libyans.” End.
Whom does he refer to when he says, “Consulted us”? Is it he himself? Or is it Misrata Municipality? Alternatively, could it be Misarta as a whole or all of the revolutionaries? Is it Libya Dawn supporters? What exactly does “us” in “consulted us” mean? I wish it did not refer to his “great” self.
Anyways, is it possible that the UN came for the sake of all Libyans? Is it possible that such a speech is delivered by someone who went to sign an agreement for Libya’s present and future? Yet, let us switch off our minds and believe that the UN came to assemble us back together and wipe off our tears! Nevertheless, there remains another problem that pushes us not to believe in such fantasies. The problem is related to the UNSMIL’s Head, Leon, Does he wish Libyans any good, does he wish them unity and joyfulness?!
I do not want to pass on the testimony of the “Islamists” or “Warmongers” as Bashagha and his followers call them, but Mohamed ElBaradei, who is an Egyptian liberal, says that Leon is the one who designed the coup in Egypt and is willing to do the same in Libya. So does Bashagha know of this or does he not?
Third, the leaders of the great powers (starting from the top of the pyramid “Obama” downwards) all agree that what Leon would come up with regarding Libya’s conflict is to be committed to by all Libyan parties because Leon is just a UN envoy whose job is to create what the west wants to see in Libya.
Fourth, Bashagha says, “No one can bring two Libyans to one table.” End.
In response, I say, who brought Al-Halboos and Tantoosh brigades together? Who would have thought that the biggest pro-February brigade could ever shake hands with the biggest pro-September one? Surly, there were some clean-hearted people, who put these two brigades to one reconciliation table, and definitely, Bernardino Leon was not part of it! However, I am not sure if the new “Karzai” or one of his followers had influenced that reconciliation at all!
As a result, Libyans can actually reach an agreement all by themselves, regardless of how vast the gap is among them. What we are seeing today of reconciliations between (Zintan and Zuwara), (Sobrtah and Al-Rijban), (AlZawiya, al-Rijban, and Zintan), and (Gharyan and Zintan) are a proof that Libyan citizens are able to get out of the crisis away from the help of Leon and his evil organization.
Fifth, Bashagha says, “We as a city agreed and Tripoli as well as other cities agreed on making him the mediator of the solution for Libya’s crisis.” End.
Therefore, I re-listened to his “We as a city agreed” phrase many times to convince myself of it, but this phrase does a lot of wrong to Misrata, city and citizens, as he takes the right to speak on behalf of thousand different kinds of people who rejected Leon and his dialogue.
Moreover, in the beginning of the dialogue process, we as boycotting MPs were together discussing Ghadames dialogue and I asked Bashagha if his city supports such a dialogue, he said yes. However, Abdulrahman Al-Sweihli could not turn deaf ears to this and told Bashagha to respect the opinions of others, then the voices rose in anger and dislike.
My question came as a reminder to Bashagha of the crack in unity he did to his city’s community more than he did to other cities as he is still insisting on his opinion by going along with Leon dialogue under the name of Misrata again!
He also made all of Tripoli elite and those of other cities choose Leon as “Libya’s savior”. I find it so strange that anyone can believe such talks by this person as we daily see demonstrations and meetings all over Libya condemning and denouncing Leon’s presence in Libya.
Sixth, Bashagha says, “I think that Leon will leave Libya and the UN for good once his job is done in Libya, so do not panic.” End.
Therefore, why are you so scared, Libyans, why? After Leon unites you and wipes off your tears, he would go away and he might as well go for Umrah and ask Allah for forgiveness because he was not fully successful with Libyans!
Finally, I do not think that the good-heartedness of Bashagha and his friend Al-Hajj Suleiman that put up with Leon’s cunning, Baira’s regional sidedness, and Al-Wafi’s filthiness would be outrageous about our questions and responses, which we hope are practical. Knowing that such responses and articles will increase in number until people realize who they truly are and that they are the ones who opened the door for “Leon-ish” dialogues in Libya!
Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the writer, and do not necessarily reflect those of the Libya Observer