Dire state of Libya is a warning against intervention in Syria

Despite September’s narrow House of Commons defeat for the government’s push to launch a war against Syria, there are signs that rumblings about western “intervention” could be set to return.

As the peace talks in Geneva were breaking down last weekend, it was reported in the Wall Street Journal  that Saudi Arabia has agreed to send advanced anti-aircraft missiles to the militias fighting against the Syrian government. While the White House is claiming via anonymous officials to be against it, it’s inconceivable that the Kingdom would make such a move without at least a tacit American green light.

After the close vote against war, Britain’s Tory-led government may not be keen for a repeat of such a humiliating defeat. Things could change quickly in the event of another crisis such as that sparked by the use of chemical weapons in Syria in August. There is still much anger in Whitehall that the government did not have a free hand to bomb whoever it saw fit for once.

However, part of Syria’s armed opposition, which is close to the US, is about to change its war strategy. Salim Idriss, the nominal head of the Free Syrian Army (FSA), has just been sacked and was replaced by a new commander who looks set to refocus the war effort to the south of the country.

Abdullah Al-Bashir Al-Noeimi, a defected Syrian army general, has long advocated a NATO bombing campaign against Syria. His appointment, however, is not necessarily a sign he is about to get his way in that regard. It could be a sign that the western powers backing the FSA are about to step up arms supplies.

This would be a deadly mistake. Although the Geneva negotiations made very little progress, the part they played in helping Lakhdar Brahimi, the United Nations and Arab League Special Envoy to Syria, and other diplomats negotiate local ceasefires between the government and rebels in Homs and in the Palestinian refugee camp Yarmouk in Damascus should not be underestimated.

Although they did far too little to alleviate the suffering of the country as a whole, these efforts have had real benefits, including the easing of the government siege on Yarmouk, allowing in some food and other aid, though it was too little. Hundreds of civilians have also been evacuated from these war zones.

Local ceasefires appear to be the only way forward that does not involve a seemingly perpetual civil war.

With the possibility that talks of “intervention” could make a comeback sometime in the next month, it is worth reviewing what such NATO “intervention” has meant for Libya.

Al-Jazeera English‘s programme Fault Lines revisited the country long after most of the western journalists lost interest and left it.

Al-Jazeera found that “chaos reigns” now in “a nation unravelling” where armed militias rule the streets. The fighters that overthrew Gaddafi, under the cover of NATO bombs, now seem to dominate the country. US Special Forces kidnapped suspected Al-Qaida operative Abu Anas Al-Libi; he had been living in the capital openly.

The arrogance of Deborah Jones, the new US ambassador to Libya, in her interview is palpable. The sense of intent to run the country as some sort of imperial proconsul is clear. She smirks when the Al-Jazeera journalist, very timidly, questions the American right to kidnap a suspect from outside his home and whisk him off to New York. “We’re building capacity here right now,” she says. “This is life, freedom is really messy.” Jones echoed Donald Rumsfeld’s infamous justification for the looting that broke out during their 2003 invasion of Iraq.

But the Americans may not end up with much of a country to dominate. Prime Minister Ali Zaidan was also briefly abducted two days after Al-Libi. The central government seems to be a government on paper only.

The oil-rich eastern province of Barqa seems to be breaking away and is pushing for federalism. One militia there “has a stranglehold” on an estimated 50 per cent of Libya’s oil wealth, according to the Al-Jazeera programme.

Torture is widespread in the jails of the militias. A whole town of 40,000 black Libyans has been forcibly removed to a refugee camp where they are still living. The justification given by the armed gangs is one of collective punishment – that the Tawerghan’s are “Gadaffi sympathisers”. But the twisted logic of racism is also evident.

Whenever British and American bombs promise liberation: be suspicious. Syria’s fate is already bad enough without adding another source of death and destruction into the mix.

An associate editor with The Electronic Intifada, Asa Winstanley is an investigative journalist who lives in London.

The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Monitor.