Libya : Why a Two-State Solution Offers Civilians the Best Protection

I do realise that I am probably overdosing on articles about the situation in Libya. It is not, after all, a part of my community and it is upon events affecting my community that I do prefer to concentrate.

Nevertheless as I have said many times before I do feel strongly that honesty in politics is essential if our claim to uphold real democratic values and our expressed concern for protecting the public interest are to be taken at all seriously.

Where the current bombing campaign against Libya is concerned we are being lied to. Pure and simple. Lied to by a government and a national media that depends upon a perceived inherent inability of the British people - stupified by reality TV, soccer and soap operas (panet et circenses for the modern age) - to follow even short and simple sequences of events in a logical manner or to study the underlying causes of them.

It is my belief that the establishment's arrogance is misplaced. A recent poll conducted by the BBC showed that just 38% of British people, from a sample of a little over 2000, actually support this latest military crusade.

Think about that carefully - in the face of almost a month of unrelenting propaganda less than 4 out of every 10 UK citizens actually buy this latest war. The power of the Internet and the ability of its users to access information from all around the world and from literally any source is breaking the power of our lords and masters to exercise complete control.

And complete control, or something at least approaching it, is what the New World Order will need if it is to achieve its objectives without fear of disruption or significant dissent.

This why I truly believe that the fraudulent "democracy" that bases itself on the current two-party or three-party system will crash within the lifetimes of many people reading this blog, but I guess I am digressing somewhat. For the moment let's concentrate on Libya.

A QUESTION OF SOVEREIGNTY

The West has no right to tell the Libyan people whom they must have as leaders and which political system they must have in place in their country.

This notwithstanding it is obvious that a very large body of opinion in that country is opposed to Colonel Muammar Gaddafi and to his regime. This is particularly so in the east of the country, where tribal loyalties are not to Gaddafi and his entourage as they are in the west of Libya.

Whilst there would certainly seem to be a significant Al Qaeda element amongst the rebels and whilst it is clear the Islamists are waiting in the wings for their opponents on both sides to fight each other to a standstill, it is equally clear that there is a strong pro-Western element involved too. It is an uneasy alliance, which will probably turn on itself if and when the battle against the Gaddafi loyalists concludes in the rebels' favour.

Misrata excepted, this is self-evidently not the case in the west of the country and no amount of ridiculous nonsense from Western media sources telling us that hundreds of thousands of residents of Tripoli and Sirte wave green flags and dance in the streets under threat of being shot is going to change that. Whether their misrepresentations are deliberate or whether there is a genuine inability amongst Western leaders and their news media to understand that even dictators can be popular amongst their own, it is patently obvious that Gaddafi and his regime enjoys widespread support in large areas of the country, and in particular in the west of Libya.

THE WEST'S DILEMMA

All of this presents the forces of the NWO with a not inconsequential logistical problem. Even if they, with their special services, can arm and train a pitiful but motivated rag-tag army of rebels into a force capable, with the benefit of the air cover that they are already providing, of reversing its current fortunes and advancing to the gates of the capital, just how do they propose to defeat the citizens of Tripoli without the wholesale slaughter of hundreds or even thousands of civilians which would make a mockery of their already unconvincing pretence of involving themselves in this war to "protect civilians"?

Western military leaders will, of course, have worked this out for themselves already. Which is why they are already bombing Tripoli mercilessly on a daily and nightly basis in spite of the fact that the civilians they profess to be protecting are located several hundreds of miles due east. They are not targeting civilians but there will have been accidental civilian casualties as there always are in any war, particularly when the Americans are involved (in the conflict with Serbia, for instance, despite its boasts of "smart" pinpoint technology the US couldn't even manage to direct all its missiles to the right country). The official response has been to tell us that claims of civilian losses "cannot be verified", which of course they can't because the West doesn't have anybody on the ground in Tripoli to count the bodies and it routinely rejects claims of civilian losses by the government, possibly with good reason.

Even if, having artificially reversed the natural order of things from the air, the West then stands back and allows the rebels to sack Tripoli on their own, it will not be able to absolve itself of responsibility for any loss of innocent life.

LIBYA'S OWN TWO-STATE SOLUTION?

This is why I am persuaded, reluctantly, that the best and most bloodless solution must lie in the creation of a two-state Libya, east and west, with an NWO-approved regime in the east of the country with Benghazi as its capital and a regime in the west of the country, whether led by Gaddafi or somebody else, remaining true to the principles of the Third Universal Theory that he devised early into his tenure as leader - if, of course, that is what the citizens there want.

Whilst such a solution has the potential to create a state of permanent tension between the two "Libyas", my view is that fear of attack by the west will lead the east to seek cordial relations with its neighbour, whilst its own fear of attack by the US and its allies would deter any aggression by the western nation towards its neighbour. Some accommodation would have to be reached in respect of the country's natural resources, most particularly oil, but there is plenty enough of it to go round.

WOULD THIS SATISFY THE WEST?

To answer this question one needs first to be clear about the true objectives behind the West's involvement in Libya. I would suggest there is no one single objective, but rather at least four and possibly more:

1. Oil. Obviously. Just as was the case in Iraq, there is a great deal of evidence to be found in events leading up to the attack to suggest that Gaddafi was becoming rather too protective of his own natural resource and choosy about whom he decided to share it with than the West would have liked.

2. China. Whilst it may not enjoy the high profile that the old Cold War with the USSR had a few decades ago, there is a lot of concern over China's growing involvement and influence in Africa. The replacement of Gaddafi's regime with one under the effective ownership of the West would help address this situation.

3. Ideology. Despite widespread dissatisfaction and a well-earned growing distrust of the political system in the West, it is in my view unlikely that the Third Universal Theory would gain much currency in Europe or the USA. However the Western establishment has always been paranoid and may have considered a need to err on the side of caution. Capitalism is in its death throes and state socialism died many years ago. Something has to fill the vacuum.

4. Pride. Within a day or two of the insurgency coming into being Western nations were writing off the man they had re-embraced in 2003 and his regime and were telling him to go whilst going to great lengths to ingratiate themselves with the rebels. Then suddenly it all went belly up, and the West's new friends found themselves staring military defeat in the face. How would that have worked out if the insurgency had been quashed for good? On one side embarrassed Western leaders and on the other a man with an awful lot of oil and the hump.

Would a two state solution address these Western concerns?

First of all a pro-West eastern Libya would, one assumes, be happy to supply oil to Europe and to the US. They may not have access to all of Libya's oil, but they would have access to a lot of it. So I guess this would depend on how greedy the Western leaders in fact are.

Secondly the NWO would at least have expanded its influence to another swathe of North Africa, and diminished that of China at the same time. Again, whether this would be acceptable would depend entirely on whether the West is in a mood to compromise.

Where ideology is concerned, history shows that an idea does not die with its creator. If the West finds itself discredited, at the time or in the future, by the wanton slaughter of thousands of civilians loyal to the government either by means of its own air campaign or through its arming of the rebels then some of that discredit will undoubtedly attach itself to the values held dear by Western governments. Thus a fight to the finish could have the effect of raising awareness of Gaddafi's ideology rather than extinguishing it. Western leaders should think well on this.

Lastly, the West could save face following its early championing of the insurgency by bringing about the creation of a new NWO-friendly eastern Libya. It would give some purpose to its intervention and would certainly have a "freedom" factor for those many Libyans who are at war with Gaddafi's regime.

There is a fifth objective that would undoubtedly be served by the creation of a two-state Libya, of course. That would be to greatly minimise loss of life as a result of this conflict from amongst the civilian population.

The fact that I have thrown this factor into the discussion almost as an afterthought will give the reader some idea as to how much credence I give to the "offical" reason for military intervension - to protect innocent civilians.

Nonetheless if I am wrong, and this was indeed the underlying ethic that inspired Western leaders to attack Gaddafi with the same enthusiasm as they have defended their pet dictators in the Gulf as they suppress their own rebellions with similar violence, then this would be the best argument of all for a two-state solution - that it would protect innocent life in a way that it would not be protected by a Libya either under a continuation of Gaddafi's regime or under a new government led by the rebels.

So here is the question - bearing in mind that the objective of the military campaign is to "protect civilians" and that Western leaders so desire to scrupulously observe a UN resolution which categorically does not provide for regime change from outside, would they be prepared to explore the feasibility of a two-state solution?

And if not, why not?