During a April 11 press briefing Russian Foreign Ministry spokesperson Mariya Zakharova made detailed remarks regarding the current situation in Libya and British calims that London has worked to stabelize the country (source):
Confessions of British Foreign Office minister on Libya
Speaking about Libya and the roots of today’s extremely difficult situation, I couldn’t help but see what I consider as an outstanding statement in every way recently made by Mark Field, a UK Foreign Office minister who temporarily oversees the Middle East dossier. During the debate in the House of Commons, he agreed with the arguments of his Labour opponents about the “calamitous” consequences of the British invasion of Iraq and Libya and said the following: “Although the UK played a role in trying to ensure that there was further planning for a Libyan-owned, UN co-ordinated stabilisation effort, that did not come to pass in the way we would have liked. There were clear early successes in the immediate aftermath of 2011 that were not sustained. ”
This statement is beautiful in every way imaginable. It turns out that the introduction of a no-fly zone, coupled with pinpoint bombardments, including on facilities critical to the state infrastructure, is now modestly called “a role in stabilisation effort.” The “effort” apparently implies unceremonious interference in the internal affairs of a sovereign state, overt support of an anti-government coup and, naturally, public lynching and mockery on the body of a national leader who was only recently accepted by those who later shamelessly gave orders and actually sentenced Muammar Gaddafi to death. Speaking about the scenario they would have liked, obviously, that was a reference to a transformation of Libya, which is extremely rich in natural resources, into a hydrocarbons supplier fully controlled by the West with a puppet government “recognized democratic” in words. Apparently, this was the scenario the West would have liked to see implemented, only something went wrong.
Frankly speaking, what is happening now, including around Venezuela is of course completely different; yet the methods used are very similar to the drama that unfolded in Libya: attempts to convince everyone of the need for democratisation, a concentration on the country’s blunders, including economic ones within implementation of its internal policy, using a whole range of pressure tools and interference in the internal affairs of sovereign Libya, relying on those welcome and sanctions against the unwanted. That came unexpected for most countries. The world is watching in amazement what is happening in that country. The question is, is this another blunder? But one has to answer for their blunders.
The problem is that the people who wrote these scenarios, including for Libya, turned out to be mediocre. Apologies have not been uncommon in the British political culture lately. In fact they are made quite often because there is no real remorse behind them. Remember, Gordon Brown apologised for the shameful migrant policy that sent many destitute and orphaned Britons to the colonies for several decades in the 20th century. They apologised for the slavery in the past. Modern UK politicians have also repeatedly apologised. Remember Iraq? Now it’s Libya’s turn, only they didn’t apologise, but said they failed to ensure it goes according to the scenario planned for that country. How many more places on our planet will be forced into these dramatic scenarios with non-dramatic apologies afterwards?
Only faced with an acute socioeconomic crisis, primarily caused by the uncontrolled flow of migration, our Western colleagues began to look for ways to evade any threats or complaints.
One must keep in mind that all those who drafted the scenario for Libya – the politicians, experts, representatives of the executive power of Western states – feel fine, and are as rich and prosperous as ever. But millions of direct and indirect victims of those decision-makers are paying the price for their mistakes, paying their own lives and the lives of their families and friends.
Developments in Libya
Reports continue to come in on armed clashes on the approaches to the Libyan capital between military groups supporting Prime Minister Fayez al-Sarraj’s Government of National Accord and units of the Libyan National Army under Khalifa Haftar’s command. There were recorded cases of air attacks, including on the country’s only functioning international airport in Tripoli. According to various data, both parties to the conflict are sustaining losses in personnel and equipment.
There are no Russian citizens among the wounded and the dead. The Russian Embassy in Libya has been operating from neighbouring Tunisia for a number of years on account of the persisting terrorist threat in Tripoli. We reaffirm our recommendation to Russian citizens to refrain from visiting Libya for security reasons.
During the week that has elapsed since the current dramatic surge in tensions, the international community has repeatedly urged the conflicting sides to stop the military operations and sit down to the negotiating table. The escalation of tensions in Libya was discussed by the UN Security Council at its latest meeting.
Under these circumstances, Russia has clearly and consistently pointed out that there is no alternative to a political settlement based on the Plan of Action proposed by the UN Secretary-General’s Special Representative for Libya, Ghassan Salamé, and that military methods of power struggle should be renounced. It is important that all responsible Libyan military and political forces pool efforts to restore national unity as soon as possible and form full-scale state institutions capable of effectively coping with national priorities, including primarily the fight against terrorism.
I remember well how many years ago, when the Russian side, among others, asked our Western colleagues in different formats, primarily French representatives, about arms supplies to Libya, they told us that we should not worry because all was well and under control. Weapons, they said, were being supplied to the right side. Today we see what the Western community’s support of the so-called “democracy” has led to and what is happening with weapons in the territory of the state that used to exist as a state before and is just struggling to gain this status today. We see – and I am quoting official estimates of the United Nations – mind-boggling amounts of weaponry in that territory. We would like to listen to those who claimed that the contemporary arms supplies were a way to support the democratic processes and represented no threat to peace or stability both in that state and the region as a whole.