The Solution For Libya


The Solution For Libya

By Richard Galustian

UN Libya chief Ghassan Salame speaking with some degree of despondency at the end of a month of talks in Tunis on Saturday

More failed talks. It’s enough. I feel compelled to suggest a decisive solution after 6 years of UN failure.

Let’s me first discuss the fact Egypt is central to France’s Libyan policy and to support for Haftar.

President Abdel-Fattah El-Sisi arrived in Paris Monday night, beginning a State visit, his first with French President Emmanuel Macron.

Macron and Sisi met at Élysée Palace this week to discuss regional security, including particularly Libya, and of course Syria, as well as discuss the purchase of yet more Rafale fighters.

Only France and Italy have developed, though almost opposing, strategies for Libya, while the EU in Brussels, US and UK and worse of all, the UN, have none that are founded in reality.

France has, I believe the most grown up view of what needs to happen in Libya with the exception of Russia, though they presently seem to vacillate in their support for military strongman Haftar and the UN.

The Kremlin veers to supporting the ‘UN process’ which might prove to be Russia’s mistake.

This below UN quote shows the despondency and hopelessness of the Chief of UNSMIL which is best summed up by his own words and comments.

UN envoy Ghassan Salame said, after a month of talks in Tunis with a variety of Libyan actors, on Saturday that “no discernible progress has been made toward stabilising Libya and paving the way for elections.” Salame added discussions would continue, notably without giving a new date.

The UN’s central objective was to amend the now in reality moribund LPA amendments to a previous UN-mediated plan signed two years ago!

The first Prime Minister after the revolt against Gaddafi was Dr. Mahmoud Jibril who has such disdain for the UN he didn’t bother to attend the last meeting in Tunis. He did however attend a Libya Conference last week in Belgium.

The conference on Libya was held in Brussels in the name of ‘Peace-building and State-Building in Libya: What role for the European Union?’ with Jibril as the keynote speaker and also there in his capacity as head of the National Forces Alliance Party (NFA).

It should be remembered that in the first election after Gaddafi’s fall, it was the NFA Party not the Muslim Brotherhood sponsored party that got the more votes.

Here I offer a controversial scenario that could work if the US State Department would help, something unlikely since particularly it continues to be staffed by Hillary Clinton appointees which is inhibiting to say the least for Secretary Of State, Rex Tillerson.

The plan suggested is this:

1. The UN should pack their bags and leave the Libyan stage. They have after 6 years trying absolutely zero credibility for the Libyans.

2. The Muslim Brotherhood (and its political party affiliates and puppets) must be designated a terrorist organisation, also in the US, along with CAIR and the Al Qaeda affiliate LIFG former members must also be precluded by law from participation in Libyan political life.

3. The US and Russia convinces the Security Council to lift the ban on arms sales to the Libyan National Army, giving Field Marshall Haftar a strong hand to totally eradicate Islamic extremists and terrorists.

This isn’t extreme as extreme as it sounds when you consider the British Government ordered last week that all ISIS British nationals found in Syria should be summarily executed, without a court proceedings.

America must also take off the gloves when it comes to terrorists.

4. That its recognised that technocrats, educated people must only occupy the government which needs to be formed before any elections. Only two man are qualified and skilled technocrats, the only Libyans qualified to do it that I can identify, are Mahmoud Jibril and Abuzed Omar Dorda. He too is a very competent technocrat and diplomat and is well equipped, as is Jibril, to handle the position of Prime Minister. Interestingly for those who were not aware, Dorda was based in New York as Libya’s Permanent Representative to the UN from 1997 to 2003. He is amazingly well connected. It would be only right and proper that either man draw from the HoR in Tobruk competent candidates as Ministers for an interim government  Either man would make a very competant interim Prime Minister, until elections in 2018 or 2019.

5. That chosen. another controversial idea.  As a figure head, a unifying individual, with no repeat no executive powers but with good technocrat advisors, Saif Gaddafi be appointed as a ‘constitutional’ President, primarily important to ‘bind’ the tribes and the populace where there is little doubt of his popularity. His position would also be up for vote at election time. Even it should be he that establishes a South African type ‘Truth & Reconciliation’ tribunal, for peace not revenge.

In summary its an interim leadership to be immediately created.

There are some historical enmities that exist between these mentioned individuals and it’s up to America and Russia, I believe, to ‘bang heads’ and get agreement between these individuals, having got rid of the MB and terrorists/militias like former AQ LIFG, particularly men like Abdel Hakim Belhadj.

Such so called ‘former’ terrorists should be exiled to probably Turkey which has a Muslim Brotherhood government and though not admitted, have undeclared sympathies for ISIS.

Given the impotence of the UN and EU, I can only hope President Trump will intervene, if for no other reason than to stop ISIS, with the Muslim Brotherhood’s help, from taking over Libya and then inevitably moving into Tunisia.

Europe have already suffered one awful consequence from the Libyan turmoil on European soil. An assassination of a prominent Maltese figure.


The rumours amongst ‘the security community’ that the semtex explosive used to tragically kill investigative journalist Daphne Galizia in Malta last week originated from Libya, something yet to be confirmed by the forensic investigators. This has brought home to us all the need for the two superpowers to be more strident, with the rest of the world, in solving Libya’s situation which has gone on for six years already.

If Libya is not stabilised soon there could be a catastrophic domino effect in North Africa with the next target for turmoil almost certainly being Tunisia.

Given the impotence of the UN and EU, I can only hope President Trump will intervene, if for no other reason than to stop ISIS, with the Muslim Brotherhood’s help, from taking over Libya and then inevitably moving into Tunisia.

 

SaveSave

Advertisements

Gen. Mike Flynn: Why Hillary’s record on Libya is even worse than you think


Gen. Mike Flynn: Why Hillary’s record on Libya is even worse than you think

By Michael Flynn

A failed state, a terrorist haven, four dead Americans – this is the Hillary Clinton record in Libya we know about.

But new evidence — and a review of the public record — reveals that Hillary Clinton’s actions in Libya were not just disastrous policy, but a violation of U.S. anti-terrorism law.

A recent report to the Foreign Affairs Committee of the British House of Commons concluded that Western intervention in Libya was based on “inaccurate intelligence” and “erroneous assumptions.” Advocates failed to recognize that “the threat to civilians was overstated and that the rebels included a significant Islamist element,” and the failure to plan for a post-Qaddafi Libya led to the “growth of ISIL” in North Africa.

However, “inaccurate intelligence” doesn’t fully describe the whole story. A closer examination of the run-up to the Libya debacle on September 11, 2012 leads to the irrefutable conclusion that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton knowingly armed radical Islamist terrorists in Libya.

False pretenses

The American public was told that the intervention in Libya was necessary to prevent a humanitarian crisis. But just as Hillary Clinton would describe the attack on our Benghazi diplomats as a spontaneous protest over a video, the military intervention that led inexorably to the debacle in Benghazi was sold on false pretenses: to prevent an imminent massacre of civilians engaged in a pro-democracy uprising.

Hillary Clinton described the 2011 Arab Spring rebellion in eastern Libya as a spontaneous pro-democracy uprising, but the Libyan connection to radical Islamic extremist groups was well known long before 2011.

The region where the rebellion began was a fervid recruiting ground for jihadis who killed American forces in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The leaders of the “civilian uprising” that Hillary Clinton supported were members of the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG) who had pledged allegiance to Al Qaeda. They refused to take orders from non-Islamist commanders and assassinated the then leader of the rebel army, Abdel Fattah Younes.

The LIFG had been jailed under Qaddafi until hundreds of their members were released through a de-radicalization program. That program was spearheaded by an exiled Muslim Brotherhood affiliated Libyan cleric based in Qatar named Ali al-Sallabi. The jihadis pledged they would never use violence against Gaddafi again.

But nearly as soon as the LIFG was released they took up arms against the Qaddafi regime.

Just as there was ample evidence that Hillary’s “pro-democracy protestors” were radical Islamists, there was no truth to the assertion a civilian massacre was imminent.

Libyan doctors told United Nations investigators that, of the more than 200 corpses in Tripoli’s morgues following fighting in late February 2011, only two were female. This indicates Qaddafi’s forces targeted male combatants and did not indiscriminately attack civilians. Nor had Qaddafi forces attacked civilians after retaking towns from the rebels in early February 2011.

While Muammar Qaddafi had a 40-year record of appalling human rights violations, his abuses did not include large-scale attacks on Libyan civilians. We restored full diplomatic relations with Qaddafi in 2007 and he was a key partner in counter-terrorism efforts.

LIFG and affiliated jihadis received at least 18 shipments of arms from Qatar with the blessing of the U.S., the Wall Street Journal reports. The arms shipments were funneled through none other than Ali al-Sallabi, the Qatar cleric who brokered their release from prison.

The Islamists were able to pay for the weapons because Clinton had convinced Obama to grant full diplomatic recognition to the rebels, against the advice of State Department lawyers and the Secretary of Defense.

As the Washington Post reported, this move “allowed the Libyans access to billions of dollars from Qaddafi’s frozen accounts.”

These arms shipments are significant for several reasons. It led to the indictment of American arms dealer Marc Turi who was charged with selling weapons to Islamist militants in Libya through Qatar. The charges were dropped this week after Turi threatened to reveal emails showing Clinton had approved the sales.

Here’s where it gets very sticky for Secretary Clinton. The rebel leaders were on the State Department’s Foreign Terrorist Organization list. It is a direct violation of the law to provide material support for terrorist organizations under 18 U.S. Code 2339A & 2339B. Penalties for providing or attempting to provide material support to terrorism include imprisonment from 15 years to life.

Nor is the Qatar connection insignificant. Qatar has donated anywhere from $1 to $5 million to the Clinton Foundation, and emails reveal members of the Qatari royal family were privileged with back channel meetings with Secretary Clinton at the State Department. While whipping up support for the Libya military campaign, Clinton told Arab leaders, “it’s important to me personally,” the Washington Post reported.

Hillary Clinton’s prosecution of foreign policy in Libya crossed several lines: she showed extremely bad judgment by ignoring military and intelligence officials, she let personal interests conflict with U.S. foreign policy and, most importantly, she may have broken the law — again.

Any one of these transgressions should disqualify her from holding any kind of leadership role in our government, let alone president of the United States. The last one qualifies Hillary Clinton for government housing, though not in the White House.

The US Hand in Libya’s Tragedy


The US Hand in Libya’s Tragedy

usa-libya-flag

The mainstream U.S. news media is lambasting the Europeans for failing to stop the humanitarian crisis unfolding in the Mediterranean Sea as desperate Libyans flee their war-torn country in overloaded boats that are sinking as hundreds drown. But the MSM forgets how this Libyan crisis began, including its own key role along with that of “liberal interventionists” such as Hillary Clinton and Samantha Power.

In 2011, it was all the rage in Official Washington to boast about the noble “responsibility to protect” the people of eastern Libya who supposedly were threatened with extermination by the “mad man” Muammar Gaddafi. We also were told endlessly that, back in 1988, Gaddafi’s agents had blown Pan Am 103 out of the skies over Lockerbie, Scotland.

The R2Pers, led by then-National Security Council aide Power with the backing of Secretary of State Clinton, convinced President Barack Obama that a “humanitarian intervention” was needed to prevent Gaddafi from slaughtering people whom he claimed were Islamic terrorists.

As this U.S.-orchestrated bombing campaign was about to begin in late March 2011, Power told a New York City audience that the failure to act would have been “extremely chilling, deadly and indeed a stain on our collective conscience.” Power was credited with steeling Obama’s spine to press ahead with the military operation.

Under a United Nations resolution, the intervention was supposed to be limited to establishing no-fly zones to prevent the slaughter of civilians. But the operation quickly morphed into a “regime change” war with the NATO-led bombing devastating Gaddafi’s soldiers who were blown to bits when caught on desert roadways.

Yet, the biggest concern in Official Washington was a quote from an Obama’s aide that the President was “leading from behind” – with European warplanes out front in the air war – when America’s war hawks said the United States should be leading from the front.

At the time, there were a few of us who raised red flags about the Libyan war “group think.” Though no one felt much sympathy for Gaddafi, he wasn’t wrong when he warned that Islamic terrorists were transforming the Benghazi region into a stronghold. Yes, his rhetoric about exterminating rats was over the top, but there was a real danger from these extremists.

And, the Pan Am 103 case, which was repeatedly cited as the indisputable proof of Gaddafi’s depravity, likely was falsely pinned on Libya. Anyone who dispassionately examined the 2001 conviction of Libyan agent Ali al-Megrahi by a special Scottish court would realize that the case was based on highly dubious evidence and bought-and-paid-for testimony.

Megrahi was put away more as a political compromise (with a Libyan co-defendant acquitted) than because his guilt was proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Indeed, by 2009, the conviction was falling apart. Even a Scottish appeals court expressed concern about a grave miscarriage of justice. But Megrahi’s appeal was short-circuited by his release to Libya on compassionate grounds because he was suffering from terminal prostate cancer.

Yet the U.S. mainstream media routinely called him “the Lockerbie bomber” and noted that the Libyan government had taken “responsibility” for the bombing, which was true but only because it was the only way to get punitive sanctions lifted. The government, like Megrahi, continued to proclaim innocence.

A Smirking MSM

During those heady days of bombing Libya in 2011, it also was common for the MSM to smirk at the notion that Megrahi was truly suffering from advanced prostate cancer since he hadn’t died as quickly as some doctors thought he might. Then, in September 2011, after Gaddafi’s regime fell, Megrahi’s family invited the BBC and other news organizations to see Megrahi struggling to breathe in his sick bed.

His son, Khaled al-Megrahi, said, “I know my father is innocent and one day his innocence will come out.” Asked about the people who died in the Pan Am bombing, the son said: “We feel sorry about all the people who died. We want to know who did this bad thing. We want to know the truth as well.”

But it was only after Megrahi died on May 20, 2012, that some elements of the MSM acknowledged grudgingly that they were aware of the many doubts about his conviction all along. The New York Times’ obituary carried a detailed account of the evidentiary gaps that were ignored both during the trial in 2001 and during the bombing of Libya in 2011.

The Times noted that “even some world leaders” saw Megrahi

“as a victim of injustice whose trial, 12 years after the bombing, had been riddled with political overtones, memory gaps and flawed evidence. … Investigators, while they had no direct proof, believed that the suitcase with the bomb had been fitted with routing tags for baggage handlers, put on a plane at Malta and flown to Frankfurt, where it was loaded onto a Boeing 727 feeder flight that connected to Flight 103 at London, then transferred to the doomed jetliner.”

Besides the lack of proof supporting that hypothesis was the sheer implausibility that a terrorist would assume that an unattended suitcase could make such an unlikely trip without being detected, especially when it would have been much easier to sneak the suitcase with the bomb onto Pan Am 103 through the lax security at Heathrow Airport outside London.

The Times’ obit also noted that during the 85-day trial,

“None of the witnesses connected the suspects directly to the bomb. But one, Tony Gauci, the Maltese shopkeeper who sold the clothing that forensic experts had linked to the bomb, identified Mr. Megrahi as the buyer, although Mr. Gauci seemed doubtful and had picked others in photo displays. …

“The bomb’s timer was traced to a Zurich manufacturer, Mebo, whose owner, Edwin Bollier, testified that such devices had been sold to Libya. A fragment from the crash site was identified by a Mebo employee, Ulrich Lumpert. Neither defendant testified. But a turncoat Libyan agent testified that plastic explosives had been stored in [Megrahi’s co-defendant’s] desk in Malta, that Mr. Megrahi had brought a brown suitcase, and that both men were at the Malta airport on the day the bomb was sent on its way.”

In finding Megrahi guilty, the Scottish court admitted that the case was “circumstantial, the evidence incomplete and some witnesses unreliable,” but concluded that “there is nothing in the evidence which leaves us with any reasonable doubt as to the guilt” of Megrahi.

However, the evidence later came under increasing doubt. The Times wrote: “It emerged that Mr. Gauci had repeatedly failed to identify Mr. Megrahi before the trial and had selected him only after seeing his photograph in a magazine and being shown the same photo in court. The date of the clothing sale was also in doubt.” Scottish authorities learned, too, that the U.S. Justice Department paid Gauci $2 million for his testimony.

As for the bomb’s timer, the Times noted that the court called Bollier “untruthful and unreliable” and “In 2007, Mr. Lumpert admitted that he had lied at the trial, stolen a timer and given it to a Lockerbie investigator. Moreover, the fragment he identified was never tested for residue of explosives, although it was the only evidence of possible Libyan involvement.

“The court’s inference that the bomb had been transferred from the Frankfurt feeder flight was also cast into doubt when a Heathrow security guard revealed that Pan Am’s baggage area had been broken into 17 hours before the bombing, a circumstance never explored. Hans Köchler, a United Nations observer, called the trial ‘a spectacular miscarriage of justice,’ words echoed by [South African President Nelson] Mandela.”

In other words, Megrahi’s conviction looked to have been a case of gross prosecutorial misconduct, relying on testimony from perjurers and failing to pursue promising leads (like the possibility that the bomb was introduced at Heathrow, not transferred from plane to plane to plane). And those problems were known prior to Megrahi’s return to Libya in 2009 and prior to the U.S.-supported air war against Gaddafi in 2011.

Yet, Andrea Mitchell at MSNBC and pretty much everyone else in the MSM repeated endlessly that Megrahi was “the Lockerbie bomber” and that Libya was responsible for the atrocity, thus further justifying the “humanitarian intervention” that slaughtered Gaddafi’s soldiers and enabled rebel militias to capture Tripoli in summer 2011.

Al-Qaeda Hotbed

Similarly, there was scant U.S. media attention given to evidence that eastern Libya, the heart of the anti-Gaddafi rebellion, indeed was a hotbed for Islamic militancy, with that region supplying the most per-capita militants fighting U.S. troops in Iraq, often under the banner of Al-Qaeda.

Despite that evidence, Gaddafi’s claim that he was battling Islamic terrorists in the Benghazi region was mocked or ignored. It didn’t even matter that his claim was corroborated by a report from U.S. analysts Joseph Felter and Brian Fishman for West Point’s Combating Terrorism Center.

In their report, “Al-Qaeda’s Foreign Fighters in Iraq,” Felter and Fishman analyzed Al-Qaeda documents captured in 2007 showing personnel records of militants who flocked to Iraq for the war against the Americans. The documents showed eastern Libya providing a surprising number of suicide bombers who traveled to Iraq to kill American troops.

Felter and Fishman wrote that these so-called Sinjar Records disclosed that while Saudis comprised the largest number of foreign fighters in Iraq, Libyans represented the largest per-capita contingent by far. Those Libyans came overwhelmingly from towns and cities in the east.

“The vast majority of Libyan fighters that included their hometown in the Sinjar Records resided in the country’s Northeast, particularly the coastal cities of Darnah 60.2% (53) and Benghazi 23.9% (21),” Felter and Fishman wrote, adding that Abu Layth al‐Libi, Emir of Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG), “reinforced Benghazi and Darnah’s importance to Libyan jihadis in his announcement that LIFG had joined al‐Qa’ida.”

Some important Al-Qaeda leaders operating in Pakistan’s tribal regions also were believed to have come from Libya. For instance, “Atiyah,” who was guiding the anti-U.S. war strategy in Iraq, was identified as a Libyan named Atiyah Abd al-Rahman.

It was Atiyah who urged a strategy of creating a quagmire for U.S. forces in Iraq, buying time for Al-Qaeda Central to rebuild its strength in Pakistan. “Prolonging the war [in Iraq] is in our interest,” Atiyah said in a letter that upbraided Jordanian terrorist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi for his hasty and reckless actions in Iraq.

After U.S. Special Forces killed Al-Qaeda founder Osama bin Laden on May 2, 2011, in Pakistan, Atiyah became al-Qaeda’s second in command until he himself was reportedly killed in a U.S. drone strike in August 2011. [See Consortiumnews.com “Time Finally Ran Out for Atiyah.”]

However, to most Americans who rely on the major U.S. news media, little of this was known, as the Washington Post itself acknowledged in an article on Sept. 12, 2011, after Gaddafi had been overthrown but before his murder. In an article on the rise of Islamists inside the new power structure in Libya, the Post wrote:

“Although it went largely unnoticed during the uprising that toppled Gaddafi last month, Islamists were at the heart of the fight, many as rebel commanders. Now some are clashing with secularists within the rebels’ Transitional National Council, prompting worries among some liberals that the Islamists — who still command the bulk of fighters and weapons — could use their strength to assert an even more dominant role.”

On Sept. 15, 2011, the New York Times published a similar article, entitled “Islamists’ Growing Sway Raises Questions for Libya.” It began:

“In the emerging post-Qaddafi Libya, the most influential politician may well be Ali Sallabi, who has no formal title but commands broad respect as an Islamic scholar and populist orator who was instrumental in leading the mass uprising. The most powerful military leader is now Abdel Hakim Belhaj, the former leader of a hard-line group once believed to be aligned with Al Qaeda.”

Belhaj was previously the commander of the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, which was associated with Al-Qaeda in the past, maintained training bases in Afghanistan before the 9/11 attacks, and was listed as a terrorist organization by the U.S. State Department.

Belhaj and the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group denied continued allegiance to Al-Qaeda, but Belhaj was captured during George W. Bush’s post-9/11 “war on terror” and was harshly interrogated by the CIA at a “black site” prison in Thailand before being handed over to Gaddafi’s government which imprisoned and – Belhaj claims – tortured him.

The Times reported that “Belhaj has become so much an insider lately that he is seeking to unseat Mahmoud Jabril, the American-trained economist who is the nominal prime minister of the interim government, after Mr. Jibril obliquely criticized the Islamists.”

The Times article by correspondents Rod Nordland and David D. Kirkpatrick also cited other signs of growing Islamist influence inside the Libyan rebel movement:

“Islamist militias in Libya receive weapons and financing directly from foreign benefactors like Qatar; a Muslim Brotherhood figure, Abel al-Rajazk Abu Hajar, leads the Tripoli Municipal Governing Council, where Islamists are reportedly in the majority.”

It may be commendable that the Post and Times finally gave serious attention to this consequence of the NATO-backed “regime change” in Libya, but the fact that these premier American newspapers ignored the Islamist issue as well as doubts about Libya’s Lockerbie guilt – while the U.S. government was whipping up public support for another war in the Muslim world – raises questions about whether those news organizations primarily serve a propaganda function.

Gaddafi’s Brutal Demise

Even amid these warning signs that Libya was headed toward bloody anarchy, the excited MSM coverage of Libya remained mostly about the manhunt for “the madman” – Muammar Gaddafi. When rebels finally captured Gaddafi on Oct. 20, 2011, in the town of Sirte – and sodomized him with a knife before killing him – Secretary of State Clinton could barely contain her glee, joking in one interview: “We came, we saw, he died.”

The months of aerial slaughter of Gaddafi’s soldiers and Gaddafi’s own gruesome death seemed less amusing on Sept. 11, 2012, when Islamic terrorists overran the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, killing U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other U.S. diplomatic personnel. In the two-plus years since, Libya has become a killing ground for rival militias, including some now affiliated with the Islamic State.

As the BBC reported on Feb. 24, 2015, the Islamic State

“has gained a foothold in key towns and cities in the mostly lawless North African state [Libya], prompting Egypt – seeing itself as the bulwark against Islamists in region – to launch air strikes against the group. …

IS has launched its most high-profile attacks in Libya, bombing an upmarket hotel in the capital, Tripoli, in January, and releasing a video earlier this month showing the beheading of 21 Egyptian Coptic Christians it had kidnapped. On 20 February, it killed at least 40 people in a suicide bombing in the eastern town of al-Qubbah.”

Now, the chaos that the U.S.-sponsored “regime change” unleashed has grown so horrific that it is causing desperate Libyans to climb into unseaworthy boats to escape the sharp edges of the Islamic State’s knives and other depredations resulting from the nationwide anarchy.

Thus, Libya should be a powerful lesson to Hillary Clinton, Samantha Power and the other R2Pers that often their schemes of armed “humanitarianism” can go badly awry and do much more harm than good. It should also be another reminder to the MSM to question the arguments presented by the U.S. government, rather than simply repeating those dubious claims and false narratives.

But neither seems to be happening. The “liberal interventionists” – like their neoconservative allies – remain unchastened, still pumping for more “regime change” wars, such as in Syria. Yet, many of these moral purists are silent about the slaughter of ethnic Russians in eastern Ukraine, Palestinians in Gaza, or now Houthis and other Yemenis dying under Saudi bombs in Yemen.

It appears the well-placed R2Pers in the Obama administration are selective in where that “responsibility to protect” applies.

Samantha Power, now serving as U.S. ambassador to the UN, remains the same self-righteous scold denouncing human rights abuses in places where there are American-designated “bad guys” while looking the other way in places where the killing is being done by U.S. “allies.” As for Hillary Clinton, she is already being touted as the presumptive Democratic nominee for President.

Meanwhile, the MSM has conveniently forgotten its own propaganda role in revving up the war on Libya in 2011. So, instead of self-reflection and self-criticism, the mainstream U.S. media is filled with condemnations of the Europeans for their failure to respond properly to the crisis of some 900 Libyans apparently drowning in a desperate attempt to flee their disintegrating country.

SECRET DOCUMENT SHOWING THE INVOLVEMENT OF THE LIBYAN AMBASSADOR IN WASHINGTON(USA) TO DESTROY LIBYA


SECRET DOCUMENT SHOWING THE INVOLVEMENT OF THE LIBYAN AMBASSADOR IN WASHINGTON(USA) TO DESTROY LIBYA

A confidential official secret document surfaced indicating the involvement of the Libyan Ambassador Ali Suleiman Aujali in Washington (USA) dated on 01/01/2012. THE TRUTH WILL COME OUT ONE WAY OR THE OTHER.

 

EMBASSY OF LIBYA WASHINGTON D.C.

EMBASSY OF LIBYA WASHINGTON D.C. by قناة الجماهيرية العظمى

 A confidential document showing the involvement of the Libyan ambassador in Washington (USA), Ali Suleiman Aujali this confidential document (official) dated on 01.01.2012: the sender is: Libyan ambassador in Washington (USA), Ali Suleiman Aujali consignees: the leaders of the military battalions and security leaders and heads of Militias (Twenty-three office), including: (Ghebrel- Ali Mahmoud Abdel-Salam Zeidan- Masmari). The Fax number shown through the document that the message was actually sent from Washington, note that Mr. Ali Suleiman Aujali is close to Mahmoud Jibril, who has been funded by some Gulf countries, notably (UAE) text of the document: By reading the document, we can see that the Libyan Ambassador Ali Suleiman Aujali sent this secret telegram with direct instructions of the leaders of security and military battalion commanders to target sow discord in Libya between armed cells and political currents as ordered. The leaders explicitly military battalions planting horror and growing insecurity in the Libyan street and careful to disrupt the public life and disrupt services to citizens such as(electricity cutand watersocial services and health sectors) the document was also keen to categorize and directing the battalion commanders and security chiefs sowing discord between the Libyan tribes and also arming affiliated categorize the former regime (follow Gaddafi) even enter into a military conflict with their enemies and avenge the purpose behind this scheme already as we mentioned that the Libyan ambassador in Washington (Ali Suleiman Aujali) is very close to Mahmoud Jibril, who received significant funding from the United Arab Emirates (and we have the evidence) and through the document it’s clear to us that the Libyan ambassador in Washington did not give this instruction alone he is simply an intermediary for major powers and are likely to be (USA), which seeks to implement the agenda. Acts are stipend precisely in Libya, the consignment was at the beginning of two thousand and twelve (after toppling the Gaddafi regime) and if we look closely at the content of the document, which urges to plant  lawlessness in Libya and to sow discord, discord among the military battalions and the security cells and between tribes. All of these Libya have become events experienced today in two thousand and fifteen. Where suddenly appeared the splits in the center of the Libyans, fighting between the battalions militia, which was yesterday (allied with each other), and after a period turned miraculously into hostile enemies of the truth behind all of this.

The scheme is: to plunge the Libyan streets in growing lawlessness and defections and disrupt public life and servicesall of these things will have repercussions categorize (the Libyan citizen) who lives a great horror.  Only in this in the way its been proposed of foreign military intervention (UN) on the Libyan people would accept the proposal, but they will demand from the gulf because the Libyan people who live this civil war between the battalions and militias and live a hard life (because of disabled public services) will not keep him ill claim intervention Council security international to send foreign military forces to Libya to save them – and that is exactly what the Western powers are behind this scheme and that works for the Ambassador Ali Suleiman Aujali looking through this document and to understand that Western financiers and foreign allies actually plans for military intervention in Libya (by US forces with the participation of NATO) or by their allies (Council GCC – Morocco – Jordan – Egypt) who make up the majority of the Arab League, and this is what is currently happening in Libya. Yemen has the same scenario.

 

 

منقول كما هو
وثيقة سرية جدا (حصلت الطلائع على نسخة منها ) تبين تورط السفير الليبي بواشنطن (الولايات المتحدة الامريكية ) علي سليمان الاوجلي هذه الوثيقة السرية (الرسمية ) مؤرخة بتاريخ1/1/2012: المرسل هو: السفير الليبي بواشنطن (الولايات المتحدة الامريكية ) علي سليمان الاوجلي المرسل اليهم : قادة الكتائب العسكرية و القادة الامنيين ورؤساء الميليشيات ( ثلاثة و عشرون مكتب ) من بينهم : (محمود جبريل- علي زيدان- عبد السلام المسماري) و من خلال تصفح الوثيقة يضهر رقم الفاكس حيث يبين ان الرسالة تم ارسالها فعلا من واشنطن علما ان السيد علي سليمان الاوجلي يعتبر مقرب من محمود جبريل الذي سبق له هو الاخر ان تلقئ تمويلات ضحمة من طرف بعض الدول الخليجية ابرزها (الامارات العربية ) نص الوثيقة : من خلال قراءة الوثيقة , يتبين لنا ان السفير الليبي علي سليمان الاوجلي قام بارسال هذه البرقية السرية لتوجيه تعليمات للقادة الامنيين و قادة الكتائب العسكرية لهدف زرع الفتنة بليبيا بين الخلايا المسلحة و التيارات السياسية حيث امر قادة الكتائب العسكرية صراحة بزرع الرعب والانفلات الامني في الشارع الليبي و الحرص على تعطيل الحياة العامة وتعطيل الخدمات للمواطنيين( قطع الكهرباء-المياه-الخدمات الاجتماعية كالقطاع الصحي ) كما حرص في الوثيقة علئ توجيه قادة الكتائب و القادة الامنيين بزرع الفتنة بين القبائل الليبية و ايضا تسليح المحسوبين علئ النظام السابق ( اتباع القذافي ) حتى يدخلون في صراع عسكري مع اعدائهم و ينتقموا الهدف من وراء هذا المخطط سبق ان ذكرنا ان السفير الليبي بواشنطن (علي سليمان الاوجلي) مقرب من محمود جبريل الذي تلقى تمويل كبير من دولة الامارات العربية (و نحن نملك الادلة ) و من خلال الوثيقة يتبين لنا ان السفير الليبي بواشنطن لم يعطي هذه التعليمات بمفرده بل هو مجرد وسيط لقوى كبرى و من المحتمل ان تكون (الولايات المتحدة الامريكية) التي تسعى لتنفيذ جدول اعمال مرتب بدقة في ليبيا و منطقة شمال افريقيا الارسالية كانت في بداية الفين واثني عشر ( بعد اسقاط نظام القذافي ) و لو ندقق في مضمون الوثيقة التي تحث على زرع الانفلات الامني بليبيا و زرع الفتنة و الشقاق بين الكتائب العسكرية و الخلايا الامنية و بين القبائل كل هذه الاحداث اصبحت ليبيا تعيشها اليوم في الفين و خمسة عشر حيث فجأة ظهرت انقسامات كبرى وسط الليبيين و اقتتال بين الكتائب و الميليشيات التي كانت بالأمس القريب (متحالفة فيما بينها ) و بعد مدة تحولوا بقدرة قادر الئ أعداء حقيقة وراء كل هذا المخطط: بإغراق الشوارع الليبية في الانفلات الامني و الانشقاقات و تعطيل الحياة العامة و الخدمات–كل هذه الأمور ستكون لها تداعيات علئ (المواطن الليبي ) الذي يعيش رعب كبير-فبهذه الطريقة عندما يتم اقتراح التدخل الاجنبي العسكري (الامم المتحدة ) على الشعب الليبي سيقبلون الاقتراح بل هم من سيطالبون بيه لان الشعب الليبي الذي يعيش هذه الحرب الاهلية بين الكتائب و الميليشيات و يعيش حياة صعبة (بسبب تعطيل الخدمات العامة ) لن يبقى له سوئ المطالبة بتدخل مجلس الامن الدولي لإرسال قوات عسكرية اجنبية الى ليبيا لأنقذاهم–و هذا ما تريده القوئ الغربية التي وراء هذا المخطط و التي يعمل لحسابها السفير علي سليمان الاوجلي-لهذا من من خلال هذه الوثيقة نفهم ان القوئ الغربية و الاجنبية تخطط فعلا للتدخل العسكري بليبيا (عن طريق قوات امريكية باشتراك الناتو ) او عن طريق حلفائهم (مجلس التعاون الخليجي– المغرب – الاردن – مصر) الذين يشكلون الاغلبية في الجامعة العربية و هذا ما يحضرون له حاليا في ليبيا ستشهد نفس السيناريو اليمني

Libya vs Goldman Sachs – the secret memo


Libya vs Goldman Sachs – the secret memo

There are recruitment adverts out at the Libyan Investment Authority. Libya’s sovereign wealth fund, seeking to regain direction after the country’s revolution, has employed consultants for a few key roles. There’s the CEO. And the CFO. And the chief investment officer.

And the head of risk, the head of internal audit, and the chief operating officer.

Oh, and the deputy CEO. And the head of legal.

There are revamps, and then there’s the LIA. Founded by Muammar Gaddafi’s second son, Saif Al Islam Gaddafi, in 2006, the fund has already gone through more drama and upheaval than most of its sovereign wealth peers have endured in their combined history. 

Muammar Gaddafi’s son Saif

 

Waves of executives and managers have come and gone, foreign banks and fund managers have sold it extraordinary duds that soured during the financial crisis, the country has undergone painful revolution during which Saif was jailed and his father killed, its funds have been frozen by the UN (and remain so, at the fund’s own insistence, today) and at the end of it all it finds itself with a glut of legacy headaches and an empty management bench. Now, as it seeks to move forward, it must also look back. This year it has launched litigation against some of the biggest names in global banking, seeking to recover billions of dollars for deals those banks put the LIA into during the Gaddafi regime. And no matter how much Libyan executives seek to paint themselves as a breath of fresh air, correcting the sins of the past, they must inevitably face scrutiny for just what their role in the bad old days really was.

Transgressions of the past

AbdulMagid Breish, the chairman and acting CEO of the LIA, is an urbane and confident presence. He is absolutely fluent in English, while his thick glasses and swept-back hair give him something of the appearance of a mid-career Henry Kissinger. 

LIA AbdulMagid Breish
AbdulMagid Breish, the
chairman and acting CEO
of the LIA

Breish has plenty of ideas for the future, but this year he’s been in the news for taking on the transgressions of the past, launching litigation to claim more than $2.5 billion from Goldman Sachs and Société Générale for instruments those banks sold to the LIA between 2007 and 2009. Today, flanked by a lawyer who never feels a need to rein him in, Breish is adamant the LIA is in the right on both cases. On Goldman – a case that rests on demonstrating that Goldman abused the trust it had built with the fledgling and somewhat wide-eyed sovereign fund, selling structures that its officials could not understand – he says: “It was very clear and evident that there was a breach in trust. They abused that confidence that was built, and the inexperience of individuals.

“I wouldn’t say it was a con job, but it was very near to it, where people were taken on holidays and bought gifts and things. The trust element was there and they totally took advantage of it and sold LIA complicated transactions with complicated documents that they couldn’t understand, at a moment when the whole world was going south, and they knew that.”

Goldman Sachs, which has applied for summary dismissal of the case before trial, tells Euromoney: “We think the claims are without merit, and we will defend them vigorously.”

The Société Générale case is less about mis-selling and more about over $58 million of payments the French bank made to a third party called Leinada, a Panama-registered vehicle owned by a man called Walid Al-Giahmi who was close to the Gaddafi regime – payments that the lawsuit describes as bribes.

“Then, SocGen did not disclose how much was being paid. They did not disclose the identity. It was like pulling teeth. Only months and months later we found out what was going on. SocGen itself was one of the prime banks in the world, at the forefront of derivatives trading. They bring in a party who is not even literate in financial affairs to advise them on structures and derivatives? Hard to understand.”

Société Générale tells Euromoney the allegations are unsubstantiated and says it “works occasionally with financial intermediaries in countries where it does not have local teams in place”.

A spokesman for Leinada told the Financial Times in March that “[the LIA] case is without merit”.

One can’t fault the LIA for boldness, but some are puzzled that this claim should be heading for court at all. The LIA’s legal representatives in the cases are Enyo Law, specifically partner Simon Twigden, who is considered a lawyer of the highest calibre; but look what he and his client are up against: the most powerful bank in the US and all its Wall Street legal advisers (although, these being London-heard cases, both Goldman and Société Générale are being represented by Herbert Smith). Many observers think the Goldman litigation in particular has no realistic chance of success. Did the LIA try to negotiate first?

The secret memo


New details emerge of
Libya’s claim against
Goldman Sachs

“I personally did not have any discussions with Goldman Sachs,” says Breish. Why, then, is litigation better than engagement? “We’ve been preparing ourselves for some time,” he says. “We’ve been analysing our documents, reviewing our strategy, talking to our legal counsel, and a lot of this has come out and about in the market. If Goldman Sachs wanted to come and talk, they had ample time to do so. It wasn’t as if we were working under cover: people knew what was going on.”

Indeed, Euromoney reported the LIA’s intention to sue both Goldman and Société Générale back in April 2013. (Interestingly, the third institution that then-CEO Mohsen Derregia named at that time, Millennium Capital, no longer appears to be on the LIA hit list, although Breish says “we are looking at around another five and investigating the documentation”.)

With Société Générale, he goes further, saying that he did write to the bank’s chairman before going to court, “inviting him to establish a direct line to sit and discuss this. I’m ready to meet with him and talk to him about this and see if we can settle some issues.” He says he didn’t hear back for two months. “And when we pressed their office I received an answer which was composed of half a page which didn’t say anything really: not even a willingness to meet, just ‘we’ve done nothing wrong’.”

Breish adds: “I find it perplexing that people at that level don’t even seem to think of their reputational risk.”

And how realistic is it that the LIA can win in court?

“Our objective is to regain all the money that we lost that belongs to the Libyan people,” Breish says. “That is what we will do. We feel very strongly about the principle of it, and we’re ready to go until the very end: it doesn’t really matter how much it is going to cost.”

But is that really what it’s about? Is litigation, Euromoney asks, also about sending a message, not just to international banks but to Libyans as well?

“Definitely. There’s a whole new message being sent.”

Gaddafi-era headaches 


Libyan plot thickens for
Goldman with Palladyne
‘money-laundering’ suit

For Goldman in particular, Gaddafi-era headaches go well beyond the LIA litigation. Its subsequent attempts to make amends for its losses have now put it in hot water with the US Department of Justice. In the end, the efforts to make things right might hurt Goldman much more than the original mistakes did.A confidential memo dated March 9 2010, prepared by Goldman Sachs for the Libyan Investment Authority and seen by Euromoney, sheds light on Goldman’s negotiations to move on from those disastrous trades.

The memo, titled ‘Unwind of trades and collateralized bond obligation transaction’, outlines a proposed deal whereby Goldman would pay $50 million, agree to unwind its trades, and pay additional expenses of up to $2 million, in order to draw a line under the deals from 2008 that would mutually release and discharge liability (which, the document says, carried an initial premium of $1.3 billion between them but by then were worth just $25 million). But this is not a straight compensation deal from Goldman to the Libyan fund.

It also involves a special-purpose vehicle called Tiber Bond Investment Ltd, a Cayman Islands entity. And another party is a group referred to as the ‘investment adviser’ in the memo – Palladyne International Asset Management. Under the terms outlined in the memo, the LIA would instruct Goldman to pay the amount directly to Tiber. Tiber would then issue a limited recourse note to LIA as its sole investor. Libya would then buy a $5 billion unlisted 6% note due 2030 at a price of 74%, meaning it would put $3.7 billion (74% of $5 billion) into Tiber, which would invest it in a portfolio of dollar-denominated investment-grade and high-yield bonds under Palladyne’s management.

Regular readers of Euromoney’s online edition will be familiar with Palladyne, an institution that first came to public light when a leaked internal LIA document drawing on a KPMG audit referred to it as having received $300 million from the LIA and having lost 17% of it in less than two years, despite having been paid $19 million in fees. (It also received $200 million apiece from two other Libyan institutions.)

Palladyne then turned up in another lawsuit earlier this year. Filed in a US District Court in Connecticut on behalf of a former Palladyne employee called Dan Friedman, and compiled by the noted ex-Jones Day international litigator Alan Kaufman, who has something of the bearing and charisma of George C Scott, it shows a boisterous turn of phrase. It describes Palladyne as “a kickback and money-laundering operation for the former dictatorial Gaddafi regime in Libya, operating under the public pretence of a hedge fund”.

The claim goes into some detail about Palladyne’s provenance: Dutch-incorporated, headquartered in Amsterdam, and run by Ismael Abudher, who is the son-in-law of Shukri Ghanem.

LIA Shukri Ghanam
Shukri Ghanem (c) former
head of Libya’s National
Oil Company

Ghanem was head of Libya’s National Oil Company (and a former Libyan prime minister) whose oil revenues fed the LIA, until the revolution; he was found dead in the river Danube in Vienna in April 2012. Palladyne calls the claims “entirely untrue and ludicrous”, presenting them as bad blood from a bitter former employee. In turn, Kaufman tells Euromoney: “We investigated this for 18 months on four continents before filing, and are fully confident that we will prove these claims.”

The case claims that Palladyne had absolutely no investment capability, which raises the question why it was initially entrusted with $700 million of Libyan money. One person familiar with the matter says: “the $300 million [from the LIA] was given to Palladyne without a single piece of paper to document it or explain their investment plans”.

It also raises the question of why such an institution should be appointed as the broker to resolve Goldman’s problems with the LIA, or why it would be entrusted with a new portfolio intended to hold $3.7 billion of assets. “At the time they were appointed investment adviser, they had already lost more than 17% of the money they had been given in a short period of time including the rising market that followed the 2008 crash,” says a source familiar with the matter.

“The whole thing is just ludicrous. The LIA, which has already lost money through Palladyne, is solving the problem by investing 10 times more money with Palladyne. Justice [the DoJ] looks at this, and says: ‘This is nuts, there is no innocent explanation for this and no business terms that could explain it’.”

The Goldman memo suggests the bank knew how this looked – paying $50 million to an institution with allegedly no capability to do anything with it but receive it – because it appears to try to head off some gnarly complications from the outset.

The memo specifically refers to the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act in a bullet point in a section about payments, saying that GSI (Goldman Sachs International) “will only accept this instruction” (to pay the money to the SPV) if the LIA delivers that payment instruction, and to the satisfaction of FCPA representations by LIA as set out in the terms of a separate letter. Euromoney has not seen this additional letter.

The memo also specifically points out that although Goldman did preliminary due diligence on Palladyne, it “did not provide a basis for Goldman to determine that Palladyne” is an “appropriate” investment adviser, or about the “services” rendered by Palladyne to the LIA. Finally it insists that both the LIA and Palladyne are responsible for determining whether the transaction is suitable for them, and that they “cannot rely on Goldman for any determination” as to whether it’s a good idea.

This section proceeds to sever Goldman from whatever happens to that money next. It is saying, in essence: now you’re on your own, and you decide whether or not it’s a good deal. And in aggregate, the memo infers: for our $52 million of payments, we will be released of all liability from our old trades. It’s odd, though, that only $2 million of that appears to go to the LIA, when the liability in the recent lawsuit against Goldman is put at more than $1 billion.

A lawyer familiar with the matter is puzzled as to why the memo goes into such great detail about what will happen to the money after it is transferred to Palladyne. “It should be none of Goldman’s business,” he says. “They should care less about what the LIA is going to do. You don’t care if it goes to pay for ice cream cones for every person in Bangladesh. If I’m unwinding my trades that I did for you, and giving a little cash to you, that’s the end of it: a release of liability. All of the detail about Tiber would never have been in a settlement and liability release.”

Euromoney understands that this was the fifth proposal that Palladyne, Goldman and the LIA (two sets of lawyers, Nabarro and the Libyan firm Bakhnug, are also mentioned) had discussed, and the last, following considerable negotiation.


The battle for the Libyan
Investment Authority

It is understood that events were then overtaken by revolution and that the payment was never made, although this commonly accepted version of events is slightly problematic: the memo, which suggests an arrangement approaching finality, is dated March 2010, and the first street protests in Benghazi did not get under way until February 2011. But Palladyne itself, in a rare communication with the outside world, cites this version to Euromoney. “Our expertise in finance and asset management was sought several years ago in the negotiation of a potential resolution between the LIA and Goldman Sachs,” a spokesperson says. “That process was halted with the rise of the Arab Spring in Libya in 2011.” Euromoney offered to come to Amsterdam to see for ourselves what Palladyne actually is. Palladyne declined, but sent a statement claiming it had “a team of around 30 professionals working with a wide variety of clients”.The lawsuit by Palladyne’s former employee specifically mentions the Goldman negotiations. “Defendant Abudher was inserted directly into the Goldman-LIA dispute by his father-in-law, and Abudher immediately proceeded to propose five distinctive ways for Goldman to ‘make right’ with the LIA, with the coincidence that under each option, Palladyne would be the asset ‘manager’ and collect fees and payments,” the suit alleges. Because no legitimate bank, fund or investment company would partner with Palladyne, the complaint says: “Abudher’s proposals were a transparent effort by his father-in-law to take a major loss for Libya and turn it into profit for the Ghanem-Abudher family.”

The suit openly refers to “an alleged attempt to launder a bribe to Libya” and says that funnelling the alleged bribe of $50 million through Palladyne would “show ‘good faith’ by Goldman that it would undertake to rectify the losses”.

Breish agrees with the claim’s depiction of Palladyne as a front. “It is an accurate description,” he says. “No investment capability.” He says the LIA now wants its money back. This is likely to be the next litigation we see. “Our lawyers are looking at this also,” he says. “It’s the same story: funds being assigned to someone who’s been close to the regime.” That is likely to mean going through the Dutch courts, and there might be a queue: Palladyne was raided by the Dutch Openbaar Ministerie (public prosecution service) and Fiscal Information and Investigation Service in simultaneous actions on June 21, 2013. The officers conducting the raid were heavily armed.

There is another point of view. One former LIA employee says: “At the time for us Palladyne was a legitimate counterparty. It was supposed to be a mixed portfolio, though they seemed to keep most of it in cash, and charged us 3%.” And since Goldman apparently didn’t make the payment, its sins do not look particularly egregious. But under the FCPA, even the discussion of a payment is enough for a penalty, if that payment can be construed as a bribe.

Whatever the outcome of the litigation battles, the LIA is attempting to move on from the controversies of the Gaddafi-era past.

As for Breish, lets not forget he used to work for the previous government and was well rewarded for his services, he helped to topple the Jamahirya so he could get all the funds of Libya into his pockets…. you can google him, he has a twin nationality which is an English passport also the Libyan passport worked with MI6 and was in bed with the UAE… need I say more?

 

For more information you can go to this link: http://www.chriswrightmedia.com/libya-and-goldman-the-secret-memo/