Latest news with #Gaddafi
Express Tribune
10 hours ago
- Politics
- Express Tribune
Iqbal, China and the Muslim world
Listen to article More than a century ago, Allama Iqbal issued a timeless call: for Muslims to rise above rhetoric and embrace real work grounded in knowledge, science and self-discipline. His poetry, pulsating with spiritual urgency and civilisational insight, did not glorify past empires but urged a reconstruction of thought and society. That call has never been more relevant than it is today. The post-WWI world order fundamentally altered the trajectory of Muslim societies. With disintegration of the Ottoman Caliphate and the subsequent colonisation of the Arab heartlands, political agency of Muslims was replaced by fragmentation, subservience and ideological confusion. In the century that followed, many Muslim-majority nations failed to develop strong institutions or meaningful influence in global affairs. While pockets of wealth and modernity emerged — often due to oil or strategic alliances — the deeper foundations of progress remained weak or absent. The 21st century has laid bare this civilisational lag. The Middle East is mired in conflict, authoritarianism and foreign interference. South Asia wrestles with sectarianism and economic volatility. Even relatively stable Muslim states often suffer from weak education systems, declining scientific output and overreliance on external patronage. Worse still, many remain trapped in ideological rhetoric without building the internal capacities needed for real sovereignty. The tragic examples of Iraq, Libya, and now Iran offer stark lessons. Each, in its own way, challenged Western dominance but they did so without the necessary economic, technological or diplomatic strength. Iraq was destroyed under the false pretense of WMDs. Libya imploded into chaos following the toppling of Gaddafi. Iran, isolated for decades, continues to face economic hardship, international sanctions, and now aggression. In all cases, resistance without capacity led to ruin, not renewal. In contrast stands China - a nation that, without sacrificing its sovereignty or succumbing to colonial hangovers, has managed a remarkable rise. China's ascent did not begin with defiance or provocation but with a disciplined focus on human development, industrial capacity and strategic patience. It educated its people, modernised its infrastructure and embedded itself in the global economy. It avoided open conflict with the West while gradually becoming indispensable to it. While one must be critical of China's authoritarianism and human rights record, there is much to learn from its strategic posture. China did not seek validation through ideological slogans or military muscle-flexing. It sought power through productivity. The real confrontation the Muslim world faces today is not with the West but with internal decay. This includes decaying education systems, corrupt political elites more interested in power than reform, and religious discourse often disconnected from ethics, science and the needs of modern societies. Without addressing these root causes, no amount of protest, pan-Islamic rhetoric or diplomatic manoeuvring will yield meaningful change. Iqbal understood this. He was not a romantic who merely yearned for a return to the Caliphate. He envisioned a revival rooted in selfhood (khudi), character and relentless striving. He saw Islam not as a nostalgic identity but as a moral and intellectual project — open to the world, engaged with its complexities and capable of shaping its future. The Muslim world must now reimagine its priorities. It must invest heavily in education — not just religious but scientific, technological and philosophical. It must foster cultures of merit, innovation and critical inquiry; focus on building internal strength and institutional resilience; and realise that economic and technological independence is the new foundation of sovereignty. China may not offer a perfect model. But it offers a sobering contrast: a nation once humiliated by colonialism, now quietly reshaping global power through discipline, planning and human development. The Muslim world, if it listens to Iqbal, can do the same — not by mimicking others, but by rediscovering its own intellectual and spiritual DNA, and expressing it through the realities of the modern age.
Asharq Al-Awsat
2 days ago
- Politics
- Asharq Al-Awsat
History is Repeating Itself in Libya
As an old Arab proverb goes: 'With your people, you won't perish.' Without the protection and support of one's people, ruin becomes inevitable. A small problem arises, however, when we seek to determine who counts among 'your people', especially to those in power. Does the term refer strictly to one's kin (family, clan, or tribe) or does it encompass all citizens? The difference between the two is clear: the former is defined by blood ties alone, while the latter definition is broader. In the summer of 1975, Colonel Muammar Gaddafi settled the power struggle within the Revolutionary Command Council by eliminating his rivals and thwarting the coup they had been plotting against him. He then managed to fully dominate the council, the army, and the country, monopolizing power and becoming the country's only eagle. Reflecting on this bloody episode, one gets the impression that Gaddafi had been following this proverb. He turned to his people for support, placing his cousins in key positions to consolidate power and ensure his survival. Later, he was compelled to widen the circle slightly, bringing in other regions and reviving old kinship networks. That is how Gaddafi chose to fortify the foundations of his rule. This perverse approach plunged Libya into a dark period of regionalism and factionalism: alliances that had been formed under Italian colonial rule (and that had made it easier for the Italians to crush the resistance movement in the west of the country) were revived. Since 2011, history has seemingly been repeating itself. After Libya had come close to becoming a country for all Libyans without exception, it was captured by militias and terrorists who split the spoils of the nation's wealth among themselves. Corruption exploded, chaos broadened, and fuel, medicine, and food were smuggled across the borders. The entire country fell to these gangs that made people's lives miserable. Anyone following developments in Libya can clearly see that the same vile and futile game is now being repeated in both the East and the West. One could even argue that Gaddafi's actions in Libya were also mirrored by Margaret Thatcher in the 1980s, albeit in an iteration of the British context, which is of course different from Libya's. In other words, regional loyalties replaced partisan commitments in similar ways in Britain. I recall that British journalist Hugo Young was the first to point this out in his book One of Us, which caused quite a stir and won several awards. In post-Gaddafi Libya, history seems to be repeating itself in a dramatic fashion, as we noted earlier. The new political elites chose to follow Gaddafi's path. This is evident in both Cyrenaica and Fezzan and even more so in Tripoli. The government in Tripoli cannot overpower its rivals and take full control. That is why its prime minister recently sought to compensate for its weakness by turning to regional loyalties, allying with armed groups from Misrata. During a visit to the city shortly after Eid al-Adha, he and these factions agreed to cooperate on a joint military campaign to eliminate rogue armed factions in Tripoli. The irony is that the head of Tripoli's government plans to expel armed groups by bringing in other armed groups from outside the city. Pulling Misrata in, through this alliance with some of its militias, will engender animosity between the city and Tripoli. Overcoming the grudges could be impossible. The implicit goal of this operation is, first, to ensure the survival of the Government of National Unity. Second, it aims to generate a state of chaos and instability to prevent the UN from forming a new interim government tasked with organizing parliamentary and presidential elections.
Scoop
3 days ago
- Politics
- Scoop
Aftermath Of Tripoli Clashes Puts Libya's Fragile Stability To The Test
24 June 2025 Nearly 15 years after Gaddafi's fall, Libya remains split between the internationally recognised Government of National Unity in Tripoli, and the rival Government of National Stability in Benghazi. Although a truce was reached on 14 May, the outbreak of fighting last month in the capital 'temporarily disrupted UN development and humanitarian operations,' said top UN envoy Hanna Tetteh. Fragile Truce On 18 May, with support from the UN Support Mission in Libya (UNSMIL), the Presidential Council established a Truce Committee. Composed of key security actors, the body has been mandated to monitor the upholding of the ceasefire, facilitate a permanent end to the fighting and ensure the protection of civilians. As UNSMIL works to ease tensions and prevent further clashes, the Presidential Council has also set up a temporary Security and Military Arrangement Committee, tasked with sustaining peace and reorganising security forces in the capital. ' The truce, however, remains fragile, and the overall security situation unpredictable,' said Ms. Tetteh. Alleged grave violations The armed clashes that erupted in May resulted in civilian deaths and injuries, as well as damage to critical civilian infrastructure, underscoring the shortcomings of State security forces in adhering to international humanitarian and human rights law, she continued. Ms. Tetteh expressed alarm over mass graves found in Abu Slim, citing emerging evidence of serious human rights violations – including extrajudicial killings, torture, and enforced disappearances – allegedly by State security forces. 'The presence of charred remains, unidentified bodies in morgues, and a suspected unofficial detention site at Abu Salim Zoo underscores the scale and gravity of these abuses,' she said. Demand for change ' Many Libyans are deeply disillusioned with the prolonged transitional period and have lost confidence in the current institutions and leadership,' said Ms. Tetteh. As civilians increasingly doubt the current leadership's willingness to put national interests above their own, there is strong demand for a political process that allows public participation, enables elections, and delivers a democratic government with a clear mandate for real change. UNSMIL intends to present a time-bound and politically pragmatic roadmap – with the goal of reaching the end of the transitional process – by the time of her next briefing, Ms. Tetteh told ambassadors. ' I urge all parties to engage in good faith and to be ready to forge consensus on this roadmap,' she said.
India Gazette
6 days ago
- Politics
- India Gazette
"US was never honest broker": AIMIM chief Owaisi on US strikes on Iran's nuclear sites
Hyderabad (Telangana) [India], June 22 (ANI): AIMIM chief Asaduddin Owaisi on Sunday came down heavily against the United States for bombing Iran's nuclear sites and citing past military interventions in Iraq and Libya stated that Washington was never 'an honest broker', . Speaking with ANI, Owaisi said, 'US was never an honest broker. Whether it is Iraq, Libya or Palestine. The US is sitting completely silent on the ethnic cleansing taking place in Gaza.' Criticising US 'silence' over Israel's military action on Gaza, Owaisi said, 'US policy is only to cover up the crimes of the of Israeli government.' 'You went into Iraq, saying they were creating these weapons of mass destruction, and nothing was found over there. You removed Gaddafi in Libya, and nothing happened. Saddam was killed Gaddafi was killed. US policy is only to cover up the crimes of the of Israeli government. What is happening in Gaza? A genocide is happening, and no one is talking about it,' Owaisi said. The Lok Sabha MP from Hyderabad further questioned whether Pakistan had supported Trump only to see him drop bombs on a sovereign nation. 'We should ask Pakistanis if for this they want Trump to get a Nobel Peace Prize...' Owaisi said referring to the strikes carried out by the United States on Iran's nuclear sites in Natanz, Isfahan, and Fordow. The AIMIM leader further mocked Pakistan's military leadership, saying, '...Did Pakistan's General (Army chief Asim Munir) have lunch with the US president for this? They all have been exposed today.' Slamming Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Owaisi said, 'This attack by the US has helped Netanyahu, who is a butcher of Palestinians... A genocide is happening in Gaza, and the US is not worried about it.' He said, 'This man (Netanyahu), he has butchered Palestinians... He is doing ethnic cleansing of Palestinians in the West Bank and in Gaza. History will remember him as the butcher of Palestinians.' Owaisi also warned of serious consequences for India if a full-scale war breaks out in the region. 'We must also remember that more than 16 million Indians live in the Gulf and Middle East, and if that area erupts in a war, which unfortunately is very likely, then it will have a grave impact on the Indians living there,' he told ANI. The AIMIM chief's remarks come hours after the US and Israel launched strikes on Iran's nuclear sites, including Fordow. Fordow is Iran's main enrichment location for uranium enrichment to 60 per cent. (ANI)
Time of India
20-06-2025
- Politics
- Time of India
Iran-Israel conflict: Donald Trump's caution on joining Israel airstrikes rooted in fears of creating 'another Libya'
President Donald Trump's recent hesitation to authorise military strikes against Iran's nuclear facilities is rooted in a deep-seated concern: the risk of plunging Iran into chaos reminiscent of Libya's collapse after the 2011 NATO intervention. As per a New York Post report citing multiple administration insiders, Trump has repeatedly cited the North African nation's descent into anarchy as a cautionary tale, shaping his approach to the escalating crisis with Iran. The Libya precedent: A decade of anarchy Libya's trajectory after the fall of Muammar Gaddafi stands as a stark warning in Trump's mind, as per the report. In 2011, following a NATO-led bombing campaign—supported by the United States—the long-standing dictator was overthrown. Rather than ushering in stability, Gaddafi's ouster triggered a prolonged period of civil war, political fragmentation, and violence. The country has since splintered into rival governments and militias, with no unified authority and ongoing conflict between factions based in Tripoli and the east. Trump's frequent references to Libya are twofold, sources said: first, the chaos that ensued after Gaddafi's removal; second, the way the intervention complicated future negotiations with other adversarial states, such as North Korea and Iran. "He doesn't want it to turn into Libya," one insider said, underscoring Trump's reluctance to repeat what he sees as a costly and destabilising precedent. A two-week breather In the wake of Israel's recent preemptive airstrikes on Iranian nuclear sites, Trump has opted to delay any US involvement for up to two weeks. White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt confirmed the president's wait-and-see approach, citing the "substantial chance of negotiations" with Iran that may or may not materialize in the near future. Iran's foreign minister is expected to meet with European counterparts in Geneva, while Trump's special envoy continues backchannel communications. The administration's posture is one of cautious patience, with Trump reportedly weighing input from advisors, international leaders, and the American public. Limited strikes, not regime change As per the New York Post report, sources close to the administration indicate that Trump's preferred military option, if any, would be tightly focused: limited airstrikes targeting Iran's nuclear facilities at Fordow and Natanz using 30,000-pound "bunker buster" bombs —munitions that Israel's air force cannot deliver. The goal would be to neutralise Iran's nuclear capabilities without toppling Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei or triggering a broader conflict. 'Libya was a much more extended kind of bombing commitment, and it ended up being regime change,' one source noted, contrasting it with Trump's current thinking. 'If the regime falls [in Iran], then it's not on Trump, because that's not the goal of his very limited strike'. The president's reluctance to pursue regime change is also informed by the fear that a successor to Khamenei could be even more dangerous, and by a desire not to get entangled in the question of who governs Iran—a stance that resonates with his political base. Trump's caution is further shaped by the broader regional context. The Middle East is littered with examples—Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Yemen—where US interventions have led to protracted instability and civil war.
