Latest news with #MoammarGadhafi
Bangkok Post
04-07-2025
- Politics
- Bangkok Post
Nuclear proliferation cannot be bombed away
In 1966, the United States, the Soviet Union, the United Kingdom, France, and China not only were the only countries that possessed nuclear weapons; they also had enough wisdom to recognise the dangers posed by nuclear proliferation. Despite their many and deep political differences, they arrived at a consensus to halt the further dissemination of "nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices". Under the resulting 1970 Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT), non-nuclear states agreed not to pursue nuclear weapons and to accept International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) safeguards on all their nuclear activities. In return, the five nuclear-weapon states committed to negotiate "in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race … and to nuclear disarmament". With 191 signatories, the NPT is the most widely adopted international agreement after the United Nations Charter. The only countries not to adhere to it were India, Pakistan, and Israel. Each went on to develop nuclear weapons. North Korea, which initially joined the treaty, later withdrew to build its own nuclear arsenal. The five original nuclear-weapon states did not keep their end of the bargain regarding disarmament. On the contrary, they have been using AI and other technologies to modernise their arsenals. The world's nuclear warheads total more than 12,000 and have become the preeminent sign of a country's power and prestige. Just listen to Russia's leaders. Throughout their war in Ukraine, they have brandished their nuclear arsenal as a badge of invincibility. They know that the risk of a nuclear holocaust will deter all other powers from challenging them directly. Similarly, because North Korea has armed itself with nuclear weapons, the US has taken a softer approach in dealing with it, relying on diplomacy and economic incentives. By contrast, in Libya, Moammar Gadhafi agreed to abandon his nascent nuclear programme and ended up dead, following a Nato aerial campaign against his regime. Among the lessons that have emerged in recent decades are that nuclear-weapons states have no intention of fully disarming. Worse, there is now only one nuclear arms-control treaty between Russia and the US (New Start), and it is due to expire next February. The most powerful deterrent for any state is possession of nuclear weapons or membership in an alliance that offers a nuclear umbrella (like Nato). Around 30 states either have nuclear weapons or enjoy such protection. The rest of the world, meanwhile, must hope that the nuclear powers remain on their best behaviour. The situation is especially fraught in the Middle East, a region plagued by wars, violence, instability, and a lack of comprehensive security arrangements. Add the fact that Israel is the only state in the region known to have nuclear weapons, and you have the makings for chronic insecurity. The wild card, of course, has been Iran, a country that has endured violence and tumult since the 1950s, when a US- and UK-organised coup ousted the country's first democratically elected government. In the 1980s, Iraq invaded Iran with the support of Western powers and neighbouring countries determined to crush its fledgling Islamist regime. Following eight years of brutal violence, with Iraq deploying chemical weapons extensively, the Islamic Republic came to the predictable conclusion that it needed to master nuclear-weapons technology. According to the IAEA, US, and other intelligence agencies, however, that programme essentially ended in 2003. For the last 20 years, the challenge has been to get Iran to come clean about its past undeclared activities. After a period of sanctions, US President Barack Obama decided to pursue diplomacy. The idea was to use economic incentives and various technical measures to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons and pressure it to reveal its past undeclared nuclear activities. These were the main features of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), which Iran and the five permanent members of the UN Security Council (China, Russia, France, the UK, and the US), plus Germany and the European Union, signed in 2015. This framework was functioning as intended, with full compliance by Iran, until President Donald Trump abruptly withdrew the US from the agreement in 2018. Arguing that the JCPOA was only a stopgap measure, he insisted on a deal that would control not only Iran's nuclear programme but also its "disruptive" activities in the Middle East (such as its support for Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Houthis in Yemen). As a result, Iran refused to implement some of the JCPOA's key inspection measures and started to enrich uranium to a level approaching weapons-grade. During Joe Biden's term as president, the US tried unsuccessfully to revive the JCPOA. When Mr Trump returned to the White House this year, he demanded that Iran "surrender" its right to enrichment altogether. Following a few rounds of desultory talks between the US and Iran, Israel and the US, lacking credible evidence of a nuclear-weapons programme, launched their illegal attack against Iranian nuclear and military targets. The ostensible aim was to destroy all of Iran's nuclear fuel-cycle facilities, though there have also been murmurings about triggering regime change in Iran -- a stark reminder of the rationale for the similarly illegal military interventions in Iraq and Libya. The root cause of nuclear proliferation is a state's sense of insecurity or aspiration to increase its power and influence. Iran's focus on nuclear capability stems from a yearning to prevent foreign interference, a sensitivity to the region's security imbalance, and a desire to be recognised as a regional power. Far from curtailing its nuclear ambitions, the use of force and humiliation is just as likely to strengthen its resolve. We saw this in Iraq after Israel destroyed its research reactor in 1981. The only solution to Middle East nuclear proliferation is to engage in dialogue based on mutual respect, meaningful security assurances (which can be achieved through stringent technical and inspection protocols), and economic incentives (be it the threat of sanctions or a promise to lift them). In other words, resolving the Iran nuclear question ultimately will require a return to a JCPOA-like agreement -- albeit one of unlimited duration, perhaps supplemented with an agreement on the scope of Iran's missile programme. Addressing the longstanding challenges to peace and security across the Middle East ultimately will also require a comprehensive agreement that deals with the Palestinian question, Israel's nuclear weapons, and economic and social development needs. A just peace and an inclusive security architecture are the best defences against nuclear proliferation. Since knowledge cannot be "obliterated", bombing your way to a deal will invariably prove counterproductive, threatening to bring our world one step closer to nuclear Armageddon. ©2025 Project Syndicate
Epoch Times
26-05-2025
- Politics
- Epoch Times
Gadhafi's ‘Missing Billions' Stashed in US and Southern Africa, Officials Say
JOHANNESBURG—Billions of dollars stolen by former Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi are hidden in clandestine bank accounts and secret vaults in the United States and two southern African countries, say intelligence operatives and financial investigators. The latest news was first According to the report, Libya's Asset and Management Recovery Office says at least $50 billion in oil revenues pillaged by Gadhafi between 1994 until his murder in 2011 were invested in 'debt instruments'—including treasury bonds—using front companies, nominees, and banks that Separately, intelligence agents and a former top government official in Pretoria told The Epoch Times about $20 billion stolen by Gadhafi is spread across banks in South Africa. They added that $30 million in cash flown by Gadhafi to South Africa in the months before his execution by rebels is now hidden in Eswatini—the small kingdom neighboring South Africa and the continent's last absolute monarchy that was formerly called Swaziland. The man leading the hunt for Libya's missing public funds, Asset and Management Recovery Office Director-General Mohammed al-Mensli, confirmed that hundreds of billions of dollars were stolen during Gadhafi's brutal military rule. Related Stories 5/24/2025 5/24/2025 Gadhafi came to power in a coup in 1969 and began ruling Libya through fear, and plundering his country's vast natural resources. As chairman of the Revolutionary Command Council and Brotherly Leader of the Great Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Gadhafi imprisoned, tortured, and murdered political opponents, and forged close links to global terrorist organizations. Files lodged at the International Criminal Court detail the starvation of entire populations and the bombardment of towns and villages that were home to perceived political opponents. Libyans look at war remnants, including the golden fist that was taken from Moammar Gadhafi's compound in Tripoli and transported to Misrata, displayed at a museum set up on Tripoli boulevard in Misrata on Feb.12, 2012. Mahmud Turkia/AFP via Getty Images In 2003, Gadhafi's regime accepted responsibility for the Pan Am Flight 103 bombing over Lockerbie, Scotland, in 1988, which killed 259 people, including 190 Americans. He paid nearly $3 billion in compensation to the families of the victims. Yet Gadhafi continued to be revered among left-wing nationalists in Africa as an anti-Western, anti-colonialist, and anti-Israel revolutionary. The United States and its allies Tripoli tried to evade the sanctions by illicitly channelling oil profits to secret locations across the world, al-Mensli told The Epoch Times. He said information he uncovered during his investigation will be used by the Libyan government in Tripoli under Prime Minister Abdel Hamid Dubaiba 'to lodge legal claims in the U.S. to retrieve stolen public funds in interest-bearing accounts.' Al-Mensli said recovery of the funds would be 'vital to rebuilding' the country, which devolved into another civil war in 2014 until an October 2020 U.N.-led cease-fire agreement. A member of security forces stands behind a weapon, in Tripoli, Libya Feb. 1, 2021. REUTERS/Ayman Al-Sahili News Causing Stir in South Africa News of al-Mensli's investigation has triggered interest in South Africa, where Gadhafi secretly financed the African National Congress (ANC), the party that came to power under Nelson Mandela in 1994 following decades of apartheid white minority rule. One of Gadhafi's greatest admirers was former ANC leader and South African President Jacob Zuma, who is currently facing In 2022, a commission of inquiry Zuma, a Chinese Communist Party and Soviet trained former chief of intelligence for the ANC's armed wing, Umkhonto we Sizwe (Spear of the Nation), denies all charges and allegations. In the months leading up to Gadhafi's ouster and murder, Zuma and the Libyan ruler met several times. Initially, said Zuma's former top advisor and ANC treasurer Mathews Phosa, the brief for the then-president of Africa's largest economy was to convince Gadhafi to surrender power voluntarily to 'facilitate a peaceful democratic transition' in Libya. But shortly after a meeting with Gadhafi in April 2011, six months before his death at the hands of rebel forces, Zuma 'inexplicably' changed tack, Phosa said. 'He suddenly began insisting that Colonel Gadhafi must remain in power,' Phosa told The Epoch Times. Similar details are contained in Phosa's autobiography, 'Witness to Power,' 'Beginning in 2009, when Gadhafi began to get paranoid about being deposed, I accompanied President Zuma to a number of meetings in a luxury tent near Tripoli,' Phosa said. 'The Colonel promised to donate a lot of money to the ANC, and for Libya to sign military contracts with Mr. Zuma's associates.' The meetings were held under the guise of Gadhafi's chairmanship of the African Union, which lasted from 2009 to 2010, said the ANC stalwart. After civil war broke out in Libya in February 2011, Phosa and Zuma also met with rebel leaders to try to broker peace. 'Those leaders told me they would no longer cooperate in any way with Zuma because he had betrayed them by aligning with Gadhafi,' Phosa said. Two serving and one former South African intelligence agents, speaking anonymously, told The Epoch Times that Zuma also met with Gadhafi a few months before the dictator was executed by rebels in the town of Sirte on Oct. 20, 2011. 'President Zuma offered to fly Colonel Gadhafi to safety in South Africa because the rebel troops were approaching fast,' said one of the operatives. 'Colonel Gadhafi refused and said, 'No; I will die in my own country. If I am captured or killed, please give this money to my loved ones.'' In the months that followed, 'many flights' carrying 'crates of dollars, gold, and diamonds' flew to several locations in South Africa, including a military base near Pretoria, another agent said. 'From there, the loot was transported to Mr. Zuma's compound and hidden in a place that was under the ground,' the agent added. 'Later, when things began to get hot for Mr. Zuma, I hear the cash, etcetera, was moved to Swaziland under the care of the King [Mswati].' Spokespeople for both Zuma and Mswati denied knowledge of the Libyan cash and valuables. South African investigative journalist, Jovial Rantao, has previously presented information similar to that provided by the intelligence operatives. In the Sunday Independent in 2014, Rantao According to the documents, about $30 million dollars in cash, hundreds of tons of gold, and about 6 million carats of diamonds were transported from Tripoli to South Africa in more than 60 flights. 'What could be the world's largest cash pile is stored in palettes at seven heavily guarded warehouses and bunkers in secret locations between Johannesburg and Pretoria,' Rantao wrote, adding that Gadhafi's treasure was guarded by former apartheid-era Special Forces members. He said another 260 billion rands (now worth almost $14.4 billion) was deposited in four commercial banks in South Africa. In April 2019, South Africa's Sunday Times reported that Mswati had confirmed to South African President Cyril Ramaphosa that Zuma had transported $30 million dollars to his country. The president's spokesperson would not comment on Ramaphosa's meetings with Mswati.
Nahar Net
13-05-2025
- Politics
- Nahar Net
Libya armed group leader among dead in Tripoli clashes
by Naharnet Newsdesk 13 May 2025, 12:10 Overnight clashes in Libya's capital killed at least six people, an emergency medical service said Tuesday, with local media reporting that an armed group leader was among the dead. AFP reporters heard heavy arms fire and explosions in several areas of the capital Tripoli from 9:00 pm (1900 GMT) on Monday as violent clashes between rival armed groups rocked the city. "Six bodies have been retrieved from the sites of clashes around Abu Salim" in Tripoli, the Emergency Medicine and Support Centre said. Libya's Al-Ahrar television and Al-Wasat news website said that Abdelghani al-Kikli, leader of the Support and Stability Apparatus, was killed. The reports said he was likely ambushed in Abu Salim, a southern district of the capital where his influential armed group is based. Authorities had urged residents to stay indoors before saying several hours later that the fighting had been brought under control. Local media said clashes broke out in the southern suburbs between armed groups from Tripoli and rivals from Misrata, a major port city 200 kilometers (125 miles) east of the capital. Libya is struggling to recover from years of unrest following the NATO-backed 2011 uprising that led to the overthrow and killing of longtime dictator Moammar Gadhafi. The North African country is currently divided between a U.N.-recognized government in Tripoli and a rival administration in the east, controlled by the Haftar family. The Tripoli-based government announced in a statement early Tuesday that a "military operation" to restore "security and stability" in the capital had been successful. Prime Minister Abdulhamid Dbeibah, in a post on social media platform X, thanked government forces "for restoring security and asserting the state's authority in the capital". "What was accomplished today shows that official institutions are capable of protecting the homeland and preserving the dignity of its citizens," Dbeibah said. He hailed the security forces' actions as "a decisive step" in the fight against "irregular" armed factions. Despite relative calm in recent years, clashes periodically break out between armed groups vying for territory. In August 2023, fighting between two powerful armed groups in Tripoli left 55 dead. Several districts of the capital and its suburbs announced that schools would be closed on Tuesday until further notice. The United Nations Support Mission in Libya called for calm. "UNSMIL is alarmed by the unfolding security situation in Tripoli, with intense fighting with heavy weaponry in densely populated civilian areas," it said on X. It urged "all parties to immediately cease fighting", warning that "attacks on civilians and civilian objects may amount to war crimes." "UNSMIL fully supports the efforts of elders and community leaders to de-escalate the situation."
Yahoo
07-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Trump administration plans immigrant flights to Libya as its deportation agenda grows
As the Trump administration looks to expand its dubious plans to deport immigrants to foreign lands, they're apparently looking to war-torn countries with poor human rights records to essentially serve as deterrents for future immigrants. Having already sent nearly 300 immigrants — who've been framed as hardened criminals despite many of them appearing to have no criminal record whatsoever — to El Salvador's brutal CECOT prison, the administration is planning to expand its deportations to Libya, NBC News reported. On Wednesday, a federal judge ruled that imminent deportation flights to Libya, or any other third country, without due process would violate his temporary restraining order. It's noteworthy that top Libyan officials denied that any arrangement is in place to accept immigrants from the United States, though the country's provisional government suggested that 'some parallel parties that are not subject to legitimacy' could be involved. At the moment, Libya is effectively divided into two factions that are fighting for control of the country, which has been wrought by war and strife after the U.S.-backed coup that dislodged Moammar Gadhafi in 2011. Libya's treatment of immigrants has been decried by human rights activists, and, given the dehumanizing things Trump has said to malign immigrants — such as his claim that they are 'poisoning the blood' of the U.S. — it's fair to wonder whether the administration sees Libya's brutality as a benefit in this case. And the same goes for Rwanda, whose foreign minister recently confirmed that his government was in 'early talks' with the Trump administration about accepting immigrants. As multiple critics of such a deal recently explained to NPR, Rwanda is also plagued by human rights abuses: Even without the expense, critics say Rwanda's abysmal rights record under President Paul Kagame means it's no place to resettle people. 'Rwanda under the long-ruling Kagame dictatorship is simply not a safe country, it's a totalitarian police state by any standard,' said Jeffrey Smith, founder of pro-democracy nonprofit Vanguard Africa. Michela Wrong, a journalist and author of a book on Rwanda, also said the country is not a suitable place to send deportees. 'This is a country where the elections are routinely rigged, where opposition activists disappear and are found murdered…where opposition leaders aren't allowed to run in the elections, journalists are jailed or end up fleeing the country,' she said. The Trump administration could easily look to Britain — which previously attempted a deportation arrangement with Rwanda that has widely been considered an expensive failure — for reasons why this might be a bad idea. But the administration's multimillion-dollar prison deal with El Salvador already proves that it's willing to waste money on cruel stunts. It's worth noting that Trump doesn't appear to carry high regard for African nations. As you may remember, he labeled them as 'shithole countries,' along with El Salvador and Haiti, during an Oval Office meeting back in 2018. He has offered no mea culpa for those bigoted remarks, so the fact he essentially wants to dump immigrants in these same places — and potentially even U.S. citizens — suggests he is seeking to punish his party's perceived enemies and effectively threatening anyone who might defy his warped, authoritarian perception of law and order. It certainly seems to set up a perverse reward structure for other countries. Why shore up your human rights abuses to get on America's good side — as countries have historically had to do — when you can just tailor your brutality so it aligns with the Trump administration's mission? This article was originally published on
Yahoo
28-04-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Opinion - In the messaging battle for Africa, Russia is winning
Since the very start of its invasion of Ukraine more than three years ago, Russia's government has focused a barrage of propaganda on Africa. Western governments have pushed back, while Ukraine is opening its own embassies across the continent to spread its message. With all this activity, one would expect that the Ukraine conflict would be the talk of the continent. Not so, however. A recent visit to West and East Africa suggests Russia, Ukraine and the whole East-West conflict still attract only marginal interest among academics, civil society, students and journalists. Rather, the public mood is focused heavily on more local events, particularly government corruption. This helps explain Moscow's approach to the region. In its appeals to young Africans, Russia spends little time justifying its invasion of Ukraine. It devotes far more effort to positioning itself as an ally of young, restless populations angry at their local governments and at what they see as Western dominance and diktat. By doing so, the Kremlin has deftly outflanked the West's focus on the lawlessness and brutality of the invasion itself. It has concentrated instead on broader issues that resonate far more with local populations. Western communicators need to revise their strategy accordingly. 'A lot of Africans don't know anything about Russia except as an opponent of the West,' Morité Camara of Côte d'Ivoire's Institut Afrique-Monde think tank told me. 'If people are angry at the West, associating with Russia makes sense since it's the West's enemy.' Western nations have pressed African states to take a strong stance against Russia's invasion. But African media typically publish little news from abroad. Europe's biggest war in decades gets play mainly when it threatens Africans' food supplies, or when African students suffer racist treatment in the war zone. In my conversations, the international issues cited most often were enduring resentment toward European colonialism; the West's killing of Moammar Gadhafi and the ensuing destruction of Libya; the U.S.-led intervention in Iraq (which included Ukrainian troops); and present-day American support for Israel. None of this dims the eagerness of many to study in, or move to, Western Europe or the United States. But politically, university students made clear, the West is still seen as a predatory actor with much to atone for, while Russia looks like an alternative power center that might bring a change to the status quo. That represents an opening for Moscow. Compared to the chaotic state of Western nations, Russia looks to Africans like a stable, reliable power — whatever internal repression the Kremlin may use to keep it that way. Vladimir Putin, whose image is painted on the occasional minibus in Nairobi, comes across as a tough leader who gets things done. Western analysts often give Russian propagandists credit for the anti-French and anti-corruption mood that fueled coups in recent years in Sahel nations. That's understandable, given that the overthrow of governments in Mali, Niger, Burkina Faso and Chad sharply increased Russian influence in the region. But the reality is more complex; Russian information operations amplify the feelings of Africans across the continent who are resentful toward the West and looking for any alternative. Older Africans remember with gratitude Soviet aid to the continent's national liberation movements during the decades of the Cold War. At the same time, Africa is the world's youngest continent, with an average age of 19, and Russia is skilled at reaching out to the younger cohort as well. Moscow offers scholarships to Russian universities, promotes the Russian Orthodox faith (many young Africans are religious) and aligns itself with populations discontented with the continent's remaining pro-Western governments. Russia's tactics are shrewd. Actual Russian development aid to Africa is minimal, concentrating mainly on mining and other deals that help enrich Russian and local elites. But Russia excels at building networks of social media influencers and pseudo-news brands to intensify anti-Western and anti-corruption feelings in Africa's remaining pro-Western nations. This threatens the stability of their governments and intimidates them into remaining at least neutral in the standoff between the West and Moscow. All this calls into question the West's own messaging to Africa. Western communication has tended to support friendly governments and emphasize the value of U.S. ties. Diplomats say they try to avoid attacking Moscow, worried it would feed an image of great powers squabbling with each other while ignoring Africa's needs. Perhaps as a result, few Africans know much about racism in Russia, or that political freedom in many African countries far exceeds what Russians enjoy. These points are certainly worth making. But to be more responsive to African concerns, U.S. outreach also needs to more effectively emphasize fighting corruption. Even if such policies weaken pro-Western regimes now in power, their days may be numbered. If angry young people or the military sweep them away, the West's interests should not be swept away with them. When it comes to Africa, the U.S. must remain committed to fundamental political rights and engage in economic projects that benefit populations as a whole, not just the continent's elites. Doing so would differentiate Washington from Moscow in Africans' minds, and position America as the partner that will benefit Africa the most. Thomas Kent is senior fellow for strategic communication at the American Foreign Policy Council in Washington, D.C., and a consultant on Russian affairs and information operations. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
