The Activist Salem Gnan

October 19, 2011
(incomplete)

My first encounter with the works of Salem Gnan, activist, was an important call he made to the UK Guardian on February 21, as cited in the post "Bombing His Own People." Really? Three reports of Libyan gov attacks on Tripoli came in that day, within an hour and a half. The latter two were to al Jazeera and called it aerial bombardment, but the first call, Mr. Gnan's, said the city was being shelled from the sea. As the Guardian reported:

5.07pm – Libya: Salem Gnan, a London-based spokesman for the National Front for the Salvation of Libya, says eyewitnesses in Tripoli have told him the navy has opened fire on parts of the capital.

"We have just heard that the military ships are bombing an area in Tripoli and many people have been killed although we don't know how many at the moment because people have just called to tell us it is happening."

Gnan said the navy appeared to be bombing a residential area outside the city centre as part of a desperate crackdown by Gaddafi's troops.

"He is even turning the ships on his people now. His plan is to use absolutely everything he can to stop what is happening."

Gnan said he had had also had reports of ongoing shooting around Gaddafi's residence in Tripoli and said more people were taking to the capital's streets as darkness fell.

"This is going on because if it stops that means it is finished. This will be the last act." He said people were travelling to Tripoli from across the west of Libya for a "final showdown."

I have had calls from people in towns and cities all across Libya. Those in the east can not get out but those in towns and cities in western Libya, everybody is saying: "We are going to Tripoli." The plan is to come from everywhere and go to Tripoli to sack the city, for the finish.

Yeah, on that "finish" to the "popular uprising" ... Even with massive help of all kinds from some of the most powerful nations on Earth, it's finally been approximately finished, eight months, thousands of very real bombs, missiles, and rockets, and tens of thousands of deaths later.

And on the bombings reported by Mr. Gnan and others, as explained at the above link, they apparently did not occur. There's still to date been no other evidence produced, of any variety, for something that should have been quite video-recordable and should have left plenty of physical evidence. Evidence like bomb parts, flattened buildings, and specific dead people in situ or shown with compatible injuries. Only "confirmations"(repetitions) of these same baseless reports ever emerged.

Reader Felix dropped some great research on Mr. Gnan in comments beneath that piece. The below is derived primarily from these.

The group he swears allegiance to is the National Front for the Salvation of Libya (NFSL - Wikipedia), a Natural-Seeming Front for those Salivating over Libya. With the basic premise that Libya neededto be "saved"from Gaddafi's revolutionary system, it's been a long-time CIA-connected training ground for anti-Gaddafi activists. Founded in 1981, it was staging both sit-ins (see below) and armed attacks by mid-1984. According to Medialens:

US official records indicate that funding for the Chad-based secret war against Libya also came from Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Morocco, Israel and Iraq. The Saudis, for instance, donated $7m to an opposition group, the National Front for the Salvation of Libya (also backed by French intelligence and the CIA). But a plan to assassinate Gadafi and take over the government on 8 May 1984 was crushed.

As Felix notes, the NFSL is also "the same group which organised the ill-fated protests outside the Libyan People's Bureau in 1984." This resulted in the  Murder of policewoman Yvonne Fletcher on April 17. A bare three weeks before the daring NFSL attack against Gaddafi's compound, the regime allegedly shot itself in the foot by ordering embassy personnel to shoot at their cousins in central London in broad daylight. [see also here] Several Libyan kids were injured, and one cop, Fletcher (the only female officer there), was thoroughly killed on accident, greatly souring Anglo-Libyan relations just ahead of the NFSL's offensive. It was well-fated for their purposes.

More than two decades later, the front has apparently matured to a less violent group, focused more on talking, and feeding with the greatest ease Western misconceptions of Libya. As war broke out on the streets in 2011, they fused with other groups to create the National Conference for the Libyan opposition in support of the uprising. Their members went on full-tilt with the propaganda, and Mr. Gnan did his part, seeding the lies above.

He apparently learned from his follow-up callers that day that air attacks are the most potent thing to allege, and three days later was telling the Guardian all about more such, near the capitol if not in it:

3.47pm: Salem Gnan, a London-based spokesman for the National Front for the Salvation of Libya, whom we have spoken to regularly this week, says the situation in his home country today is "very bad".

Gnan says he was called by his niece this morning who lives in al-Zawiya, scene of bitter gun battles between Gaddafi loyalists and protesters and supposed location of Gaddafi's speech this afternoon (see 3.25pm).

She said they are bombing the town and lots of mercenaries have been flown in. People had been going to a gathering to hear speeches this morning when the planes came and bombed them. More than 30 people were killed. It is very bad. My sister's daughter was crying and crying on the phone but the people will not stop fighting.

No other sources mention bombing on Az Zawiyah (which is given here both correctly and as above), about 30 miles west of Tripoli and the closest "rebel-held" city in those days. That it would be bombed on the same day they said a speech by the leader was recorded there is doubly strange. A government attack is alleged on Feb. 24, but with no photo or video proof, and I remain less than convinced. These reports mentioned land-based shooting that killed several insurgents (ten by this source) and damaged the central mosque's minaret. All available videos show the protesters carrying machine guns and RPGs, firing them in a vague and possibly fake gun-battle, burying some of the previous day's dead, and hearing a fiery sermon about Libya's youth, the bombing of which was not filmed. All these and other events there happened in the city's main square, showing how little they really controlled - certainly not the part of town Muammar himself was in that day. (See the whole chronology at the fall of Az Zawiyah.)

Until now, I've heard nothing at all about alleged bombing there. Gnan's niece is a cold liar. Or simply confused. Or did he make the stuff up himself? Why did he feel a need to pass on such bogus information, and how did he know which lies to tell? Was he connected to some CIA-type networkof plotters and propagandists engaged in psychological warfare or something?

He later, on the defection of Libyan spy chief Moussa Koussa, spoke to the AP (via the Guardian 31 March 2011):

London-based Libyan dissident Salem Gnan suggested Koussa could provide a trove of information on Gadhafi's inner circle, the country's shadowy past and the dictator's increasing desperation. Koussa is Libya's "black box and curator of Gadhafi's top secrets," Gnan said. "He will uncover it all. He has got all the names, the documents and the information."

His supposed value (in solving generally fictitious crimes) was well-enough known, by Koussa and by his new hosts, first in London, then in Qatar. By trading on these, apparently, he got a cushy deal, effectively immune from prosecution so long as he helped inform the war effort. He reportedly has, and in so doing, helped fulfill the largely-French plot going back to late 2010, that many suspect Koussa was the main architect behind (see here).

Salem Gnan, if he doesn't work for Koussa, certainly helped his cause against Gaddafi and helped reinforce the reputation of his boss (sorry) as he stepped up to the bargaining table.

Felix adds some more (will work in later):
I think you can see Salem Gnan, سالم قنان here in a London demonstration (probably outside the Knightsbridge embassy) in this YouTube video uploaded on 17 February. (I think this is him too on 6 October recently,interviewed by Alaan. In May he seemed to be in Nalut. Also here on Al Arabiya 18 April.

(Nalut seemed a key town for rallying of westerners for an assault on Tripoli in August)

Salem Masoud Gnan is stated to be a lawyer but has directorships of several companies, EXCEL PHARMACY LTD of 23 Church Road, Isleworth TW7 4PR, but also of TOTAL MEDIA SERVICES AND MANAGEMENT LIMITED of 3A MONTAGU ROW, LONDON
W1U 6DZ and AGNAN LOCUM LTD of 32 WOODSTOCK GROVE, SHEPHERDS BUSH W12 8LE.
More interestingly, he is a director of the Oxford based Centre for Libyan Studies of Suite 220, 286 Banbury Road, OX2 7DL, a charity. Funding? The directors in 2008 were :Mustafa Rugibani
Youssef El Megreisi (Company Secretary)
Omar Abdulatef (Chairman)
Doctor Fathi Sikta
Mohamed Ali Ahdash
Salem Gnan (Appointed 25.03.2008)

Accountants Shaw Gibbs LLP
264 Banbury Road
Oxford OX2 7DY

Mr Gnan, if it is the same person, now apparently styles himself Salem Gnan Alnaluty ,and according to his facebook page has relocated to Sweden recently. He has uploaded the Guardian live blog from February translated into arabic to his page,"This a translation in Arabic of our live blog on the uprising in Libya", along with the London video and an inconsequential Al Bayda video of 23 feb and the theatrical mass rape allegation video.
---

Departures From Protocol at the UN

Sketching out the New Libya: Departures From Protocol at the UN
July 28/29, 2011
extensive edits Sept. 12

From What Fount Springeth This? 
The unfolding of the new libya, and its old colors of monarchy, has been painted as the natural triumph of the peoples' will against a tyrant's rule. This had just occurred in neighboring Egypt and Tunisia (and nowhere else yet), leaving everyone just knowing it was just time for change in that narrow region and, hey, who doesn't hate Gaddafi, right? Everyone who was capable joined with the masses, we believed, driven by the noblest of abstract virtues - freedom, equality, justice - perhaps unseen in such purity since the French Revolution. The old, the corrupt, and the cruel was to be swept away by crashing waves of light, it seemed back around March 1.

By now we can see this wasn't quite right (well, most of us can). In fact the reality on the ground seems artificially murky, brutal, deceptive, and highly troubling. And the first and major steps towards enforcing any new Libya - the help of powerful outsiders - looks more like a well-planned soft coup than a mass uprising.

The uprising originated, to some extent anyway, with Libyans - but only a select few visionary ones operating within Libya, in Paris, and especially in New York. These pioneers worked largely through the United Nations, but in an unusual personal, not national capacity. I'm no expert on international law, but I suspect what happened here was illegal.

This fascinating but ignored line of thought is the cornerstone of an impressive recent article I read and will cite throughout this one: The Role of the UN Security Council in Unleashing an Illegal War against Libya, by Ronda Hauben, published on July 20 by the Center for Research on Gloablization.

The article starts with the the official explanation why the UN's Security Council chose to take up the issue of Libya: a member state of the Security Council, Lebanon, had brought the issue before them in late February. This was followed by a second from the Arab League, and the white people countries well-known for loathing Gaddafi simply followed up on that. No euro-Imperialism there, most presume.

But the Arab League has its own conflicts of interest and reasons to dislike the Libyan regime, at least in the alleged 2003 Gaddafi plot to kill Saudi Arabian Crown Prince Abdullah (a decent starter source, NYT, on that strange chapter). There are also supposed rivalries over religious influence, wiath Gaddafi accused of wanting to supplant the medieval monarchy and make Libya the new center of Islam (can't find a handy link for that).

And Qatar, a firm non-european support for the rebellion against Gaddafi in every conceivable way, through the Arab League and on their own, has some kind of previous beef with the Colonel that's apparently quite serious. According to recently published reports, based on files found in Tripoli, British authorities had agreed to offer special protection to Seif al-Islam Gaddafi from a possible 2002 plot to kill him. According to Muzaffar Iqbal, writing for Pakistan's The News (International), the plot might be disinformation, but was linked to "Qatar’s interior minister Sheikh Abdullah bin Khalid al-Thani," who "was also accused of sheltering “terrorists” at his farm by none other Richard Clarke, the former White House counterterrorism director, who considered his ministerial post a “direct and serious threat to US forces present in Qatar.""

The Arab League - Arabs! - approved
"no fly" at the UN. Photo: Reuters, 
via the Sofia Echo

And as the UK Guardian noted, Lebanon also has its beef with the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, in the form of a long-dead Shia cleric allegedly killed and buried - or alive? - inside Libya. By the sound of it, this was well-played on by rumor-spinning rebel schemers and helped prod things along.

Along with a hasty, poorly-attended, and still far from unanimous vote, the Arab League - Arabs! - approved a "no fly zone," and thus provided a fig leaf for this open door to imperialist  bombardment of Muslims which they later - limply - protested for a couple of days.

The "hate Gaddafi" club - which the regime had clearly allowed grow too large - put themselves in charge of writing Libya's future. The "screw Gaddafi" and "oh well, what can you expect?" clubs - also too large - apparently just let them do it, with nothing more severe than abstention.

The Libyan Invite I: Dabbashi  
But even with the troubling grudges considered, this telling obscures an earlier and shadier genesis yet, Hauben argues, also from within the Arab world.

It was not a Security Council member nation which started this process. Nor was it the Arab League. Rather it was a party that one could argue had no legitimate basis to speak at the United Nations, especially not to the Security Council.

This party, was, by that time, the former Chargé d’Affaires to the United Nations for the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya [Libya], Ibrahim Dabbashi. Dabbashi had taken the unusual actions of first announcing to the press that he had defected from representing the government of Libya at the UN, and then requesting an emergency meeting of the Security Council about the situation in Libya.

His request to the Security Council began a process which, in less than a week, resulted in passing the stringent sanctions against Libya and the referral of its officials to the ICC that are included in SC Resolution 1970. SC Resolution 1970 then set the stage for SC Resolution 1973 passed three weeks later which authorized military action against Libya.

Mr. Dabbashi seems to be the second in charge of the mission to the UN, normally. The mission was actually headed by Abdel Rahman Shalgham, the Permanent Representative of the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya (Libya's formal title). Why Shalgham's Chargé d’Affaires was able to have such leverage isn't clear to me; elsewhere Dabbashi is also described as the "Deputy Ambassador," so perhaps he was in charge at the moment, February 21 to be precise, for some legitimate reason.

Either way, the underling defected on day six of greatly misunderstood "protests", rejecting the post he filled ... or, rather, not doing that. As Hauben put it "while an appropriate course for a defecting government official from a country would be to resign his official position as a Deputy Ambassador for Libya at the United Nations, this is not what happened."

Dabbashi tells it juuuust how
it is. Photo: Al Arabiya

In fact, he went on to represent "the people" of Libya. This always clearly meant the anti-Gaddafi insurgents, and eventually their strange political leadership, the rebel Transitional National Council (TNC or some variant - they change it every couple months). But before they had quite gelled, Mr. Dabbashi in New York had declared himself their ambassador - and not the deputy. By dint of entrepreneurial spirit and swift action, he was now the boss now and his old boss ... that remained to be seen. Boss again, or an enemy supporting the "genocide?"


Ibrahim Dabbashi's actions were clearly geared towards creating a new nation in the space of the old, and that seems a bit like diplomatic warfare to me. And whether he knew or suspected it then, he was making himself the permanent representative to the UN for racist lynch mobs, looters and retribution thugs, arsonists, rapists, cop-killers, serial fakers of claims and evidence, neo-colonialist free-market sell-outs, genuine if misguided freedom-seekers, and, to some extent, al Qaeda and assorted Islamo-nihilist mercenaries.

Dabbashi's Roadmap
Either way, I went a bit beyond Hauben to see more of just what this turncoat did with his invented new position; it would take the form of words on the record. I rely on an article from Al Jazeera English, Feb 22. By this, it's not the cautious statement of a loyal servant of his government forced by events. The turns of phrase and even more the suggested actions reveal a rather advanced conception of what this crisis offered and how it should be exploited. Calling on the widely reported but unverified rumors of a bloodbath, he said in part:

The tyrant Muammar Gaddafi has asserted clearly, through his sons, the level of ignorance he and his children have, and how much he despises Libya and the Libyan people [...]
This is in fact a declaration of war against the Libyan people. The regime of Gaddafi has already started the genocide against the Libyan people.

The officers and soldiers of the Libyan army wherever they are and whatever their rank is ... [should] organise themselves and move towards Tripoli and cut the snake's head.

Here Dabbashi clarifies he is declaring war, but only after the other side started it. With quick and comprehensive thinking, he laid out much of how it should be done: he demanded an inquiry by the International Criminal Court for crimes against Humanity by Gaddafi and his sons (investigation done, warrants eventually issued, used as bargaining chips to bring the NTC to power). He warned of Gaddafi fleeing justice into exile (setting up the travel ban), and warned of money smuggling (setting the world towards freezing as much of the Libyan economy as possible).

He also prophetically recommended a no-fly zone and air embargo over Libya, as al Jazeera explained, "to prevent mercenaries and weapons from being shipped [sic] in." (It was only just then that rumors of aerial bombardment were starting to appear as well, greatly strengthening this case).  He warned of sabotage at oil installations "by the coward tyrant," (reminding us all what this was really about). And of course he encouraged employees of Libyan embassies all over the world to join him, and "stand with their people." He urged this specifically for the mission in Geneva, which should pressure the UN Human Rights Council to action. [again, the al Jazeera article]

By and large, these diplomatic defections did happen, swiftly and en masse, a real coup of an achievement. Other areas of the government and military only dribbled defectors, usually loud-mouthed ones, but the ambassadors just poured out, helping convince the world it must really be over for the Jamahiriya. And again, this moved fast starting on day six of the violent protests in Libya that allegedly surprised everyone.

Mr. Dabbashi's bold course of action, as personal as it was, could conceivably have lined up with the overall will of Libya's people.  Clearly a formidable segment rejects Gaddafi just as virulently (if less strategically) as he does. But with time to understand, we can see the impression of a total nationwide mutiny that drove Dabbashi was a fiction, and one he himself co-wrote.

Al-Mesmari and The Date that Lives in Infamy/A Cabal Enabled? 
The address above was given on February 22, since the UN headquarters was closed on the the 21st when Dabbashi first announced his resignation elsewhere (President's Day is for the whole world now). Besides commemorating our own great leaders, the date of his unequivocal defection is noteworthy. As Hauben explains, another Libyan official, Nouri al-Mesmari, also announced his resignation as the Jamahiriya's protocal chief on the 21st.

Al-Mesmari resigned from Paris, having informally resigned upon flying there, unannounced, in October. He had reportedly spent the time between linking French intelligence with Libyans planning some nebulous uprising set for February, and rebuffing all inducement to return to the targeted nation. (See here for explanation.)

Al-Mesmari's previous job as chief of protocol (from Which Dabbashi would so boldly stray) had put him into intimate contact with all diplomatic posts, like Dabbashi's. He told al Jazeera on February 27 (video) that he was "a pure diplomat," in charge of "relationship with the embassies." Strangely, six days after resigning, he told them "I am in charge of the diplomacy in Libya" (emph. mine).

And for what it's worth, it's also been speculated by seasoned observers that al-Mesmari was in turn put up to defect by now-defected Libyan foreign sinister Moussa Koussa (reported on Africa Intelligence, passed on via Meyssan at least).  Hauben also makes note of both men, Mesmari and Dabbashi, making specific use of the term "genocide" to describe what Gaddafi was doing. This term has no basis in reality, with the "cide" based on confused rumors, and the "geno" part being just silly. But that precise word, accurate or not, does have a certain resonance - especially in Geneva.

The apparent signal for these twin defectors in Paris and New York was the decisive turn of the previous day in Benghazi, their emergent rebel capitol. Heavily armed "protesters" finally overwhelmed the Katiba army barracks, after days of trying, with the heroic help of a suicide bomber. To save this last toehold of security in the city, Interior Minister Abdel Fateh Younes was sent by Tripoli to restore order. But upon arrival he made a deal - the surviving soldiers would be allowed to leave, and he, Younes the great, would join their cause, along with the force he brought. He was "with the people" publicly by the evening of the 20th.

It was first thing in the morning that these two made their announcements - only once it was clear Benghazi had fallen and Younes had jumped. If people are jumping, it might seem like the ship is sinking. And they knew, by some instinct (?), it was time to add to that impression and quickly, before it could be shown the Jamahiriya still sailed on, just a few rats lighter.


As I've noted here before, it's generally illegal to recognize a group not in charge of a nation. And even considering that, there was no group here - Dabbashi at first represented no legally extant body. If he was chosen by anyone in particular, (besides that defunct old regime that once chose him), it would be by a still-unproven conspiratorial cabal, who all agreed to things like "say genocide," and "be sure to mention his sons!"

If not Conspiratorial, at Least Illegal
These are just little clues, and not proof, but in concert with the stealing and re-appropriation of government posts, alarm bells should have been going off.

It would appear to be a serious breach of UN protocol for a defecting official who had formerly been the representative of a nation that is a member of the UN, to be able to request a Security Council meeting and to have the Security Council grant the meeting and allow the defecting official to participate in the meeting. Similarly, to allow the defecting diplomat to make unverified allegations at the meeting against the government of a UN member nation would only compound the serious violation of the UN Charter represented by this abuse of UN processes.

I never really thought about it before reading this article, but that does seem quite illegal. I just thought it sounded extremely wrong. Why did I not think of, or hear of the actual impropriety of it? I can understand the Americans, French, Qataris, etc. biting their tongues and egging this on, but where are the clear protests from Russia, China, Venezuela? (Out there, perhaps, but ignored). This is really a strange and shady situation. As Reuters said:

The [security] council met at the request of Libyan Deputy Ambassador Ibrahim Dabbashi, who along with most other staff at Libya’s U.N. mission announced on Monday they were no longer working for leader Muammar Gaddafi and represented the country’s people. They called for Gaddafi’s overthrow.”

The Libyan Invite II: Shalgham Jumps Ship, Washington Sinks It
As we've seen, deputy ambassador Dabbasi took the first bold steps, while his superior, ambassador Shalgham at first acted differently. Before mindlessly repeating the tales of massacres and "genocide," he called home and asked. Hauben cites this video and explains:

Shalgham also attended the February 22 Security Council meeting, along with Dabbashi. In informal comments after the meeting, Shalgham indicated that he had been in contact with a relative in Tripoli and was told that the alleged atrocities that the media was claiming had happened in Tripoli were not true. 

Similarly, speaking to the press, he indicated that he had been in contact with government officials in Tripoli who said that they, too, disputed the claims of atrocities taking place in Tripoli and planned to invite journalists from Al Arabiya and CNN to see for themselves that the allegations were inaccurate.

These offers would have been useful towards establishing the truth as it's now emerging, but they were rebuffed forcefully by the West. Shalgham's pointed reference to Tripoli's view was not in the spirit of the cabal, and as that video link shows, made him a persona non-grata with the journalists there, expecting an absolute defection to the "light side."

But he was somehow brought around, perhaps by his number two, or any other comination of forces in this massive geo-political lynch mob against his home government. Within a couple of days, he too was resigning and denouncing his personal friend, Muammar Gaddafi, and his regime in stringent terms. A more specific example of the diplomatic disconnect over who represents Libya arises from his subsequent lobbying, as Hauben explains:

One good example of this departure from protocol obligations is demonstrated by two documents. The first is Security Council Resolution 1970 (S/RES/1970(2011). The document states in its opening statement (21):

“Taking note of the letter to the President of the Security Council from the Permanent Representative of the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya dated 26 February 2011.” (S/Res/1970(2011),p.1)

The problem of acknowledging this letter this way in the body of Resolution 1970 is that on February 25, the former Libyan Ambassador to the UN, Abdel Rahman Shalgham had informed the Security Council that he had defected.

By February 26 he no longer represented the Libyan government. Consequently there was no basis for the Security Council to refer to a letter from him, as a letter from the Permanent Representative of the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya

The Security Council should have found a way to hear from a member of the government of Libya, rather than substituting a defector Ambassador and his delegation for the official delegation of Libya.

Once enough rats had jumped, the ship was sunk. However many nations immediately recognized them or didn't, the UNSC had recognized the rebels from a mile away as of February 22. The Gaddafi regime was diplomatically neutered, just a thing that the bombing of could commence.  As Hauben noted, the actual Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, headquartered in Tripoli, in charge of most of Libya, and supported by an uncertain but sizeable chunk of Libya's people, was not allowed to speak for itself. 

No legitimate Libyan government official was invited to take part in Security Council proceedings. When the Libyan government tried to appoint legitimate government officials to replace the defector delegation, the US government would not approve the visa requests for the replacement delegates, in violation of the Host Country obligations of the US. In this way, the US prevented the Libyan government from being able to present its case before the Security Council.

And so Mr. Shalgham, the slightly delayed rebel ambassador of NATO's Libyans, was number one again and Dabbashi again his deputy. The ambassador of the brand-new nation, sketched out in New York and soon inked-in with ever more blood in Libya, put his words on the record on the 25th. He easily swayed the council to embraced the new Libya, literally. One last time, Hauben:

In his presentation to the Security Council meeting on Friday, February 25, Shalgham made a virulent denunciation of the Libyan government, complete with analogies to Hitler. Shalgham ignored the conflicting accounts of what was happening in Benghazi and instead painted a picture of peacefully demonstrating civilians unjustly subjected to a massacre. 

Shalgham presented no proof for his allegations nor was he asked to present any. Instead, he was consoled by the Secretary General and members of the Security Council, with several Security Council members, embracing and comforting him. 

Photo: Monika Graff, Getty Images

At right is actually a separate hug on March 16, upon securing the pivotal no-fly zone at the UNSC, sanctioning NATO bombardment of his country. Shalgham, right, and the US ambasssador, Susan Rice, left. Might have that backwards, I don't follow the news too close.

Something snapped between February 22 and 25, and the real Abdel Rahman Shalgham was apparently killed in the process, another early casualty of the Libyan Civil War, snuffed out like so many under murky circumstances.

Interesting Times

By Robert Forrester, secretary, Justice for Megrahi campaign
Posted April 28 2011
Originally published, in shorter form, at The Firm, April 14
(bolding by Caustic Logic)

Even though the current unrest in North Africa and the Middle East is far from over, it has still managed to throw up some fascinating developments. We’ve seen presidents throwing in the towel, prime ministers being sacked or resigning, and given the potential for carnage, there seems to have been remarkably little bloodshed on the whole. Some regimes may have been decapitated, however, where that has happened, the basic power structures have remained in place. In the case of Egypt, the demonstrators told Blair exactly where he could get off, Mubarak eventually caved in, and the way became clear to getting back to business as usual. So much so that the UK’s gaffe plagued David Cameron was out of his starting blocks like Harry the Hare to perform his duty as the nation’s arms industry envoy to Cairo. Well, Tony always used to say that if we didn’t do it, somebody else would. And it’s not as if we make much else in Britain anymore.

Libya has been a slightly different kettle of fish though, and, in many ways even more intriguing. The Western powers have been waiting for a viable opportunity for decades to oust Gaddafi. All nations have their contingency plans after all. And everything seemed to be going so swimmingly well for the coalition, led by the US with the UK France and Italy etc chipping in to see what crumbs might fall their way, until recently. Countless cruise missiles and bombing sorties later, with Gaddafi’s air force removed from the equation, along with munitions dumps and artillery, and the rebel forces of the Benghazi based National Transitional Council (also known as the Interim National Council or the Libyan National Council) seemingly heading inexorably towards the gates of Tripoli, Obama decides to hand the whole operation over to NATO in an apparent effort to sidestep the need to send US ground troops in. Probably not precisely what the UK and the other hangers on were hoping for, less still the leaders of the National Transitional Council in Benghazi. No sooner then do the bombing raids stop than all the ground that the rebels gained with the support of the foreign offensive is immediately lost as the rebels hightail it back to whence they had come.

It is hard now to predict just how this fiasco will eventually pan out, especially as it seems that the rebels no longer have control over any oil bearing territory worth writing home about. The US is not going to entertain the thought of committing ground troops for very good reason, the UK hasn’t got any and is being defeated in Afghanistan, yet again, and the others, France and Italy etc, probably never intended to in the first instance. Meanwhile, Libyan assets have been frozen and the shambolic rabble that represents the alternative to Gaddafi has run out of ammo and is probably going to be running out of other more basic essentials very soon too. The only good development to have emerged thus far is that despite all the quite justified support for the conspiracy theory of history over the years, this particular event definitely gives a major boost to adherents of the cock up persuasion.

Given that the coalition partners had been doing so much lucrative business with Libya of late and they didn’t have the advantages availed to George and Tony by the World Trade centre attack in order to stitch Gaddafi up the way they did with Saddam, they had to be more circumspect when it came to flouting inconveniences like the UN. The disturbing question then is: what intelligence did they have to convince themselves of success? Surely they weren’t swayed by the claims of Gaddafi’s ex justice minister, Mustafa Adbel-Jalil, and newsreels of the smiling rebel ‘army’ confidently waving peace signs and firing off rounds with their AKs from the backs of pick-up trucks prematurely celebrating victory. Now that their ordinance is running low, they may be reminded of the sage words of one of the most celebrated military figures in recent history to have toured Libya, Erwin Rommel, when he said: “The victor is he who has the last round in his magazine.”

Perhaps it really is that bad though. Perhaps in their enthusiasm to thump Gaddafi, the coalition’s judgement has ultimately been clouded by the confidence of Abdel-Jalil and the rebels. And perhaps they aren’t the only ones to have been taken in.

No matter how painful the events may be to many, clearly there are more pressing matters at hand in Libya at the moment than an atrocity dating back almost a quarter of a century and a conviction now some ten years old. Nevertheless, as all good carpetbaggers know, where there is war, there is opportunity. And while the news is largely dominated by the military conflict, HMG and the British Crown seem to have seen fit to try to exploit what leverage they can to bolster the official line in the UK that Abdelbaset al-Megrahi was justly convicted in Kamp van Zeist in 2001 of bombing PA103 over Lockerbie on the back of this current turmoil. Three main elements to theses shenanigans have thus far emerged into the public domain: Abdel-Jalil’s ‘evidence’ of Libyan involvement in the Lockerbie bombing, what Mr Koussa may know about it, and finally, the recent attempts of a British lawyer to persuade the rebel leaders to incriminate Libya for involvement in a range of terrorist activities.

From the earliest days of the Libyan rebellion, Abdel-Jalil claimed that he had incontrovertible proof that Mr al-Megrahi had done the deed and that Colonel Gaddafi had been behind it. This, of course, generated much enthusiasm in Westminster as it provided a moral platform for the military action. Then on April Fools Day no less, we were treated to the stunning revelation from Abdel-Jalil that his proof amounted to no more than the fact that he knew that Colonel Gaddafi had supported Mr al-Megrahi throughout his incarceration. Oh dear. If the Champagne corks had already been popped in anticipation at 25 Chambers Street, not to worry. As Napoléon used to say: “In victory, you deserve it, in defeat, you need it.” Before Abdel-Jalil had finished though, he pointed out that Moussa Koussa, the Libyan Minister of Foreign Affairs and former head of the Libyan Intelligence Agency, who had recently defected to the UK, would be able to provide more details. End of round one then.

Mr Koussa is well-known to political circles in London and has been for many years. Most recently, he was key to the negotiations which brought Libya back into the international fold, and in those surrounding Mr al-Megrahi’s release, meeting with both UK and Scottish political figures in that regard in 2008 and 2009. When he arrived in the UK on the 30th of March, politicians and the media claimed that he had defected. Indeed, there was much bluster for public consumption about his not being immune from prosecution. Despite the fact that some media outlets portrayed Mr Koussa’s arrival in the UK as being comparable to that of Rudolf Hess’s in 1941, nothing could be further from the truth. Moussa Koussa is probably closer to being an éminence grise in Libyan politics than Hess ever was in the Third Reich. He prefers to maintain a low profile, rather in keeping with his choice of suits; for his 2008 UK visit for example, he travelled under the guise of an interpreter. It is highly likely, therefore, that his most recent trip was not quite so unexpected as it came over in the press at the time, and furthermore, he may have come as a negotiator, with all the necessary diplomatic protection well in place before the trip was made. This appears to be confirmed as he has now departed the UK for a conference in Qatar completely unhindered. The UK authorities say that he is welcome to return when ever he wishes.

Where then does this leave the talk of interviewing him on the subject of Lockerbie by the Crown and Dumfries and Galloway Constabulary? It is all looking very embarrassing. It is extremely unlikely that anything was learned in the interview that wasn’t already known, namely: that Libya didn’t do it. Nevertheless, representatives of the Crown and Dumfries and Galloway Constabulary were put up in a hotel in London for a week before eventually meeting Mr Koussa. Having concluded their interview they refused to divulge its content since to do so might compromise their on-going investigation. One must bear in mind here that, despite Lord Advocate Elish Angiolini’s persistent abuse of the word ‘team’ to describe the number of officers working on the on-going Lockerbie case, until the arrival of Mr Koussa, Dumfries and Galloway Constabulary had allocated an entire ‘team’ to the job consisting of just one officer. So, what happens now? Yet more on-going file management by the sole officer, the Crown will maintain that to talk publicly about the interview could damage the ‘investigation’, and the great unwashed will be kept in their usual mushroom culture. The long and the short of it is that if they had had any road to Damascus experience in London, they’d have been singing it from the roof tops. Not that they would have revealed any details, however, one might have expected comments along the lines of: ‘highly productive … most informative … new leads … confirms our evidence and the verdict … etc’. At least they probably knew not to bother taking any Champagne with them for this particular little wheeze.

Meanwhile, back in Libya, there is the question of British lawyer to the celebs, Jason McCue [An illuminating profile of Mr McCue]. Prospects are not looking good for the Libyan rebels at the moment: they have lost all the territorial gains they made during the coalition bombing raids, they are rapidly running out of ordinance, and now, they cannot gain access to money to pay civil service salaries or buy basic essentials due to the fact that Libyan assets abroad have been frozen. But help, it appears, may be at hand. According to officials of Abdel-Jalil’s Benghazi based National Transitional Council, the council came under pressure to invite Mr McCue to talks with them. They understood that Mr McCue was representing a group of British diplomats led by the UK’s ambassador to Rome, Christopher Prentice. It appears that McCue is heading up something called the Libya Victims Initiative, which he says is seeking an unequivocal apology from Libya for international crimes carried out by the Gaddafi regime including Lockerbie and deaths resultant from IRA activities where Libyan supplied Semtex was employed. For the IRA victims he claims to be asking for $10,000,000 in compensation for every fatality. The National Transitional Council says that it has in fact signed such a document, however, from a statement by their spokesman, Essam Gheriani, this appears to have been done under duress and in the hope of alleviating their dire circumstances. Since Lockerbie was mentioned in connection with this initiative, Justice for Megrahi (JFM) investigated whether or not any of the UK families had sanctioned Mr McCue’s adventure and drew a blank. On the other side of The Pond, Mr Frank Duggan, who frequently represents the main body of the US Lockerbie victims, claims that Mr McCue has no backing from them. This then leaves the rebels contention that Mr McCue seems to be representing HMG’s interests as feasible. Ambassador Prentice has declined to comment.

If The National Transitional Council and the reports in the press are to be believed, the story seems to be the following. Abdel-Jalil reveals that his proof of Gaddafi’s involvement in Lockerbie turns out to be nothing more than an embarrassing joke. It is also likely that Moussa Koussa has added little or nothing to bolster the Zeist conviction of Mr al-Megrahi, something which was doubtless known all along. So, what to do? The National Transitional Council rebels have presented the UK and others with the best opportunity in years to give Gaddafi a bloody nose and get their hands on the Libyan mineral wealth, unfortunately however, they are in a desperate situation. Solution: kill two birds with one stone. Send in McCue to promise them that we will do everything we can to free up Libyan assets abroad thus allowing them to get hold of much needed essentials just so long as they sign a document admitting that Libya was responsible for Lockerbie and other sins. And the person doing the signing, of course, is the very man who has just recently demonstrated publicly that he has no actual proof that Gaddafi or al-Megrahi were in fact behind Lockerbie.

If there is any truth behind the suggestion that HMG has sanctioned McCue to go to Libya to do a spot of ambulance chasing, this must constitute one of the most revolting developments of the conflict thus far.

Never mind for now the circus that was Zeist: the fact that Luqa comes out with a clean bill of health, as does flight KM180; the Heathrow break in; the Bedford suitcase; the dubious print out from Frankfurt Airport; the fairy tale story of how a suitcase managed to get from Malta to Heathrow unaccompanied and undetected; the financial ‘inducements’ provided to Crown witnesses; the multitude of discrepancies in Tony Gauci’s testimony; forensic testimony for the Crown by discredited witnesses; the bizarre circumstances surrounding the fragment of printed circuit board; the Lumpert affidavit; the conduct of US representatives in the well of the court; and, the fact that the Crown played the roles of prosecutor, judge and jury. Put all that to one side for a moment and instead consider the amount of effort that has gone into obfuscation and the blocking of any moves to have Mr al-Megrahi’s conviction independently investigated. Justice for Megrahi was founded around the back end of 2008 precisely because it was felt that it was no longer sufficient to depend solely on applying judicial pressure in the hope of addressing this problem, particularly given the way in which the Crown had planned to hear Mr al-Megrahi’s second appeal. In short, it was time to become more political. Since JFM’s founding some two and a half years ago, we have had: the dropping of the second appeal in highly questionable circumstances; the Scottish government claiming that it didn’t have the power to open an inquiry, then after a year of correspondence, having to back down and admit that it does; HMG’s Foreign Secretary claiming that an inquiry would not be in the public interest; the Lord Advocate, Elish Angiolini, apparently feeding erroneous advice to the Scottish Government regarding the status of the case; the passing of emergency legislation, more akin to that found under fascist regimes, handing unprecedented new powers to the Crown regarding which cases to accept and reject for appeal hearings; the publication of the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission’s (SCCRC) Statement of Reasons being blocked; the government claiming that entirely unnecessary and time consuming legislation will be required to enable it to publish the SCCRC’s Statement of reasons; a standard of polemic being employed by the Lord Advocate which is more consistent with that which one expects from a child at kindergarten; claims that one police officer constitutes a team; and now, if the reports are accurate, HMG seems to be employing someone to go ambulance chasing in Libya to get some signatures confessing to crimes it is highly doubtful that the Libyans had either anything to do with or know anything about. All in all, it beggars belief. It has clearly escaped the attention of the authorities that there is one rather simple way of avoiding all this complicated subterfuge and endless embarrassment: open an independent inquiry.

There is an ancient Chinese curse which goes along the lines of: ‘May you live in interesting times’. The Chinese, of course, know all about British ‘diplomacy’ for when the UK failed to obtain the trade concessions it wanted from China in the 19th century, the Victorians promptly attempted to get the Chinese hooked on Opium. This resulted in war. If it is true that Mr McCue is doing some carpet-bagging at the behest of HMG, it is not hard to imagine Colonel Gaddafi, or even Abdel-Jalil now, casting an Arabic version of the same curse in the direction of Whitehall. We live in most interesting times indeed.

Iman al-Obeidi Alleges More State Abuse

June 4/5, 2011
last update June 7

Rape Victim or Threat to Libya? 
I've covered Iman al-Obeidi only in passing at this blog so far, even though she's quite famous and important to most observers as the face of regime rape in Libya. My thinking is even if the rape allegations ganging up on Gaddafi are all disinformation, it really should have a better face than that. More evidence should exist, and it was to that I turned.

Her story is so crucial because of her powerful attention-grabbing entrance, among the more visually convenient moments of the propaganda war. She was detained for taking an allegation of a serious crime not to the proper authorities, but to the Rixos hotel, during a press conference. There, foreign media outlets hungrily took in her emotional account, note the bruises and marks that proved some type of abuse (rope marks around ankles, none around wrists), and photographed her unnerving arrest and removal.

The journalists' home nations were at the same time attacking, with high-tech bombs, Libya's government and system for any excuse that could be found. It's all but impossible to imagine a parallel situation where an American woman's words could have the kind of effect on the homeland that hers could on her own land in that context. I imagine the American Iman in that parallel universe would be dragged off and likely shot (it'd be a different country, really).

Whereabouts

Both her initial reported gang rape by soldiers and her enthusiastic introduction to fame are covered widely elsewhere, but not well enough. I won't try to fix that, however, until I've been able to look closer.

But she was dragged away by sinister Gaddafi thugs before she was done telling all. Western journalists were duly skeptical of the government's story of where she was afterwards. They said jail and then a crisis shelter, standard for Libyan rape victims who suffer additional social stigma unknown to Americans. But surely she was locked away being brainwashed into recanting, tortured for the hell of it, raped again, or just plain dead. Silenced, one way or another, it was suspected.

But she re-appeared, and was able to speak with western media on numerous occasions and told the same story. She was allowed apparent freedom of movement, but spoke of threats all around - a certain man who gave her a certain look, and so on, sending subtle messages. Clearly, she hinted, and the press amplified, she was afraid for her life there under the government's gaze.

Meanwhile, the men she had accused prepared a counter-suit for libel. Con artists and the truly threatened - two classes of people who like to skip town.

She said she felt trapped, and she wasn't allowed to leave legally. But in early May, about six weeks after making her allegation to some very accepting foreign enemies, she fled easily enough to Tunisia, with a simple disguise and the help of an army traitor. This "hero" was probably hired by the rebel council (TNC) to bring her to Benghazi before the upcoming trial exposed her as a fraud. 

From there, she wound up, reportedly with rebel help, in Doha Qatar, Arab capitol of rebel support.

A Rough Return Trip
For some reason, she was just now and to much protest all around shipped back to Libya. She landed in Benghazi, not Tripoli, but it was against her will, she says, and she was beaten up in the process.

Speaking to CNN on Thursday after she arrived in Benghazi, in eastern Libya, Ms. Obeidy said that she had been beaten, handcuffed and forced onto a Qatari military plane. A Libyan opposition activist who met Ms. Obeidy in Benghazi told CNN on Friday that she had a black eye, bruises on her legs and scratches on her arms. [source]

Not only Gaddafi's thugs, but even Qatar's security forces can't keep their hands off this woman, even scratching at her like wild animals, it would seem. It must be some energy she exudes, but the protests have already come in that Qatar has abused her Human Rights

I doubt we've heard the last of that. Is it possible she beat herself up to hurl accusations against anyone who doesn't do things her way? Yes, if the trick had previously been used and rewarded. How long till the rebels currently protecting her allegedly toss her through a first-floor (open) window?

The UK Daily Fail says right out she was "sent BACK to Gaddafi," which would be right - she's got a libel trial to show up at and defend her possibly lying self. But that's not how it happened, and that's not why she was sent back.

Why?
Al-Obeidi was sent back, against her own will, international law, and even the wishes of the United States. As noted in a strangely-titled AFP article "US scores Qatar deportation of alleged Libyan rape victim."

US officials had repeatedly asked the Qatari government to allow Iman Obeidi to "travel with UNHCR (High Commissioner for Refugees) officials to a safe third country," State Department deputy spokesman Mark Toner said.
"So we were disappointed at her forced return (to Libya), and we believe it's a breach of humanitarian norms," Toner said.

Associated Press

Sybella Wilkes, spokeswoman for the United Nations' refugee organization, added that Al-Obeidi was a recognized refugee.
And she said there was not any 'good reason' why she was deported from Doha, where she sought refuge last month.
Human Rights Watch said 'this kind of deportation' was ilelegal under international law.

If they're breaking the law for "no good reason" that's evident, trust that there's a good reason. You just can't see it, and should ask why. One site offers, as speculation, that since "Qatar has formally recognized the rebel regime in Benghazi," Qatar perhaps "thinks that this recognition means that it is OK to deport al-Obeidi to territory under control of a "legitimate" regime." But that just seems inadequate.

Besides the violation of will, emotional stress, etc. there's physical danger, some fear.

Asked if her life is at risk in opposition-held areas, [Mark] Toner replied: "It's difficult to say. We believe her life is clearly at risk in Libya... We've expressed our concern to the TNC that her security be looked at."

What the hell? "Clearly in danger"" How is that clear? She lived in Tripoli itself, at the government's total mercy, for six weeks, always afraid for her safety and of being silenced, but allowed to complain of it endlessly to journalists, without once being killed. So she's paranoid. She wasn't even kept under control enough to prevent her flight abroad.

Now we're to be worried that some sleeper cell of Gaddafi loyalists inside Benghazi is going to do what? Kill her now after she's told the story a dozen times, had the world believed it, and has now discredited herself by accusing yet another government of serious abuse? There's no logical reason to do that or to suspect anyone of planning to do so. This threat might have finally defused itself.

The main danger to her life is the possible propaganda value such a ridiculous assassination would hold - she may risk a false-flag "silencing." It might provide enough push to finally topple the regime what killed that poor martyr for freedom. Barring that, the alleged sleeper cell attack could at least justify a bloody purge of fifth columnists within Benghazi.

Her hysterical energy and initial chutzpah has been recognized by the entrepreneurs at the TNC as an asset - and an abundant one. Expect a squeeze. Something spurred the Qataris to make this unpopular decision. Perhaps it was the advice of the foreign sinister Moussa Koussa, from Doha helping steer the war against Gaddafi.

Anyway, for whatever reason, someone in Qatar decided she'd be of most use in the war effort closer to such perceived dangers. If she winds up "silenced" by a loyalist attack, or just has an "attempt" made, please note that I called it.
---
Update June 5/7: That was short-lived. She's being sent to Malta, reportedly, along with her father this time, or perhaps to Italy, and thence onto Romania, as previously planned.  Has a note of attempted, quiet finality to it. Perhaps the unexpected Qatari "beating" along with the flight was the last straw. Thank goodness. As you can see, that move was "weirding me out."

Nouri al-Mesmari, and Paris

April 24 2011
last update June 1

At the center of Franco Bechis' allegations of a pre-planned Libyan civil war is one Libyan defector and his hosts in Paris, France. Nouri al-Mesmari, formerly head of state protocol for Libya, is clearly of a shared spirit with those who've left service to side with the rebellion. But unlike the rest, seems to have split off from the Gaddafi regime four months before the February 17 uprising, rather than in the days and weeks after. In that time, he instead spoke to the world from Paris, as seen at left (al Jazeera, February 27).

And as for what he did with this four month head start, we have a report from Italian journalist Franco Bechis suggesting that with French support, Nouri al-Mesmari helped pre-arrange the rebellion-to-regime change in Libya that is still awkwardly unfolding. [1] Not all of Bechis' sources are verified to my satisfaction, but it's all consistent with what we do know (to be explained separately) and worth consideration. Following is an abbreviated chronology, drawn from that:

Oct. 20 2010 - Mesmari flies off to Tunisia, with his immediate family, for "health reasons" (heart-related).
Oct. 21 - The family is in France, reports Maghreb Confidential.
Nov. 28 - Libya issues an arrest warrant for Mesmari, for embezzlement of state funds. He's put under house arrest the next day.
Dec. 12 - An alleged meeting is held, in Paris, between al-Mesmari and three high-level members of the opposition February 17 movement.
Dec. 15 - He's released for irregularities, making his detention illegal, and housed at liberty on the state dime in a fancy hotel.
Feb 5 - Gaddafi’s son Moatassim returns alone after a week in Paris trying to presuade Mesmari to come back to Libya
Feb 1-16: The regime launches pre-emptive arrests of protest leaders (including the three who reportedly met Mesmari) and February 17 leader Jamal al Hajj, who had called for the uprising to happen.
Feb 15 - Protests begin two days ahead of the called-for "Day of Rage," marking a Benghazi uprising 15 years earlier. Violence flares from the start, with police stations and such attacked. Predictably, the state cracks down with counter-violence in numerous cities. Regime change wouldn't happen the way it did in Tunisia and Egypt.
Feb 18-22 - "Protesters" somehow seize all cities on the northeast coast and several cities in the west. They vow to topple the regime and, ideally, to kill Gaddafi.
Feb 22 - In protest, Mesmari formally resigns and joins the rebels, from Paris, on live TV. It's his first public appearance. As he said to al Jazeera on the 27th, complaining of the later defectors and resignations:

"Some of them are just resigning lately because they found out there is no choice for them only to resign. Why they did not do it from the beginning, from the starting? But at the moment, they didn't know that it would be successful. And now because it is the end of it, everybody is resigning."

Again, that was only ten days and about 400 dead into the civil war he allegedly helped engineer.

Reasons for Leaving Previous Job (please explain fully)
In the days after his resignation, al-Mesmari gave several TV interviews, in which he described himself as "a pure diplomat," who never participated in Gaddafi's terror machine, never tried to "polish his face," and "never been around with him." "I am [was] in charge of the diplomacy in Libya," he told al Jazeera on February 27. "Relationship with the embassies. And you can reference to those embassies how I was with them." [2] According the French news site Jeune Afrique, he also did things like arrange for the travel of world leaders in Libya, and even handled the routing of monthly payments from the treasury to col. Gaddafi's children. [3]

Mr. al-Mesmari has a lean and unsettled look, but adorned with with an artsy glasses-and-goatee combo, frequently dyed hair, and occasional Gaddafi-esque designer military costumes. Alex Lantier at the World Socialist Website describes him as "a prominent pro-free-market reformer in the Libyan ruling elite." [4] Considering the February 17 leaders are described (by another leftist at the Monthly Review) as western-educated "entrepreneurs," [5] this might give us a taste of the freedoms they seek. But I've yet to see (direct) supporting evidence of any of their economic inclinations.

Business intelligence site Maghreb Confidential reported on his arrival in France "normally, Mesmari sticks closely to his boss’s side, so there’s some talk that he may have broken his long-standing tie with the Libyan leader.” [4] But he's never given a reason for splitting, aside from the regime' response to protests in February. Until then he was in France for "health reasons" only. The exact motives behind his flight can't be known for sure, but if he'd decided to split with Tripoli, two possibilities pop to mind.

Perhaps a deeper reason, as Jeune Afrique reported, "the gunshot murder of his son in 2007, disguised as a suicide by authorities." [3] That must have an interesting back-story (no further details available). However, the immediate temporal trigger has been speculated as a public slap to the face from col. Gadddafi, for some disappointment, at a mid-October African Union conference in Sirte. [3] He was in Paris within eleven days after that.

A month into his unscheduled vacation, Tripoli issued the arrest warrant over stolen money. If the Jeune Afrique report is correct, he might have access to state funds and perhaps decided to steal some he felt entitled to. Asked in if he had enriched himself under Gaddafi's rule, he responded:

Thanks to God I never done it, I - thanks to my family I can - I come from a rich family, I have even some of the wealth of my family have been monopolized [nationalized], and I am still struggling to get it back. I never enriched myself, I never touched the house of the people ... [6]

Jeune Afrique also noted Mesmari "is the son of a former minister of the monarchy, but he broke with his past by trading his name to that of Ben Shaban his tribe." [3] And he had his family money partly swallowed by the state, and his son potentially murdered by it. This is a man with grievances. However, these charges were only filed after he'd flown unauthorized to France, and it's not likely they only "noticed the money missing" after that. He was wanted back, but probably for something else. French inteligence DGSE called him a "Libyan wikileaks," according to Bechis. [1]

Libya tried hard to convey forgiveness and entice the defector back. On December 16, a state media official named Abdallah Mansour tried to meet with Mesmari in Paris, but was arrested. [1] At the end of January, the leader's son Moatassim Gaddafi was allowed to have meetings, but was unable to convince Nouri to return.

"[Gaddafi] left Paris alone on February 5. The son of Muammar Kadhafi, who had been staying at the luxury Bristol hotel since late January, failed to persuade Nuri Mesmari to return home. [...] While claiming 'everything has now been resolved’ with Libya, Mesmari seems reluctant to return without iron-clad 'guarantees.’" [4]

Or, alternately, he had a hunch the regime he was being invited to re-join would soon be overthrown. If any uprising or revolt was planned, February 17 would be the obvious zero day. Mesmari's unwillingness to return less than two weeks before this, might well have been taken as a bad omen.

Alleged Contacts, Notable Surprises
But the planners in Benghazi and the defectori in Paris appear on the surface as just ships passing in the night. Libyan rebel site Feb17.info included this in an article on post-rebellion defections:

A less expected deserter, however, was Nouri Mesmari, Libyan Chief of Protocol. Because of his long history of loyalty to the Gaddafi and his regime, Mesmari’s televised statement of resignation given on Tuesday from Paris (where he was staying for “health reasons”) came as a shock to Libyans around the world. [7]

Not necessarily so to those he'd been talking with secretly - including the GDSE. But to the rest of us outside that loop, the surprises kept coming from Paris. Well known for rejecting Cowboy Bush's Iraq war back in 2003, France took the lead in this UN Security Council-approved mission to keep Gaddafi from "bombing his own people." This "no-fly zone" acted as a trojan horse, releasing on Libya an unathorized full-on air campaign for regime change. From protecting innocents to tactical air support for rebel forces, the way was led, unexpectedly, by Sarkozy's France, the very nation that had hosted Mr. al-Mesmari. Coincidence?

His knowledge of the regime and the future are not so useful (see below) but his contacts apparently were. According to Bechis, he spoke with intelligence people while under custody, and put them on the path to contacting a potent clandestine dissident. This was Libyan Air Force colonel Gehani, whom agents managed to meet with in mid-November in Benghazi. [1]

Gehani then talked to whoever he did, and as the 15-year anniversary of the February 17 uprising drew nearer, three leaders of the group of that name reportedly flew to Paris and met with Mesmari. Bechis gives these as Fathi Boukhris, Farj Charrani, and Ali Ounes Mansouri, all arrested prior to the uprising, along with col. Gehani. [1] But as Bechis notes, it was too little too late - they'd managed to convey something from up north, steeling the resolve of those less known who remained at liberty and moved so effectively two weeks later.

More small clues in interviews
There are very few sources around of his words since "coming out" to the world as anti-Gaddafi. There are his two TV interviews of the February 23rd, available on Youtube. One in Arabic, channel unknown. [8] I cannot tell what he's saying, but he's got an odd and unhappy face. One eye blinks incessantly, the other - apparently prosthetic - not at all. It's this, plus his demeanor - awkward cadence, frequent devolution to frustrated shouting - that led one commentator to feel that

"[At] any moment, tentacles could burst from his chest to shoot acid or bat-like brain parasites at the studio crew. It makes me very uneasy to watch him, and my cats refuse to be in the same room when he is on the screen." [9]

A much longer video, done in English, was aired the same day on Qatar-based al Jazeera (in standard media disclosure form, it should be noted that Qatar is heavily underwriting the Libyan civil war which al Jazeera has reported on so partially). He discusses there the state of Gaddafi's regime now, from what he's seen on TV. Mercenaries have replaced the military, which has all either defected or was were in danger of such. "He has no more trust in the armed forces," he said, because they "let him down and went to the people." [6]

Four days later, he again spoke of a survival instinct among those who still remained loyal, to escape prosecution for past crimes abroad. [3] The free-form defection of Foreign Secretary Musa Kusa, who flew to London and then left for Qatar without being arrested for either Lockerbie or the Yvonne Fletcher shooting, again shows Mesmari's poor predictive skills. Mr. Kusa is currently living in Qatar, it must be noted, deciding not to taunt the brits by waltzing in - and out - again with his secret formula. [10] He remains there now, as the Qatari Mesmari.

From what he says to al Jazeera, the French one has not so much usable inteligence as well-rehearesed rebel talking points. For example, throughout these interviews, Mr. Mesmari and his anti-Gaddafi co-guests all agree in denying any silly talk of a civil war. That is Gaddafi propaganda to scare people, they all said in late Feruary, one whole week into it. The people as a whole, east and west, and the government, and the military, and the tribal leaders, had risen up unanymously in rejection of the governmnet.

Yet in coming weeks, all cities in the west reverted to government control with relative ease, aside from the vital and strategically-reinforced Misrata. Otherwise, as the front has stayed around or in Ajdabiya in the east, this really does look like an east-west civil war here with a few more weeks to feel it out. These are sometime solved by partition, which none of the rebels or western leaders seem favorable towards. They seem to require a full take-over.

Around 14:20 in the video, Mesmari almost seems to be reading from a teleprompter positioned below the camera. He seems to be moving his head to follow scrolling text, once stumbling over a word and having to catch up quickly. (14:48). If so, he's only getting prompts, not any well-written script (that would sound unnatural, wouldn't it?). What he says in that block is interesting:

"The time is coming and the date is coming and it is very short. Nobody saw it, nobody was expecting this revolution of my compatriots. They never expected. They just got upset, and they went so quickly. So quickly. They didn't receive any international aid. And I feel very sorry that the international aid is coming only now, and it is too late. They let my people down. Children, old people, old women dying in the streets, and God - knows - wherearetheir bodies now, buried - some - where" [2]

So the revolt was planned to happen a little more slowly, I gather, and with better material support at the very outset (remember, this complaint came only ten days after the Day of Rage). As far as I can tell, he pretty much went quiet after this period. But the plan he might have helped set up was well under way and other players - inside "free Libya," in world capitols and board rooms, in TV studios and command centers - were taking center stage in shaping the long-awaited new nation.

Sources:
[1] Bechis, Franco. "Sarkozy manovra la rivolta libica." Libero March 23 2011. Original text (Italian): http://www.stampalibera.com/?p=24406
[2] Interview with Mesmari. "Inside Story." Al Jazeera. February 27 2011. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ObAbe2CvjjA
[3] Barrouhi Abdelaziz. "Fin de partie pour Mesmari." Jeune Afrique. December 7 2010. (Google translation used) Original URL: http://www.jeuneafrique.com/Article/ARTJAJA2604p021.xml0/arrestation-mouammar-kaddafi-seif-el-islam-detournement-de-fondsfin-de-partie-pour-mesmari.html
[4] Lantier, Alex. "Reports suggest French intelligence encouraged anti-Gaddafi protests." World Socialist Website (WSWS). March 28 2011. http://wsws.org/articles/2011/mar2011/inte-m28.shtml
[5] Prashad, Vijay. MR zine, Monthly Review. April 2 3011. http://mrzine.monthlyreview.org/2011/libya030411p.html
[6] Interview with Mesmari. "Inside Story." Al Jazeera. February 23 2011. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9uUNZDD1LAE
[7] It's Easy to Jump a Sinking Ship. By contributor "F4T1." Posted February 28 2011. http://feb17.info/editorials/it’s-easy-to-jump-a-sinking-ship
[8] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TmGYl2YlWNo
[9] http://www.rumproast.com/index.php/site/comments/note_to_al_jazeera_for_the_love_of_god_please_stop_interviewing_nouri_masoo/
[10] Daily Mail. April 14. http://m.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1377043/Libya-Anger-Musa-Kusa-allowed-flee.html

Desperate for Recognition / Gambia?

May 24 2011
last edits June 3 2011

Desperation in Action
It seems the pathetic puppets of the Libyan rebel Transitional National Council (TNC) are craving recognition; that is, as the legitimate government of all Libya. They're still outnumbered on the ground, in Libya, by people who reject their insane rebellion. And they still lack the official nod from the mighty US and the UK, for somewhat murky reasons, but have had for some time now that honor from a triad of large-ish players - France, Italy, and Qatar, plus a few later additions.

Perhaps hoping to start a fad out of it, the TNC has been caught stretching the truth a little as to who else was willing to call NATO's ragtag, "outunmbered" foot soldiers "the government of Libya."
Radio Australia News, May 6

Several countries have denied claims they have recognised a rebel council as the valid government of Libya.

Rebels in Benghazi have claimed that Canada, Denmark, Spain and the Netherlands have become the latest states to recognise the council, which was set up to rival the regime of Colonel Moammar Gadaffi.

However three of those governments - Spain, Canada and the Netherlands - have denied the rebels' claims.

Denmark had also denied it, in a perfect four-for-four fail. Reuters, May 5

Denmark denied on Thursday that it had officially recognized Libya’s Transitional National Council (TNC) of rebels, but said it did recognize the organization as a relevant partner for dialogue.

That's not how it was supposed to work. They were supposed to be so inspired the rebels' proud proclamation to go ahead and confirm the allegation by recognizing the TNC. That it failed is a somewhat bad sign for them, and something they obviously should not have tried.

The Ones Not Joined: The Triad
those who do recognize the rebels as the legitimate arbiters of Libya's future are a telling lot with each their own unstated true motives. There are six total, last I heard, and we should start with the main and original three, France, Qatar, and Italy.

France was the visionary leader in proclaiming the future of Libya. Little surprise, given they hosted a defector from late 2010 who reportedly helped France link up with and assist coup plotters at home. This was apparently sewn into the planned February protests, which did instantly turn to a suprisingly effective military campaign to take over the whole country. After this happened, the French were the first to recognize the rebels, and loudest in promoting and carrying out high-tech air support for their advance to Tripoli. They were reportedly promised a third of all Libyan oil contracts around the same time they started this little club.

The Persian Gulf Island state of Qatar is an authoritarian capitalist Islamic petro-kingdom, not unlike Bahrain where the US has given a nod to a repression of protesters worse than anything Gaddafi's forces actually did. Qatar was, I believe, the second nation to join France's club and recognizing the rebels. Qatar is reportedly helping manage the first of Eastern Libya's oil exports, and they've hosted both a top-level meeting on Libya's future, and their top defector, Moussa Koussa. This reviled but apparently immune foreign minister and longtime regime villain is reportedly, from Qatar, helping NATO identify buildings to bomb in the hopes of killing Gaddafi. Er, taking out command and control.

Qatar has also helped all along with, at the very least, the Qatari-owned Arab news juggernaut al Jazeera. The network's coverage of this uprising has been notably irresponsible and alarmist, especially at first when it mattered most and helped fuel the chaos Qatar is now profiting from.

Italy was I think the third to join, but as I recall, had been the first in all the world to declare Gaddafi's government non-existent. This really cuts more to the chase, doesn't it? Thay have a history in Libya too deep for me to touch yet, a huge current dependence on their oil, and so on. They also, it's said, have a lot to lose, many outstanding arrangements, but these were cut off with the early decision to erase the old regime. It's only the later decision to directly support the rebels, with diplomatically and militarily, that has caused problems selling the idea at home under Berlusconi's shaky leadership. A more robust involvement in line with France and Qatar, or the US and UK for that matter, is thus unlikely to come from Italy.

The Other Three
As for who else has joined the original three, I've seen two versions, but I'm going with the latter.
RadioAustralia:

France, Italy, Qatar and Ghana have already recognised the National Transitional Council, which is based in the rebel stronghold of Benghazi, as the legitimate representative of the Libyan people.

China Daily, May 4

So far six countries -- France, Italy, Qatar, Maldives, Kuwait and The Gambia -- have officially recognized the rebels' "lawful status" in Libya.

Both Ghana and Gambia are in sub-Saharan, western Africa. Either would be an odd choice, odd enough to consider the one I find better supported, Gambia, seperately below. Maldives, a nation of tiny islands south of India - I have no insights on their reasons. Sorry.

Kuwait, however, is another Gulf state like Qatar and Bahrain. It has no appetite for its own protesters, but Gaddafi's they seem to be lapping at. They have probably the same interests in oil as Qatar, and likely some plans to promote their best ideas of Islam in Libya, or whatever.

And, as the originators of the war-enabling Iraqi army baby incubators story, Kuwait's royals have to be quite impressed with one aspect of this war. A legion of impersonators of that scripted PR episode has been flowing from the rebel side in an unprecedented info war (snipers shooting kids, mass rapes by Afro-mercs on viagra, targetting the faithful at the mosque on a Friday, chemical warfare plans, etc.)

Gambia Recognizes the Rebels?
But I see no obvious reason for sub-Saharan Africans to support the rebels, and a few decent reasons for them to specifically support Gaddafi. (At least ideologically, if not in practice). To join this small club usually takes some solid interest and a little bit of risk on the world stage.

Gaddafi's pan-African vision, and generous aid to help the continent develop and, eventualy, unify, are popular in countries like Ghana and Gambia. Both are cited (Ghana perhaps in error) as recognizing the rebels, who hate Gaddafi's pan-African vision, and represent some nasty racists who - at least briefly - hated black Africans enough to kill probably hundreds. And they captured many more, nearly universally for the crime of "African mercenary."(side-note: an okay article from Gambia on the "mercenaries" allegations)


Gambia, or The Gambia, a tiny nation that's mostly a river on the western apex of Africa, is not a natural addition to the club. What interest do they have in creating the new Libya? All I'm aware of in particular linking the two countries is a number of foreign workers in Libya captured by rebels. One with an interesting story hailed from Gambia before being arrested, and then shown to Western journalists, as a foreign Gaddafi-paid mercenary. LA Times, March 23 related his account after he suddenly spoke up out of turn:

"I am a worker, not a fighter. They took me from my house and [raped] my wife," he said, gesturing with his hands. Before he could say much more, a pair of guards told him to shut up and hustled him through the steel doors of a cell block, which quickly slammed behind them.

Several reporters protested and the man was eventually brought back out. He spoke in broken, heavily accented English and it was hard to hear and understand him amid the scrum of scribes pushing closer. He said his name was Alfusainey Kambi, and again professed innocence before being confronted by an opposition official, who produced two Gambian passports. One was old and tattered and the other new. And for some reason, the official said the documents were proof positive that Kambi was a Kadafi operative.
[...]
[O]ur interpreter, a Libyan national, asked [LA Times reported David] Zucchino: "So what do you think? Should we just go ahead and kill them?"

Even when the charges are clearly unsafe, there's a possible motive for the rebel captors in such cases to stubbornly insist their wards are in fact criminal mercenaries. Guilty until proven innocent has always been the standard against Gaddafi, and the rebels know this. Those familiar with the US justice system know similar attitudes all too easily stick to people of color, and deep-east Libya seems to have the same problem.

This allows them to hold people, who want to go home and have homes that want them. That could, to a shrewd and unethical mind, present an opportunity - bargain the return of these men "guilty, er, possibly guilty of very serious crimes, punishable by death in our laws," in exchange for, "oh, say ... diplomatic recognition?"

A Precedent? The Southern Tribes
Other captured Afro-mercs, 157 of them taken en masse in and near al-Baida, were seen by an official from Human Rights Watch in early March. He found they were partly southern, black-skinned Libyans of long-native tribes, and partly Libyan dual-nationals from elsewhere in Africa. None were foreign mercenaries as claimed by the rebels. All were reportedly released, but we can't really be sure that was done without any strings attached.

The recent tribal council of May, in Tripoli, was criticized mainly for not haing all the tribes represented there.  Richard Boudreaux, Wall Street Journal:

Absent were eastern tribes and western Berber tribes, which have been hostile to the Col. Gadhafi during his four decades of rule, and tribes from the south that have sought to remain neutral in the 11-week-old uprising.

Most information I see suggests these tribes would and usually do support Gaddafi. They haven't formally embraced the rebels, but have for some reason chosen to sit things out, lessening the tribal array against NATO's upstarts. What is it about the rebels that gives them such a magic touch with their darker-skinned neighbors in and around Libya - this African country they're taking over for the Gulf Arabs and the Euro-Americans?