It is reported that the Strom Daniel that struck eastern Libya has killed thousands of people. However, repeating the death and missing numbers mentioned by the press serves little purpose, as there is no reliable authority capable of providing accurate data related to the disaster, which has allegedly swept thousands into the sea.
In a country torn by power struggles between the Government of National Accord (GNA) and the House of Representatives, supported by the Libyan National Army (LNA) in Tobruk, even the organization of international aid efforts remains a challenge.
I extend my deepest condolences to the suffering people of Libya, hoping they will swiftly overcome these dark days.
While observing the superficial interest of the "modern West" in response to this major catastrophe in the neighboring region, I also contemplate how Libya has reached this dire state. I understand that you are reading other discussions about this incident on global media, and I will address those as well. However, these two topics are intricately connected.
Allow me to elaborate: Today, the skies over Libya are calm, with little activity aside from a few aid planes from a couple of countries other than Türkiye. It's not like the days when France's then-President Nicolas Sarkozy raced to be the first state to bomb Libya in 2011. You may recall that the former French President did not hesitate to violate the no-fly zone declared by the United Nations to stop Moammar Gaddafi, using it as a pretext to bomb the country. Warplanes from France took off and competed with each other to rain bombs from the sky onto Libya on the other side of the Mediterranean. Canada, the United Kingdom, and the Netherlands could only send warplanes much later.
So, what was the rush? Would Gaddafi have inflicted more suffering on his citizens if they had waited a few more hours?
No, the reason was the reflex of the former colonial powers to take the initiative in Libya.
Sarkozy had more specific reasons. He had extremely good relations with Gaddafi until then. Gaddafi had supported Sarkozy's election campaign, even setting up that famous Bedouin tent in the garden next to the Elysee Palace to support Sarkozy in the 2007 elections. However, when their relation soured, Gaddafi threatened to disclose the money he had handed over to Sarkozy.
If they had waited, fewer people would have died, but Sarkozy had to hurry. The chaos that would result in Gaddafi's lynching in Libya had to be deepened urgently, and nothing should have been left standing.
Furthermore, French elections were scheduled just a few months later, and leading the coalition to dismantle Libya could have potentially restored the President's waning prestige domestically. As you know, he lost the 2012 elections. Following the indelible days of brutality in Libya, destruction permeated every aspect of the nation.
The prosperity enjoyed during Gaddafi's era became a distant memory. Foreign nations descended upon the country, virtually depleting its underground resources. Those who had the chance fled, becoming refugees. While the state of rights and freedoms in Libya before 2011 may not have been promising, given the current terrorist environment in the country, it is undeniable that many now yearn for the peace and security of the Gaddafi era.
Yes, the "operation" that began under the name of the Arab Spring dried up the oasis in the desert, and today's storm has swept away what little remained.
Given all these factors, why would the Western media bring up Libya in the context of global warming?
Aside from journalists like myself who recall recent history, isn't it essential for someone to explain to the world that the colossal catastrophe is caused by cows emitting methane and wheat fields contributing to carbon emissions?
By the way, for those who are curious, Sarkozy was arrested in 2018 on charges of "taking money from Gaddafi." Shamefully, he defended himself by claiming he received less money than Gaddafi mentioned. The prison sentences he received as a result of the trial were postponed.
