Archive for the ‘Libya’ Category

Libya, Libya, Libya – Wikipedia

"Libya, Libya, Libya"ArabicTransliterationEnglish translationChorus

Y bilad y biladBijihd wajiladIdfa' kaydal a'adi wa-l'awadiWslam islam islamIslam la-lmadaInnan nanu-lfidLbiy Lbiy Lbiy

Y bilad anti Mrthu-ljuddLa ra'Allahu yadn tamtaddu lakFslam inn 'aladdahri jundLa nubl in salimti man halakWakhud minn wathqti-l'uhdInnan y lbiy lan nakhdilakLan na'ud lil quyudQadd taarrarn waarrarn-lwaanLbiy Lbiy Lbiy

O my country, You're the heritage of my ancestorsMay Allah not bless any hand that tries to harm youBe saved, we are for ever your soldiersNo matter the death toll if you've been savedTake from us the most credential oaths, we won't let you down, LibyaWe will never be enchained againWe are free and have freed our homelandLibya, Libya, Libya!

Y bilad y biladBijihd wajiladIdfa' kaydal a'adi wa-l'awadiWslam islam islamIslam la-lmadaInnan nanu-lfidLbiy Lbiy Lbiy

Jurrudal-ajddu azmn murhafYawma ndhum mundi-lilkifThumma sr yamilna-lmuafBlyadi-l.l wab-l.ukhr-ssilaFa.i f-l'kawni dnun waafWa.i-llamu khayrun waalaFlkhuld liljuddInnahum qad sharraf ha-lwaanLbiy Lbiy Lbiy

Our grandfathers stripped a fine determination when the call for struggle was madeThey marched carrying Qur'an in one hand,and their weapons by the other handThe universe is then full of faith and purityThe world is then a place of goodness and godlinessEternity is for our grandfathersThey have honoured this homelandLibya, Libya, Libya!

Y bilad y biladBijihd wajiladIdfa' kaydal a'adi wa-l'awadiWslam islam islamIslam la-lmadaInnan nanu-lfidLbiy Lbiy Lbiy

Huyya idrsu salilu-lftihnInnahu f Lbiy ramzu-ljihdamala-lryata fn blyamnWataba'anhu litarri-lbildFnthan blmulki walfati-lmubnWarakazn fawqa hmti-lnijdRyatan hurratanZallalat bl'azi arj al-waanLbiy Lbiy Lbiy

Extend on Idris the honour, the descendant of the conquerorHe is the symbol of struggle and JihadHe raises our flag highAnd we follow him, freeing our homeland,He allows praise of his throneAnd raises hope for Libya in heaven,A free flagOver a rich country,Libya, Libya, Libya.

Huyya al-mukhtar amir-lftihnInnahu f Lbiy ramzu-ljihdamala-lryata fn blyamnWataba'anhu litarri-lbildFnthan bljudd walfati-lmubnWarakazn fawqa hmti-lnijdRyatan hurratanallalat bl'azi arj al-waanLbiy Lbiy Lbiy

Extend on Al Mukhtar the prince of the conquerorHe is the symbol of struggle and JihadHe raises our flag highAnd we follow him, freeing our homeland,He allows praise of his ancestorsAnd raises hope for Libya in heaven,A free flagOver a rich country,Libya, Libya, Libya.

Y bilad y biladBijihd wajiladIdfa' kaydal a'adi wa-l'awadiWslam islam islamIslam la-lmadaInnan nanu-lfidLbiy Lbiy Lbiy

Y bna Lbiy y bna sda-arInnan lilmajdi walmajdu lanMu sarawn amida-lqawmu-ssurBrkallahu lan istaqlalanFbta-l'aly ash.wan f-lwarWsta'idd lilwa ashblanLil ilab ... y abbinnam-dduny kifu lilwaanLbiy Lbiy Lbiy

O son of Libya, O son of lions of the wildWe're for honour and the honours are for usSince the time of us being honoured, people thanked our generosity and honourablenessMay Allah bless our IndependenceO Libyans, seek the dizzy heights as a position in mankindOur cubs, be prepared for the foreseen battlesOur youths, to prevailLife is only a struggle for homelandLibya, Libya, Libya!

Y bilad y biladBijihd wajiladIdfa' kaydal a'adi wa-l'awadiWslam islam islamIslam la-lmadaInnan nanu-lfidLbiy Lbiy Lbiy

Here is the original post:
Libya, Libya, Libya - Wikipedia

Civil War in Libya | Global Conflict Tracker

Recent Developments

The UN-backed Government of National Accord (GNA) declared a state of emergency in Libyas capital city of Tripoli in September 2018, less than a week after a UN cease-fire went into effect. Attempts to create a unity government have met with limited success as the House of Representatives (HoR)based in Libyas east and a key supporter of Libyan National Army's (LNA)leader General Khalifa Haftarand the GNA compete for power. Both governing bodies have created their own central banks and have consolidated control over oil fields. In May 2018, French President Emmanuel Macron convened a meeting between Haftar, GNA leader Fayez Seraj, and parliamentary leaders to discuss an end to the conflict and future elections. Though the rival groups agreed to hold elections in December 2018, UN Special Envoy to Libya Ghassan Salame said elections would be postponed until the spring of 2019.

Rival armed groups, including militia groups loyal to the LNAs Haftara Tobruk-backed former Qaddafi loyalistand the GNAs security forceshave continued to fight over access to and control of Libyas National Oil Corporation (NOC), as well as regional oil fields. In December 2018, the NOC closed Libyas largest oil field, El Sharara, due to security concerns; the LNA has since declared that the field is secure and ready to resume operations, but NOC Chairman Mustafa Sanalla refused to restart production in February 2019, stating that the field was still unsafe due to militant activity.

The presence of the self-proclaimed Islamic State, which established a foothold in the country in February 2015 and quickly gained control of the coastal city of Sirteformerly the groups most significant stronghold outside of Syria and Iraqhas further complicated the struggle for control. In July 2018, Haftar announced that the LNA had recaptured the city of Derna, the last outpost of the Islamic State militants in eastern Libya. However, the group continues to operate throughout the country and conducted an attack on Libyas foreign ministry in December 2018.

Background

Libya has struggled to rebuild state institutions since the ouster and subsequent death of former leader Muammar al-Qaddafi in October 2011. Libyas transitional government ceded authority to the newly elected General National Congress (GNC) in July 2012, but the GNC faced numerous challenges over the next two years, including the September 2012 attack by Islamist militants on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi and the spread of the Islamic State and other armed groups throughout the country.

In May 2014, Haftar launched Operation Dignity, a campaign conducted by the LNA to attack Islamist militant groups across eastern Libya, including in Benghazi. To counter this movement, Islamist militants and armed groupsincluding Ansar al-Sharia formed a coalition called Libya Dawn. Eventually, fighting broke out at Tripolis international airport between the Libya Dawn coalition, which controlled Tripoli and much of western Libya, and the Dignity coalition, which controlled parts of Cyrenaica and Benghazi in eastern Libya, and a civil war emerged.

The battle for control over Libya crosses tribal, regional, political, and even religious lines. Each coalition has created governing institutions and named military chiefsand each has faced internal fragmentation and division.In an effort to find a resolution to the conflict and create a unity government, then-UN Special Envoy to Libya Bernandino Leon, followed by Martin Kobler, facilitated a series of talks between the Tobruk-based HoR and the Tripoli-based GNC. The talks resulted in the creation of Libyan Political Agreement and the UN-supported GNA. The GNA has continued to face obstacles to creating a stable, unified government in Libya.

Taking advantage of the widespread political instability, armed Islamist groups, including Ansar al-Shariathe terrorist group allegedly responsible for the attack on the U.S. consulate in 2012and the Islamic State, have used the country as a hub to coordinate broader regional violence, further complicating efforts to create a unity government.

As a result of the continued fighting, the UN Refugee Agency estimates that more than 217,000 people have been internally displaced and approximately 1.3 million people are in need of humanitarian assistance in Libya.

Concerns

The United States, European allies, and the United Nations continued to express concern over the permanent fracture of Libya as armed militant groups have tried to divide the country along political and tribal lines. Moreover, in the absence of a primary governing body, migration and human trafficking have remained problematic.

A member of the Organization for Petroleum Exporting Companies (OPEC), Libyan oil revenues constitute more than 80 percent of Libyas total exports. As armed groups continue to fight over oil fields and restrict production, concerns have also increased over whether the country will be able to support itself economically.

See the article here:
Civil War in Libya | Global Conflict Tracker

2011 military intervention in Libya – Wikipedia

On 19 March 2011, a multi-state NATO-led coalition began a military intervention in Libya, to implement United Nations Security Council Resolution 1973, in response to events during the First Libyan Civil War. With ten votes in favour and five abstentions, the UN Security Council's intent was to have "an immediate ceasefire in Libya, including an end to the current attacks against civilians, which it said might constitute crimes against humanity ... [imposing] a ban on all flights in the country's airspace a no-fly zone and tightened sanctions on the [Muammar] Qadhafi regime and its supporters."[18]

American and British naval forces fired over 110 Tomahawk cruise missiles,[19] while the French Air Force, British Royal Air Force, and Royal Canadian Air Force[20] undertook sorties across Libya and a naval blockade by Coalition forces.[21] French jets launched air strikes against Libyan Army tanks and vehicles.[22][23] The intervention did not employ foreign ground troops.[24]

The Libyan government response to the campaign was totally ineffectual, with Gaddafi's forces not managing to shoot down a single NATO plane despite the country possessing 30 heavy SAM batteries, 17 medium SAM batteries, 55 light SAM batteries (a total of 400450 launchers, including 130150 2K12 Kub launchers and some 9K33 Osa launchers), and 440600 short-ranged air-defense guns.[9][25] The official names for the interventions by the coalition members are Opration Harmattan by France; Operation Ellamy by the United Kingdom; Operation Mobile for the Canadian participation and Operation Odyssey Dawn for the United States.[26] Italy initially opposed the intervention but then offered to take part in the operations on the condition that NATO took the leadership of the mission instead of individual countries (particularly France). As this condition was later met, Italy shared its bases and intelligence with the allies.[27]

From the beginning of the intervention, the initial coalition of Belgium, Canada, Denmark, France, Italy, Norway, Qatar, Spain, UK and US[28][29][30][31][32] expanded to nineteen states, with newer states mostly enforcing the no-fly zone and naval blockade or providing military logistical assistance. The effort was initially largely led by France and the United Kingdom, with command shared with the United States. NATO took control of the arms embargo on 23 March, named Operation Unified Protector. An attempt to unify the military command of the air campaign (whilst keeping political and strategic control with a small group), first failed over objections by the French, German, and Turkish governments.[33][34] On 24 March, NATO agreed to take control of the no-fly zone, while command of targeting ground units remains with coalition forces.[35][36][37] The handover occurred on 31 March 2011 at 06:00 UTC (08:00 local time). NATO flew 26,500 sorties since it took charge of the Libya mission on 31 March 2011.

Fighting in Libya ended in late October following the death of Muammar Gaddafi, and NATO stated it would end operations over Libya on 31 October 2011. Libya's new government requested that its mission be extended to the end of the year,[38] but on 27 October, the Security Council unanimously voted to end NATO's mandate for military action on 31 October.[39]

Initial NATO planning for a possible no-fly zone took place in late February and early March,[82] especially by NATO members France and the United Kingdom.[83] France and the UK were early supporters of a no-fly zone and had sufficient airpower to impose a no-fly zone over the rebel-held areas, although they might need additional assistance for a more extensive exclusion zone.

The US had the air assets necessary to enforce a no-fly zone, but was cautious about supporting such an action prior to obtaining a legal basis for violating Libya's sovereignty. Furthermore, due to the sensitive nature of military action by the US against an Arab nation, the US sought Arab participation in the enforcement of a no-fly zone.

At a congressional hearing, United States Secretary of Defense Robert Gates explained that "a no-fly zone begins with an attack on Libya to destroy the air defences ... and then you can fly planes around the country and not worry about our guys being shot down. But that's the way it starts."[84]

On 19 March, the deployment of French fighter jets over Libya began,[21] and other states began their individual operations. Phase One started the same day with the involvement of the United States, United Kingdom, France, Italy and Canada.[citation needed]

On 24 March, NATO ambassadors agreed that NATO would take command of the no-fly zone enforcement, while other military operations remained the responsibility of the group of states previously involved, with NATO expected to take control as early as 26 March.[85] The decision was made after meetings of NATO members to resolve disagreements over whether military operations in Libya should include attacks on ground forces.[85] The decision created a two-level power structure overseeing military operations. In charge politically was a committee, led by NATO, that included all states participating in enforcing the no-fly zone, while NATO alone was responsible for military action.[86] Royal Canadian Air Force Lieutenant-General Charles Bouchard has been appointed to command the NATO military mission.[87]

After the death of Muammar Gaddafi on 20 October 2011, it was announced that the NATO mission would end on 31 October.[88]

Before NATO took full command of operations at 06:00 GMT on 31 March 2011, the military intervention in the form of a no-fly zone and naval blockade was split between different national operations:

These are the forces committed in alphabetical order.

Since the start of the campaign, there have been allegations of violating the limits imposed upon the intervention by Resolution 1973 and by US law. At the end of May 2011, Western troops were captured on film in Libya, despite Resolution 1973 specifically forbidding "a foreign occupation force of any form on any part of Libyan territory".[214] In the article however, it reports that armed Westerners but not Western troops were on the ground.[214]

In a March 2011 Gallup poll, 47% of Americans had approved of military action against Libya, compared with 37% disapproval.[215]

On 10 June, US Secretary of Defense Robert Gates criticized some of the NATO member nations for their efforts, or lack thereof, to participate in the intervention in Libya. Gates singled out Germany, Poland, Spain, Turkey, and the Netherlands for criticism. He praised Canada, Norway and Denmark, saying that although those three countries had only provided 12% of the aircraft to the operation, their aircraft had conducted one-third of the strikes.[216]

On 24 June, the US House voted against Joint Resolution 68, which would have authorized continued US military involvement in the NATO campaign for up to one year.[217][218] The majority of Republicans voted against the resolution,[219] with some questioning US interests in Libya and others criticizing the White House for overstepping its authority by conducting a military expedition without Congressional backing. House Democrats were split on the issue, with 115 voting in favor of and 70 voting against. Despite the failure of the President to receive legal authorization from Congress, the Obama administration continued its military campaign, carrying out the bulk of NATO's operations until the overthrow of Gadaffi in October.

On 9 August, the head of UNESCO, Irina Bokova deplored a NATO strike on Libyan State TV, Al-Jamahiriya, that killed 3 journalists and wounded others.[220] Bokova declared that media outlets should not be the target of military activities. On 11 August, after the NATO airstrike on Majer (on 9 August) that allegedly killed 85 civilians, UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon called on all sides to do as much as possible to avoid killing innocent people.[221]

The military intervention in Libya has been cited by the Council on Foreign Relations as an example of the responsibility to protect policy adopted by the UN at the 2005 World Summit.[222] According to Gareth Evans, "[t]he international military intervention (SMH) in Libya is not about bombing for democracy or Muammar Gaddafi's head. Legally, morally, politically, and militarily it has only one justification: protecting the country's people."[222] However, the Council also noted that the policy had been used only in Libya, and not in countries such as Cte d'Ivoire, undergoing a political crisis at the time, or in response to protests in Yemen.[222] A CFR expert, Stewert Patrick, said that "There is bound to be selectivity and inconsistency in the application of the responsibility to protect norm given the complexity of national interests at stake in...the calculations of other major powers involved in these situations."[222] In January 2012, the Arab Organization for Human Rights, Palestinian Centre for Human Rights and the International Legal Assistance Consortium published a report describing alleged human rights violations and accusing NATO of war crimes.[223]

According to a Gallup poll conducted in 2012, 75% of Libyans were in favor of the NATO intervention, compared to 22% who were opposed.[224] A 2011 Orb International poll also found broad support for the intervention, with 85% of Libyans saying that they strongly supported the action taken to remove the Ghadafi regime.[225]

On 3 June 2011, the U.S. House of Representatives passed a resolution, calling for a withdrawal of the United States military from the air and naval operations in and around Libya. It demanded that the administration provide, within 14 days, explanation of why the President Barack Obama did not come to Congress for permission to continue to take part in the mission.[226]

On 13 June, the House passed resolution prohibiting the use of funds for operations in the conflict, with 110 Democrats and 138 Republicans voting in favor.[227][228]

On 24 June, the House rejected Joint Resolution 68, which would have provided the Obama administration with authorization to continue military operations in Libya for up to one year.[229]

The military intervention was criticized, both at the time and subsequently, on a variety of grounds.

An in depth investigation into the Libyan intervention and its aftermath was conducted by the U.K. Parliament's House of Commons' cross-party Foreign Affairs Committee, the final conclusions of which were released on 14 September 2016 in a report titled Libya: Examination of intervention and collapse and the UK's future policy options.[230] The report was strongly critical of the British government's role in the intervention.[231][232] The report concluded that the government "failed to identify that the threat to civilians was overstated and that the rebels included a significant Islamist element."[233] In particular, the committee concluded that Gaddafi was not planning to massacre civilians, and that reports to the contrary were propagated by rebels and Western governments. Western leaders trumpeted the threat of the massacre of civilians without factual basis, according to the parliamentary report, for example, it had been reported to Western leaders that on 17 March 2011 Gaddafi had given Benghazi rebels the offer of peaceful surrender and also that when Gaddafi had earlier retaken other rebel cities there were no massacres of non-combatants.[234][235][236]

Alison Pargeter, a freelance Middle East and North Africa (MENA) analyst, told the Committee that when Gaddafi's forces re-took Ajdabiya they did not attack civilians, and this had taken place in February 2011, shortly before the NATO intervention.[237] She also said that Gaddafi's approach towards the rebels had been one of "appeasement", with the release of Islamist prisoners and promises of significant development assistance for Benghazi.[237]

According to the report, France's motive for initiating the intervention was economic and political as well as humanitarian. In a briefing to Hillary Clinton on 2 April 2011, her adviser Sidney Blumenthal reported that, according to high-level French intelligence, France's motives for overthrowing Gaddafi were to increase France's share of Libya's oil production, strengthen French influence in Africa, and improve President Sarkozy's standing at home.[238] The report also highlighted how Islamic extremists had a large influence on the uprising, which was largely ignored by the West to the future detriment of Libya.[231][232]

The intervention prompted a widespread wave of criticism from several world leaders, including: Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei (who said he supported the rebels but not Western intervention[239]), Venezuelan President Hugo Chvez (who referred to Gaddafi as a "martyr"[240]), South African President Jacob Zuma,[241][failed verification] and President of Zimbabwe Robert Mugabe (who referred to the Western nations as "vampires"[242]), as well as the governments of Ral Castro in Cuba,[243] Daniel Ortega in Nicaragua,[244] Kim Jong-il in North Korea,[245] Hifikepunye Pohamba in Namibia,[246] and others. Gaddafi himself referred to the intervention as a "colonial crusade ... capable of unleashing a full-scale war",[247] a sentiment that was echoed by Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin: "[UNSC Resolution 1973] is defective and flawed...It allows everything. It resembles medieval calls for crusades."[248] President Hu Jintao of the People's Republic of China said, "Dialogue and other peaceful means are the ultimate solutions to problems," and added, "If military action brings disaster to civilians and causes a humanitarian crisis, then it runs counter to the purpose of the UN resolution."[249] Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh was critical of the intervention as well, rebuking the coalition in a speech at the UN in September 2011.[250] Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi, despite the substantial role his country played in the NATO mission, also spoke out against getting involved: "I had my hands tied by the vote of the parliament of my country. But I was against and I am against this intervention which will end in a way that no-one knows" and added "This wasn't a popular uprising because Gaddafi was loved by his people, as I was able to see when I went to Libya."[251][252]

Despite its stated opposition to NATO intervention, Russia abstained from voting on Resolution 1973 instead of exercising its veto power as a permanent member of the Security Council; four other powerful nations also abstained from the voteIndia, China, Germany, and Brazilbut of that group only China has the same veto power.[253]

Criticisms have also been made on the way the operation was led. According to Michael Kometer and Stephen Wright, the outcome of the Libyan intervention was reached by default rather than by design. It appears that there was an important lack of consistent political guidance caused particularly by the vagueness of the UN mandate and the ambiguous consensus among the NATO-led coalition. This lack of clear political guidance was translated into an incoherent military planning on the operational level. Such a gap may impact the future NATO's operations that will probably face trust issues.[254]

The American Libertarian Party opposed the U.S. military intervention and LP Chair Mark Hinkle in a statement described the position of the Libertarian Party: "President Obama's decision to order military attacks on Libya is only surprising to those who actually think he deserved the Nobel Peace Prize. He has now ordered bombing strikes in six different countries, adding Libya to Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Somalia, and Yemen."[255] Former Green Party presidential candidate Ralph Nader branded President Obama as a "war criminal"[256] and called for his impeachment.[257]

A 2013 paper by Alan Kuperman argued that NATO went beyond its remit of providing protection for civilians and instead supported the rebels by engaging in regime change. It argued that NATO's intervention likely extended the length (and thus damage) of the civil war, which Kuperman argued could have ended in less than two months without NATO intervention. The paper argued that the intervention was based on a misperception of the danger Gadaffi's forces posed to the civilian population, which Kuperman suggests was caused by existing bias against Gadaffi due to his past actions (such as support for terrorism), sloppy and sensationalistic journalism during the early stages of the war and propaganda from anti-government forces. Kuperman suggests that this demonization of Gadaffi, which was used to justify the intervention, ended up discouraging efforts to accept a ceasefire and negotiated settlement, turning a humanitarian intervention into a dedicated regime change.[258]

Micah Zenko argues that the Obama administration deceived the public by pretending the intervention was intended to protect Libyan civilians instead of achieving regime change when "in truth, the Libyan intervention was about regime change from the very start".[259]

On 22 March 2011, BBC News presented a breakdown of the likely costs to the UK of the mission.[276] Journalist Francis Tusa, editor of Defence Analysis, estimated that flying a Tornado GR4 would cost about 35,000 an hour (c. US$48,000), so the cost of patrolling one sector of Libyan airspace would be 2M3M (US$2.75M4.13M) per day. Conventional airborne missiles would cost 800,000 each and Tomahawk cruise missiles 750,000 each. Professor Malcolm Charmers of the Royal United Services Institute similarly suggested that a single cruise missile would cost about 500,000, while a single Tornado sortie would cost about 30,000 in fuel alone. If a Tornado was downed the replacement cost would be upwards of 50m. By 22 March the US and UK had already fired more than 110 cruise missiles. UK Chancellor George Osborne had said that the MoD estimate of the operation cost was "tens rather than hundreds of millions". On 4 April Air Chief Marshal Sir Stephen Dalton said that the RAF was planning to continue operations over Libya for at least six months.[277]

The total number of sorties flown by NATO numbered more than 26,000, an average of 120 sorties per day. 42% of the sorties were strike sorties, which damaged or destroyed approximately 6,000 military targets. At its peak, the operation involved more than 8,000 servicemen and women, 21 NATO ships in the Mediterranean and more than 250 aircraft of all types. By the end of the operation, NATO had conducted over 3,000 hailings at sea and almost 300 boardings for inspection, with 11 vessels denied transit to their next port of call.[278] Eight NATO and two non-NATO countries flew strike sorties. Of these, Denmark, Canada, and Norway together were responsible for 31%,[279] the United States was responsible for 16%, Italy 10%, France 33%, Britain 21%, and Belgium, Qatar, and the UAE the remainder.[280]

See the original post here:
2011 military intervention in Libya - Wikipedia

The Louvre Shouldnt Exhibit Trafficked Antiquities from Libya and Syria – Hyperallergic

Its a dignified, austere pose befitting the incarnated goddess of death. She stands, along with the fragments of three inanimate companions, showing the wear and tear of centuries in the heart of Paris far away from her native Mediterranean coastline and the deceased shes supposed to protect.

Between 2012 and 2016, French customs discovered and identified six artifacts presumed to have been trafficked from war-affected Libya and Syria. These include funerary statues from the Libyan region of Cyrene and Byzantine-era reliefs likely from Palmyra. The Louvre Museum, which recently reopened after the countrys latest pandemic lockdown, temporarily exhibits them under seal in its famed Denon aisle through December 2021. The museum views their presence as a testament, a contribution to increased public awareness on the issue of looting except it forgets that it is already a violent graveyard of colonial-era cultural trophies removed from their homelands under dubious circumstances.

About 20 years into the catastrophic United States-led wars on terror and a decade into the revolutions which instigated hope for systemic change throughout the Arab world before facing a debilitating hangover, the exhibition curators recall the platitude that heritage sites within warzones across North Africa and West Asia are in grave danger. In the case of Cyrene, a passive-voiced statement attributes this circumstance to an unbridled urbanization which accelerated since the Arab Spring, together with opportunistic amateurs and criminal networks prospering in the wake of the crisis affecting Libya. Whose crisis, and most crucially, whose responsibility?

In 2011, I lived in Beirut, Lebanon. I worked there for the United Nations and I recall young people protesting across the region, aspiring to basic so called universal human rights, which is to say they demanded to be able to lead a decent life free from want and fear. They prominently marched in Tunisia, where half of my family comes from, and of course in Syria and other places.

Are these young people, arguably the first victims of the disenchantment brought on by the unfolding proxy wars, to be blamed for plundering their own culture as the Louvre curators seemingly imply? What if the protests never happened, would all be fine for heritage sites? Narratives matter and a closer inspection should be paid instead to Frances very active role in these conflicts, and the decades of Western connivance in sustaining corrupt ally regimes until this exposure was no longer defensible. We should also examine how economic interests have benefited from morally compromised, lucrative opportunities which fuel complex war economies now exacerbated by COVID-19.

In an interview, Ludovic Laugier, one of the co-curators, states that its better for these fine-looking items to be admired in the Louvre rather than in the confines of a police station or court vault. This is quite a touching, romantic consideration for the public and the ideals of beauty, though perhaps videos or photos would have sufficed rather than organizing a media fanfare which incidentally brings additional revenue flow to the museum itself. How much of this revenue is going to the families of Libyans and Syrians who continue to perish at sea and on land?

There is blood on these artifacts, Laugier continues, likely unaware of the irony, if not dissonance, of this situation. If the Louvre museum is genuine about combatting the wrongful acquisition of artwork, which I would fully commend, it should start with decolonizing its century-long institutional practice and accelerate voluntary restitutions. While museum collections are considered inalienable, theft should void such policies, and justice starts at home.

Since 2016, its been permissible under French law to showcase trafficked art pieces under investigation (if a judge agrees to it) and the Louvre is the first museum in the country to do so. Its not an illegal undertaking per se. As a dual Tunisian-French citizen, Im grateful that French public entities acknowledge the sophistication of the ancient Mediterranean civilization, a shared legacy of syncretic beliefs, and mutually-enriching exchanges and migration, even if these artifacts are narrowly (subconsciously?) hosted in the Greek Antiquities department. I regret, however, that the same effort isnt always exerted towards the people living or originating from these spaces who are worthy of no less protection than statues. One could for example, refrain from enforcing harmful policies against asylum seekers.

While a long-awaited and broader reckoning slowly permeates the French art scene, the outcome of ongoing investigations will decide when to return the trafficked pieces to Libya and Syria (at this point, possibly in 2022). To me, these six artifacts represent the haunting ghosts of a French failure to question incisively, to act expeditiously, and to care a little bit more.

Original post:
The Louvre Shouldnt Exhibit Trafficked Antiquities from Libya and Syria - Hyperallergic

Libya Looks To Boost Oil Production To 1.6 Million Bpd In 2022 – OilPrice.com

Libya could boost its oil production to 1.6 million barrels per day (bpd) by the middle of 2022 if the industry has the necessary funding, Libyas Oil Minister Mohamed Oun told Italian news agency Agenzia Nova in an interview published this week.

Currently, the North African producer exempted from the OPEC+ cuts pumps around 1.2 million bpd. According to secondary sources in OPECs latest Monthly Oil Market Report, Libyas crude oil production averaged 1.163 million bpd in June, up from 1.157 million bpd in May.

Since getting a unity government in March and a petroleum minister for the first time in five years, Libya has vowed it would raise its oil production, provided that the National Oil Corporation (NOC) receives the necessary funds.

Libya plans to raise its oil production to1.45 million bpdby the end of this year, Mustafa Sanalla, the chairman of NOC, toldBloomberg Televisionin an interview earlier this year.

Libya will be able to increase its current production by years end, provided that the state oil firm is not compromised again, according to Sanalla.

The targets for the next few years are for Libya to increase production to 1.6 million bpd in two years and to 2.1 million bpd in four years, NOCs chairman told Bloomberg in March.

Libya surprised many oil market observers, and probably the OPEC+ group itself, after managing in just a few months to restore its oil productionback to 1.25 million bpdfrom less than 100,000 in September 2020. The 1.25 million bpd level was the volume Libya was pumping before the eighth-month-long oil port blockade began in January 2020.

Even after the lifting of the blockade in mid-September and theceasefirefrom October, Libyas oil production has not been entirely stable so far this year due tostrikesfrom the Petroleum Facilities Guard over unpaid salaries and thelack of fundsfor restoration and maintenance of oil infrastructure.

By Tsvetana Paraskova for Oilprice.com

More Top Reads From Oilprice.com:

See the rest here:
Libya Looks To Boost Oil Production To 1.6 Million Bpd In 2022 - OilPrice.com