The Guardian Leaks: A Scandal for Leon, or for UK and US? by Ibrahim Dabbashi – Libya representative to UN
Here is a translation of a scandalous post from the Facebook page of Ibrahim Dabbashi where he essentially attacks the US and UK for not kowtowing to the biased, pro-HoR line of Leon. The original post is available here.
By Ibrahim Dabbashi – Libya representative to UN
I read Leon’s email to Abdullah Bin Zayed, UAE foreign minister dated December 2014. In fact the email in general indicates that Bernardino Leon is well informed about the complexities of the Libyan situation and compliant with UN principles, and able to resist pressure from the major countries. In the same time the letter confirmed doubts of Libyan intellectuals regarding the intent of the US and the UK, especially their insincerity towards combatting terrorism, and their desire to prolong chaos until their citizens of Libyan origin are able to rule Libya or the small Statelets deriving from the partition of Libya.
The letter was sent immediately after the attack of Libya Dawn on the oil crescent (Operation Sunrise), an attack which a number of Libya Dawn activists admitted they got the green light from the US for. It seems that the UK and the US assumed that the operation was going to be a walk in the park, believing the propaganda that Misrata alone commands 40,000 fighters and three quarters of the armaments stockpiled by Gaddafi. This propaganda was exposed after their defeat in the oil crescent, and shameful withdrawal from 200 IS fighters in Sirte.
It is now clear that requests by the US and EU to hold a peace conference for the militias as a pretext for a multinational force on Libyan territory (as referred to by the letter) were made during the attack on the oil crescent. Leon clarifies this objective saying that ((because it will treat both sides as equal actors and will bypass legitimate institutions)) and that ((Also, because it will sit around the table, to discuss an overall solution that will include political elements, the militias, and this might include some radical ones or their allies)). But Leon courageously resisted this, and participated in the resistance against the attack on the crescent by reducing pressure from it.
It is clear that the current attack on Leon is a result of the conflict between the strategy of the US and UK in Libya, closely followed by the EU, and the three objectives set by Leon and identified in his letter which are:
– Breaking up Libya Dawn by (breaking a dangerous alliance between radical islamists/MB and mainstream Misratans)
– Taking militias out of the cities
– Creation of a moderate unity government from both forces
The guardian newspaper is very intimate with the British intelligence services, and Leon’s letter can only be leaked by the external intelligence agency MI6, and the objective is not to damage Leon, but to send a message to his replacement, Martin Kobler, to restart dialogue from square one and implement their strategy which was rejected by Leon because he was committed to the position of the UNSC and the UN towards the HoR as a sole legitimate power of Libya.
If this is not the case, why does the Guardian or other papers write about the work of Mr. Tarek Mitri as a board member for the Arab Centre for Strategic Studies in Qatar, throughout his tenure as special envoy to Libya, a position by which he is remunerated no less than 25,000 USD a month. I believe that what was said by Leon to the foreign minister of the UAE is similar to what was said to all the states regardless of the actors they support, in order to gain the trust as a credible mediator, especially since the objective of the letter was made clear in the last paragraph, calling the UAE not to send weapons to the Libyan army.
In conclusion, it does not seem to be the case that Leon was at fault for negotiating a job starting from next December, three months after his tenure as envoy with the UN for Libya finished, which is the 1st of September.