Amr Moussa: Gaddafi Believed He Would Survive Arab Spring Uprisings, Predicted Mubarak’s Fall

Former Arab League chief Amr Moussa and Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi at the Sirte Summit in 2010
Former Arab League chief Amr Moussa and Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi at the Sirte Summit in 2010
TT
20

Amr Moussa: Gaddafi Believed He Would Survive Arab Spring Uprisings, Predicted Mubarak’s Fall

Former Arab League chief Amr Moussa and Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi at the Sirte Summit in 2010
Former Arab League chief Amr Moussa and Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi at the Sirte Summit in 2010

The sixth episode in the series of excerpts obtained from the upcoming biography of former Arab League Secretary-General Amr Moussa – to be published by Dar El-Shorouk and edited and documented by Khaled Abu Bakr – recounts how the events of the Libyan revolution unfolded in February 2011. Over the span of 50 pages, Moussa talks about how the Libyan uprising had pulled the rug from under Muammar Gaddafi’s feet and focuses on the Arab decision to protect Libyans from the Libyan leader’s wrath and violence.

The veteran Egyptian diplomat tells the story of how Gaddafi, after the ouster of Tunisian President Zine El Abidine Ben Ali, predicted that Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak would be next to fall. Even though Gaddafi got it right on Mubarak’s removal, he was mistaken about his future and his ability to survive the revolution rising against him. Following Libyan regime strikes against the cities of Benghazi and Tobruk, the Arab League suspended the participation of Libya’s permanent representatives in meetings and slapped an air travel ban on the North African country.

Moussa, in “The Years of the Arab League”, explains that the move was taken to protect civilians from regime airstrikes.

As of mid-December 2010, fast-tracked developments and uprisings started to take the Arab world by storm. Overnight, Tunisia’s Ben Ali was exiled to Saudi Arabia. This was in the aftermath of the streets and squares of Tunisia being flooded with angry youth demanding political openness and social justice. A few days later, the January 25 revolution in Egypt forced Mubarak to step down in February 2011.

Nestled between Tunisia and Egypt, Libya was next in line to be swept by protests and demands for a system overhaul. Gaddafi, who had predicted Mubarak’s downfall, lacked the perception and depth needed to recognize that his rule too was going to be brought to an end. The Libyan leader, who had ruled for over four decades, believed that he had what it took to survive the revolutions.

A swift peek of the map would have sufficed to realize that Libya was wedged between two major rebellions, one in Tunisia and the other in Egypt. As of February 15, 2011, all eyes turned to Libya, where demonstrations against Gaddafi's rule broke out for the first time in Benghazi and quickly spread to other cities, including the capital, Tripoli. Moussa recounts that his heart skipped a beat over the developments in Libya.

“You can imagine the reaction of any Arab regime to demonstrations calling for it to leave, but not the Gaddafi regime,” he explains.

Noting that heightened tensions weighed down Gaddafi’s relations with various Western countries, Moussa added that he was apprehensive about the regime’s reaction to events in Libya. As protests grew more ferocious, so did Gaddafi’s repression of the people.

On February 22, 2011, Gaddafi gave a divisive speech in which he claimed to be a “revolutionary leader forever” and a Bedouin warrior who brought glory to all Libyans. He said that he wasn’t a president for him to resign and that Libya’s image before the world was being marred because of the recent events. Gaddafi also hinted at resorting to force when needed. The speech provoked strong global reactions. International bodies and major countries, one after the other, came out in condemnation of both it and the violence used by the Libyan authorities to suppress demonstrations.

The Arab League’s Response

Following Gaddafi’s speech, reports of increased human losses and regime forces attacking demonstrators in Benghazi and Tobruk flooded the media. Faced with rapid developments, Moussa says he summoned permanent representatives at the Arab League to convene an emergency meeting on the evening of February 22, the day Gaddafi spoke. He recalls that the meeting was held at the level of permanent representatives and not ministers because of the time it would take for the latter to arrive in Cairo.

Developments were happening at an accelerated rate, and the situation did not allow for the time needed for Arab League ministers to assemble at the organization’s headquarters. “We must not be late in our reaction.

Incoming reports are predicting the fall of many more victims both from Libyans and Arabs residing in Libya, especially Egyptians and Tunisians, who are at risk after Saif al-Islam Gaddafi (Gaddafi’s son) accused them of supporting the demonstrators against his father’s rule,” Moussa said in his opening remarks at the meeting. He went on to tell attendees that the Arab League must send out a call urging for reason to prevail. Moussa concluded the meeting by issuing a multipoint resolution which condemned crimes committed against peaceful protesters in Libyan cities, including Tripoli, and suspended Libya’s participation at meetings held by the Arab League or its affiliated agencies until Libyan authorities answer to the demands of the people in a way that guarantees their security and stability. This was the first time in the history of the Arab League that the organization bars the delegations of a member state from participating in meetings over “negative internal conditions”.

“I thought that this represented an important development in the Arab multilateral organization, and it was also an important message, if Col. Gaddafi accepted it, so the Arab League, and I personally, could rely on it in a political movement that might contribute to preventing the deterioration of the situation in Libya,” Moussa recounts.

Foreign Ministers of Arab League member states then convened their 135th session on March 2, 2011. The dangerous developments in Libya were the center of the meeting. The ministers backed previously approved decisions by permanent representatives and added a new clause on promoting deliberations for finding effective ways to ensure the safety and security of Libyans. They confirmed that Arab states can’t stand idle while the brotherly people of Libya suffer bloodshed and agreed to impose an air ban. Each of the Arab League and the African Union cooperated to implement the ban.

Calling For an Air Ban

The Arab League marking Libya as a no-fly zone to protect civilians stirred widespread controversy. In his memoir, Moussa recalls that the first call for imposing an air ban on Libya was made at the 118th session held by Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) foreign ministers on March 10, 2011.

In a statement issued after their meeting in Saudi Arabia’s capital Riyadh, GCC foreign ministers called on the Arab League to take measures to stop the bloodshed in Libya and to initiate contacts with the National Council formed by the opposition. They denounced the crimes committed against civilians and called on the Arab League to shoulder responsibility to take the necessary measures to defuse rifts, achieve the aspirations of the Libyan people, and take the necessary measures to do that, including calling on the UN Security Council to impose a no-fly zone over Libya to protect civilians.

The GCC continued its pressure campaign to endorse a no-fly zone on Libya. On March 12, 2011, an emergency ministerial meeting was held at the Arab League. In his biography, Moussa sheds a special light on the meeting, saying that it was important for readers to know what happened. First, Moussa explains that the extraordinary meeting was split into three sessions.

The first session, held at 2:30 pm, was open to the public and was short to a 15 min speech delivered by Omani Foreign Minister Yusuf bin Alawi, who chaired the meeting.

A closed-door session followed at exactly 2:45 pm. Moussa was the first to speak. His speech was followed by statements delivered by Arab League foreign ministers and representatives from Qatar, Algeria, the UAE, Syria, Lebanon, Morocco, Mauritania, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, and Egypt.

Towards the ending of the meeting, Moussa remembers emphasizing to attendees that the proposed no-fly zone on Libya was not indefinite. He also spoke of four core principles the Arab League was endorsing.

Those principles were:

1. Calling for a clear legal framework for any decision to establish a no-fly zone in Libya to protect civilians, that is, the necessity for there to be a Security Council resolution that clearly reflects the will of the international community-- Because the air embargo is not a combat measure, but rather a preventive measure to prevent more blood from being spilled.

2. The decision to establish an air ban shall not affect civil aviation traffic; Because there are many countries, such as Egypt, that are taking the necessary measures to evacuate their nationals from Libya.

3. Ensuring respect for principles of state sovereignty and maintaining non-interference in internal affairs of other countries. Any decision issued by the UN Security Council regarding the air embargo in Libya should not affect the sovereignty of any country other than Libya, whether from neighboring countries or elsewhere.

4. Preserving Libya's territorial integrity. Establishing any no-fly zone must not effectively divide Libya. The purposes of establishing a no-fly zone, its geographical scope, its working conditions, and its duration must be clearly defined.

In special agreement with Dar El Shorouk - all rights reserved.



Sidelined by Trump, Macron Tries to Rally Europe on Ukraine. But Divisions Run Deep

French President Emmanuel Macron welcomes Germany's Chancellor Olaf Scholz before an informal summit of European leaders to discuss the situation in Ukraine and European security at the Élysée Presidential Palace in Paris on February 17, 2025. (AFP)
French President Emmanuel Macron welcomes Germany's Chancellor Olaf Scholz before an informal summit of European leaders to discuss the situation in Ukraine and European security at the Élysée Presidential Palace in Paris on February 17, 2025. (AFP)
TT
20

Sidelined by Trump, Macron Tries to Rally Europe on Ukraine. But Divisions Run Deep

French President Emmanuel Macron welcomes Germany's Chancellor Olaf Scholz before an informal summit of European leaders to discuss the situation in Ukraine and European security at the Élysée Presidential Palace in Paris on February 17, 2025. (AFP)
French President Emmanuel Macron welcomes Germany's Chancellor Olaf Scholz before an informal summit of European leaders to discuss the situation in Ukraine and European security at the Élysée Presidential Palace in Paris on February 17, 2025. (AFP)

French President Emmanuel Macron painted a veneer of European unity by inviting a small number of handpicked European leaders to the Élysée Palace, while the Trump administration sidelined the continent by moving ahead with direct negotiations on Tuesday with Russia on the war in Ukraine. But beneath the diplomatic pageantry, cracks in European consensus were hard to ignore.

One question loomed: Could Europe take charge of its own security, or would it remain reactive to US and Russian decisions?

From Macron’s push for European-led defense to Keir Starmer’s “third way” diplomacy, Giorgia Meloni’s balancing act between Brussels and Washington, and Olaf Scholz’s resistance to breaking with NATO, Europe remains divided on its next move.

France – Macron seeks to take the lead

By hosting the Monday summit in his Parisian palace, Macron reinforced his image of the imperial French “Sun King” and his bid to become the dominant voice on Ukraine and European security. With Germany’s Scholz politically weakened, the UK outside the EU, and Italy leaning toward Trump, Macron has emerged as the bloc’s most vocal advocate for strategic autonomy.

With a presidential mandate until 2027 and France’s nuclear arsenal making it Europe’s only atomic power, Macron has positioned himself as the only leader with both the ambition and authority to act. His proposal for a European-led security force in Ukraine, even in a limited training and logistics role, fits into his broader push for a continent less dependent on Washington.

But forging consensus is proving difficult: Germany is resisting, key frontline EU nations were left out of the summit, and Trump’s unpredictability clouds Europe’s security outlook.

“Since his first term, Macron has sought to impose himself as Europe’s strongman,” said French political analyst Jean-Yves Camus. “He has always presented himself as the natural leader of liberals against nationalist populists. One cannot say that this has worked well.”

While Macron is setting the stage, the question remains: Is Europe ready to follow?

United Kingdom – Starmer’s ‘third way’ strategy

Keir Starmer is charting a different course, positioning himself as Europe’s key link to Washington — while maintaining a firm pro-Ukraine stance.

Having met Trump before the election —“I like him a lot,” the US president said — the British prime minister is set to travel to Washington next week in what some see as an effort to bridge the US-Europe divide, and a hallmark of the “special relationship.”

While Trump moves toward de-escalation in Ukraine, Starmer is doubling down on support for Kyiv, stating the UK is “ready and willing” to send British troops if necessary. This stance stands in contrast to Macron and Scholz’s more cautious approach.

Starmer’s surprising decision not to sign a key international declaration on the future of AI last week — aligning with the US rather than the EU — has raised questions about whether Britain is shifting closer to Washington on broader geopolitical issues.

“The UK is unique in that it’s practically the only major ally that Trump hasn’t purposefully antagonized since his inauguration,” said Anand Sundar, a special advisor at the European Council on Foreign Relations. “The Starmer government is doing everything it can to not put a target on its back.”

Some analysts suggest Starmer is positioning himself as Trump’s European “whisperer,” able to influence the White House while staying in step with Europe.

Italy – Meloni’s balancing act

Giorgia Meloni, the only leader of a major European economy to attend Trump’s inauguration in January, arrived late to the Paris summit and left without making a public statement - moves observers saw as signs of skepticism toward the meeting.

According to Italian news agency ANSA, Meloni questioned why the summit was held in Paris rather than Brussels, the EU’s natural decision-making hub, and criticized the exclusion of frontline states such as the Baltic nations, Sweden, and Finland.

At the summit, she pushed back against deploying European troops to Ukraine, calling it “the most complex and least effective option” - especially without firm security guarantees for Kyiv.

Observers noted that Meloni echoed some of US Vice President JD Vance’s criticism of Europe’s reliance on US protection. “We shouldn’t be asking what the Americans can do for us, but what we must do for ourselves,” she said, according to ANSA.

Despite her skepticism, Meloni still engaged in the talks, bringing Italy’s concerns over long-term European military commitments to the table.

Hungary – Orban’s absence

Notably absent from the Paris talks was Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán, a close Trump ally and frequent critic of EU policies.

While no official reason was given for his exclusion, some observers saw it as a pointed message from Paris and its European allies about the limits of engagement with leaders seen as too closely aligned with Trump’s worldview.

Germany – Scholz’s irritation

If Macron is stepping forward, Scholz is pushing back.

At the summit, the German Chancellor rejected Macron’s proposal for a European-led security force in Ukraine, calling it “completely premature” and “highly inappropriate” given the ongoing war.

Scholz didn’t hide his frustration, saying he was “a little irritated” that peacekeeping forces were even being discussed “at the wrong time.” He insisted NATO—not an independent European force—must remain the foundation of security.

Due to its historical legacy from the world wars, some argue that Germany has always been willing to cede European security leadership to France, a role the French have pursued since President Charle de Gaulle.

At the same time, the debate over military spending is intensifying, as NATO officials stress the alliance’s 2% GDP target is now a baseline rather than a cap.