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

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.



Bin Laden Met Saddam’s Envoy, Linking 9/11 to Iraq Invasion

Saddam Hussein convenes with members of his regime in Iraq. (Getty Images)
Saddam Hussein convenes with members of his regime in Iraq. (Getty Images)
TT

Bin Laden Met Saddam’s Envoy, Linking 9/11 to Iraq Invasion

Saddam Hussein convenes with members of his regime in Iraq. (Getty Images)
Saddam Hussein convenes with members of his regime in Iraq. (Getty Images)

What’s the most dangerous mission someone could take on? A meeting between Saddam Hussein’s envoy and Osama bin Laden in Sudan. US intelligence under President George W. Bush soon found out about it.

This meeting became a key justification used by Washington to invade Iraq, taking advantage of the post-9/11 atmosphere in the US after al-Qaeda, led by bin Laden, attacked New York and Washington on September 11, 2001.

In truth, there was no reason for bin Laden to influence Saddam Hussein’s future. The two men came from very different worlds. Saddam was the president of a major country in the region, not a faction leader.

He belonged to a secular party, choosing a Christian, Tariq Aziz, as foreign minister—a rare decision in the Middle East. Saddam also wasn’t known for playing along in decisions where he wasn’t in control.

But the decision to meet in Khartoum still cost Saddam, even though the meeting was a failure. A former Iraqi intelligence officer said US forces later seized a document showing that the Iraqi envoy advised against working with bin Laden, advice that was followed.

The 1990s in Sudan were extremely risky. During this time, President Omar al-Bashir’s regime made three major blunders: hosting al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden, sheltering international fugitive Carlos the Jackal, and involving Ali Osman Taha, the regime’s second-in-command, in an assassination attempt on Egypt’s President Hosni Mubarak in Addis Ababa.

A rare photo shows Omar al-Bashir and Osama bin Laden in Sudan.

Bin Laden didn’t dwell much on the events in Khartoum in August 1994, when French commandos arrested Carlos and took him to France, where he still sits in prison.

Moreover, the al-Qaeda leader couldn’t foresee Sudan’s regime forcing him out of the country.

The regime, however, had no option but to reduce the risks. Bashir dismissed top security officials and decided to expel the “Arab Afghans.”

One day, Bashir and his deputy informed Hassan al-Turabi that bin Laden’s departure had been arranged. They then visited bin Laden, and a military plane flew him to Afghanistan.

The Taliban then gave bin Laden a safe haven, though Mullah Omar never imagined this would lead to his regime's downfall. In the late 1990s, questions about bin Laden were common when speaking with Sudanese officials.

In an interview, Bashir said that bin Laden came to Sudan after the Afghan war to invest in roads, airports, and agriculture—industries his family had been involved in for a long time.

According to Bashir’s statements, bin Laden didn’t have followers or networks in Sudan, just a small group of close aides who stayed out of the public eye.

But the US had made him a global threat, seeing him everywhere, even after he left Sudan, despite knowing he lived in isolation in a distant country.

While Bashir downplayed it, he had met bin Laden several times during his stay in Khartoum, and it's unlikely he was unaware of the ties between bin Laden and Sudanese security officials.

Sudanese politician Hassan al-Turabi reaffirmed Bashir’s claims of bin Laden having been building roads and airports.

“He wasn’t involved in public or intellectual circles and stayed out of the media. We talked about Afghanistan, and I shared our concerns that after the Soviets left, the fighters would be skilled in destruction but not in building a stable society, much like the French Revolution,” said al-Turabi at the time.

“I told him (bin Laden) Kabul fell before they were ready to establish a Muslim society as they envisioned,” added al-Turabi.

When asked who pushed for Osama bin Laden’s exit from Sudan, he said: “It was the British, acting on behalf of the Americans.”

“Saudi Arabia didn’t apply direct pressure—they’re always polite. Bin Laden felt his presence was straining relations between Sudan and Saudi Arabia, which have very close ties. With about half a million Sudanese working in Saudi Arabia, none were expelled. Bin Laden didn’t want to harm that relationship,” he explained.

Bin Laden returned to Afghanistan, entering a dangerous new phase. Soon after, the Taliban took over and welcomed him. Within two years, bombings at US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania led Washington to blame bin Laden.

Osama bin Laden’s home in Sudan. (Asharq Al-Awsat file)

The accusation was repeated after the attack on the USS Cole in Aden. Bin Laden made statements suggesting he was at war with the US, but no one expected him to bring the fight to American soil on September 11, 2001.

When President Bush justified the Iraq invasion, he listed allegations against Saddam, including weapons of mass destruction, repression, and mass graves.

The most controversial claim was that Saddam’s regime was cooperating with al-Qaeda. However, the US administration did not provide evidence for this claim, and no concrete proof of a connection between Saddam and al-Qaeda was presented.

Curiosity about the contact between Saddam and bin Laden had journalists setting out to find more information.

While answers couldn’t be obtained from Saddam’s opponents or his former colleagues, insights from Iraqi intelligence were available.

Salim al-Jumaili, head of the American Affairs Division in Iraqi intelligence, who was involved in the initial outreach to bin Laden, agreed to talk.

Before the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, Iraq and Saudi Arabia had a good relationship, marked by a security agreement that limited interference and intelligence activities.

Saddam praised Saudi Arabia and King Fahd for their support during the Iran-Iraq War. According to a former Iraqi official, King Fahd tried hard to resolve the situation and return to negotiations after the invasion, but Saddam had gone too far.

The invasion led to the collapse of the security agreement. As news spread about Iraqi opposition groups contacting Saudi Arabia, Iraqi intelligence suggested canceling the agreement, but Saddam refused.

When reports about these contacts continued, Saddam demanded monthly updates.

Eventually, he believed Saudi Arabia was backing efforts to overthrow him and ordered intelligence to “act strongly to undermine the American military presence in Saudi Arabia.”

“When the president issues such an order, all security agencies must try to fulfill it. At that time, I managed the Syria division and had connections with the Syrian Muslim Brotherhood, specifically Adnan Okla’s group,” said al-Jumaili.

“Adnan’s brother, Abdul Malik, told us that the Brotherhood had links with bin Laden and could deliver our message. I met Abdul Malik in Baghdad, and he agreed to help. I gave him a message saying we shared a goal of removing US forces from the region and were open to cooperation. We provided about $10,000 for travel expenses,” he revealed.

“The contact returned after a month or so and reported that bin Laden’s stance was very rigid. Bin Laden said the Iraqi regime was infidel and responsible for the presence of US forces in the region, and he was not interested in meeting or cooperating with us. This was in the early 1990s, before al-Qaeda’s actions escalated to the level of September 11.”

“I also heard from Farouk Hijazi, head of external operations, that bin Laden gave a similar response through another channel,” added al-Jumaili.

Al-Jumaili later discovered that Farouk Hijazi had visited Khartoum and met with bin Laden, arranged by al-Turabi.

“Hijazi informed the president that no cooperation with al-Qaeda took place. This is what Bush referred to when he mentioned the president sending an envoy to bin Laden. Bush likely knew there was no real cooperation but didn't mention it to justify the invasion,” al-Jumaili said.

Hassan al-Turabi. (AFP)

Another source, who requested anonymity, said bin Laden showed some flexibility regarding the Iraqi regime during his meeting with Hijazi.

Bin Laden “requested that if there were to be any cooperation, his camps be set up outside Iraqi control and that he have freedom in choosing targets and timing.”

Saddam, after learning of this, was told by Hijazi that cooperating with bin Laden would be complex and risky. Saddam then decided to end the matter entirely.

The consequences of that risky meeting are clear.

Saddam was executed, and Hijazi, who had fled to Syria, was captured at the Syrian-Iraqi border and also executed. Years later, US forces tracked down and killed bin Laden in Pakistan.

Cities sometimes take dangerous risks beyond their means and end up facing harsh realities.

Khartoum paid the price for harboring wanted figures and was punished before it could address the damage.

Some believe that under Bashir, Khartoum aimed to become a center of anti-Western activity, while al-Turabi wanted it to be a hub for political Islam, like Khomeini’s Iran. Both men pushed Sudan beyond its limits.