




































 

 

245 | P a g e  

 

 

Oil Politics and War in Libya: Arming of Rebels and the New Phase of Neo Democracy Evaluated 

Okechukwu, Groupson-Paul 

 

OIL POLITICS AND WAR IN LIBYA: ARMING OF REBELS AND THE NEW 

PHASE OF NEO DEMOCRACY EVALUATED 

                                         
Okechukwu, Groupson-Paul 

groupsonpaul@yahoo.com 

 

Abstract 

This study examines the conflict in Libya in the context of international politics in the role of 

alliances against the hate regime of Gadhafi. Under Islamic socialism, Libya embraced 

globalization – trade liberalization in the recent past, but, yet, its leader remained a threat to 

many. The findings revealed the over zealousness of actors to capture, control and appropriate 

the national wealth of Libya – the oil, under a hocus – pocus paradigm of Neo-Democracy. The 

hate expressions, premeditated acts, propaganda and blackmail formed part of the contour that 

escalated the conflict. This, thus call for questioning and, the re-examinations of the role of the 

International communities and the United Nations in the arming of rebels/insurgence and the 

sponsoring of violence in a sovereign state under any platform. For, if the destructions in Libya 

was due to a particular individual or groups interest, then, grave implications on the global 

World remains a time bomb vis-à-vis the new phase of Neo-Democracy. 

 

INTRODUCTION 
Libya, meshed in the continuum of the 

Arab world unrest in the present time, 

with long over stayed; and long endured 

people and society, that had lived under 

a benevolent dictator paradigm of the 

Gaddafi dynasty, that according Jones 

(2011:2) the cause of the unrest and war 

is a global problem requiring global 

monetary and economic reforms, that 

whose cause is the economic conditions, 

the primacy of material conditions of 

existence, and the distributions of 

wealth; the effect is sectarian, political, 

national division and unrest. Meaning 

that, Libyans could be likened to a 

people who live under a closed system, 

with over bearing pressure, that the 

authority is always checkmating and 

been able to contain the pressure for a 

while, even when the pressure might 

have built up with time and at a certain 

point, the present, exceed the strength of 

the system, thereby causing it to crack. 

          

This, being part of the situation we saw 

in Libya, that played out its own rhythm, 

but could that be the factor that created 

the sudden wake-up of the people after 

forty-two years? Or is there a new factor 

of issues hinged on freedom and Neo-

democracy - the western democracy, 

that arouse the venoms of the protesters, 

later turned rebels-insurgence to call for 

democratic reforms, whereas in reality, 

they are calling for better economic life 

on one hand, and on the other, they want 

open socioeconomic system that 

democracy and its pressure could be 

dissipated through elections and 

peaceful change of government. 

Although, democracy is only a means to 

an end (Dahl, 1954), even as the driving 

forces to the Libyan revolution cum war 

might have been centred on the above 

 

mailto:groupsonpaul@yahoo.com


 

 

246 | P a g e  

 

 

ESCET  
Journal of Educational Research and Policy Studies (ESCJERPS) Vol. 1 
ISSN: Print 2811-2717                                                                            https://journal.escetjerps.com 

 
 
 
 
 

 

mentioned factors, economic factor with 

other issues like chronic high 

unemployment rate, poverty among 

others had combined with an inflation in 

food prices that are volatile mix. 

Though, surprisingly too, no one is 

talking about the economy with loud 

voice, but neo-democracy and freedom. 

Meaning that the real force propelling 

the unrest is beyond both the people and 

Col. Gadhafi combined. A feature that 

might have led to the civic class 

outburst, to agreeing with David Hume 

(cited in Cantrill, 1967:102) that we 

recall our sense of justice and sympathy, 

and permit injustice and enmity to take 

their place in driving home every act of 

frustration and deprivation with 

aggression. 

           

Beside these, the tendency that there are 

other salient but powerful factors that 

might have mitigated this turn of event 

in Libya is not in any way ruled out. 

Such issues as a payback time to a long 

hysteria – enemy of the west, who the 

young leaders of the western extraction, 

hungry with broken economy, penniless 

with unimaginable bailout upon bailout, 

that the present economic status of their 

states never favoured their regimes are 

restless and wished re-colonising some 

states to become pennywise are possible. 

With sentiments driving them to 

remember with vividness and 

vengefulness, the acts of the old enemy 

of the west that swims in oil wealth in 

the Maghreb, with no debt record to 

them or any in the world, who was once 

the cause and problem of their enormous 

squander in the past leading to the 

present wreckages of bailout and 

recessions – “the Gaddafi dynasty, must 

be revisited, they tortuously muted” 

(Friesen, 2011:4). 

           

Furthermore, and just as the Arab adage 

puts it, the hand that you cannot cut, kiss 

it, and Gaddafi on the other hands is not 

a hand that they can kissed, but must be 

cut. Thus, the ploy and forces for oil 

politics and war in Libya was 

intensified. Against this folding event, 

the view of Jones (2011:2) is highly 

appreciated when he notes that rulers 

who learn from history and create a 

socioeconomic system that is open will 

achieve stability and continuity while 

those who fight against the 

socioeconomic laws may win some 

battles in the short term, but will lose the 

war. A notion that invariably amplified 

the western rulers’ desires under the 

robotic United Nations to arm the 

Libyan rebels cum insurgence in order to 

win the war by all means. 

          

While this may be seen simply as part of 

the process of moving towards the new 

world order and part of the shift of power 

from the West to the East, one question 

that strikes the minds is – do the 

international community’s (40 

countries) arming of the rebels to ousted 

a long time legitimate regime of Col 

Muammar Gadhafi in the name of 

establishing Neo-democracy in Libya 

the right actions? Is the oil politics antic 

not so obvious and glaring and a 

devastating paradigm towards re-

colonising a sovereign state like Libya 

no matter the odds on the table? Should 



 

 

247 | P a g e  

 

 

Oil Politics and War in Libya: Arming of Rebels and the New Phase of Neo Democracy Evaluated 

Okechukwu, Groupson-Paul 

 

one agrees that the booting out of 

Gaddafi from a nation that is not in any 

way indebted to the outside world or 

neighbours is a good measure toward 

forcing such a state into indebtedness? 

What was the level of casualty against 

the protesters and people of Libya prior 

to the period of North Atlantic Treaty 

Organization (NATO) arms 

bombardment of Libya that should 

warrant the former killing innocent 

civilians under the watchful eye of the 

UN human rights propagandist that had 

remained silent while in supports of their 

masters’ oil – money seekers want to 

annex and control Libyan oil wells even 

when the war of forty nations against 

Gaddafi had not ended. 

           

However, in evaluating these pieces, the 

inquiry will pay attention to the role and 

place of conspiracy theory and possible 

frustration-aggression theory with 

adequate problematic issue 

underpinned. 

 

LIBYA IN THE HISTORY 
Libya, with a vast territory whose desert 

concealed a considerable oil and gas 

resources in huge quantity, is not new to 

international politics and the politicking 

in market values. Although, this territory 

combined with its present neighbours of 

Morocco, Algeria, and Tunisia fall 

within the sphere of colonies that 

encouraged the German defeat of the 

French in 1871 and the consequent 

inevitability factors that sparked – off 

the first world war of 1914 to 1918 away 

from the European internal quagmires 

(Khadar, 2011:1-2).       

With about 6.2 million population, the 

Libyan oil that gush out over 2 million 

barrel per day and another 3.5 billion 

natural gas per day accounts for over 35 

billion dollars of every revenue alone, 

thereby making Libya one of the richest 

countries in Africa. According to 

Thudicey (2008:104), yes, Libya was 

not new to the antic of international 

politics and politicking in market value, 

simply because the then king Idris Al-

Senoussi had between 1959 to 1969 

traded-off most of the country’s values, 

with oil, gas, and cobalt inclusive to the 

colonialist who he played the puppet-

surrogates to.  Benefitting from the sale 

of this oil were the Italians, the British 

and the Americans. King Idris had 

developed pro-western policies that saw 

the establishment of the British and 

American military bases at Tripoli 

before the sack of the monarch. 

 

The Libyan Monarch, King Idris Al- 

Senoussi was overthrown on the 1st Sept. 

1969 by a young military officer, Col. 

Mu’ammar Gadhafi. He was brought in 

via the winds of change sweeping 

through African continent by way of the 

military barrels. At the period, across the 

North African states in particular, 

starting from Egypt in 1952, Sudan in 

1958, Algeria in 1662, 1965 amongst 

others (Okechukwu, 2009:73-74); 

Gadhafi found Gen Nasser exploit in 

Egypt as encouraging virtue worthy to 

emulate. He was inspired by this military 

sagacity of Nasser and thereafter 

declared himself as the spiritual heir to 

of Nasser (Khadar, 2011). 

          



 

 

248 | P a g e  

 

 

ESCET  
Journal of Educational Research and Policy Studies (ESCJERPS) Vol. 1 
ISSN: Print 2811-2717                                                                            https://journal.escetjerps.com 

 
 
 
 
 

 

Against the general discontent, 

exploitation, corruption and lopsided 

economy that was encouraged by the 

western imperialist, Col. Gadhafi in 

assuming power requested the closure of 

all foreign military bases, nationalized 

all the banks, oil firms with the 

confiscation of properties and allowed 

for indigenous control of the economy. 

The Italian, British American and other 

allies were the worst hit by this drive 

toward improving the lives of the 

citizenry that had been decimated and 

distorted under the imperial influence. 

The regime soon established a direct link 

with the then Soviet Union as his ‘Green 

Book was published to declare Libya an 

Islamic – Socialist State. This Islamic 

socialism, otherwise called Jamahiriya 

socialism is a system of direct 

democracy, where he argued that power 

and democracy are what make the 

people unique and that peoples’ power 

should be the centre of every 

governance. The irony of this 

pronouncement and its publication 

compared to what followed the regime’s 

power-crazy drive, did not only made 

mess of the political idea of Islamic 

socialism, but it destroyed the basis of 

his coming to power eight years later. 

          

Following this power dictatorism of Col. 

Gadhafi, Libyan at home was 

perpetually caged against any form of 

dissension against the government. The 

ideals of the Islamic socialism stated to 

dwindle and eventually became 

questionable when the once accepted 

leader involved in materialism and 

property acquisitions. Towards the crazy 

for more and possibly to attain fame, 

Gadhafi under pride and prestige 

engulfed himself in dirty and unexpected 

rackets with arsonist, kidnappers, 

murders, and men and women who were 

anti-human race, as he sponsored, aid 

and monitor annihilators world over. To 

the poor Africans, he became a 

benevolent dictator. He also indulges in 

sponsoring illegal regimes change as 

occurred in Liberia, Sierra Leone, 

Burkinafaso, Chad and Niger republics 

amongst others. 

 

Furthermore, as the saying goes tell me 

who your friend(s) is and I will tell you 

who you are! Was the case of Gadhafi. 

He fraternized with the Arab extremist 

and anti-human groups, who kill in the 

name of God, hate in the name of God 

and destroyed in the name of God. A 

clandestine totem that had been used by 

villain men to cause confusion in the 

society and the world in general. 

According to Jones (2008), Khadar 

(2011), HRW (1988) Amnesty 

International (2000), Anderson (2011) 

and Abaza (2001) amongst others, 

Gadhafi’s wealth and the country’s 

status must have driven his craze to 

antagonize the same people he pledged 

to protect in 1969. Khadar (2011) while 

viewing the idea of Gadhafi dialoguing 

with the tribes’ men and at the same time 

brutalized them was one of the undoing 

of the regime twenty years after. 

Agreeing with thus contention, Abaza 

(2011) noted that what actually cleared 

the doubts of all suspicions against the 

regime was its anti – west, with anti – 

American rhetoric by the Libya leader in 



 

 

249 | P a g e  

 

 

Oil Politics and War in Libya: Arming of Rebels and the New Phase of Neo Democracy Evaluated 

Okechukwu, Groupson-Paul 

 

particular, being pronounced as one of 

the unbecoming character of a man who 

claimed to be a – masses oriented leader. 

To worsen the issue was the event that 

took place at the peak of cold war, when 

Gadhafi severed the relationship with 

USSR (Khadar, 2011). A contradiction 

that pride, wealth and prestige helped his 

ignorance of ‘pay day coming’ to 

believe so much in himself. 

 

Across the Mediterranean, the United 

States and its allies in Europe fingered 

Gadhafi as being responsible for the 

terror attack in 1985; the aiding of the 

1988 Scottish airline bombing which 

claimed the lives of all the crews and 

passengers. This heinous attacks and 

other mindless sentiments of Gadhafi, 

coupled with his anti – American 

propaganda, the then U.S. President 

Ronald Regean in 1986 launched attack 

on the Gadhafi compound in Tripoli 

while the master minder of the 

Lockeribe bombing Mohammed 

Meagrahi was jailed for life. Gadhafi – 

Libya was declared a terrorist and a 

rogue state by the western world. 

Gadhafi on the other hand, not relenting 

engaged in multibillion dollar nuclear 

energy plant meant to produce weapons 

of mass destruction (Alain, 2011:18).  

            

However, the events of 2003, to which 

the US and its allies invaded Iraq made 

Col. Gadhafi to down – played his 

intentions of building weapons of mass 

destruction. Against the fate of Saddam 

Hussein, Gadhafi adopted the Arab 

proverb “the hand that you cannot cut, 

kiss it”, by dismantling all the nuclear 

plants. He encouraged open of the 

economics system and by 2004; Libya 

welcomed many world leader – friends 

and former foes to attend the first ever 

international trade fair that was solely 

organized to boost investment 

opportunities of the king of the 

maghrebs. According Khadar (2011:4) 

and Alain (2011:6) Gadhafi’s 

metamorphosis was adjudged a 

miraculous situation. This is because a 

rogue state has been rehabilitated and 

has even been raised to the rank of a 

friendly state (Clausder, 2007:15). The 

white house, in its characteristic manner 

according to Merriden (2008), ‘Libya 

has taken an important step and it 

follows that it has begun to do what it 

takes to join the international 

community’. In the words of Khadar 

(2011) the man the west booed, 

harassed, vilified and called mad dog of 

mad Libya was now seen as a political 

realism, respectable man that one can 

invite and cajole… Thus, in line with the 

trade liberalization processes, opening 

up and complete globalization policies 

in full implementation, Gadhafi was 

advised by the west to toe Neo-

democracy to which he also set the stage 

going on that area before the unfortunate 

incidence. Although, the process was 

slow as he would have prayed that the 

successor comes from his lineage prior 

to the unrest in the Arab world to which 

Libya was never an exception. 

 

CONCEPTUAL BASIS OF 

ARGUMENT 
This piece adopts conspiracy theory with 

little a digression into frustration – 



 

 

250 | P a g e  

 

 

ESCET  
Journal of Educational Research and Policy Studies (ESCJERPS) Vol. 1 
ISSN: Print 2811-2717                                                                            https://journal.escetjerps.com 

 
 
 
 
 

 

aggression theory to explaining to the 

world why the western leaders 

spearheaded by French President 

Nicholas Sarkozy, American President 

Barrack Obama and the British Prime 

Minister David Cameron amongst others 

wants Col Muammar Gadhafi to go by 

all means. Conspiracy theory being the 

most destructive scheme in the politics 

of the plot to destroy; the politics of 

confirmation of an accused that must be 

destroyed and cheap blackmail against 

an accused among others was used to 

condemn Gadhafi while frustration-

aggression theory was used to incite the 

citizenry against their leader, as the Arab 

World was misled to destroyed Col. 

Gadhafi. 

          

Thus, Libya, with a huge wealth and 

stable system under a benevolent – 

dictator, whose people never 

complained except the fact that it was 

closed to the predicators and vultures, 

who actually since 2004 after the trade 

liberalization and opening up scheme of 

globalization and, to which the 

investment friendly banner was hosted, 

had never had a fair share of the essence 

of removing all the trade barriers in 

Libya, hence they needed a Judas to help 

them to expose the ills of the so long a 

quiet country. In the words of Khadar 

(2011:1-2) Libya with lavished incomes 

could become a major business centre, 

even a financial hub in the maghreb if 

not checkmated by the west and, or 

possibly allowed to partake in the 

politics of oil dealings among others. In 

the development that follows, this work 

will vividly look at the conspiracy 

theory in its merit with a slight 

mentioning of the frustration-aggression 

theory by the way and, as affecting the 

Libyans in the linkage. 

 

a. Conspiracy Theory 

According to American Heritage 

Dictionary (2004:257) conspiracy is the 

act of seeking to explain a disputed case 

or matter as a plot by a secret group or 

alliance rather than an individual or 

isolated act. Meaning that conspiracy 

theory tends to explain an event as being 

the result of an alleged plot by a covert 

group or organization or more broadly 

the idea that important political, social or 

economic events are the products of 

secret plots that are largely unknown to 

the general public. 

          

The scholars of this school like David 

Pipes (1998), Milton W. Cooper (1991), 

David Icke (2004), Michael Barkun 

(2003), Harry G. West (2003), Todd 

Sanders (2003), Young Katherine K. 

(2010) and Frank P. Mintz (1985) 

among others had argued that conspiracy 

theory are based on the notion that 

complex plots are put into motion by 

powerful hidden forces. Agreeing with 

this view Barkun (2003:3) holds that a 

conspiracy theory is a belief which 

explains an event as the result of a secret 

plot by exceptionally powerful and 

cunning conspirators to achieve a 

malevolent end. He clearly points out 

that conspiracy theories are often 

presented as special, secret knowledge 

unknown or unappreciated by others. It 

is a scheme in which the masses are the 

brainwashed herd, while the conspiracy 



 

 

251 | P a g e  

 

 

Oil Politics and War in Libya: Arming of Rebels and the New Phase of Neo Democracy Evaluated 

Okechukwu, Groupson-Paul 

 

theorists in the know can congratulate 

themselves on penetrating the plotters’ 

deception.  

           

In support of the contention above, 

Young (2010:275) argued that not all 

conspiracies are imagined by paranoids. 

Instead events had shown that every real 

conspiracy has had at least four 

characteristics features: groups, not 

isolated individuals, illegal or sinister 

aims, not ones that would benefit society 

as a whole; orchestrated acts, not a series 

of spontaneous and haphazard ones; and 

secret planning, not public discussion. 

Pipes (1998:15) agreeing with Young 

also noted that there are five 

assumptions distinguishing the 

conspiracy theorist from more 

conventional patterns of thought: 

appearances deceive, conspiracies drive 

history; nothing is haphazard, the enemy 

always gains, power, fame, money and 

sex account for all. In yet another 

postulation, but with contrast, Chomsky 

(2002:17) asserts that conspiracy theory 

is more or less the opposite of 

institutional analysis, which focuses 

mostly on the public, long-term 

behaviour of publicly known 

institutions, as recorded in, for example, 

scholarly documents or mainstream 

media reports, rather than secretive 

conditions of individuals. 

          

Arguing from a different of view point, 

Mintz (1985:4) submits that the notion 

of conspiracy was popularized by the 

academic group. He argued that it 

devotes belief in the primacy of 

conspiracies in the unfolding of event or 

history. Furthermore, given this popular 

understanding of the term conspiracy 

theory, it can also be used illegitimately 

and inappropriately, as a means to 

dismiss what are in fact substantial and 

well – evidenced accusations. The 

legitimacy of each such usage will 

therefore be a matter of some 

controversy (Young, 2010:282). 

          

Although, it is evidence that throughout 

human history, political and economic 

leaders genuinely have been the cause of 

enormous amounts of death and misery, 

and they sometimes have engaged in 

conspiracies while at the same time 

promoting conspiracy theories about 

their targets (Mintz, 1985:6). The 

humanistic psychologists in agreeing 

with these notions aptly state that even if 

the cabal behind the conspiracy is almost 

always perceived as hostile there is, 

often, still an element of reassurance in 

it, for conspiracy theorists, in part 

because it is more consoling to think that 

complications and upheavals in human 

affairs, at least, are created by human 

beings rather than factors beyond human 

control. 

            

However, when reviewing the 

contention of Barkun (2003), Mintz 

(1985) and the view of the Humanistic 

Psychologists, it is evidence if strongly 

suggested that there are linkage of the 

events that unfolded in Libya with the 

antics of the western leaders’ 

determination to do away with the 

perceived eternal enemy – Col 

Muammar Gadhafi by all means. The 

view of Mintz (1985) also show case the 



 

 

252 | P a g e  

 

 

ESCET  
Journal of Educational Research and Policy Studies (ESCJERPS) Vol. 1 
ISSN: Print 2811-2717                                                                            https://journal.escetjerps.com 

 
 
 
 
 

 

fact that the conspiracy against Gadhafi 

apart from been a well-structured, has 

also caused enormous amount of death 

and misery on the average Libyan 

citizen, not only on those killed by 

NATO air strike but also those who were 

sick and remained unattended to; those 

hungry and might have died of misery; 

and, those died of traumatisation and 

shocks owing to the firing powers of 

war. This, thereby making the assertions 

of the humanistic psychologists to hold 

water as pointedly noted that some 

western cabal were behind the 

conspiracy since they had perceived 

Gadhafi as an eternal enemy. Meaning 

that, it is in a bid to sustain the 

conspiracy theory of the western leaders 

against Gadhafi that the crisis was given 

a human face. Thus, the idea to inciting 

the Libyans citizenry against their 

leader, which actually established the 

taproot of the unrest through the 

embodied sentiments of frustration – 

Aggression theory. 

 

b. FRUSTRATION – 

AGGRESSION THEORY 
This theory is a product of relative 

deprivation, emanating from either 

misrule or mismanagement or otherwise. 

Scholars of this school are the likes of 

Keith, A. (1946), Lewis Coser (1956), 

David Hume (1961), Richard Synder 

(1957), Gurr Ted Robert (1974) and 

Cantril Hadley (1967) among others. 

These scholars argued that men’s 

circumstances changes. However, and 

what they have learned does not always 

prove suitable for deriving satisfaction 

from the changed circumstances, thence, 

they become frustrated, because there 

are relative deprivation knocking at their 

door steps. 

           

Agreeing that incompatible goals, apart 

from the acts of frustration and 

deprivation generates conflicts in 

several ways, Cantril (1967) argued that 

when we sense conflict between the 

significance that we bring to a situation 

and which have worked in the past but 

seem to have no corresponding role in 

the present, then emerged a situation of 

unsatisfied desires, thereby allowing 

frustration to sets in and, if the tension or 

conflict that goes with it is not checked, 

but remains fundamentally unpleasant, 

of which if not avoided or overcome and 

therefore released in expressive non-

realistic way, violence eruption. 

           

According to Gurr (1974:22) men rebel 

when their expectations from the state 

are not met; when they fail to get 

satisfaction due to change in 

circumstance; the frustration men gets 

and relative deprivation that causes the 

sense of conflicts among the parties is 

established. Keith (1946) in support of 

this notions, argued that destructive 

behaviour might explain yet another 

fundamental property of human 

organism, of which when men are 

exposed to noxious stimuli to which they 

cannot avoid, then they might through an 

innate disposition strike out. The 

striking out may or may not reduce the 

frustration, but it seems to be an 

inherently satisfying response to the 

tension built up through frustration. 

Coser (1956) in the same vein noted that 



 

 

253 | P a g e  

 

 

Oil Politics and War in Libya: Arming of Rebels and the New Phase of Neo Democracy Evaluated 

Okechukwu, Groupson-Paul 

 

aggression and violence were often 

noted to be the most available measures 

of releasing tension arising from 

frustration. Thus, aggression, being both 

physiological and psychological 

evidence found in such a situation, helps 

to extend the tension already built. The 

basic frustration – aggression theory, he 

further noted, that the greater the 

frustration, the greater the quantity of 

aggression against the source of 

frustration. Hume (1961) reiterated that 

these principles operate in wide range of 

individual behaviour, including the 

action of those rebelling against their 

political community. Thus, he 

concluded by saying that these informed 

our sense of justice and sympathy, and 

permit injustice and enemity to take their 

place in driving home every act of 

frustration and deprivation with 

aggression. Meaning that when there is 

no collective value of satisfaction, that 

men, society may be disposed to 

violence. Furthermore, in a society that 

there are absence of value expectations, 

value capabilities and value 

opportunities among others, the 

frustration – aggression relationship 

might provide the potential for collective 

violence. 

           

In view of the above two considered 

theories of conspiracy theory and 

frustration – aggression theory being 

used – or combined in the interplay to 

ousted the former Libyan strong man, 

Col. Muammar Gadhafi out of power, it 

is pertinent to note that the involvement 

of both can only be accepted with 

necessary evidence being laid down to 

drive home the point that it is the 

conspiracy theory in particular that 

encouraged and inspired the Libyan 

citizens to stage the protest and unrest 

that led to the rebellion/war in the period 

under study, owing to long and unhealed 

pains of frustration, characteristics of 

bad leaderships. 

          

These contentions agreeing with Jones 

(2011:1), that if the system in a country 

is close, it might be able to contain the 

pressure for a while, but the pressure 

will build up with time and at a certain 

point it will exceed the strength of the 

system thereby causing it to crack. In 

another instance, when people go under 

pressure in life, be it economic or 

otherwise, they might seek support from 

the people close to them who might be 

greater than them as frustration sets in 

(Badran, 2011:10). When such reasons 

are considered in term of the situation of 

things in Libya for near – forty-two 

years, to which the people never protest 

or revolt and according to Berlusconi 

(2011) the Libyans love Gadhafi as I was 

able to see when I went to Libya. It is 

powerful people who have decided to 

give life to a new era by trying to oust 

Gadhafi. This instance and other 

sentiments that follows probably may 

justified the notion that it is conspiracy 

theory that informed or waked up the 

element of frustration – aggression 

against the Gadhafi regime. 

            

To ascertain the degree of evidence to 

conspiracy theory against Gadhafi by the 

western allies as lead by Nicholas 

Sarkozy of France, Pottenger and 



 

 

254 | P a g e  

 

 

ESCET  
Journal of Educational Research and Policy Studies (ESCJERPS) Vol. 1 
ISSN: Print 2811-2717                                                                            https://journal.escetjerps.com 

 
 
 
 
 

 

Friesen (2011:1) argued that under the 

responsibility of protect: the war in 

Libya was launched but there was no 

confirmation whatsoever from pentagon 

that Gadhafi fired on his own people 

from the air. Meaning that if the war in 

Libya was fought on the pretext and 

unjustifiable actions that Gadhafi was 

killing civilian and the NATO and the 

United States had the responsibility to 

come to the rescue of the innocence, 

then if such a measure is intended to 

spread falsehood in order to enhance the 

projection towards getting a targeted 

enemy, then it is a share conspiracy to 

committing action against Gadhafi. 

               

In yet another fact that exposed the US 

and its allies on the conspiracy against 

Gadhafi, Ruff (2011:4-6) argued that if 

the USA defence secretary and chief 

joint of staff (Robert Gates and Marshall 

Mullen) claim ignorance of the event in 

Libya, then the question is who is the 

real war criminal. Gadhafi or Obama – 

Sarkozy amongst others. For in the 

words of Gates (2011), I would note that 

the UN Security Council resolution 

provides no authorization for the use of 

armed forces. There is no unanimity 

within NATO for the use of armed force. 

If this statement were actually true, then, 

it exposes not only the level of 

conspiracy and premeditated act of 

sovereignty violations but also the 

degree of dirty and awfulness of the 

International community.  Such action 

also explicates the manner of naivety 

and greed of using cheap blackmail by 

the US – NATO mission group to get at 

their common enemy on the course for 

their invasion of Libya. 

           

To further state in clear term the element 

of conspiracy in the invasion, Friesen 

(2011) noted that despite the fact that 

Robert Gates and Marshal Mike Mullen 

relied on the western press report and 

falsehood, without any confirmation of 

whether Gadhafi was actually firing at 

his people, the questions of reasoning is, 

what happened to the casualty record 

since before the NATO’s arrival, the 

victim of the unrest number stood at 305 

people, but after the invasion the death 

toll rose to 5,000 people. These numbers 

are mostly of the NATO air strike. 

Another question again that struck the 

mind is who are the real killers of the 

civilians? What and where is the UN 

human rights group? What is the western 

interest in Libya? Contradicting the 

western interest, Gates (2011) reiterated 

that we are in the same realm of 

speculation, pretty much, as everybody 

else. I haven’t seen anything that would 

give us a better read on the number of 

rebels that have been killed than you 

have. He further contended that whether 

Gadhafi would be prepared to leave 

voluntarily or not, unless some form of 

force, whether it is rebels or the 

ultimately the UN sanctions or western 

intervention. Meaning that the 

suspicions, conspiracy and the inciting 

of the people against Gadhafi was a pure 

USA diplomacy, since according to 

Ramsay (2006:65)  the idea that more 

recently the United States has become 

the home of conspiracy theories because 

so many high – level prominent 



 

 

255 | P a g e  

 

 

Oil Politics and War in Libya: Arming of Rebels and the New Phase of Neo Democracy Evaluated 

Okechukwu, Groupson-Paul 

 

conspiracies have been undertaken and 

uncovered since 1960s, become a real 

fact, just as it is also adduced that their 

conspiracy theory would survive only by 

having some agents to incite the masses 

as was done by the C.I.A. agents who 

was actually enrolled into CIA 

syndicates by Gadhafi but was in turn 

used against him. 

 

THE HOCUS – POCUS OF NEO-

DEMOCRACY AND OIL POLITICS 

IN LIBYA: THE WESTERN 

INTEREST. 

The politics of regime change paradox in 

the Arab world in recent time was not 

only an eye opener, just as Barrack 

Obama in the Egyptian uprising muted 

“that we are inspired by the event in 

Egypt…the government should respect 

the will of the people...”, whereas 

unknown to the onlookers the unfolding 

event in the Arab world is targeted at 

core – perceived enemies of the west. 

But it is a common knowledge that the 

west cannot openly encourage armed 

rebellion in a state where they will in 

turn end-up been the only sole arms 

dealer, monitor and disarmmentee.  

Hence, every action, criticism, support 

and sympathy must be hinged on 

popular governance-democracy. 

Whether it is a government slated on the 

more you look, the less you see 

syndrome, even if it is by way of 

landslide riggings to actualise the 

interest of the west. This might be one 

the reason why Obama repeatedly 

request that the peoples’ wish be obeyed 

– Neo-democracy of the western model 

must be enthroned.           

In time past, it is a fact that the United 

Nations in decrying the level of poverty 

of development and instabilities in the 

third world countries in particular, as 

occasioned by long years of military 

misrule in its 32nd general assembly that 

it was opined that from 1995 upward to 

the present that no military rule will be 

allowed into the general assembly or 

tolerated unless such state embraced 

Neo-democracy (Okechukwu, 2009:82). 

The idea was generally welcomed by all 

the countries still under military rule and 

those relinquishing autocratic rule. In 

the light of this and within that period 

many African states’ dictators were 

encouraged to metamorphose into 

civilian rule. An act Ojewole (1997) saw 

as a kind of democratic succession in 

Africa that is coded soldiers – 

politicians. This is because they started 

off as career military officers and later 

succumbed to the ultimate aphrodisiac 

of power, with bazooka in their hands 

and presidential palace in sight. These 

soldiers shot their way to power. 

           

Against this development and by the end 

of 1994 many African leaders has 

transformed from military rule to civil 

democratic governance. The system, 

Neo-democracy, in Africa, Ake 

(1994:15-18) argued, that the west has 

laboured so much on their own interest 

to bringing the system solely for the 

democratization of the disempowerment 

in Africa. This is because it goes beyond 

the transformation of the state and 

related conditions as they are only 

interested in what they will gain from the 

system rather than the development of 



 

 

256 | P a g e  

 

 

ESCET  
Journal of Educational Research and Policy Studies (ESCJERPS) Vol. 1 
ISSN: Print 2811-2717                                                                            https://journal.escetjerps.com 

 
 
 
 
 

 

the indigenous people and society. In 

support of the above notion, Okafor 

(2004:1-2) asserts that neo-democracy 

(liberal democracy) in its salvafic 

mission in Africa could be seen as a 

failure; because it is like a baby sitter 

which watches hand-Akimbo as Africa 

degenerates. Thus, going by this 

contention as far back as the onset when 

the same west asked the African leaders 

to transform from military dictatorship 

to neo-democracy compliance of the 

west so that they could last on the throne, 

they thought it not wise also at then to 

advise the surrogates that in democracy 

nobody stays longer than the time 

allowed. But today, and since then, that 

the so called allies had been 

hallucinating on diminishing returns 

paradigm, to which there had been no 

change in the political system or 

development of the states, thereby 

confirming the earlier assertion of (Ake, 

1994) that it is only for what they (west) 

will gain that the idea of neo-democracy 

was introduced. For since then, they 

never complained until now that the 

west is extremely-economically 

bankrupt and broke and, are looking for 

whom to re-colonised that they now 

thought it right to say that some of the 

African leaders had overstayed on the 

throne of their states. And to which the 

regime of Muammar Gadhafi that was 

already toeing the line of Neo-

democracy was fingered as devious and 

inhuman. These kinds of value judgment 

are not only naive, but mischievous with 

intent towards economic milieu re-

colonisation. 

          

Due to the fact that Col Gadhafi to this 

effect was not only affected because of 

ignorance’s to understanding the present 

order even when the west through Tony 

Blair, the former British prime minister 

acknowledged that Gadhafi is a political 

realist. Recounting why it shouldn’t 

have been Gadhafi in this unipolar 

world, controlled solely by America, 

after all the processes that had been put 

in place, Khader (2011:2) noted that 

Gadhafi metamorphosis was seen as 

miraculous, whereas in reality it is the 

result of a simple geopolitical 

calculation to which the U.S reigns is 

masterly fashion, and to which Libya 

does not stand its ground and the 

American neoconservatives would want 

to skin him alive if refused to make some 

changes. Hence, Gadhafi in showing 

how serious he was puts an end to his 

weapons of mass destruction 

programme while paving way for the 

establishment of the western patterns of 

democracy. He reconciled with the west 

and throws open his country air and land 

space for investors. This fit was seen in 

2004 when he embraced the western 

globalization system with opening up, 

trade liberalization, removal of all 

known trade barriers to foreign 

investment and bilateral trade treaties. 

The Libyan international trade fair was 

much talked about. To international 

commentators, Gadhafi’s 

transformation has brought respect and 

prestige to the Libyans as live has been 

given new relief. 

 

However, according to Khader (2011), 

and Ruff (2011) danger is not 



 

 

257 | P a g e  

 

 

Oil Politics and War in Libya: Arming of Rebels and the New Phase of Neo Democracy Evaluated 

Okechukwu, Groupson-Paul 

 

completely unfounded. This is because 

Gadhafi had not handed over the oil 

wells and gas sources into their hand for 

control. Their firms (Shell BP, Texaco, 

Total, Elf Aquine and others) were still 

been treated as second tier investors. 

Italy, South Africa, Russia and Japan 

companies were still in full control of the 

marketing of the Libyan oil and wealth. 

Secondly, Gadhafi does not owe any 

debt in the world and her external 

reserve is over two hundred billion 

dollars. At the same time some of the 

western countries owed the country 

some substantial amount of dollars. 

Thirdly, Gadhafi is so slow about 

embracing a comprehensive tenet of 

Neo-democracy, probably because his 

son Serf-Al-Islam is been prepared for 

such position under the British tutelage 

for his Doctor of philosophy (PhD) 

come 2012, when the country had 

planned for elections. A terrifying 

condition that many were not in 

agreement with, but impatient in seeing 

Gadhafi not been sincere in upholding 

his words. Furthermore, the fear of the 

retention of the same family dynasty is 

not rule out. Thus, the refusal by some 

was seen as a good course to making 

sure that Gadhafi goes, coupled with a 

close economic direct investment may 

be sustained, hence, according to Ashton 

(2011) Gadhafi was persuaded to 

nominate trusted and preferably former 

allies as agents of C.I.A. to which he 

obliged, but unknown to him that the 

same men would be used against him in 

the later days as earlier stated that danger 

is not completely unfounded. This is 

because, according to Ashton (2011) 

revolutions sometimes have the 

tendency of unlocking darker political 

forces but hopefully the move towards 

Neo-democracy in a country where it 

can help to reinforce the positive aspects 

rather than the negative is very vital to 

the west interest. 

          

Afterall, the British – Lord Palmerston’s 

famous quote about the motivations 

behind British foreign policy, ‘we have 

no eternal allies, and we have no 

perpetual enemies. Our interest are 

eternal and perpetual, and those interest 

it is our duty to follow (Encyclopedia 

Britanica, 1992:411), was rekindled as 

the war rages on in Tripoli. The irony of 

the conspiracy theory also saw these 

groups who called themselves friends of 

Libya to turn out to honour the name 

Libya where it turned out also find that 

Libya has a lots and lots of them indeed. 

Of course, it always helps if they join to 

get a couple of billion in oil reserves 

knocking about, which makes the whole 

friendship thing a bit more cynical to 

understand that they could defile the 

NATO bombing to gather to deliberate 

on Libya oil and how it must be 

harnessed to solving their own problems 

(economic recessions) and not that of the 

purported crying Libyans as portrayed 

by the western press that Gadhafi had 

depraved (Reed, 2011:5-6). 

           

Just as the Arab League openly stated 

that they were misled into Libya (Ruff, 

2011), how are we sure that tomorrow, 

the United Nations will not say that they 

were pressured into killing of Gadhafi 

by the western allies. Even when against 



 

 

258 | P a g e  

 

 

ESCET  
Journal of Educational Research and Policy Studies (ESCJERPS) Vol. 1 
ISSN: Print 2811-2717                                                                            https://journal.escetjerps.com 

 
 
 
 
 

 

all odds, the west and the UN had used 

Neo-democracy totem as the benchmark 

to vilify their common enemy or those 

who disagreed with their nefarious 

policies of subjugation as was seen in 

Yugoslavia and Iraq.      

 

Hence, with the hope that building a 

democratic state will be easier in Libya 

than elsewhere since Libya has a small 

relatively homogenous population. 

Thus, the easing out of Col Gadhafi was 

cogent and a necessary evil. With this, 

the scheming idea of Obama and his 

allies who hatched the plan had only 

waited patiently for opportunities to 

eliminate Gadhafi. This showed the kind 

of over zealousness, desperate and poor 

attitude of the French president who was 

terribly looking for money by all means 

to finance his re-election as the initial 

financier is now late. Nicholas Sarkozy 

becomes the centre of the conspiracy 

and the pawn to inciting of the Libyans 

rebels against Gadhafi. 

          

The question that the actors who 

orchestra the Libya unrest could not 

answer was why using Neo-democracy 

totem as the best bet to win the heart of 

the hallucinating world leaders in order 

to get rid of Gadhafi? Why did these 

actors rely on hocus-pocus paradigm to 

convince the Arab world that Gadhafi 

was killing his people? Why didn’t they 

come out to state their categorical 

interest on the Libyan oil and natural 

resources instead of fanning violence to 

eliminate the man perceived as 

hindrance to their interests and course of 

these years? Why was interest on Libyan 

oil the pivotal diplomacy of the west in 

paying back to Gadhafi all his atrocities 

for years? 

           

On the other hand, the view of Jones 

(2011:4) that throughout history, 

national and international conflicts can 

be traced to economic reasons is 

justifiable in the Libyan case as they can 

be disguised under different pretence 

and may take different forms as conflicts 

evolve, but these forms are the effects 

and not the cause. This, simply also 

made the acceptance of the fact that the 

western states’ invasion of Libya was 

never normal but abnormal since it was 

centred on their economic interests 

hinged on democracy, war/violence and 

the sharing of boots. These was 

witnessed, according to Ruff (2011:1-4) 

that at the Libyan energy resources 

centre, David Cameron and Nicolas 

Sarkozy was seen with the NTC 

members while the war was still on. 

They were in the country to negotiate on 

how the oil export and sales will be 

absolutely free to their country. Their 

presence also explained the kind of 

western democracy façade that is fake 

with their strategies of the most horrible 

rogues promoting state terrorism and 

fascism and assisting even their eastern 

allies to keep creating problems for 

humanity (Abunimah, 2011:18).  

            

Extracting reasons from the points above 

and questions raised above by scholars 

over the main causes of the western 

invasion and act of terrorism in Libya 

with the usual bracket propaganda that it 

is time for Gadhafi to go and give 



 

 

259 | P a g e  

 

 

Oil Politics and War in Libya: Arming of Rebels and the New Phase of Neo Democracy Evaluated 

Okechukwu, Groupson-Paul 

 

democracy in Libya a chance as 

repeatedly hinted by Hilary Clinton, the 

U.S secretary of states, it is obvious and 

reasonable to agree with the critics of the 

latter that the hunger for Libyan oil and 

other rich resources might have been the 

contending issues for the push to either 

see Col Muammar Gadhafi into exile or 

killed so that they can confidently 

display their democratic hocus-pocus 

while the thieffry of the oil and other 

resources goes on unabated in an 

unbearable magnitude. The war in Libya 

then, by this emphasis, be that as it may, 

has no any other reason to be established 

other than ‘oil politics war’ hinged on a 

façade that its instruments were 

conspiracy theory and frustration – 

aggression theory that was substantially 

employed to smoothen the whole project 

towards achieving the desired goal. 

 

WAR AND THE ARMING OF 

REBELS IN LIBYA 
The international communities of the 

United States, Britain and France in 

particular, in expanding the tenets of 

their conspiracy to deal with Gadhafi 

once and for all, could be said to have 

manipulated the United Nations and 

others in taking a decisive action against 

Gadhafi regime. This is sequel to the 

view of Risk (2011:26) that Nicholas 

Sarkozy and David Cameron muted the 

idea of no-fly zone so as to avoid Col 

Gadhafi airlifting of mercenaries and 

using his military aeroplanes and 

armoured helicopters against the 

civilian. It was this insinuation that 

informed their idea at the same time, that 

Gadhafi was killing innocent civilians. 

To facilitate this ulterior motives, the 

two countries of Britain and France 

drafted the ‘Resolution’ 1973 on No-fly 

zone and imposed it on the United 

Nations Security Council for ratification 

(Ruff, 2011). 

 

However, alleging fear on its 

implication, the US Defence Secretary 

Robert Gates were quoted as warning 

with caution, to the US congress that on 

no fly zone as agreed with Britain and 

France, that if such is approved, it would 

begin with an attack on Libya’s air 

defence, which might affect both the 

civilian and the combat military without 

any distinction. But the white extremist 

who wanted if possible to skinned 

Gadhafi alive ignored the warning, 

thereby giving way to deal with the 

external enemy at all cause (Risk, 

2011:24). To exemplify the reason on 

the conclusion that Gadhafi had over 

stayed its usefulness, the AFP (2011:3) 

noted that France and Britain did draw 

up the resolution 1973 on no fly zone 

and was able to convince the Security 

Council and General Assembly of the 

United Nations on adopting it. The truth 

that it was never a UN draft was seen 

when the French and Britain argued that 

NATO will be made to enforce it. This 

argument also under scored the high 

level of the conspiracy against Gadhafi.  

           

In a further revelation, leading to the 

war, even when the young and 

uncoordinated protesters decried of 

abandonment by the international 

community, who had inspired them to go 

ahead against their leaders, thus, 



 

 

260 | P a g e  

 

 

ESCET  
Journal of Educational Research and Policy Studies (ESCJERPS) Vol. 1 
ISSN: Print 2811-2717                                                                            https://journal.escetjerps.com 

 
 
 
 
 

 

agreeing with Gurr (1974) that in most 

rebellion, apart from the people being 

dissatisfied against government policies 

may be inspired from the outside against 

a hate regime. And as it is obviously 

known that Gadhafi regime fall within 

this angle of measurement before the 

international community and their press, 

nothing was left other than to quicken 

his exit. Accepting this observation, 

Risk (2011:14) revealed that the U.S in 

playing a covert position had asked the 

Saudi Arabian government to help it 

supply weapons to the rebels in 

Benghazi. Such weapons as anti-tanks 

rocket, mortar and surface to air missiles 

and medium range weapons were what 

Gadhafi opponents needed. He further 

reiterated that the United States 

however, warned agents (Saudi Arabia) 

of being careful since it is the same arms 

embargo as stated in resolution 1970 as 

applied to Libya – Gadhafi regime that 

is also applied to it (and the rebels). 

Meaning that it was the weapons 

shipped from Saudi Arabia that actually 

affords the rebels the gut to confront the 

Gadhafi regime. In addition to this, 

Global Security Consultancy (2011:5) 

noted that the British and France on their 

own side had talked ‘strafer, an Egyptian 

special operations force Unit 777, the 

militia group led by Mukhtar Al-

Akhdar, a member of Al-Qaeda group 

and the Tunisian volunteers to join force 

with the rebels to fighting Gadhafi. 

          

Meanwhile, going by the word of Gates 

(2011) and Mullen (2011) that there was 

never any confirmation, either from 

pentagon or agents on the ground or 

whatsoever to ascertain that Gadhafi was 

firing at his people from the air, and that 

they were in utter ignorance as to what 

was happening in Libya. In reactions 

these revelations, one remained 

dumbfounded as to where did America, 

Britain and France got the news that 

warrant the issuing of the no fly zone 

resolution by the United Nations, the 

arming of rebels through Saudi Arabia 

and Qatar. And the employment of 

Mercenaries from Britain, France, Egypt 

and Tunisia to helping the rebels to win 

the war against Gadhafi, even when 

there was arms embargo resolution 1970 

prohibiting such practices? Since, also 

the same US Defence Secretary Gates 

(2011:2) informed the international 

press that the UN Security Council 

resolution 1973 and 1970 did not in any 

way provides authorization for the use of 

armed force. There is no unanimity 

within NATO for the use of armed force. 

Meaning that even within the US cabinet 

and the presidency there are divided 

opinion on what kind of action should be 

taken against Gadhafi in the thick of the 

potential conspiracy theory of the actors 

against the former. 

 

It is also this contrasting and 

contradicting scenario that prompts 

Kevin (2011:10-15) to argued that the 

western press, especially the BBC, CNN 

and French media, must be commended 

for helping to set Libya ablaze with the 

kind of falsehood and information 

misgivings that they fed their war 

marshals in their air conditioners offices 

who never see or know the true event or 

what was happening in Libya other than 



 

 

261 | P a g e  

 

 

Oil Politics and War in Libya: Arming of Rebels and the New Phase of Neo Democracy Evaluated 

Okechukwu, Groupson-Paul 

 

to instruct their war merchants to roll out 

tanks and missiles over one of the most 

stable economic buoyant nation in the 

Maghreb, because they wanted to 

partake, if not control, the gushing oil 

and gas of Libya. Logically, therefore, 

confirming from the views of Robert 

Gates and Marshal Mike Mullen 

amongst others that the west had become 

a tool to the destruction of Libya 

(Cooper, 2011:3). 

          

Meanwhile, reacting to the double – 

edge – sword game of America, Booth 

(2011:1) argued that the US had 

breached the UN Security Council’s 

arms embargo on Libya for sending 

arms through Saudi Arabia to the rebels. 

He however, wondered how the US 

could violate the resolutions that cover 

everybody in the conflict, which also 

means that you cannot supply arms to 

the rebels. In another instance, Sands 

(2011:1) opined that they could not see 

how the US could legally justify sending 

arms into Libya under the current 

resolutions. To dissipate the degree of 

reaction against the abuse of the 

resolution, Clinton (2011) was quick to 

give the excuse that there may be 

amendment to resolution, so that there 

could be a legitimate transfer of arms to 

the rebels if the country should choose to 

do that. This singular assertion of Hilary 

Clinton also admit that the US was 

aware they had violated the UN 

resolution 1973 and 1970 on Libyan 

crisis either owing to permanent interest 

or a procedure meant to deal with an 

eternal enemy – Gadhafi. 

             

In what seemed to be a battle of 

indecision and decision line, and a 

conspiracy of moulding up statements of 

the UN resolutions, the US had pinned 

their decision on both the resolution 

1973 and 1970. But against this stands of 

the US, Grief (2011) noted that the 

resolution 1973 was meant to strengthen 

the earlier resolution 1970 in arms 

embargo, hence, it will be wrong to say 

that reading the two together can 

circumvent the arms embargo since the 

resolutions make clear it is for the 

Security Council to decide whether to 

strengthen, suspend or lift the arms 

embargo, and not for member state to act 

unilaterally. In support of this assertion 

the NATO secretary general, Anders 

Fogh Rasumussen stressed the 

importance of respecting the arms 

embargo, while affirming that the UN 

mandate authorizes the enforcement of 

an arms embargos…we are not in Libya 

to arm people but to protect people (see 

Guardian.co.uk, 2011). On how true and 

sincere the statement painted above was, 

becomes a confusing paradigm of hocus-

pocus since NATO at that time was 

France and Britain, who had 

marginalized all other members, even 

the powerful, like the German. And it 

had not been ruled out that Humanitarian 

Agents in conflict zones do many at 

times act as conduct pipe to the arming 

of rebels (Okechukwu, 2011:10-11). 

Booth (2011) in furtherance to this 

allegation and findings from the 

information that US and its allies in 

Libya is implicated and, one would be 

interested to see what the US argument 

would be in detail. This is because taken 



 

 

262 | P a g e  

 

 

ESCET  
Journal of Educational Research and Policy Studies (ESCJERPS) Vol. 1 
ISSN: Print 2811-2717                                                                            https://journal.escetjerps.com 

 
 
 
 
 

 

together the two resolutions don’t 

preclude the provision of arms to the 

rebels.       

With damming reactions against the role 

of USA, NATO, Britain and France 

amongst others in Libya over the arming 

of the rebels, war and destructions in 

Libya some humane individuals like 

Hague (2011:2) had regrettably stated 

that our action in Libya, it would breach 

any common sense too-no one seems to 

have any knowledge of history. 

Remember what happened when we 

armed and trained the Mujahideen to 

fight the Russians…. what we are doing 

in Libya has many possible 

consequences and a nice cozy pro-

western democracy (Neo-Democracy) is 

incredibly unlikely. We shouldn’t have 

got involved. The BBC doesn’t help 

with its naïve and gullible reports, it 

seems to think that post – Gadhafi Libya 

would be like Islington or Hampstead, 

very wrong. The arming of the anti – 

Gadhafi rebels will only go on to 

devalue the west in the eyes of the rest 

of the world. 

            

However, deducing from the acts to the 

violation of the UN resolutions 1973 and 

1970 respectively, couple with the 

several reactions trailing the actions of 

the U.S, Britain, France and other states 

that joined forces in the war against 

Gadhafi under speculation of 

allegations, the concept of international 

law, especially the law of treaties may be 

brought into the fore. According to the 

Vienna convention on Law of Treaties 

1969, which states inter alia, ‘pacta sunt 

servanda’ meaning that international 

agreements to which a state enter into 

must be observed. That is to say, that 

once in force a treaty is binding upon the 

parties to them and must be performed in 

good faith. Good faith here, suggest that 

a state that expresses its consent either 

by signature, ratification or by accession 

is bond by the treaty (Green, 1987:163-

167). 

           

In line to this contention, and in 

agreement to the UN arms embargo, 

Epps (2010:1) argued that the essence of 

creating a global regulatory framework 

for the effective control of conventional 

arms transfer is to strengthen arms 

embargo implementation. This is 

because arms embargo could become 

mutually supportive instrument of the 

international community for 

maintaining international peace and 

security. The arms embargo is legally 

binding convention on states, parties to 

established global standards to 

improving the national regulation of 

international arms transfers. Arms 

embargoes are reactive tools intended to 

prevent the transfer of all conventional 

weapons to particular targets. Another 

question consequent this could be to call 

to the mind, how mandatory was 

member states expected to obey the arms 

embargoes? The United Nations arms 

embargoes are imposed by the UN 

Security Council under the authority of 

chapter VII in the UN charter which 

presupposes that all member state ought 

to obey it. But, if most of the Security 

Council arms embargoes are intended to 

prevent transfer of conventional 

weapons to the target of the embargo, 



 

 

263 | P a g e  

 

 

Oil Politics and War in Libya: Arming of Rebels and the New Phase of Neo Democracy Evaluated 

Okechukwu, Groupson-Paul 

 

why should the US engaged in the 

arming of the rebels in Libya? What is 

her interest? What do she intend to 

achieve in the international system, 

mindful of the fact that many look up to 

it? What moral burden is it trying to 

convey to its forty (40) loyalist states 

that allied with it to kill Gadhafi? 

            

Against this posture, it seems that the 

events of the cold-war era had not 

considerably been forgotten or forgone, 

but the basic information expressed by 

the actions of the big actors in the Libya 

quagmire is a time – bomb, that its 

consequence may sooner or later play 

itself out either in Libya or amongst the 

perceived allies as the sharing of every 

criminal boots or loots had been the 

major exposure of all criminals to a 

particular crime, because the arming of 

rebels in Libya is criminal. A complete 

violations of the UN arms embargo 

treaty; a violation of the rights and 

sovereignty of state (Libya), as stated in 

the Westphalia treaty of 1648 and 1962 

on state ratification; and a clear 

indication on aiding to commit violation 

of the Geneva convention of 1949 on 

targets against sect, tribe, group, 

innocence, and targeted group with the 

intention to exterminate or annihilate 

them under the genocide conventions. 

This is because if Gadhafi was the target, 

what then happened to the over 20,000 

civilians’ deaths caused by the NATO 

air strike. The UN human rights body is 

silent the issues because they were 

involved in the unfortunate incident that 

they directly or indirectly teleguided 

against humanity in Libya. Although, 

this may be controversial but the agency 

need moral burden to strengthen the 

record that they were not party to the 

blackout in Libya with aid of western 

press. 

 

LIBYAN CRISIS AND THE 

AFRICAN HELPLESSNESS: AU 

SILENCE 
Strolling from cyclical poverty, 

insecurity, corruption, bad leadership 

and high level of incapacitation, 

Africans , particularly, North of the 

Maghreb, especially the vulnerable 

might not hesitate to question their 

maker if given the opportunity, ‘why 

they were created in that part of the 

world’, where nothing is pleasant; where 

nothing is enjoying; where nothing is 

interesting; where killing is applauded; 

where nothing is appealing and where 

every inch of the time, minute, second, 

and day is crises. This might be the 

general deduction due to the Arab world 

uprising and unrest occasioned by what 

Jones (2011) sees as bad socioeconomic 

and political absence. 

           

The odds facing the African continent on 

the Libyan crisis, just like what 

transpired in the Rwandan conflict of 

1994 were best settled as most of the 

African states leaders were confused as 

none of the member state of African 

union deemed it fit or attempted to 

intervene. Even the continental body 

were meshed in self contradictions of 

who to follow. What was noticed and 

heard amongst the member states was 

the normal cold feted and hand that did 

not discriminate to join them colonial 



 

 

264 | P a g e  

 

 

ESCET  
Journal of Educational Research and Policy Studies (ESCJERPS) Vol. 1 
ISSN: Print 2811-2717                                                                            https://journal.escetjerps.com 

 
 
 
 
 

 

allies and the western press to express 

hatred on Gadhafi. None was willing 

except South Africa, who was able to 

disagree with the western invaders on 

their intention to intervene for the 

purpose of oil business. Jacob Zuma, 

who in his early life and his country had 

passed through a more terrible and 

destructive audacity of the colonial 

Britain and others never hesitated in 

asking the western fortune seekers to 

allow Africa to handle it in Africa way, 

the persistence could not yield any effort 

as Gadhafi fate had been sealed. 

             

The African Union, which had gradually 

slipped into the old order, was never 

heard condemning the negative western 

reports against Libya. The body’s failure 

to counter any of the allegations on the 

air was due to what was on the ground, 

coupled with what has always being 

their problem of incapacitation and poor 

logistics. The Libyan crisis, if for 

nothing need Africans to show interest 

and mediate into the situation, bearing in 

mind that history will never forget 

Gadhafi in his role toward African 

Union re-birth. Col Gadhafi was able to 

persuade the African leaders in July 

2002 at Harare to return back to the view 

and vision of the African founding 

fathers on the issue of United African 

states; the issues of being indifference in 

African states crisis; the issue of one 

high command; the issue of collective 

security and collective sovereignty 

amongst others as enunciated by 

Nkrumah (1965). Through his efforts the 

OAU was rejuvenated and re-

established as AU. A more proactive 

African Union meant to tackle African 

problem. Against the turn of event 

however, all turned into dog eat dog on 

him when the western leaders whose 

economic woes was looking for a free oil 

and gas money to resuscitate their 

economic recession came knocking by 

inciting the people against their leader. 

           

 Meanwhile, a pertinent question that 

needs to be asked is why were the 

African states always keeping quite at 

every unfortunate event in the continent? 

Why are they always helpless when it 

comes to neighbours’ problems? Where 

are those who professed self-acclaimed 

African giant? Why are they playing 

supportive role to invaders like US, 

France and Britain? Is Africa no longer 

the centre peace of the Nigerian foreign 

policy? The despicable thing about the 

whole scenario was that South African 

and Uganda been the only voice calling 

for caution wouldn’t have face the 

problem alone if a country like  

Nigeria did not align itself with the 

western invaders due to her weakling 

leader. 

 

According to Global Research (2011:9) 

Nigerian, that ought to show and sue for 

caution was among those that voted for 

the UN resolution 1973 to establish a 

Libyan no-fly zone in its capacity as 

non-permanent member of the Security 

Council on March 17, 2011. Nigeria also 

recognized the NTC, thereby creating 

hollow division in AU against its initial 

refusal to accept the international 

community stands on Libya. This hasty 

decision did not only shock many even 



 

 

265 | P a g e  

 

 

Oil Politics and War in Libya: Arming of Rebels and the New Phase of Neo Democracy Evaluated 

Okechukwu, Groupson-Paul 

 

the citizenry but it showed a cowardice 

attitude towards what it stand for vis-a-

vis African problem for African solution 

as adopted at Harare in 2002. The 

Nigerian decimal decision also 

weakened the AU call for peace deal 

amongst the Muammar Gadhafi 

government and the NTC. 

          

However, two-third of the African 

states, especially those who are weak, 

poverty driven and never good at taking 

decision on their own were against 

Gadhafi based on the western press 

reports and the persuasions of the 

western actors’ lobbyist. Most of them 

who had benefitted from Gadhafi largess 

that helped them to pay their workers’ 

salaries suddenly remembered that they 

had an ally whom they could depend on 

to punish Gadhafi in order to be a good 

follower. These states also failed to call 

on the AU Security Council to 

investigate and brief the Assembly on 

the true situation in Libya. The usual 

western brainwashing was used to 

sandpaper all the nations including 

Malawi, Nigeria, Niger, Mozambique, 

Mali, Senegal, Rwanda, Sierra Leone, 

Liberia, Seychelles, Swaziland, Gabon, 

and Cote d’ivoire among others. On the 

other side were South Africa, 

Zimbabwe, Uganda, Zambia, Equatorial 

Guinea, Guinea, Ghana and Lesotho 

amongst others who strongly opposed 

the international community decision to 

humiliate Gadhafi by all means. To 

show how detestable some African 

leaders felt over the ambush of Gadhafi 

in both the African and international 

fronts, Jammeh (2011) critically allege a 

grave fear over African future. He 

further blamed the African Union for its 

unacceptable silence in a situation like 

the on goings in Libya. He tongue lashed 

many African leaders who welcome the 

French foreign minister Alain Juppe, 

who was sent by the west to lobby the 

African leaders in supporting the 

intervention and condemning the 

Gadhafi regime with the alleged 

accusations of killing her own people. It 

was against these hate sentiments of the 

regime that many African states were 

said to have based their sentiments and 

condemnation of Gadhafi while deeply 

relying on the western information 

misgivings. This kind of information 

misgivings paraded by the west against 

Gadhafi without any authentication, 

couple with the perpetual silence of the 

African Union and the unholy 

acceptance of the condemnation of 

Gadhafi as a murder by the western 

leaders to which this feeble minded and 

weakling leaders in same African states 

accepted with hook and sinker, 

explained the reason for the double 

ambushes against Gadhafi and his 

regime. Most of these gullible African 

states leaders who once see Gadhafi as a 

benevolent dictator only turned to betray 

the African Union collective sovereignty 

and collective security charter 

principles. 

          

The event in Libya was never worst 

compared to Egypt and Tunisia, Salama 

(2011). The only major problem was that 

the Africans in the UN had joined force 

in outright condemnation of Gadhafi, 

while unaware of the western interests 



 

 

266 | P a g e  

 

 

ESCET  
Journal of Educational Research and Policy Studies (ESCJERPS) Vol. 1 
ISSN: Print 2811-2717                                                                            https://journal.escetjerps.com 

 
 
 
 
 

 

and intention in Libya. Agreeing with 

this observation, Ruff (2011:1) argued 

that the west misled the Arab and the 

African so that they can convincibly nail 

Gadhafi. Based on this notion, does it 

mean that the Africans had not learnt 

from the past history, especially on what 

happened in Rwanda, Angola and 

Sudan? Can one say that the role of 

Alain Juppe was to destabilize African 

while trying to re-insert the French 

dwindling foreign policies on Africa. 

 

Premised on the revelations above and 

the cynist scheming of the western 

world, which the African states and 

members of AU were short-lived of the 

pre-history of crisis on the African soil, 

especially where there is mineral 

resources like oil, gold, diamond, timber 

or gas to scramble for by the parties to 

conflict in Africa. The long silence and 

intermittent statements of AU, the body 

that supposedly ought to mediate and 

resolve the conflict was unfortunate. The 

role of states that before now were being 

looked up to as a driving force for 

African peace motivator, but 

surprisingly had proved otherwise 

explained the level of decadence, 

poverty, inept and incapacitations. It 

also shows how far a state can go to 

denial its neighbour in conflict even 

under the new AU interference 

principles (see AU charter principles, 

2002). 

          

Already, it is on record that under the 

UN responsibility to protect, that are 

always quoted by the invaders, and as 

further buttressed by Vacler (2000) that 

we live in a new world in which all of us 

must begin to bear responsibility for 

everything that occurs, that there ought 

to be an African intervention in the 

Libyan crisis by the African Union or 

any member state, and not the situation 

that the French envoy Alain Juppe will 

be sent to African to talk states to 

agreeing that the west arming of rebels 

and intervention is the best for Africa. 

This is because whatever action or 

intention of the west to convince the 

African states are basically on what they 

intend gaining. A posted question that 

needed a rethink is where were the west 

in the Rwanda crisis of 1994? Why 

should the west hurriedly left Somalia in 

1992 to date? Why was Darfur crisis a 

prolonged battle before the western 

intervention if the responsibility to 

protect in the UN charter was actually 

working? Against all these, do they 

consider Africa in any sense of 

reasoning, even when their actions are 

detrimental to the African sense of 

brotherhood and security? Silence in 

African parlance means acceptance of 

fate and what it bestowed. The African 

union silence and watching of another 

arms shipment into African continent 

repeating itself like the period of Cold 

War, to which not long before then, 

many African states in that decade was 

set ablaze, while the suppliers in turn 

oiled their remnant to armoury either 

watch, abandon the victims or comes 

back to advise on sharing of power under 

the western model of democracy, 

thereby agreeing with Okechukwu 

(2011:5) that arising from these 

unpleasant and undemocratic 



 

 

267 | P a g e  

 

 

Oil Politics and War in Libya: Arming of Rebels and the New Phase of Neo Democracy Evaluated 

Okechukwu, Groupson-Paul 

 

transformation, Africa was quick to be 

turned into a battleground; in the name 

of power struggle, power sharing and 

possible resource control with some 

parties benefiting, while some loses. A 

fact that Turner (2005) also observed as 

a criminal tendency and processes meant 

to manipulate towards attaining power at 

the end of the resolution of the crisis 

while still retaining the western interest 

in the system, as the opposition or rebels 

in Libya may be allowed to share power 

and seats of governance irrespective of 

their integrity and stake in the state. 

          

Thus, going by these points of 

arguments, it is obvious that the 

perpetual silence of AU to the crisis, the 

high level lobby that had wooed over 

two-third of the African leaders to 

supporting  the western invasion and 

NATO terrorism on the Libyan soil; the 

double ambushing of Gadhafi by the 

western world and the African 

sycophants and the helpless citizenry 

who might be weary and confused on 

who to support could have contributed 

immensely in expanding the hate 

expressions that had combined with the 

premeditated acts of the west, 

propaganda of the western press and 

cheap blackmails to form part of the 

contour that escalated the conflict in 

Libya. 

 

GENERAL IMPLICATIONS 
In the general evaluation of this piece, it 

is evidence that several implications 

abounds, both in the face of the 

international political system of the 

international community that makes law 

and violates it at the same time 

(Melvern, 2000); the African frontier, 

being a continent that had persistently 

meshed itself in the incapacitation 

paradigm; the Libyan neighbours and 

the spring up of different armed groups 

looking for who to sub-due at any 

instance; the Libyan society that had 

been polarized with discontent and 

ethnic bigotry, rooted in vengeance and 

pay back syndrome; and or, probably the 

vulnerable masses who are always at the 

receiving end of every political 

upheaval, social disequilibrium and the 

porous insecurity nature of the region, 

that might await all parties to the Libyan 

project as the last had not been heard of 

the aftermath of the country’s 

revolution. 

          

To start with, according to Hague (2011) 

the consequences that trail the invasion 

and the arming of the rebels in Libya are 

yet to manifest. The United states and its 

allies has not survived the arming of 

rebels in Iraq and Afghanistan, just as 

the arming and training of the 

Mujahideen against Russia and the 

enormous problems created had 

remained a great challenge and huge 

loses to the international community. 

         

No one seems to have any knowledge of 

history, of how the dangerousness of late 

Saddam Hussein, the late Osama Bin 

Laden, Abdullah Ojullan of the PKK 

amongst others who were the handmade 

of the US when they were crazy about 

achieving a high popularity and power 

towards an end. These same crops of 

agents late confronted the Americans – 



 

 

268 | P a g e  

 

 

ESCET  
Journal of Educational Research and Policy Studies (ESCJERPS) Vol. 1 
ISSN: Print 2811-2717                                                                            https://journal.escetjerps.com 

 
 
 
 
 

 

their mentor in war power supremacy 

when it was obvious that the devils 

trained in the dark had grown extra and 

dangerous horn before the mid-day. It is 

on record that the same persons later 

rose up to be a torn on their master’s 

flesh – the United States. Another 

inference that points to same scenario 

was the use of men like Victor Bout, 

Leonid Minin and Armstrong amongst 

other merchants of death to distribute 

deadly weapons in conflict zones as was 

seen in the US operations in the 1990 

Gulf war, to which they helped in 

transporting weapon to Bagdad. With 

the US and others like Britain and 

France violating arms embargo of the 

international system, their agents like 

the characters mentioned above might 

not be bordered in doing the same 

against even the international system. A 

scheme this study found to be devious 

and callous, especially in arming rebels 

to overthrow a legitimate government in 

whatever platform or reasons. The 

invasion of Libya and the arming of the 

rebels against Gadhafi were not only 

political but economically driven.  

          

This also led to one of the basic fact 

postulated by Booth (2011) that the US 

and its allies breached the UN arms 

embargoes on Libya portend a terrible 

danger. This action also confirmed the 

earlier willingness to breach the 

resolution 1970 and 1973, as reiterated 

by Susan Rice statements when she 

noted, that they have not made that 

decision but that they have not certainly 

ruled out such to arms rebels. This 

statement of naivety and unrepentant 

processes and procedures marked the 

deficiency in American positive 

thinking about others interests in the 

global system. This is because it had just 

probably displayed to the world that the 

UN is a mere tissue paper in the hand of 

the powerful nations, and of which at the 

same time confirmed the reason why the 

so called Resolution 1973 was drafted 

outside the UN body and imposed on it 

for ratification in order to satisfy their 

individual political and economic 

desires on Libya. 

           

On their economic interests, which 

actually exposed the thinking and 

actions of the west into Libya was the 

crazy for oil and gas. The implication of 

this over zealousness however 

exemplified the notion that Obama – 

battling with economic recessing, high 

unemployment and, the fall of the wall 

street may face a grave hell in his re-

election bid in 2012 with no money in 

the pocket, while Sarkozy whose major 

benefactor, Oman Bongo of Equatorial 

Guinea, the chief financier of his last 

election is dead and nowhere to fall back 

to, had not only put himself between the 

devil and the blue sea, of men with drug 

money bags in France and conservative 

bureaucrats with stringent spending. 

Meaning that, he needs money from 

elsewhere to finance his 2012 re-election 

or go the way of others. 

           

Thus, the steady relationship established 

between him and the Judas in Libya 

needed to yield a good fruit before the 

French election in 2012. The meeting of 

the French leader and the role of men 



 

 

269 | P a g e  

 

 

Oil Politics and War in Libya: Arming of Rebels and the New Phase of Neo Democracy Evaluated 

Okechukwu, Groupson-Paul 

 

like Mustapha Abdul Jalil and Mahmoud 

Jibril amongst others of the National 

Transitional Council (NTC) leadership 

was never hidden toward the conspiracy 

theory. According to Ruff (2011:3) there 

is nothing like permanent peace in the 

world now controlled by western 

terrocracies. No one had expected that 

USA and Europe would attack an 

emerging friendly Libya. In fact, there 

have been no rivalries or conflict 

between Libya and the western powers, 

rather they are cooperating with each 

other, for oil, getting Libyan energy 

resources was paramount. Hence, they 

want to make the oil import now 

absolutely free, which is tantamount to 

act tainted towards economic sabotage 

(Ashton, 2011:2). This study, however, 

did not differ with Ashton (2011:1-2) 

and Ruff (2011:3) that the main reasons 

why Cameron and Sarkozy visited Libya 

while the war was still ongoing at Bani 

Wali was purely economics.  After all, 

they never wore any military regalia as 

their separate countries Commander-in-

Chief of the Armed Forces or as the 

Field Marshal of the battle. And neither 

do they have any bullet proof on as 

Marshal Mike Mullen or even Robert 

Gates as they claimed to be on 

assessment mission. Cameron and 

Sarkozy had just temporary exposed 

themselves to a dangerous stray bullets 

flying all over the places. This move was 

not only a mark of impatient, over 

zealousness to greed and as chief 

instigator who will not want to miss out 

from the sharing of the war booties.  It 

also underlines fact that it was on the 

quest for the Libyan oil that the war was 

fanned and staged. The oil politics and 

war as has been seen and witnessed in 

Libya mean that there is nothing like 

respect for state sovereignty if what one 

state sought cannot be attained at its 

peaceful demand. A twist implication 

also suggesting that the world is 

gradually going back to the empireonic 

era where obtaining, mafianism, and the 

brutish idea of Hobbs state plays itself 

out in the act of conquer and occupy 

basis. 

          

Then in placing the dice before their 

European colleagues was never 

welcomed. According to Franchon 

(2011:6-8) suspicious among the EU 

members also points to the reason that 

the intervention in Libya was mere of 

economic idea than any other. The 

international commentators on the other 

hand had also faulted the sudden 

proactive burst of the French. This some 

will not fail to point out that Sarkozy is 

currently more preoccupied with his re-

election in 2012 bid and the 

breakthrough of Marie le pen, than the 

actual protection of the Libyan people 

(Anderson, 2011:4-5). Thus, states like 

the German and other European Union 

members who felt marginalized or 

schemed out from the Libyan crisis was 

never happy as they never supported the 

intervention at early stage. This also 

points out that amongst the EU members 

that there is also element of conspiracy 

theory suspicions against their own 

interests. 

            

Furthermore, the west has no business 

interfering in Arab affairs, if Libya did 



 

 

270 | P a g e  

 

 

ESCET  
Journal of Educational Research and Policy Studies (ESCJERPS) Vol. 1 
ISSN: Print 2811-2717                                                                            https://journal.escetjerps.com 

 
 
 
 
 

 

not have any oil well.  The west would 

not have demonstrated the same 

willingness to intervene, after all 

democracy is not exportable with 

missiles or destructions of those 

intended to govern. It would have been 

wiser to provide the Libyan with the 

means to defend themselves instead of 

intervening illegally (Badran, 2011). It 

would have been better for Libyan 

people with the help of their Arab 

brothers to make its revolution than the 

western involvement thereby stalling 

and shielding them from taken all the 

necessary risks since in the Arab proverb 

who wants honey is exposed to bee 

stings. To contradict the United States 

effort while probably showing some 

discontent against the cabinet member of 

the Obama administration, the US state 

dept even listed the Libya rebels as 

terrorist group, to which the NATO 

leaders are guilty under the US code for 

providing material support to terrorist 

group (Cartalucci, 2011:7).  

         

To expand this degree of disagreement 

among the US citizens, Ron (2011) 

reiterated that the current situation in 

Libya may be short term victory for the 

empire, but it is a loss on America 

Republic. And I fear it may be 

devastating for the Libya people. There 

is no doubt that Gadhafi is a bad guy, and 

that he has brought misery and harm to 

his country. However, our involvement 

in another country civil war is costly and 

unconstitutional. We have spent 

$1billion dollars on a war that the 

administration has fought not with the 

consent of the congress but under a 

NATO flag and authorization of the UN. 

It is a serious thing for a president to 

engage us on a war. He is bind by our 

constitution to seek authority from the 

people, through congress but he did not 

prior to engaging in military action. 

         

However, on general security situations 

before and after the invasion, it is 

critically erroneous and destructive to 

give the west a clean slate performance. 

This is one of the reasons why this study 

earlier on adjudged the whole situations 

as a time - bomb, because of the way the 

actors to the gushing Libyan oil 

hurriedly rushed into Libya. If the war 

against Gadhafi had been fought alone 

by the indigenes who felt dissatisfied 

with the regime, then, probably a little 

help from the outside as argued above 

would have been acceptable. It would 

have been a clear struggle against the 

dictator, of which who becomes the 

winner, might be immaterial. But the 

people of Libya – both hate and liked – 

know that they wouldn’t have been able 

to face Gadhafi, just as the west know 

that it wouldn’t have been easy to end 

the war so quick, instead it would have 

been another desert war for them alone 

to be able to confront Gadhafi just after 

few years that he bought massive 

weapons from America. Imperatively 

too, the overwhelming criticism against 

the west for invading Libya might be 

correct going by the rules, processes and 

procedures for either intervention, 

responsibilities to protect and or on who 

should be responsible. 

          



 

 

271 | P a g e  

 

 

Oil Politics and War in Libya: Arming of Rebels and the New Phase of Neo Democracy Evaluated 

Okechukwu, Groupson-Paul 

 

The following instances therefore fall as 

a damming fact against the western 

manner of intervention and actions in 

Libya. Analysts like Anderson, Hague, 

Ashton, Ruff and Di-Vitto amongst 

others had unanimously argued that the 

US and its allies violated the UN arms 

embargoes by arming the rebels who 

were not even defined. Two, the major 

actors of Britain, France and the US had 

erroneously endangered their own 

national security. A scenario that looked 

like a dog turning back to its vomits, 

owing to a long drawn enmity and war 

between the west and Al-Qaeda terrorist 

groups in the Middle East and its 

environs. For apart from the above 

earlier mentioned groups that was 

recruited to fight along with NATO, the 

Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG) 

having a link with Al-Qaeda under the 

leadership of Abdel Hakim Al-Hasidi 

who was once caught, tortured and 

released by the America C.I.A. was 

recruited and declared a pro-democracy 

Group by the west. Another is the 

Mujahedin-e Khalq (MEK) that was 

seen fighting the US and the others at 

Iraq and Afghanistan, and based in Iran 

was among the new intakes to fight 

Gadhafi. 

 

The simple fact that the actions of 

Obama, Cameron and Sarkozy portends 

danger to their citizens, countries and the 

world in particular goes a long way to 

show the degree of absurdity. This is 

because for their government to armed 

the same groups that they abhorred, who 

had fought them standstill at Kabul and 

Baghdad and now recognised, recruited 

and armed as pro-democracy fighters to 

do away with Gadhafi owing to their 

drive for economic interests to sustain 

their dwindling and weak regimes is 

sheer inconsistency with reality. It also 

means that the bloods of the average 

American, British and French killed by 

these destructive groups means nothing 

to their leaders but a mere self-indulgent 

with no course by the individuals.   

 

Third, according to Ashton (2011:9-10), 

the violation of the US code section 

2339A and 2339B had implicated their 

leader for betraying their people by 

providing material supports in the most 

egregious, overt case since the code was 

written. This also means that the leaders 

of the US, France, Britain and NATO are 

clearly guilty of providing a listed 

terrorist organisation with materials, 

training and arming to fight Muammar 

Gadhafi, the eternal enemy. All these are 

done criminally under the guise of 

International Law rubber stamped by the 

contrived UN and bolstered with support 

from the equally contrived International 

Criminal Court, showing how partially 

and why more people are unable to 

understand the scope of criminality 

involved in NATO’s intervention in 

Libya. 

 

Finally, if the west had for long 

denounced the Al-Qaeda, MEK, LIFG, 

Tunisian Volunteers, the Unit 777, the 

Zanitans group and Abdel Hakim AL-

Hasidi who led one of the rebel squad 

had remained a strong man of AL-

Qaeda, then the saying that... NATO will 

return Defeated... because most of the 



 

 

272 | P a g e  

 

 

ESCET  
Journal of Educational Research and Policy Studies (ESCJERPS) Vol. 1 
ISSN: Print 2811-2717                                                                            https://journal.escetjerps.com 

 
 
 
 
 

 

western recruited allies are former/still 

enemies of the west sounds probably 

realistic. This is because the idea of 

calling them pro-democracy or social 

group in the eyes of the world is not only 

risky and insincere, but an act of trying 

to sell a deceptive dummy to the world 

in trying to fight the common enemy, 

which one of the antic of conspiracy 

theories. In the words of Di-Vitto 

(2011:16), the action of the west, aided 

by the disgraceful manipulation of news 

by the main stream media: BBC, CNN, 

UNHCR amongst others caused the 

level of aggression on Libya, the Arab 

nations and Arab world, on who control 

Africa and the Great Middle East 

amongst others which in all are illegal 

military actions. The killing of Gadhafi 

by the NATO terror and NATO war 

crime was all about oil war and oil 

politics, which had helped in welcoming 

AL-Qaeda back fully into the region.      

 

CONCLUSION 
Evidence had shown that the Libyan 

crisis was far different from any other 

major political crisis that had ever taken 

place in the African soil and it is also 

ever different from international and 

humanitarian timely response or 

intervention to any states crises in 

Africa, which at the same makes the 

moves, manoeuvres and actions very 

suspicious. Although, this might be 

located on the fact that the crisis was 

taken place at a time when the world was 

facing a deep seated economic recession 

with bail outs upon bail outs that had 

ever threatening the global economic 

system. It was also a time when long 

enemies of states are been settled by way 

of pay back. Hence, the death of Saddam 

Hussien, the timely demise of Osama 

Bin Laden in the hand of America 

invaders. Unlike the Rwandan crisis, 

where in 1994 the international 

community folded its arm and 

abandoned the people because of 

poverty of mineral and natural 

resources. An event that was also 

overtaken by the end of gulf war, the 

Balkan crisis and others, which had 

encouraged buoyancy in oil price boom 

less states felt uninterested in Tutsis 

annihilation. So also was the Angolan 

crisis, Sierra Leone crisis, the Liberian 

crisis and the Sudanese-Darfur crisis 

amongst others, that was the struggle for 

leadership and the appropriation of oil, 

diamond, gold and timber monies 

amongst others which was fanned by 

cold war and post – cold war 

manoeuvres of actors who had for long 

settled their differences. 

            

In the case of Libyan crisis, which was 

inspired and spurred by the Arab world 

uprising, that was hinged on freedom 

and neo-democracy, that the concept of 

hocus-pocus paradigm did locate it on 

conspiracy theory of the quest by the 

economically broken nations of the west 

who were looking for timely – 

opportunities to annex and probably re-

colonised states that its open door-policy 

does not tally with their economic 

investment overture. Coupled with the 

releases of the 2012 elections time table 

in America and France, that is a huge 

challenge, both to finance and garner 

supports on issue based by the 



 

 

273 | P a g e  

 

 

Oil Politics and War in Libya: Arming of Rebels and the New Phase of Neo Democracy Evaluated 

Okechukwu, Groupson-Paul 

 

incumbents going by their streams of 

abysmal records of performance vis-à-

vis promises made not kept in France 

over civil unrest; the over forty million 

Americans job seekers suffering from 

unemployment, and the London looting, 

student fees hike and social unrest, 

among others located in failing 

economy. Col. Muammar Gadhafi, 

being a long enemy of the west who 

though had embraced them and was 

even called a political realist for his 

change of political pendulum by Tony 

Blair, and who owe no debt in the world 

but swims in billions of dollars that had 

not tangentially circulated round was 

targeted. For sure Neo-democracy and 

freedom cannot be preached with 

missiles, air-to-land surface missiles, 

tanks, mortars and medium range 

weapons or rocket launchers amongst 

others as the west paraded in Libya. 

Therefore, implying that there are more 

to the Libyan invasion, destructions and 

the killing of Muammar Gadhafi than 

what we saw and heard in the crisis. The 

fact that Gadhafi had violated their 

citizens in the time past means that men 

like Mahmoud Jibril and Mustapha 

Abdel Jalili who were once the best 

brain that Gadhafi assembled in Tripoli 

was the Judas and the sheep in wools 

clothing to the dismembering of Libya. 

           

Nicholas Sarkozy and his country had 

not in any way benefited from the 

Libyan oil and this is the opportunity. 

The same Sarkozy and Cameron drafted 

the UN no - fly zone and imposed it on 

UN with the America veto. America and 

its allies, the Saudi Arabia and Qatar 

armed the rebels while the British and 

France provided mercenaries and war 

strategist that designed the war against 

Gadhafi. Thus, with the naivety of the 

western press like BBC, CNN, Al-

Jazeera, and Monde amongst others the 

hate expressions, premeditated actions, 

propaganda and cheap blackmail was 

mounted up against Gadhafi on one side 

and on the other meant to brainwash the 

Libyan citizen and instigated them 

against their leader. Venom of 

frustration-deprivation bitterness was 

rejuvenated to push for aggressive 

tendency that conspiracy theories helped 

to smoothened.  A strong force and 

factor which formed a huge contour in 

process towards the escalation of the 

conflict. This, thus call for questioning 

and, the re-examination of the role of the 

international communities and the 

United Nations in the arming of rebels 

cum insurgence and the awful idea of 

sponsoring of violence in a sovereign 

state by the other while violating the 

Westphalia treaty of 1648 and the 

reaffirmed treaty on states 1962 in 

whatever platform. Of course, the war in 

Libya against Muammar Gadhafi and his 

people had clearly shown that it is the 

western interests of America, France, 

Britain and others in gaining from the 

gushing Libyan oil and gas that sparked 

– off the destruction, and killings of the 

innocent and the accused by the NATO 

led force who had professed to protect 

the vulnerable, but turned out to be the 

chief murder, if there is anything as such 

in the lexicon. The grave implications of 

these actions are yet to manifest as it 

remained a time bomb as peace cannot 



 

 

274 | P a g e  

 

 

ESCET  
Journal of Educational Research and Policy Studies (ESCJERPS) Vol. 1 
ISSN: Print 2811-2717                                                                            https://journal.escetjerps.com 

 
 
 
 
 

 

be driven by violence, freedom cannot 

be attained by way of destruction and 

neither can democracy or neo-

democracy be established with missile, 

and traumatisation of the beneficiaries 

since it is oil politics that is on in Libya. 

 

 

REFERENCES 

 

Abaza, K.    (2011) “The Implications 

for the Arab Uprising: Libya 

Situations Differently Compared” 

in Guardian.co.uk 

Abunimah, A. (2011) “Military to 

military Relations: America and 

Libya agrees under Col. Gadhafi” 

Africom Project New York. 

Anderson, L. (2011) “Demystifying the 

Arab Spring: Passing the 

Difference Between Tunisia, 

Egypt and Libyan Crises” Free 

Weekly Update,   Foreign 

Affairs.com 

Angrist, M.P. (2011) Should we sell 

fear: Antics of conspiracy theory. 

London:                      First Press 

Ashton, M. (2011) “Five Reasons to be 

optimistic about Libya’s Future” 

Posted                        to web 

search 11th Sept. 

Badran, T. (2011) “Intervention in 

Libya: Policymakers Should Rely 

on History” Independent Monitors 

Paper. New York. 

Barkun, M. (2003) A culture of 

conspiracy: Apocalyptic in 

contemporary                         

America. Calfornia: University 

Press. 

Booth, R. (2011) “Arming Libyan 

Rebels Net Allowed by the United 

Nation                          

Resolution”, Guardian. Co. UK, 

Wednesday 30th March. 

Brain, M. (2001) Introduction to 

conspiracy theories. United states 

of America:                          Oliver 

stone press. 

Bruce, R. (1992) “Libya Terrorism: the 

case against Col. Gadhafi in the                          

contemporary Review. 

Washington. 

Byman, D. (2011) Rebels with a cause: 

the History of Governance, from 

the                          U.S. civil war 

to Libya. May/June News line. 

Cantril, H. (1967) Human Nature and 

Political system. New Branswick: 

Rutger                      University 

Press. 

Cartalucci, T. (2011) “Libya Rebels 

listed as a Terrorist Group by the 

U.S. state                     Sept. 18th. 

Chomsky, N. (2011) Documenting 

mainstream conspiracy: Linquist 

and                      scholar, 

contrasts conspiracy theory. 

U.S.A.: Honaca Press. 

Clausder, S.P. (2011) “The United 

Nations and its Allies Enforces 

No Fly Zone     in Libya” Daily 

Telegraph Newspaper. March 

27th.  

Cooper, K.T. (2011) “Illegality has 

become legal for Americans”, 

News post                        

international Botton: United 

Kingdom. 

Coser, L. (1956) Conflict theory and 

current politics in continuities in 



 

 

275 | P a g e  

 

 

Oil Politics and War in Libya: Arming of Rebels and the New Phase of Neo Democracy Evaluated 

Okechukwu, Groupson-Paul 

 

social                        conflict 

study. U.S.A: University of 

Chicago Press. 

Di-Vitto, Y. (2011) “Anti war, Middle 

East, World war” 

www.mathaba.net. 25th                    

August. 

Epps, K. (2010) UN Arms Embargoes 

and Arms Trade Treaty. Working 

paper,                    Projects 

ploughshares Ontario Canada: 

Pandora Press, June. 

Edward, M.G. (2011) “Mercenavies in 

Libya, Britain and France 

fingered”                   Independent 

magazine, London, June 18th. 

Franchon, A. (2011) “Strategic Review 

Strategy” Le Monde Sept. 

11th.Fisk, R. (2011) “Arming of 

Rebels in Benghazi” Independent 

Newspaper 7th                 March 

New York. 

Eljahmi, M. (2006) Libya and the U.S: 

Gadhafi unrepentant Middle East                       

quarterly. 

________ (2011) “Libya and the west 

once enemy – once friend – once 

enemy”                       Global 

Research Sept. 18th. 

Green, M.A.N. (1987) International 

Law. 3rd eds London: Pitman Pub. 

Grief, N. (2011) Strict 

Implementation of Arms Embargo 

Necessary,                         

Conference: Direct of Legal 

Studies. University of Kent. 

United                       Kingdom. 

Gurr, T.R. (1974) Why men rebel. New 

Jersey: Princeton University Press 

Harry, G.W. et al (2003) Transparency 

and conspiracy: Ethnographes of                         

Suspicion in the New World 

order. U.S.A: Duke University 

Press. 

Hague, W. (2011) “The UN 

Resolution” in Guardian. Co. UK 

March 30th. 

Icke, D. (2004) And the truth shall set 

you free: the 21st century, 

London:                        Bridge of 

Love Press. 

Jammeh, Y. (2011) “Criticism: AU 

Silence on Libyan crisis” in 

Global                         Research 

August 17th. 

Jean, P.C. (2011) “France and Britain: 

A New special relationship March 

26th. 

Jones, M. (2011) “An Interview on 

Middle East Analysis” Global risk 

and mitigation strategies on the 

changing political landscape. 

CEO Magazine Service. 

Keith, A. (1946) Evolution and ethnics 

a New York: Puitnam Press. 

Khader, B. (2011) Libya: History of a 

failed revolution 1969 – 2011.                            

CERMAC, University Catholique 

de London. 

Kravetz, M. (1984) Conspiracy theory 

and open – secrecy: Culture of  

events in America: Minneapolis: 

Classque Press. 

Kevin, M. (2011) “Split on Libya 

averted as NATO Given Military  

Control, Guardian Co. UK. 

Laxner, L. (2010) ‘Libya eight wonder 

of the world’ BNet (via) Find                              

Articles: UK. 

__________ (2011) Libya chemical 

weapons destruction costly, arms                                

http://www.mathaba.net/


 

 

276 | P a g e  

 

 

ESCET  
Journal of Educational Research and Policy Studies (ESCJERPS) Vol. 1 
ISSN: Print 2811-2717                                                                            https://journal.escetjerps.com 

 
 
 
 
 

 

control association. 

www.armscontrol.org.  

Melvern, L.    (2004) Conspiracy to 

Murder: the Rwandan Genocide. 

London: Version publication. 

Melvern, L.     (2000) A People 

Betrayed: the Role of the West in 

Rwandan  Genocide. London: Zed 

Books publication. 

Merriden, F.C. (2008) A New Lease on 

Life for Humanitarian:  How 

Operation Odeyssy Dawn will 

Revive the Responsibility to 

Protect. London: forterites prints.  

Militon, W.C. (1991) Behold a Pale 

Horse: London: Light technology 

pub. 

Mintz, F.P. (1985) The Liberty lobby 

and the American Rights: Race,                       

conspiracy and culture. London: 

Free Press Inc. 

Okafor, F.C.N. (2004) Neo-Democracy 

and Poverty management in 

Africa: the ideals, illusion and 

realities. Awka: Mercury bright 

press. 

Okechukwu, G-P. (2011) “The polities 

and failure of Ethics of 

Humanitarian Intervention in 

African crisis” Journal of 

Alternative Perspectives in social 

sciences. Vol. 3, No. 3, Florida: 

JAPSS Press. 

Okechukwu, G-P. (2009) Military in 

politics and the third colonization 

of Africa: Beyond destruction and 

despairs. Lagos: Lawpat Prints. 

Paul, R. (2011) Lake Jackson, Texas 

Republican Presidential 

Candidate,  “Issued statement on 

the situation in Libya. 

Washington. 

Pipe, D. (1998) The hidden hand: 

Middle East fear of conspiracy. 

New  York: St. Martins Press. 

Pipe, D. (1992) Dealing with Middle 

East conspiracy theories. Orbis: 

Orbis Central Press. 

Ramsay, R. (2006) Conspiracy theories. 

Pocket essential London: Loobis                            

Press. 

Reed, R. (2011) “Libyan Essay” 

London Review books Vol. 33, 

No. 9, 28                            April. 

Reed. R. (2011) “Friends of Libya” 

London Review book April Vol. 

33, No. 10. 

Rory, S. (2011) Have we go again on 

the Libya intervention. 

Independent  Newspaper. London. 

Rudy, N. (2011) “The Arab World 

Journey unsettled” Mirror Graph                           

Newspaper. 26th March. Cairo. 

Ruff, A. (2011) Lesson from NATO 

Terrorism over sovereign Libya:                            

NATO – UNSC must end illegal 

war against Libyan Arabs. 

http://abdu/ruff.wordpress.com/.  

Sands, P. (2011) “The Law cover 

everybody” conference on 

international law. University 

College London. 

Salama, V. (2011) Arab back Allied 

offensive on Libya as Leader 

Gadhafi 

remain defiant, Bloomberg. 

www.bloomberg.com/news/ 

2011/3/2/quarterly. 

Sanders, T. (2003) Main stream 

conspiracy theories: Transparency 

http://www.armscontrol.org/
http://abdu/ruff.wordpress.com/
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/%202011/3/2/quarterly
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/%202011/3/2/quarterly


 

 

277 | P a g e  

 

 

Oil Politics and War in Libya: Arming of Rebels and the New Phase of Neo Democracy Evaluated 

Okechukwu, Groupson-Paul 

 

and   conspiracy discussed. 

U.S.A: Wilcox Press. 

Stanik, J.T. (2003) “Reagan’s 

undeclared war with Gadhafi”. 

Daily  Telegraph March 20th. 

Thierry, M.(2011) “World politics: 

Aggression on Libya, Grand Oil 

theft” Mainstream Media. Qatar. 

Thudicey, F.Z. (2008) The face of real 

enemies: conspiracy theory 

updates. New York: ABC Press. 

Turner, T. (2005)“AU and the New 

dimension to conflict resolution in   

Africa”, Interview Butare: 

University of Rwanda. March 

18th. 

Vacler, H. (2000) “Interventions and 

the vulnerable” in the 

ploughshares                              

monitor, June Vol. 22, No. 2. 

__________ (2010) “History of Libya 

under Muammer Gadhafi”. In  

Wikipedia Encyclopedia. 

December. 

Wolff, S. (2011) “Libya: A solution 

worse than the problem: 

International  security. Tuesday 

22nd March. 

Young, K.K. et al. (2008) Sanctifying 

Misandry: Goddess ideology and  

the fall of man McGill: McGill – 

Queen University Press. 

 

 

 

 


