War
crime: NATO deliberately destroyed Libya's water infrastructure
The
military targeting of civilian infrastructure, especially of water
supplies, is a war crime under the Geneva Conventions, writes Nafeez
Ahmed. Yet this is precisely what NATO did in Libya, while blaming
the damage on Gaddafi himself. Since then, the country's water
infrastructure - and the suffering of its people - has only
deteriorated further.
Nafeez
Ahmed
14
May, 2015
Numerous
reports comment on the water crisis that is escalating across Libya
as consumption outpaces production. Some have noted the environmental
context in regional water scarcity due to climate change.
But
what they ignore is the fact that the complex national irrigation
system that had been carefully built and maintained over decades to
overcome this problem was targeted and disrupted by NATO.
During
the 2011 military invasion, press reports surfaced, mostly citing
pro-rebel sources, claiming that pro-Gaddafi loyalists had shut down
the water supply system as a mechanism to win the war and punish
civilians.
This
is a lie.
But
truth, after all, is the first casualty of war - especially for
mainstream media journos who can't be bothered to fact-check the
claims of people they interview in war zones, while under pressure
from editors to produce copy that doesn't rock too many boats.
Critical
water installations bombed - then blamed on Gaddafi
It
was in fact NATO which debilitated Libya's water supply by targeting
critical state-owned water installations, including a water-pipe
factory in Brega.
The
factory, one of just two in the country (the other one being in
Gaddafi's home-town of Sirte), manufactured pre-stressed concrete
cylinder pipes for the Great Manmade River (GMR) project, an
ingenious irrigation system transporting water from aquifers beneath
Libya's southern desert to about 70% of the population.
On
18th July, a rebel commander boasted that
some of Gaddafi's troops had holed up in industrial facilities in
Brega, but that rebels had blocked their access to water: "Their
food and water supplies are cut and they now will not be able to
sleep."
In
other words, the rebels, not Gaddafi loyalists, had sabotaged the GMR
water pipeline into Brega. On 22nd July, NATO followed up by bombing
the Brega water-pipes factory on the pretext that it was a
Gaddafi "military
storage" facility
concealing rocket launchers.
"Major
parts of the plant have been damaged", said Abdel-Hakim
el-Shwehdy, head of the company running the project. "There
could be major setback for the future projects."
Legitimate
military target left untouched in the attack
When
asked to provide concrete
evidence of
Gaddafi loyalists firing from inside the water-pipe factory, NATO
officials failed to answer. Instead, NATO satellite images shown to
journalists confirm that a BM-21 rocket launcher identified near the
facility days earlier, remained perfectly intact the day after the
NATO attack.
Earlier,
NATO forces had already bombed water
facilities in Sirte,
killing several"employees
of the state water utility who were working during the attack."
By
August, UNICEF reported
that the conflict had "put
the Great Manmade River Authority, the primary distributor of potable
water in Libya, at risk of failing to meet the country's water
needs."
The
same month, Agence France Presse reported that
the GMR "could
be crippled by the lack of spare parts and chemicals" -
reinforced by NATO's destruction of water installations critical to
the GMR in Sirte and Brega.
The
GMR is now "struggling
to keep reservoirs at a level that can provide a sustainable supply",
UN officials said. "If
the project were to fail, agencies fear a massive humanitarian
emergency."
Christian
Balslev-Olesen, UNICEF Libya's head of office, warned that
the city faced "an
absolute worst-case scenario" that "could
turn into an unprecedented health epidemic"without
resumption of water supplies.
Stratfor
email: 'So much shit doesn't add up here'
While
pro-rebel sources attempted to blame Gaddafi loyalists for the
disruption of Libya's water supply, leaked
emails from
the US intelligence contractor Stratfor, which publiclyendorsed these
sources, show that the firm privately doubted its own claims.
"So
much shit doesn't add up here",
wrote Bayless Parsley, Stratfor's Middle East analyst, in an email to
executives. "I
am pretty much not confident in ANY of the sources ... If anything,
just need to be very clear how contradictory all the information is
on this project ... a lot of the conclusions drawn from it are not
really air tight."
But
the private US intelligence firm, which has played a key role in
liaising with senior Pentagon officials in facilitating military
intelligence operations, was keenly
aware of
what the shutdown of the GMR would mean for Libya's population:
"Since
the first phase of the 'river's' construction in 1991, Libya's
population has doubled. Remove that river and, well, there would
likely be a very rapid natural correction back to normal carrying
capacities."
"How
often do Libyans bathe? You'd have drinking water for a month if you
skipped a shower", joked Kevin
Stech, a Stratfor research director. "Seriously.
Cut the baths and the showers and your well water should suffice for
drinking and less-than-optional hygiene."
The
truth - government officials were trying to keep water flowing
Meanwhile, UNICEF confirmed
that Libyan government officials were not sabotaging water
facilities, but in fact working closely with a UN technical team
to "facilitate
an assessment of water wells, review urgent response options and
identify alternatives for water sources."
Nevertheless,
by September, UNICEF reported that the disruption to
the GMR had left 4 million Libyans without potable water.
The
deliberate destruction of a nation's water infrastructure, with the
knowledge that doing so would result in massive deaths of the
population as a direct consequence, is not simply a war crime, but
potentially a genocidal strategy.
It
raises serious questions about the conventional mythology of a clean,
humanitarian war in Libya - questions that mainstream journalists
appear to be uninterested in, or unable to ask.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.