"The recurrence of events and double standards (Who is in a position to tell the fish that its breath smells bad?)."
For many years, Libya has witnessed the recurrence of the same events, often unfolding with the same steps, patterns, and consequences. However, the one variable—also recurring—is the manner in which these repeated events are handled. The approach—whether official, media-driven, or even popular, unfortunately—is always governed by a constant value: the stance towards the actor behind the action and those backing the event. We see media outlets affiliated with a certain faction exaggerate the kidnapping of a citizen in areas controlled by their rivals, while remaining silent about kidnappings, assassinations, and other crimes in areas controlled by their patrons. Similarly, a government statement from one of the administrations condemns an action taken by those loyal to their opponents, yet this same government remains silent in the face of violations committed by its own loyalists, sometimes even in its name. Meanwhile, the public is caught in the middle, with criticism exclusively directed at opponents, while in the face of violations and crimes by their own allies, silence is considered commendable compared to the campaigns of justification and rationalization typically led by funded and supported social media pages. The prevailing attitude seems to be, “Who dares tell the lion his breath smells?”
What prompted this discussion is a very significant event that occurred more than 48 hours ago, and as usual, reactions to it have varied across the Libyan spectrum, with each side lamenting its own interests.
The event in question is the shutdown of the Sharara oil field in the southwest of the country, Libya's largest and most productive field, which until the Saturday before its closure was producing more than 300,000 barrels per day. The shutdown of this field or others like it has occurred frequently over the past years, to the point where discussing it has become monotonous and tiresome due to its repetition and the numerous parties responsible. However, what is noteworthy this time is the manner in which the event has been handled by the media, officials, and the public, particularly in the region controlled by those responsible for the shutdown, as if the event were new to them and they did not know how to appropriately respond to it.
The Sharara oil field was closed this time on the night of Saturday, August 3, 2024. Reports from the area indicate that the shutdown was carried out by armed forces loyal to Khalifa Haftar, who control most of the southern region. The reason this time is neither regional nor selfish but retaliatory; according to reports, the order to close the field came from Saddam Khalifa Haftar, the commander of the ground forces in Haftar's army. Saddam had recently returned from one of his promotional trips—it seems he is positioning himself for a higher position than the one he currently holds. The noteworthy aspect of this return is that it was reportedly rushed, with media sources indicating that during his recent trip to Italy, Saddam received word from his Italian friends that a Spanish investigative judge had issued a warrant for his arrest in connection with a case involving the smuggling of Libyan oil to Europe. The sources also claim that the Italians advised Saddam to quickly return to Libya and work on resolving the issue of the arrest warrant.
The hero and conqueror of terrorism returned to the country and began addressing the issue in the only way he knows: political blackmail and hostage-taking. But what could he possibly use to blackmail the Spaniards, and how could he pressure them? The brilliant mind of one of his advisors came up with the idea of shutting down the Sharara oil field, operated by the Spanish company Repsol, mistakenly believing that this would harm Spain enough to force it to cancel the arrest warrant. However, he forgot, ignored, or was unaware that the Spanish company’s share of the field’s production profits is only 12%, according to the National Oil Corporation, while Libya’s share is 88%. In other words, the party most harmed by his actions is Libya, not Spain, bringing to mind the popular saying, "He who plays with fire burns himself."
We won't dwell too long on the event and its consequences because its repetition has left us weary, but let's look at the way it was handled at all levels, starting with the official level, which we will divide into three aspects. The first is the political aspect, where the government in Tripoli quickly condemned the shutdown, calling it political blackmail just hours after the field was closed. However, this same government has often met similar incidents in its areas of influence or by its loyalists with complete silence, and its tone shifts from condemnation and accusation to calls for wisdom and the voice of reason.
On the other hand, the eastern government has not issued any statement regarding the event, nor has it mentioned the event in any way, as if it never happened in its areas of control. This is despite the fact that this government has previously commented on even family disputes in the territories controlled by the Tripoli government; so why do governments not apply the same standards when dealing with identical events?
In the economic aspect, the National Oil Corporation (NOC) has previously issued immediate statements condemning similar shutdowns, demanding that the livelihoods of Libyans be kept out of political conflicts, and has also declared a state of force majeure on the field's production immediately upon its closure to put additional pressure on those responsible. This time, however, the NOC has remained eerily silent, neither denying nor condemning the shutdown, nor demanding protection for Libyans' livelihoods, nor even declaring a state of force majeure. Why, one wonders?
The final aspect of the official level is the legal aspect. In recent years, the Attorney General has actively intervened in side disputes between the warring parties, especially concerning oil shutdowns. On several occasions, he has opened formal investigations and initiated criminal proceedings against those responsible for the shutdowns, exercising his inherent right in this matter. However, this time, the Attorney General has not exercised his right to defend our rights, nor has he initiated criminal proceedings against those responsible—who are well-known. Why, one wonders?
At the media level, we have seen three levels of response. The first level is represented by the agents of Khalifa Haftar's political rivals, who reported the event very shortly after it occurred, directly accusing Saddam Haftar by name without any hesitation or ambiguity. Their stance was one of condemnation and accusation, jumping to conclusions and predicting consequences that have yet to occur and may never occur.
The second level is represented by well-known news channels and websites that play on the theme of moderation and claim not to take sides. These channels were slow to report the news, under the pretext of verification, and when they did report it, they did so in vague, nebulous terms, as if it were of little importance, stating that the shutdown was carried out by "a group that has not yet identified itself" or "unknown armed men." Even when they were forced to mention the name of the official responsible, they did so using what is known as the "reporting style," attributing the accusation to others and absolving themselves of responsibility, despite having harshly criticized those responsible for previous shutdowns.
The third level is represented by the channels and media figures affiliated with the General Command, as well as some sites aligned with the former regime that have leaned toward Haftar's camp, and some of the most prominent bloggers and content creators on Facebook and other platforms. They all adopted the "play dead" approach. After harshly criticizing those responsible for previous shutdowns and using these incidents as tools to malign Haftar's opponents, accusing them of incompetence in managing the country’s resources and preserving its wealth and the livelihoods of its people, we were surprised today by their total silence, as if what happened does not concern them, as if it neither harms the country’s resources nor affects its wealth and the livelihoods of its people. Why do these individuals’ principles change according to the situation, or rather, according to who pays?
"Principles are indivisible." When you take a stand on an issue, claiming that you are driven by principles, but then refrain from taking the same stand on a similar issue as if your principles were not affected this time, know that principles are innocent of you and what you attribute to them. Principles are indivisible; they do not operate in one direction and stop in another. Principles do not reject or accept an action based on the identity of the actor. If the shutdown of the Sharara field or any other field is an unjustifiable crime against Libya and Libyans, the perpetrator is a criminal whether they are an armed group, a tribal militia, or the son of the head of the army.