Copyright tribuneonlineng
IN 2011, the world watched as NATO fighter jets streaked across Libyan skies under the banner of “humanitarian intervention.” The stated goal was to protect civilians from Muammar Gaddafi’s forces. Yet what followed was not liberation but fragmentation- a sovereign state turned into a contested territory, its social fabric ripped apart. Before the 2011 U.S./NATO intervention, Libya’s GDP per capita stood at around $12,000. Today it hovers near $6,800, a decline of roughly 43%, according to World Bank and UN data. Libya before the intervention Before the Western intervention, Libya presented a paradox. Economically, it was one of Africa’s most prosperous states- buoyed by oil revenues and an ambitious welfare system. Citizens enjoyed free education, free healthcare, subsidised housing, and one of the highest literacy rates on the continent. The UN’s Human Development Index ranked Libya first in Africa in 2010. But beneath this prosperity lay deep political repression. Gaddafi’s government maintained tight control over expression, movement, and opposition. Critics were imprisoned or exiled; political parties were banned. Libya’s state apparatus was built around loyalty to the “Guide” rather than constitutional rule. It was this mixture of prosperity and authoritarianism that created both the pride of many Libyans and the pretext for Western intervention. Human rights abuses became the rhetorical fuel for a campaign that, in reality, had far broader strategic objectives. The mirage of humanitarianism When NATO forces began bombing Libya in March 2011, the operation was framed as a moral necessity- a “responsibility to protect” civilians allegedly under imminent threat in Benghazi. But that protection quickly expanded into full-scale regime change. The result was catastrophic. Gaddafi’s fall did not birth democracy; it unleashed anarchy. Rival militias carved up cities and oilfields. Armed groups smuggled migrants, traded weapons, and enslaved sub-Saharan Africans. In place of one authoritarian state, Libya became a patchwork of lawless zones. The hypocrisy of U.S.-led interventions Libya’s fate was not unique. The U.S. and its allies have a long history of wrapping geopolitical and economic ambitions in moral language. The invasion of Iraq in 2003 was justified by the false claim of “weapons of mass destruction.” The outcome: half a million deaths, a fractured society, and the birth of ISIS from the wreckage. In Afghanistan, after two decades and two trillion dollars, the Taliban returned to power- while U.S. defence contractors and mining firms pocketed billions. Even as Afghans faced starvation, Western interests quietly explored lithium and copper deposits vital to the global tech economy. In each case, the humanitarian façade concealed strategic intent. The goal was not democracy but dominance- control of territory, resources, and trade routes. Ungoverned spaces as deliberate design Many assume that instability following intervention is an unfortunate accident. History suggests otherwise. Ungoverned spaces, territories without effective state control, often serve the long-term interests of foreign powers and corporations. In the absence of regulation, taxation, or environmental oversight, such regions become fertile ground for resource extraction at minimal cost. In post-war Iraq, foreign oil firms gained production-sharing agreements that heavily favoured them over local institutions. In Libya, foreign actors and militias now barter oil directly, bypassing central authority. In the Fezzan region, smugglers control gold and fuel trades under the tacit watch of external patrons. This pattern of engineered disorder is not new. In the Democratic Republic of Congo, Western companies have long benefitted from instability that allows access to cobalt and coltan without effective state oversight. In Syria, U.S. troops maintain positions in areas holding the country’s richest oilfields- ostensibly to prevent ISIS resurgence but conveniently securing strategic resources. A weak or divided state, in this model, is more useful than a strong one. Disorder becomes policy, not misfortune. The economic afterlife of empire Once the bombs stop falling, the financial colonisation begins. Institutions such as the World Bank and IMF enter with “stabilisation” loans, restructuring programs, and fiscal reforms that further erode sovereignty. Under the banner of liberalisation, state-owned industries are privatised and opened to foreign investors. In Libya, this has meant the hollowing out of what was once a nationalised economy. In Iraq, reconstruction contracts overwhelmingly went to foreign firms, while local businesses struggled to survive. What begins as a military campaign often evolves into a permanent economic occupation, sustained through debt and dependency. Selective morality and silence The moral hypocrisy is hard to ignore. The same powers that bombed Libya for “human rights” remain silent about repression in allied states like Egypt and United Arab Emirates. When atrocities unfold in countries that lack immediate geopolitical leverage or where Western powers have little economic stake, such as Central African Republic, South Sudan, or Myanmar, the humanitarian outrage conveniently fades into silence. Even where moral responsibility is loudly proclaimed elsewhere, these crises attract no military coalitions, no urgent summits, and no moral grandstanding. This selective morality undermines the credibility of the so-called rules-based order. The rules are not universal; they are instrumental, applied only where they serve strategic or economic interests. Africa’s cautionary lesson For Africa, the warning could not be clearer. The continent must resist the seduction of foreign saviours promising solutions to local governance failures. External interventions, whether military, financial, or technological,always come with strings attached. When citizens, frustrated by domestic misrule, cheer at the prospect of outside “rescue,” they risk inviting domination disguised as deliverance. The tragedy of Libya stands as the starkest warning: once a nation loses its capacity to govern itself, its resources and destiny are no longer its own. The real task before African nations is internal- building accountable governance that listens to citizens, protects lives, and invests in opportunity. Competence, empathy, and integrity are the true shields against both internal decay and external exploitation. Across Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, and Libya, the pattern is consistent: interventions justified by noble words end in rubble, refugees, and the quiet plunder of resources. Libya’s GDP chart tells the story in simple arithmetic – a 43% fall in national income, and a complete collapse of sovereignty. What was once a repressive but functional state became an ungoverned playground for militias and mercenaries. In every sense, these nations were not liberated but looted; not rebuilt but repurposed. Beware of the liberator who arrives with bombs and leaves with barrels of oil. • Kolade is a Professor of Entrepreneurship and Digital Transformation at Sheffield Business School. He is also the Convenor of the Academy for Transformative Leadership.
