Libya, “Anti-Blackness”, and the West’s Manufactured Crisis

In the grand tradition of Western hypocrisy, Europe has spent centuries pillaging Africa, destabilizing its economies, and ensuring its dependence—only to turn around and express outrage when Africans, facing economic devastation, attempt to seek a better life in Europe, the very continent that is exploiting Africa’s wealth. But rather than confronting the true roots of the migration crisis—the economic plundering, unfair trade policies, and military interventions that have left African nations impoverished—European governments have decided to outsource their border problems to Libya, a country they themselves destroyed in 2011.

Expecting Libya to act as a responsible, sovereign nation in managing immigration is not just unrealistic—it is downright cruel. Today, Libya is a broken, war-torn land, shattered by the North Atlantic Treaty Organization’s (NATO) reckless intervention in 2011, overrun by armed militias, and stripped of its own ability to govern due to the Chapter 7 of the UN Mandate that has been in place since 2011. It is a victim of the same Western interventions that continue to fuel illegal migration, yet Europe now demands that Libya function as an orderly, humane buffer zone for African migrants^[1]. Worse still, European powers pressure Libya to permanently host these migrants, creating social tensions in a country that is already struggling to hold itself together.

But to understand this crisis, one must first acknowledge the deeper history of Western exploitation—both in Africa and in Libya itself. This issue is particularly urgent given that the UN-installed government in Tripoli obediently follows Western dictates. Recently, the Prime Minister^[2] even declared his willingness to accept deported migrants from Europe—a clear example of the EU outsourcing its border control. Libya is paid mere pittances to serve as Europe’s southern gatekeeper, forcing Libyans to enact militarized violence against their African brothers and sisters, while Europe preserves its self-image as humane and civilized. As a result, instead of channeling their grievances toward Europe, which has sanctioned and impoverished their country, many Libyans are misdirecting their frustration—not at their own government, but at African migrants, fueling anti-Black sentiment.

Europe’s Economic War on Africa: Creating the Crisis They Now Complain About

The roots of illegal migration are not found in Libya’s detention centers or the boats crossing the Mediterranean. They are found in the centuries of economic warfare waged by Western powers against Africa, ensuring that millions of Africans would remain poor, desperate, and willing to risk their lives in search of survival.

For over a century, European nations have looted Africa’s vast resources, from gold, oil, and diamonds to gas and uranium. France alone controls the economies of 14 African nations through the CFA franc, a colonial currency that forces these countries to store 50 percent of their reserves in French banks. Trade policies ensure that Africa remains a supplier of cheap raw materials while importing expensive Western goods, preventing industrialization. Meanwhile, the IMF and World Bank act as debt collectors, pushing African governments into crippling loans that leave them unable to invest in their own people.

The result? African economies remain weak, unemployment skyrockets and millions see no choice but to flee. Yet instead of addressing these causes, Europe blames the migrants themselves—and demands that Libya be the one to stop them.

Libya: From Stability to Chaos, Courtesy of NATO

Had NATO not intervened in Libya in 2011, there would be no migration crisis today—at least not on this scale. Before the war, Libya was one of Africa’s most stable and prosperous nations, with a high GDP, free healthcare, free education, and housing subsidies for its people. More importantly, Libya had full control over its borders, allowing it to regulate migration legally and humanely.

But then came NATO, under the guise of “protecting civilians.” What followed was the complete destruction of Libya’s state institutions, the assassination of Muammar Gaddafi, and the rise of armed militias, foreign mercenaries, and human traffickers. Today, Libya is not a functioning state; it is a battlefield controlled by warlords and proxy militias, many funded by the same European nations that claim to want stability.

This is the Libya that Europe now expects to “manage” immigration. But how can a country that cannot even provide security for its own citizens, that has no unified government, no functioning economy, and no control over its own borders, possibly take on the burden of stopping illegal migration?

Instead of helping Libya rebuild, Europe treats it as a holding zone for unwanted migrants—while pretending that the chaos there has nothing to do with Western intervention and its lingering sanctions. 

Libya and Africa: A History of Solidarity, Not Division

One of the most insidious lies spread by Western media is that Libya is inherently hostile to Black Africans. This is a dangerous and deliberate distortion of history. The reality is that Libya has always been deeply connected to Africa—economically, culturally, religiously, and politically.

For centuries, Libya was a key hub in the Trans-Saharan trade network, linking it with Chad, Niger, Mali, and Sudan. Goods, people, and ideas flowed freely, and many of Libya’s southern tribes have always been ethnically, linguistically, and culturally African. The Tebu and Tuareg peoples, for example, are indigenous to both Libya and its neighboring countries, forming a continuous cultural entity across the Sahara. The entire southern region of Libya, including Fezzan and cities like Sabha and Murzuq, is overwhelmingly Black because of its geographic proximity to Libya’s southern neighbors and concurrently shares cultural traditions with other African nations. In other words, many Libyans are Black and always have been.

More importantly, Libya has stood shoulder to shoulder with Africa in the fight against colonialism. Libyan resistance against Italian occupation (1911-1943), led by figures like Omar Mukhtar, inspired anti-colonial movements across the continent. During the wars for African independence, Libyans fought against French and British colonial forces in Chad, Niger, Sudan, and Mali. And as Libya’s orientation shifted more towards Africa after 1969 under Gaddafi’s leadership, the country became Africa’s strongest ally, providing direct financial and military support to liberation movements in South Africa, Zimbabwe, Namibia, Angola, and many others. 

To claim that Libya is anti-African is to erase this long history of shared struggle, resistance, and unity. What Libya is experiencing today is not a rejection of Black Africans, but a consequence of the lawlessness imposed on Libya by NATO.

It is important to recognize that every society contains internal contradictions—such as hyper-nationalism, racism, sexism, and coloniality—that can be exacerbated under specific historical conditions. At certain moments, these tensions intensify, deeply affecting the social fabric.

In the late 1990s, Libya reoriented itself—diplomatically, culturally, politically, and economically—toward Africa, driven by shared history, geography, and struggles. The country began welcoming migrant workers from across the continent. However, as Western sanctions impoverished Libya, many Libyans resorted to renting out their homes and apartments, sometimes housing up to 15 migrant workers under one roof. As these workers saved money through such communal living, malicious propaganda emerged, accusing them of spreading prostitution, moral decay, and disease. This incitement led to violent anti-Black riots in Zawiya, which later spread to Tripoli.

Notably, some racist police officials who failed to intervene against these attacks were later appointed as key figures in the defense leadership of the NATO-backed National Transitional Council in 2011. In a cruel irony, the same racist narratives resurfaced that year, claiming that Black African "mercenaries" were fighting on behalf of the Libyan government. NATO's so-called “humanitarian intervention” was thus framed as an effort to save Libyans from alleged African mercenaries. As a result, entire towns—home to predominantly Black Libyans—were bombed and burned to the ground.

Since 2011, Libya has been forcibly de-Africanized, severed from its historical ties to the continent, and reoriented toward Europe—an entity that continues to sanction Libya while profiting from its frozen assets. Instead of turning their frustrations against African migrants, Libyans must recognize the true enemy: the imperialist system that divides nations, plunders economies, and perpetuates destruction.

Libya’s Lost Vision: A Solution That Was Destroyed

Ironically, before NATO’s destruction of Libya, Gaddafi had already proposed a real solution to migration—one that focused on empowering Africa rather than blocking its people. Under Gaddafi’s leadership, Libya espoused a vision of the United States of Africa, underpinned by a gold-backed African currency, aimed to liberate the continent from Western economic dominance and foster self-reliance. Central to this vision was the establishment of the African Monetary Fund, which would have eliminated dependency on institutions like the IMF and World Bank, allowing Africa to chart its own financial course. Alongside this, massive investments in infrastructure were proposed to stimulate economic growth and create opportunities within the continent, thereby reducing the necessity for migration. To address migration more effectively, an organized and legal migration system was envisioned, enabling African workers to move to countries like Libya through proper channels, ensuring safety, regulation, and mutual benefit.

Had Gaddafi’s plans succeeded, Africa would be stronger today, and the migration crisis would not exist in its current form. But NATO’s intervention wasn’t just about Libya—it was about stopping Africa from rising while expanding migration to become a form of economic imperialism.^[3]

The Way Forward: Real Solutions, Not Hypocrisy

Libya, and its northern African neighbors, cannot be expected to handle migration alone—especially when it is not even allowed to handle its own affairs. A real solution requires:

For Africa:

• Ending Western economic exploitation, so African nations can provide for their people.

• Strengthening intra-African trade and industry, reducing dependency on Europe.

• Rejecting Europe’s demand that Libya become a migrant dumping ground.

• Use the current geopolitical conjuncture of multipolarity and leverage it for technology transfer and sovereign development. This is to be done not state-by-state but through continental unity.^[4]

For Libya:

• Restoring national sovereignty, ending militia rule, and rebuilding state institutions.

• Developing a legal migration system, ensuring fairness for African workers.

• Refusing European interference in its internal affairs.

• A return to Gaddafi's vision of African unity. 

For Europe:

• Taking responsibility for the mess it creates, instead of blaming Libya.

• Stopping the looting of African resources, so Africans don’t have to flee.

• Accepting its share of migrants, instead of outsourcing the burden.

Conclusion: Libya Is the Victim, Not the Villain

The crisis in Libya is not about immigration—it is about the destruction of a nation by foreign powers. It is about a broken country being asked to fix a problem it did not create. It is about Western nations stealing Africa’s wealth and then complaining when Africans come looking for it.

Libya is not racist, nor is it rejecting Africa. Libya itself is a victim of the same Western forces that continue to exploit and destabilize the African continent. If the world truly wants to solve the migration crisis, it must start by holding the real criminals accountable—the Western powers that created this catastrophe in the first place.

Endnote