Gaddafi, Epstein, And The West's Avaricious Ends-Means Problem

The slew of Epstein file releases have exposed the grim realities of the mechanics that have kept certain elite networks operating. The trafficking of young women and girls for sex has rightly dominated the world's attention. The scale of human tragedy is enormous and the ruthless opportunism and calculated exploitation is visible to anyone who reads the email correspondence between Jeffrey Epstein and various associates. But along with the exploitation of young women and girls the files reveal a sordid and covert world of operations involving business and politics. There were few countries it seems Epstein was not somehow involved in and correspondence between himself and Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor - the then UK Trade Envoy and brother of King Charles III - revealed Epstein had financial interests in Libya.

In the autumn of 2010 Epstein emailed royal aide David Sterne: “i want to go to tripoli lets organize with pa”. This was followed up with: “people that have seen the father, have asked me if i want to meet him as he does not know where to put his money as opposed to what to do with it, currencies etc, I wondered if Pa should make the intro instead.” 

The ‘Pa’ is a reference to Prince Andrew, a man whose already low reputation sinks further and further as each day passes. But through the noise it is important to reflect on the historical-political context in which these emails were written. In the autumn of 2010 the UK and US governments were engaging with Colonel Gaddafi (referred to as ‘the father’ in the emails) in an attempt to integrate the Libyan economy into global markets. British and US oil companies including BP were operational in Libya and the US had resumed full diplomatic relations with Tripoli maintaining an operational embassy. 

So the fact that Andrew and Epstein were engaging with Gaddafi was not in fact out of step with US or UK foreign policy in Libya. However, the fact that Epstein was able to influence UK policy in Libya via his pawn Andrew is alarming and sadly seemingly indicative of western engagement in Libya and the Maghreb region. In one exchange Epstein emails the royal aide: “people that have seen the father, have asked me if i want to meet him as he does not know where to put his money, as opposed to what to do with it, currencies etc, i wonder if Pa should make the intro instead”.

Through this exchange it is revealed that even assets that were frozen overseas were not inaccessible to the Epstein network. Through the use of famous names such as Andrew, Epstein was willing to lure in not just wealthy financiers and politicians but also despots. But it was not just Epstein and Andrew who were engaging willingly with Gaddafi. Epstein and Andrew are two of the most disgraced names in the world now. The two men are the personification of the wanton abuse of power. But the financial systems that they existed within are not unique to them: in Libya many private companies and western governments benefited whilst the population suffered under the rule of Gaddafi.

In the final years of his authoritarian rule Libya became a state that the west was comfortable to engage with economically, not because of its human rights record or protection of civil liberties but because Gaddafi’s hold was so strong that it created a level of security for foreign companies and governments. The correspondence between Epstein and Andrew are a reminder not of their illicit dealings with a despot but of the fact that the west was willing to engage in Libya due to the stability created by Gaddafi’s tyranny.

After the Arab Spring and the fall of Gaddafi in 2011, Libya became embroiled in civil war and consequently too politically and economically unstable for continued western engagement. In July 2014 the UN pulled out of Tripoli as fighting intensified and left the international airport largely destroyed. In the wake of the civil war Islamic State militias gained a foothold in the capital. Whilst they have been removed, the capital remains under the rule of militia groups and so Benghazi - under the leadership of authoritarian leader Khalifa Haftar - has become a more stable centre for foreign political and economic investment.  

The correspondence between Epstein and Andrew reflects an era when the west was willing to engage with Gaddafi’s Libya. Just under a year later Gaddafi was cast as one of history’s worst dictators - and rightly so. But it should not be forgotten that when a despot creates stability through their tyranny it often suits the economic and political interests of the west.

Image: U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist 2nd Class Jesse B. Awalt

Licence: public domain.

No image changes made.