The death of Muammar Gaddafi was hailed as an event that marked the beginning of a 'new Libya' by the western powers that stage-managed the rebellion. But as many have observed, a new phase of Libya's troubles may have only just begun. The motley assortment of fighters who claimed victory is known to be deeply divided along tribal as well as ideological lines.

This particular uprising in the Arab Spring was different from the others in that there was active military intervention by a 'coalition of the willing' - mostly western powers - who were not to be taken by surprise this time, as they were with the spontaneous uprisings in Tunisia and Egypt, but who manipulated the situation to suit their ends from an early stage. It remains to be seen how the National Transitional Council (NTC) will juggle their promised transition to democracy with their internal rifts on the one hand, and their indebtedness to outsiders, on the other.

The bodies of Muammar Gaddafi (front) and his son Mo'tassim are displayed inside a metal storage freezer in Misrata, Reuters

For the rest of the world, other questions have now emerged following the gruesome cell phone footage of Gaddafi's capture and last moments. Some of the images seemed to show him captured but still alive and being dragged off a vehicle. Other footage showed him apparently being dragged through the street. Since the pictures showed Gaddafi captured but alive, and then later dead, it is suspected that he was summarily executed. In the cell phone pictures that were seen on TV around the world the NTC fighters who surrounded his bloodied battered body, were yelling and firing their weapons in the air. They looked more like a frenzied lynch-mob than a disciplined army.

In the immediate aftermath of the killing, Al Jazeera TV broadcast a variety of contradictory statements made by persons they interviewed on the question of how Gaddafi met his death. NTC leaders said he was killed in 'crossfire' that broke out between Gaddafi's soldiers and NTC fighters. One NTC fighter who was interviewed said, "We took him in an ambulance and tried to revive him, but he died." But another, apparently interviewed separately said, "We didn't want to keep him alive. After 50,000 to 60,000 martyrs, do you think that we want to keep him alive?" Still another fighter said, "We hit him a little." Showing a watch on his wrist he says, "This is a Defence Ministry watch. This is his (Gaddafi's) gun."

A Human Rights Watch representative on the ground in Sirte, where Gaddafi was captured, categorically told Al Jazeera there was no crossfire. "When he was driven away from here he was still alive."
The UN has now called for a full investigation into the death. Similar doubts have been cast on the manner in which Gaddafi's son Mutassim died. There were pictures that reportedly showed him alive and being taunted by his captors, and later pictures that showed him dead.

It was the UN that authorised the military intervention in Libya, endorsing the creation of a no-fly zone and the use of "all necessary means" to protect civilians. The western powers that acted like cheerleaders to the NTC fighters during this entire project, would have known that this was no professional army. No matter what weapons or weapons-training they may have provided, this was an army formed by volunteers from other walks of life who simply made common cause in their quest to oust Gaddafi. Hardly a model of discipline, they were constantly seen on TV screens around the world firing volleys of ammunition into the air at the slightest provocation (euphemistically called 'celebratory gunfire' by sympathetic western media).

A Reuters report dated Sept 22nd described how "At Bani Walid, bored militiamen fired weapons at camels and sheep while awaiting orders on Wednesday, as much a danger to themselves as to Gaddafi's fighters holed up in the town. One man shot his own head off and killed another fighter while handling a rocket-propelled grenade in full view of a Reuters team. In another incident a fighter wounded himself and another fighter after losing control of his machine gun."

With western powers having given carte blanche to this odd fighting force and provided them with NATO air cover to get their job done (of removing Gaddafi), what is the likelihood that there will be an impartial investigation into the circumstances of Gaddafi's death? If the NTC is found guilty of summarily executing Gaddafi, wouldn't the powers that stood behind that army - in the full knowledge of how unprofessional they were - share a measure of that responsibility?

The western media has been reticent about what looked very much like a blockade on the cities of Bani Walid and Sirte from early September, when the rebels reportedly cut off water, food and fuel supplies in order to force a surrender. At no point was it called a 'humanitarian crisis' although these were civilian populated townships. The degree of support Gaddafi had and the extent of harm to civilians caused by the NATO strikes is not known. The systematic targeting of black Africans too has passed without much comment. After the fall of Sirte, TV images showed terrified looking blacks being taken prisoner with their hands tied, and others being paraded through the streets with blood streaming down their faces. Scenes where looting had taken place were also shown in some footage.

It is widely believed that UN resolution 1970 that opened the door to military intervention in Libya was manipulated by western powers in order to advance their own objectives in this oil rich, strategically important part of North Africa. Russia repeatedly criticised the action as it progressed. Russia along with China had refrained from vetoing the UN resolution at the time it was passed.

It would seem that they later regretted that passive stance. A double veto by these two permanent members of the Security Council killed a proposed resolution on Syria earlier this year.

The intervention championed by western powers in Libya gives rise to many questions for smaller states in the international community. It is the less powerful that would invariably be subjected to interventions of the powerful, under the guise of advancing democracy and human rights. The case of Libya is being hailed as a 'success story' by those who seek to advance the idea of "Responsibility to Protect" (R2P) in international relations. But if Libya is anything to go by, one might well ask, who will protect us from these 'protectors?'