[News] Libya recolonized
Anti-Imperialist News
news at freedomarchives.org
Wed Nov 2 18:11:48 EDT 2011
http://www.frontline.in/stories/20111118282300900.htm
Libya recolonised
AIJAZ AHMAD
Libya is the first country that the Euro-American
consortium has invaded exclusively on the pretext of human rights violations.
FROM Kabul in October 2001 to Tripoli in October
2011, a decade of unremitting planetary warfare
has seen countries devastated and capitals
occupied over a vast swathe of territory from the
Hindu Kush to the northern end of Africa's
Mediterranean coast. Within the Arab world, this
ultra-imperialist offensive of Euro-American
predators may yet move on to Syria as well and
beyond that to Iran at some future date. For now,
in any case, the occupation of Libya by the North
Atlantic Treaty Organisation's (NATO) clients and
corporations marks the vanquishing of the spirit
of rebellion that was ignited in neighbouring
Tunisia and Egypt earlier this year and has been
under attack ever since. For much of Africa,
though, this may yet be merely a beginning of a
new conquest by the Euro-American consortium that
may ravage the continent even more ferociously
than did the famous Scramble for Africa that
was sanctified in Berlin at the end of the 19th century.
Humanitarian interventionism
Afghanistan was invaded in the name of War on
Terror plus human rights. Iraq was invaded in
the name of War on Terror plus nuclear
non-proliferation plus human rights. Libya is the
first country that has been invaded almost
exclusively in the name of human rights. In the
very early days of hostilities in Libya,
President Barack Obama said dramatically that if
NATO had waited one more day, Benghazi could
suffer a massacre that would have reverberated
across the region and stained the conscience of
the world. His senior aides claimed that the
imminent massacre could have led to the death
of one lakh people, and this is what got repeated
ad nauseum on U.S. television channels as well as
in all the halls of power where the option of
human rights interventionism got discussed with a
view to obtaining a United Nations Security
Council (UNSC) resolution. This was a bare-faced
lie, very much in the mould of the lie about
Iraq's purported nuclear weapons that was
brandished around by Obama's predecessor,
President George Bush Jr. It was on the basis of
such disinformation that Resolutions 1970 and
1973 were passed in the Security Council,
invoking the dubious principle of the
responsibility to protect, which was inserted
into the duties of the U.N. as late as 2005,
after the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq were already afoot.
This was the time when the Bush administration
was openly claiming in international fora,
including at the U.N. itself, that (a) in this
Age of Terror the U.S. reserved the right of
pre-emptive military attack against any state
that the U.S. considered a threat to its national
security, and that (b) in the conditions of the
War on Terror many aspects of the Geneva
Conventions were no longer applicable. This
discourse of the right to pre-emptive invasion
was then supplemented by the discourse of the
benign nature of the empire itself, in the shape
of human rights interventionism. The claim now
was that the international community as
defined by Euro-American powers had the right
to intervene in the internal affairs of any
sovereign country if massacre or genocide was
imminent. The NATO bombings in Libya that began
in the third week of March were the first that
had ever been authorised by the Security Council
in its entire history on this dubious principle
of human rights interventionism. Nicolas Sarkozy,
the French President, was in his own way quite
right when he asserted in the early hours of
March 25: It's a historic moment
what is
happening in Libya is creating jurisprudence
it
is a major turning point in the foreign policy of
France, Europe, and the world (emphasis added).
No credible evidence has ever emerged to support
Obama's claim that a massacre (of up to 100,000)
was imminent in Benghazi, and no massacres ensued
in the rebellious cities and towns that Qaddafi's
troops did occupy in the earlier stages of the
fighting. On the contrary, there is
incontrovertible evidence of massacres at the
hands of NATO's mercenaries. Neighbouring
countries, such as Niger, Mali and Chad, have
reported the eviction of some three lakh black
African residents from Libya as NATO's local
allies and clients rolled on towards Tripoli
under the devastating shield of NATO's own
40,000-plus bombings over large parts of Libya.
Together with these mass evictions of workers and
refugees from neighbouring countries whom the
Qaddafi regime had welcomed to make up for labour
shortages in an expanding economy there are
also credible reports of lynchings and massacres
of black Libyans themselves. The scale of these
depredations is yet undetermined but it is
already clear that upwards of 50,000 have died as
a result of the war unleashed by NATO with the
collusion of the Security Council, and half a
million or more have been rendered homeless,
mostly at the hands of NATO-armed rebels who
have now been appointed as the new government of
the country. Neither the Security Council nor
NATO commanders nor, indeed, President Obama
the first black President in the history of the
U.S. and himself the son of a Kenyan father has
seen it fit to take up the responsibility to
protect these hapless people, most of them black
Africans, even though several heads of African
states have protested, including the very pro-U.S. President of Nigeria.
One of the most pernicious aspects of the liberal
discourse of human rights in our time is that
this doctrine is utilised in country after
country to justify imperialist interventionism in
the affairs of the sovereign countries of the
tricontinent in direct violation not only of the
United Nations Charter and the Westphalian order
of nation-states as such but, even more
fundamentally, of the very spirit and practices
of the anti-colonial movements that fought to
dismantle the colonial empires of yesteryear. The
right to independent nationhood is inseparable
from the right to choose one's own government
without foreign interference. In virtually every
country of Latin America over the past half a
century, peoples have fought against the most
brutal kinds of dictatorship but without ever
asking for a foreign intervention. For three
simple reasons: (1) it is only the people
themselves, in their collectivity, who have the
right to change their government; (2) it would be
hard to find a dictator, including Qaddafi and
Saddam Hussein, who has not colluded with
imperialism at one point or another; and (3) a
military intervention is always, without
exception, the intervention of the strong against
the weak always, without exception, in pursuit
of the interests of those who intervene.
Given this basic principle, the issue of
Qaddafi's dictatorial rule is just as irrelevant
today as was the nature of Saddam Hussein's rule
in the past; and as irrelevant as would be the
dictatorial temper of Bashar al-Asad in Syria or
Mahmoud Ahmedinejad in Iran in case of invasions
yet to come. We shall come to the paradoxical
character of the Qaddafi regime, and it cannot be
anyone's case that Qaddafi was some sort of
liberal democrat. It needs to be said, though,
that he was no more dictatorial than most rulers
of Africa and the Arab world, most notably the
friends of the West in Saudi Arabia and the whole
complex of various emirates in the Gulf. His
authoritarianism was indeed ferocious. However,
if matters are viewed from the perspective of the
well-being of the Libyan people, we shall also
have to concede that Qaddafi built the most
advanced welfare state in Africa just as Iraq
was the most advanced welfare state in the Arab
East, Saddam's authoritarianism notwithstanding.
Dismantling of the welfare state and
privatisation and corporatisation of the national
assets is in fact the filthy underbelly of this
human rights imperialism. If human rights were
even remotely the issue in such interventionism,
Saudi Arabia would be the logical first target.
And, why should there not be a NATO occupation of
Israel, immediately, for protecting the human
rights of the Palestinian people and the
implementation of numerous Security Council resolutions?
In reality, the great crusade for human rights
and democracy in Libya was conducted by NATO with
the aid of, among others, personnel from Qatar
and the Emirates, just as NATO's own Islamists in
Turkey have joined hands with Saudi Arabia in
providing weapons to the Muslim Brotherhood and
its allies in Syria against the Assad regime in
the name of democracy and human rights.
Empire goes where oil is
The Security Council resolution that authorised
NATO's humanitarian intervention in Libya was
well reflected in a secret proposal to the French
government by the National Transitional Council
(NTC) in the early days of the rebellion, which
offered to France 35 per cent of Libya's gross
national oil production in exchange, in the
words of the proposal, for total and permanent
French support for the NTC. The French
government, of course, denied it when the French
newspaper Liberation published the communication.
This coyness of the conspirators was not to last
long. On October 21, less than 24 hours after the
announcement of Qaddafi's assassination,
Britain's new Defence Minister, Philip Hammond,
announced that the United Kingdom had presented
to the NTC a request for a licence to drill for oil. He then added:
Libya is a relatively wealthy country with oil
reserves, and I expect there will be
opportunities for British and other companies to
get involved in the reconstruction of Libya
. I
would expect British companies, even British
sales directors, [to be] packing their suitcases
and looking to get out to Libya and take part in
the reconstruction of that country as soon as they can.
As the U.S. Ambassador, Gene Cretz, unfurled the
flag over the American Embassy in Tripoli, at its
reopening ceremony on September 22, he was equally upbeat:
We know that oil is the jewel in the crown of
Libyan natural resources, but even in Qaddafi's
time they were starting from A to Z in terms of
building infrastructure and other things. If we
can get American companies here on a fairly big
scale, which we will try to do everything we can
to do that, then this will redound to improve the
situation in the United States with respect to our own jobs.
Referring to the Italian oil company, the Foreign
Minister of Italy, Franco Frattini, added his own
gleeful chime to this triumphalist chorus: Eni
will play a No.1 role in the future. Qatar,
whose overt and covert contribution to the NATO
offensive was very considerable indeed, is
already handing oil sales in eastern Libya and
will also be entering the distribution of the
spoils of war from a position of strength. The
New York Times noted: Libya's provisional
government has already said it is eager to
welcome Western businesses (and)
would even give
its Western backers some priority' in access to
Libyan business. That was accurate. We don't
have a problem with Western countries like
Italians, French and U.K. companies, Abdeljalil
Mayouf, a spokesman for the NTC-controlled oil
company, Agogco, was quoted by Reuters as saying,
but we may have some political issues with Russia, China and Brazil.
Libya's 46 billion barrels of oil make it home to
Africa's largest proven deposit of conventional
crude, though Nigeria and Angola dispute this
Libyan pre-eminence. Before the civil war began
in earnest in February, Libya was pumping about
1.6 million barrels a day, most of which went to
southern Europe, whose refineries were tailored
to refine Libya's light, high-quality crude. By
contrast, Saudi crude is heavier and unsuitable
for many of those refineries, while Libya's
geographical proximity also makes it much more
attractive. Almost 70 per cent of Libya's oil
went to four countries, Spain, Germany, France
and Italy, even before the NATO war, and
oil-producing regions were of course the first to
be secured as NATO started bombing its way to
victory. The oil industry's biggest players,
meanwhile, are ready to reclaim their old
concessions and get new ones. The vast Ghadames
and Sirte basins, largely off limits to foreign
oil companies since Qaddafi came to power 42
years ago, are now expected to be privatised and
opened to foreign corporations. The same applies
to Libya's offshore oil and gas resources.
The loss of political sovereignty thus leads
necessarily to great curtailment of economic sovereignty as well.
African Union vs The international Community
At a meeting between the two parties on June 15
this year, some three months after NATO initiated
its aerial bombings of Libya, the High Level Ad
hoc Committee of the African Union (A.U.) handed
over to the Security Council a letter spelling
out the A.U. position on the Libyan crisis. Now,
even after the fall of Tripoli and the
assassination of Qaddafi, the contents of that
communication are worth re-visiting if we wish to
assess the great gap of perceptions and
prescriptions, on issues of interventionism,
between nation-states of the tricontinent on the
one hand, and, on the other hand, those
institutions of the international community
whose task it is to justify Euro-American
interventionism. We shall first offer a series of
quotations from that key document:
1. Whatever the genesis of the intervention by
NATO in Libya, the A.U. called for dialogue
before the U.N. Resolutions 1970 and 1973 and
after those resolutions. Ignoring the A.U. for
three months and going on with the bombings of
the sacred land of Africa has been high-handed, arrogant and provocative.
2. An attack on Libya or any other member of the
African Union without express agreement by the
A.U. is a dangerous provocation
sovereignty has
been a tool of emancipation of the peoples of
Africa who are beginning to chart
transformational paths for most of the African
countries after centuries of predation by the
slave trade, colonialism and neocolonialism.
Careless assaults on the sovereignty of African
countries are, therefore, tantamount to
inflicting fresh wounds on the destiny of the African peoples.
3. Fighting between government troops and armed
insurrectionists is not genocide. It is civil
war
. It is wrong to characterise every violence
as genocide or imminent genocide so as to use it
as a pretext for the undermining of the sovereignty of states.
4. The U.N. should not take sides in a civil
war. The U.N. should promote dialogue
. The
demand by some countries that Col. Muammar
Qaddafi must go first before the dialogue is
incorrect. Whether Qaddafi goes or stays is a
matter for the Libyan people to decide. It is
particularly wrong when the demand for Gaddafi's
departure is made by outsiders
. Qaddafi accepted
dialogue when the A.U. mediation committee
visited Tripoli on April 10, 2011. Any war
activities after that have been provocation for
Africa. It is an unnecessary war. It must stop
.
The story that the rebels cannot engage in
dialogue unless Qaddafi goes away does not
convince us. If they do not want dialogue, then,
let them fight their war with Qaddafi without
NATO bombing
. The externally sponsored groups
neglect dialogue and building internal consensus
and, instead, concentrate on winning external patrons.
It goes without saying that the A.U. is by no
means a conglomeration of radicals; it is a
conservative grouping of state governments, most
of whom are, in one way or another, allied with
the West; many of the heads of states
participating in A.U. proceedings at any given
time are venal, corrupt, authoritarian or worse.
That is, however, no more relevant than the
personal venality of Sarkozy or Silvio Berlusconi
or any other Western leader. The point, rather,
is that the A.U.'s is the only united voice
through which African states speak and that the
principles and points of fact raised here are unexceptionable.
The very first point is that the Security
Council, NATO or any other conglomeration of
states and institutions simply have no right to
represent themselves as the international
community when what they say and do is opposed
by the united voice of the African state system.
The second point is that the issue of state
sovereignty is posed in Africa and Asia not only
in European, Westphalian terms, but, far more
sensitively and explosively, in the perspective
of the recently won and still very fragile
independence of states after a long history of
colonial predation. Further, the A.U. letter
rejects the position enunciated by Obama, his
NATO allies and the Security Council that there
was any genocide or imminent genocide in Libya.
Rather, it speaks strictly of a civil war
between government troops and armed
insurrectionists, calls upon the U.N. not to
take sides in the civil war and goes on then to
contemptuously dismiss the externally sponsored
groups and their demands that are designed for winning external patrons.
The most important practical point in any case is
that Qaddafi had accepted the principle of
negotiation and arbitration by the A.U. as early
as April 10, after which the A.U. quite rightly
demanded that NATO stop its military mission and
the U.N. concentrate on facilitating negotiations
under A.U. auspices. A significant section of the
letter laid out an elaborate plan for
negotiations, for policing of violence inside
Libya by an A.U. brigade as had been done in
Burundi, and for conflict resolution processes
using the principles of provisional immunity
during the peace negotiations, and for the
establishment of truth and reconciliation bodies
for reconciliation after peace has been re-established.
None of it was heeded, precisely because the
voice of reason had come from the weak, while the
will for intervention and regime change had come
from self-appointed masters of the universe.
Civilisation and the ecstasy of conquest
In the moment of victory, President Obama was
relatively more measured in his words than many
other Western leaders. The fall of Libya to
40,000-plus NATO bombings was proof, he said,
that we are seeing the strength of the American
leadership across the world. And he was not
entirely mistaken in taking the credit. The
Security Council resolution that authorised NATO
operations would have been inconceivable without
the coercive powers of the U.S. Obama's cavalier
condoning of assassination and extra-judicial
execution, as displayed to the world in the cases
of Osama bin Laden and Anwar al-Awlaki among
others, was part of the implicit licence to kill
the unarmed Qaddafi as well. Less than 48 hours
before Qaddafi was actually assassinated, Hillary
Clinton, the U.S. Secretary of State, was on a
triumphant visit to Tripoli, the Libyan capital
now occupied by NATO and its local clients, and
said unambiguously: We hope he [Qaddafi] can be
captured or killed soon. Incitement to murder
could hardly be couched in words more stark.
This issue of an authorised assassination should
detain us somewhat, for it does impinge upon the
imperial duplicity of the human rights discourse.
Details of Qaddafi's death and burial are still
unclear. We do know that the town of Sirte, to
which he had retreated during the siege of
Tripoli, was devastated by hundreds of aerial
bombings by NATO with the single-minded intent to
kill him and those close to him. We also know
that he was leaving Sirte in a convoy when the
convoy too was bombed; the French claimed that it
was their Rafale fighter jet that disabled his
vehicle; the Americans claimed that it was the
work of one of their Predators. The main point is
that he was captured alive and unarmed by NATO's
mercenaries on the ground, kicked around, beaten
and killed. Considering how many American,
French, British, Qatari and other special forces
have been there, commanding the Libyan rebels,
it is significant that the body of the dead man
was never taken away from the milling rebels.
Christof Heyns, the U.N. Special Rapporteur,
seems to be clear on this point: The Geneva
Conventions are very clear that when prisoners
are taken they may not be executed wilfully and
if that was the case then we are dealing with a
war crime, something that should be tried.
The complication, however, is that the Western
alliance had previously announced an award of $20
million to anyone who kills (or helps
kill/capture) Qaddafi. So, here is a test for
Western values: should the man who killed Qaddafi
be tried in a court of law? Should he be awarded
$20 million and celebrated as a hero? Or should
he be allowed to slip out of the grip of the law,
history and public memory and settled, with a
handsome settlement, in Miami, southern California or a villa on the Rhine?
Qaddafi's own tribe issued this statement: We
call on the U.N., the Organisation of the Islamic
Conference and Amnesty International to force the
[National] Transitional Council to hand over the
martyrs' bodies to our tribe in Sirte and to
allow them to perform their burial ceremony in
accordance with Islamic customs and rules. But
there was no such luck! NATO's mercenaries
displayed Qaddafi's body, along with that of his
son Mutassim, naked to the waist, in freezers in
a meat store in Misrata, inviting souvenir photographs.
Human rights imperialism seems to be inventing a
brand new entertainment industry: that of necrophilic tourism.
Be that as it may. President Obama is right in
claiming that the event proved the strength of
American leadership. U.S. Special Forces and
Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) teams were on
the ground since before the beginning of the
rebellion and made sure that those who were
destined to be NATO's mercenary army on the
ground were armed from the start; they were then
joined by their French and British counterparts
and backed by armed groups from Qatar, the
Emirates and the like. Bombings were left largely
to the Franco-British component of NATO but much
of the high electronics and infrastructural
nitty-gritty was handled by the U.S. forces:
collecting electronic intelligence and smashing
the Libyan anti-aircraft systems, for example,
and blockading the coast. NATO warplanes used
U.S. bases for refuelling and these bases
supplied munitions when their European
counterparts ran low. In an important sense, the
military operation in Libya was a highly
successful experiment in an assault coordinated
between AFRICOM the U.S. Command for the
control of Africa and its European partners.
If President Obama was cryptic, his icy Vice
President, Joe Biden, was precise: In this case,
America spent $2 billion and didn't lose a single
life. This is more of the prescription for how to
deal with the world as we go forward than it has
been in the past. By life, Biden obviously
means American life, considering that even the
most conservative estimates suggest that the war
in Libya has led to the loss of at least 50,000
lives, mostly at the hands of NATO bombers and their local allies.
More broadly, what is at issue is a U.S.
objective, first conceived during the Vietnam
War, to develop an automated battlefield with
technologies so advanced that wars may be won and
entire countries conquered without any
significant ground deployment. Across the
Atlantic, that same idea was invoked by people
like Paddy Ashdown, who once served for four
years as E.U. High Representative in
Bosnia-Herzegovina, who said that from now on the
West should adopt the Libyan model of
intervention rather than the Iraqi model of massive invasion.
This kind of hard-boiled Anglo-Saxon pragmatism
can easily be translated by an ambitious
politician like Nicolas Sarkozy, the current
French President, into the sophistries of a
high-minded Gallic discourse on history and
civilisation. Pierre Lévy, a former editor of
L'Humanité, recently recalled a passage from a
speech Sarkozy delivered in 2007 in which he
glorified the shattered dream of Charlemagne and
of the Holy Roman Empire, the Crusades, the great
schism between Eastern and Western Christianity,
the fallen glory of Louis XIV and Napoleon
and
then went on to declare that Europe is today the
only force capable of carrying forward a project
of civilisation. This claim to a unique
civilisational mission then led quickly to an
ambition to conquer: I want to be the President
of a France which will bring the Mediterranean
into the process of its reunification after 12
centuries of division and painful conflicts
.
America and China have already begun the conquest
of Africa. How long will Europe wait to build the
Africa of tomorrow? While Europe hesitates, others advance.
Lévy then goes on to quote Dominique
Strauss-Kahn, a senior leader of the Socialist
Party (much in the news recently for alleged
sexual misdemeanours), who matched Sarkozy's
bombast with his own desire for a Europe
stretching from the cold ice of the Arctic in
the North to the hot sands of the Sahara in the
South (
) and that Europe, I believe, if it
continues to exist, will have reconstituted the
Mediterranean as an internal sea, and will have
re-conquered the space that the Romans, or
Napoleon more recently, attempted to consolidate.
In this world view, then, NATO is seen as having
inherited a mission from the Roman Empire and the
Napoleonic conquests, which then involves the
re-conquest of North Africa. It was, after all,
only about 50 years ago that France finally
relinquished its claim that Algeria was not a
foreign colony but an outlying province of
France itself. What is very striking in any case
is how closely the rhetoric of civilisation is
woven into the rhetoric of conquest and even re-conquest.
Obama, Africa and the Imperial Project
Poor little Olde Europe! Even in its wildest
civilisational ravings, all it can imagine is the
re-conquest of its colonial empire in North
Africa. By contrast, the U.S. knows how to get
directly to the point. In the second week of
October, when the war against Libya had been won
but Qaddafi yet not assassinated, President Obama
announced: I have authorised a small number of
combat-equipped U.S. forces to deploy to central
Africa to provide assistance to regional forces
.
On October 12, the initial team of U.S. military
personnel with appropriate combat equipment
deployed to Uganda. During the next month,
additional forces will deploy
. These forces will
act as advisers to partner forces that have the
goal of removing from the battlefield Joseph Kony
and other senior leadership of the LRA [Lord's
Resistance Army]
. Subject to the approval of
each respective host nation, elements of these
U.S. forces will deploy into Uganda, South Sudan,
the Central African Republic, and the Democratic Republic of the Congo.
So, in the wake of the Libyan conquest, U.S.
troops are to be immediately deployed to
countries across the middle of Africa, in four
countries and in cooperation with regimes that
have hideous records of dictatorship and human
rights abuses, not the least on the part of
Uganda's President-for-life, Yoweri Museveni.
Obama justified this newly minted humanitarian
mission in Uganda in the name of eliminating the
LRA. This is odd. The LRA has actually been
around for almost a quarter century and has never
been weaker than it is today. Why, suddenly, such
an operation across a huge part of Africa? Paul
Craig Roberts, a former Under Secretary of State
for Treasury under President Ronald Reagan (and
thus not a left-winger by a long shot), put the
matter succinctly: With Libya conquered, AFRICOM
will start on the other African countries where
China has energy and mineral investments
.
Whereas China brings Africa investment and gifts
of infrastructure, Washington sends troops, bombs and military bases.
Even this recent deployment may be just the tip
of an oncoming iceberg. For many years now, the
U.S. has been building up a special Command for
Africa, the AFRICOM, in tandem with CENTCOM that
is responsible for operations in the Middle East
(West Asia). As part of this imperial mission in
Africa, the U.S. is actively engaged in training
the militaries of Mali, Chad, Niger, Benin,
Botswana, Cameroon, the Central African Republic,
Ethiopia, Gabon, Zambia, Uganda, Senegal,
Mozambique, Ghana, Malawi and Mauritania.
Together with other NATO countries, the U.S. has
staged numerous military exercises in Africa with
the ostensible purpose of preparing contingency
plans for protecting energy supplies in the
Niger delta and the Gulf of Guinea. Aside from
Libya, major oil producers in the region include
Angola, Nigeria, Cameroon, Gabon, Equatorial
Guinea, Chad and Mauritania. All these, and many
others besides, are to be protected pretty
much on the Libyan model if need be.
This is not the place to go into details. Suffice
it to say that the fall of Libya is likely to
serve as the first major step in the offensive to
capture Africa's plentiful natural resources. In
the fullness of time, as multiple insurgencies
and bloodlettings are let loose across the
continent, we are likely to see the erection of
many new bases for the AFRICOM-NATO combine, very
much on the model of Iraq and Afghanistan. The
objective is not only to reserve African
resources for the Euro-American imperium as much
as possible but also to deny those resources to
China, which gets about one third of its oil from
Africa Angola and Sudan in particular in
addition to important materials like platinum,
copper, timber and iron ore. Some 75 Chinese
companies were working in Libya with 36,000
personnel, not so much in the oil sector as in
infrastructural development projects; and China
accounted for about 11 per cent of Libya's
pre-war exports. It evacuated its personnel and
complained that NATO had unilaterally changed the
U.N. resolution from protecting civilians to regime change.
The U.S. would like to see this eviction of China
from Libya to become permanent and for such
evictions to be repeated across Africa. Will that
happen? Too soon to tell. The U.S. has the
military might and the impatient arrogance of a
declining superpower, but China is the one that
has the cash and the almost glacial patience of a
rising economic power. A confrontation is on, and
it will take decades to settle.
Conclusion
Major issues pertaining to the significance of
the Libya war have not been addressed here: the
meaning of all this for the so-called Arab
Spring; the nature of the fallen Qaddafi regime;
the likely composition of the emerging
dispensation; the social disintegration and
multiple internal conflicts that are now likely
to ensue; the destabilisation and the prospect of
multiple civil wars across the Sahel region
caused by the war on Libya; and so on. Other
contributors to this issue of Frontline may
clarify these issues, or this author may return
to them in a future contribution.
So, let me conclude this piece by noting that
Qaddafi did leave a brief will, and it is
important that we recall some of his last words:
Let the free people of the world know that we
could have bargained over and sold out our cause
in return for a personally secure and stable
life. We received many offers to this effect but
we chose to be at the vanguard of the
confrontation as a badge of duty and honour. Even
if we do not win immediately, we will give a
lesson to future generations that choosing to
protect the nation is an honour and selling it
out is the greatest betrayal that history will
remember forever despite the attempts of the others to tell you otherwise.
That is true. Friendly African countries had
offered him safe sanctuaries, while some European
countries would have preferred to have him as a
neutralised client rather than a celebrated
martyr in (at least parts of) Libya. Offers were
indeed made. Given the choices, he preferred to
die. In that brief will, he also expressed a simple wish:
Should I be killed, I would like to be buried,
according to Muslim rituals, in the clothes I was
wearing at the time of my death and my body
unwashed, in the cemetery of Sirte, next to my
family and relatives. I would like that my
family, especially women and children, be treated well after my death.
In Islamic custom, the stipulation that the body
be washed and wrapped in a fresh shroud is lifted
in the case of martyrs. Right or wrong, Qaddafi
did think of his own impending death as
martyrdom. We may not think so, but many others
probably will. Qaddafi was quite largely a
buffoon, in many ways brutish, more so as he grew
older and more egomaniacal, but not everyone is
going to forget that he also had a visionary side
to him and built for his people the most advanced
welfare state on the continent. His is a
contradictory legacy. We have described earlier
in this piece what the winners did to his corpse.
Not just the members of his own family or his
tribesmen, but many, many others might not so easily forget all that.
Freedom Archives
522 Valencia Street
San Francisco, CA 94110
415 863-9977
www.Freedomarchives.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://freedomarchives.org/pipermail/news_freedomarchives.org/attachments/20111102/02d0a012/attachment.htm>
More information about the News
mailing list